why there should be no filibuster of miers (with one caveat)

[onenote]

Its short term strategy for long term gain.

First. It should be a given that we aren't going to get any more specific answers out of Miers than we did from Roberts. So its hard for the Dems that voted for Roberts to use that argument to oppose Miers. That leaves opposing her based on her "qualifications" (see caveat below). Apart from the fact its not a strong argument from a historical perspective, let's assume a filibuster on those grounds succeeds and chimpy withdraws her name. Who does he nominate next? A mini Roberts -- someone with "qualfications" and "experience". Hell, maybe he digs up Robert Bork from whatever hole he resides in. After all the guy is "qualified" out the wazoo: solicitor general, professor, federal judge. But more likely he picks a younger mini-Bork.

Now what? We filibuster again? In doing so we hand the repugs a rallying cry right before the 2006 elections: up or down vote. Stupid argument? Sure. But the public buys it. And instead of going into those elections with a de-energized, demoralized repug party, reeling from a bad war, an incompetent FEMA, an indicted Delay, we give them something to fight for. And our message gets drowned out as we have to play defense trying to explain to a public that pays more attention to slogans and labels than anything else that the Dems aren't obstructionists who wont give chimpy's nomination a "fair" shake.

Look...if Miers quietly sails through the makeup of the court probably isn't changed that much. And the GOP has nothing to rally their troops around in 2006. We can keep to our message: corruption, incompetence. But if we end up having to filibuster a "qualified" nominee who essentially is a Roberts clone, we screw ourselves.
And look at the stakes. If we can capture Senate seats, we probably position ourselves to block chimpy if a Dem justice retires/dies in the final two years of his term. He's a real lame duck. But if we screw up and the repugs capture Senate seats, they could end up with a filibuster proof majority, which means chimpy is the "comeback kid" (the public loves comeback stories) and he gets whatever he wants during his "lame duck" years.

Now for the promised caveat: If evidence is found that allows the Dems to attach the label "corrupt" or "ethically challenged" to Miers, we should beat her into the ground with it. Including the use of the filibuster. Recognize that we'll have to eat whoever comes up next, but it will add another arrow to our quiver and strengthen our key message for 2006: the repugs are ethically challenged and corrupt and its time to clean house.

onenote

[mattclearing]

1. Wrong.

The make-up swings against Roe v. Wade and the Dems lose their biggest issue of the last thirty years despite majority backing.

This one is for keeps. You fight her because if she wins and succeeds in overturning Roe, then Democrats will have been proven to be totally incompetent.

Furthermore, the elections are short term compared to the Court. You don't make Supreme Court decisions based on election concerns.

Not to mention the fact that for all we know, senior Bush officials could be indicted before she even gets to committee.

Now is the time to fight, period.

Edit: Your caveat is good though, and she is linked to the totally corrupt Texas lottery. Corruption and cronyism plays perfectly into the Dems' message for '06.

[bowens43]

6. Wrong.

You seem to think that we can filibuster forever. We can't. They might allow one but they won't allow two. The next nominee will no doubt be someone like Brown or Owen. No matter what we do now we lose. The only question is to we prefer someone who may or may not be an extremist to someone who will undoubtedly be an extremist. If not Miers, you can be certain the next nominee WILL be the next supreme court Justice.

We can't win this one.

[mattclearing]

9. Doesn't matter.

If we filibuster this one and they ram through another, it will be a field day for Dems in '06.

The filibuster will be restored under a Dem senate majority, and Bush might not even survive the end of the term if he keeps governing like he is now.

Granted, we will still be stuck with a 5-4 batshit Supreme Court, but at least we will have fought and won something.

[bowens43]

13. So getting a MORE conservative Justice is winning

in your book? Not in mine.

[mattclearing]

15. There will not be a more conservative justice than Miers.

As an extreme pro-lifer and evangelical who has never put in the time to be elevated to the position of justice of anything until now?

She is more dangerous than any actual justice could be as a nominee.

[bowens43]

17. You don't know that to be the case.

You don't know any more then I do. If that comes out in the hearings thenI say filibuster. If doesn't then a filibuster is just a waste of time.

[mattclearing]

23. The R's are putting it in the media that she is definitely pro-life.

They want the base to shut up and go along with it for a reason. For that reason alone we should be extremely wary.

[bowens43]

25. If not Miers then who?

The next nominee will be MORE conservative not less, more extreme , not less. We are not going to get a pro-choice Justice. It's not going to happen.

We can stop at most, one nominee. If we stop Miers, the next nominee becomes the Justice.

[mattclearing]

27. I don't believe that.

At least the others have sat on a Court before and understand the realities of jurisprudence.

I think Miers is even more dangerous because she is likely ignorant. And there is almost no accountability for a Supreme Court justice.

[bowens43]

31. Her lack of judicial experience is irrelevant.

One fourth of all the Justices we have had have had no judicial experience. Being inexperienced , she is likely to have less of an immediate impact on the court.

[onenote]

33. understand the "realities of jurisprudence"?

I'm not even sure what that means? What makes someone who was a lawyer for the AFL-CIO and then Secretary of Labor (Arthur Goldberg) or a Richmond School Board chair and lawyer in private practice (Lewis Powell) or a Deputy Attorney General/private attorney (Byron White) have a greater "understanding of the realities of jurisprudence" than an experienced, highly regarded litigator?

onenote

[mattclearing]

34. She's never ruled on anything before and seen what happens after.

That's what I mean.

[onenote]

14. If we filibuster two or three in a row?

Whether or not they use the nuclear option to ram one in, the other side will be energized. How does that translate into our recapturing the Senate? If they get Miers in, that's it. THe message swings back to the war, corruption, incompetence.

If we could win fighting about the Supreme Court, we would've won in 2004. We have to keep them on the defensive. Again, we let Roberts go through...its a fact. And the public isn't going to understand why another nominee in that same mold shouldn't go through as well.

onenote

[mattclearing]

16. She's not in the same mold, because she's clearly not qualified.

Hell George Will even says she's not qualified. The American people don't have to take our word for it. They can listen to Republicans make our points for us!

[bowens43]

20. We can't win this one.

We either get an unknown, possible moderate or we get a known right wing extremist. The repugs will not allow multiple filibusters. It's not going to happen.

[mattclearing]

24. No, we either get an unknown likely fundie nutjob or a known one.

Either way, we fight.

It's like saying you save the only bullet in the gun because the person after this is going to try to kill you too.

You'll be dead by then.

[bowens43]

26. Why?

It makes no sense to trade a possible moderate for a known extremist.

[mattclearing]

28. Where do you get this possible moderate from?

Bush is out there telling people straight up that she is as crazy as he is. I take him at his word.

[bowens43]

32. You take bush at his word?

She has supported Democrats, Al Gore, the DNC and pro-choice candidates in the past.

[mattclearing]

37. And supported pro-life causes and candidates as well, and more

recently.

And yes, when Bush sends signals to his base, I believe it. When he says she is in the Scalia-Thomas mold, I believe it. Why would he lie? To preserve the Roe status quo?

If we believe that, we have become the kings and queens of contrarian bullshit to avoid a fight. We never fight anything anymore.

It's just another rationalization for rolling over.

[bowens43]

41. We're not going to get what we want.

We lost this one. There is not going to be a pro-choice nominee. We have two choices, an unknown who may or may not be an extremist or a known extremist. Thats IF the Republicans allow a filibuster. They may not. Without clear evidence that she is an extremist , outside of the mainstream, , the 7 Republicans who prevented the nuclear option from happening may not support a filibuster.

Why fight when 'winning' means that we will be worse off then if we had lost? Fighting for fightings sake is silly.

[mattclearing]

47. Fighting for principle is not silly. Our failure to do so has ensured our

failure to get elected. No one wants a weakling defending their rights.

Why would anyone vote for Dems after they roll over on their biggest issue of the past thirty years?

Regardless of whether you think they can win, we won't know until they try. You are saying they shouldn't even bother.

[endarkenment]

36. No I don't think we can fillibuster forever.

I think they will go nukular and end it and provoke a constitutional crisis that will be resolved by their corrupt arrogant incompetent cronies on the court. We will get a vile shithead no matter what, so why not go down on the record as opposed to all of their vile shitheads?

Instead, your way, we will once again go along to get along and we will get a vile shithead - this one, not the next one, and the public will continue to see no real opposition to things as they are.

[bowens43]

46. Sorry, I'm not willing to risk a known

extremest on the court for the next 20 or 30 years just to make a point. Frankly, I don't think the general public really cares much about this appointment or about the supreme court in general. Most are to apathetic. They're not even paying attention.

[endarkenment]

48. wrong again.

Women really care about THAT issue. The Big One. A huge core constituency of the Democratic Party - the reproductive rights progressive female voter - is being sold down the river by our almost totally male 'leadership'. Another reason why our voting constituency refuses in large numbers to bother voting.

[Beer Snob-50]

50. I still do not believe that Rowe v Wade will ever be overturned

It is too much of a wedge issue for the Repugs to ever give up! Even with a conservative court majority they can always spin some kind of democratic boogieman to explain why it was not overturned.

[endarkenment]

64. Keep Dreaming. NT.

[bowens43]

2. Make no mistake,

if there is a filibuster, there will only be one. The repugs will not allow a second. They will use the nuclear option and the next candidate is likely to be worse.

[zanne]

3. Are you advising our Dem leaders?

If they speak up now, they might be criticized, or punished by getting someone even worse to vote on? Holy s**t. Why don't we all just give up then?

[onenote]

7. hopefully our leaders are looking ahead 12 months

to developing and staying on a message that will win votes and keep the other side on the defensive.

onenote

[endarkenment]

45. so when we vote for the vile shitheads

what exactly is the message?

"I voted for the war before I voted against it." That message?

[bowens43]

8. might get someone worse????

They absolutely will get someone worse and filibuster will not be an option.

[electropop]

4. Yup, let's "keep our powder dry."

It's not like the SUPREME COURT is important enough to expend any political capital on. So Miers ripped off thousands of clients and had to pay $22 million in fines and restitution. No big deal, right? ROberts got away with being secretive, so now we should let every Supreme Court nominee slide in unexamined. Gotta be consistently timid, right? So she has no experience or qualifications whatsoever. If it was good enough for Brownie, it's good enough for her. Yup, let's start fighting some day, not today.

[endarkenment]

5. What evidence do you have that the public buys it?

Tar Miers with the cronyism tag. The republican corruption factor is what is going to win the '06 elections and the Democratic 'opposition' (what a joke that is) needs to lead with the 'corrupt incompetent arrogant fools' meme at every opportunity, and this is an opportunity. We will not win if we don't even fight. let them go nuclear. Let them misuse their power with foolish arrogance. What exactly is the downside? Some vile shithead gets a seat on the court? That is a given no matter what we do.

[onenote]

10. I said that if the evidence of corruption is there run with it

Cronyism? Not going to fly in and of itself. Mike Brown was an incompetent boob, who basically failed at everything he did. So cronyism sticks because there's no way he ends up running FEMA if you look at his record. Miers has been successful at every stage of her career. She has been cited by neutral publications as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the country. Sure, her "qualfications" for being a SCOTUS justice are thin. But there is historical precedent for that.

If you start tossing cronysim arguments at everyone, you end up diluting the argument. Save it for the incompetents like Brownie. I'm not saying don't fight. I'm saying fight smart.

onenote

[endarkenment]

38. You said...

"Now what? We filibuster again? In doing so we hand the repugs a rallying cry right before the 2006 elections: up or down vote. Stupid argument? Sure. But the public buys it."

And I ask what evidence other than the shrill voices of the pundocracy do you have that the public buys it?

[Atman]

11. We should beat her to the ground anyway! The evidence is there!

I'm livid over this, and I have a very bad feeling that the senators are already re-inking their rubber-stamp pads. Harry Ried, our supposed "leader" in the Senate is already heaping praise. They won't look at a fucking thing, just as with Roberts. She'll refuse to answer any questions, so instead of looking into easily-researched stuff like that which appears in the articles below, they'll say "Well, the president has a right to nominate anyone he wants" and the nation will be stuck with another member of the Bush Crime Family.

We should demand all of this stuff be addressed and addressed forcefully, then kick her scraggly ass out the door. A public humiliation is in order, and quite frankly, we should be satisfied with nothing less. But if we can't achieve that, then fillibuster until Nov 1, 2008 for all I care. This shit has got to stop. I am sick to fucking death of being the Official Appeasement Party to the right wing. But I'm guessing that is just what will happen once again. And you and I and our children and their children will be forced to live under the rule of known criminals -- because democrats are to fucking pussy to demand some answers.



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46665

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/news_3424a21495f7521000f4.html

[Birthmark]

12. Oh, that's a good plan.

We'll sacrifice our civil rights and the social gains of the latter half of the 20th century - but at least we'll get some political brownie points out of it!

[onenote]

21. brownie points? How about turning the freakin' tide

We might stop Miers. But if you think we can simply stop every nomination that chimpy puts out there and not suffer irreparable political damage, you're not living in the real world. We can end up with Miers or someone like her now and still have a shot at recapturing enough legislative control to make chimpy a true lame duck during his final two years or we can stop Miers/whoever comes next now and after chimpy gets a filibuster proof majority in the senate we end up with Miers and Robert Bork and god knows what else.

So: Miers now and the ability to stop chimpy going forward
Or: Miers later and no chance to stop anything chimpy does

I pick the former.

onenote

[Birthmark]

49. False dichotomy

[onenote]

54. okay -- reality check

If my options are a "false dichotomy" why don't you spell out how it will play out if we filibuster Miers. What happens next. How does the public react. How does it strengthen our position going into the elections.

I'm open to being persuaded if someone can make a realistic case.

onenote

[Birthmark]

60. Oh, that's easy!

After Miers is rejected, Bush will nominate someone else.

There is no telling whether this person will be more or less conservative.

The people will think pretty much what the press tells them to believe. What will that be? Depends on the story line the press wants to pursue. They could play the 'intransigent Democrats' song; or the 'wounded Bush'; or whatever they believe is most profitable.

Now, if you want to prepare for the situation you outline, that's fine. But to act as if rejecting Miers will produce that situation is a few too many leaps. I take my battles one at a time. It seems to have worked out.

[meegbear]

18. We filibuster "again"?

How many supreme court nominees has this Congress filibustered?

[The Stranger]

19. I think Miers is the best we are going to do. So does Harry Reid.

Even if she is a hardcore Neocon from the Bush inner circle, she may change when she gets on the court, no matter how many times the Chimp promises she will not. Powerful minds on the Left wing of the court may gently nudge her.

Better this than a hardcore Neocon with a book of opinions already supporting the Gitmo Gulag, anti-Choice, pro-corporatist positions from which he/she cannot diverge.

[endarkenment]

40. Go along get along same old song nt.

[The Stranger]

43. Unfortunately, yes.

We have to pick our battles, and the cacophany coming from the far right neocons regarding this woman is music to my ears.

:nopity:

[kentuck]

22. If there is a filibuster, it will most likely be led by Republicans....

We don't really know for sure which direction this is headed quite yet.

[onenote]

30. there's not a chance in the world of that happening

The repugs are on record that filibustering court nominations is "unconsitutional". They aren't about to do that. Plus, if there is that much repub opposition, the dems can safely join in and defeat the nomination. I have no problem with that at all.

onenote

[Arkansas Granny]

53. I've wondered about this possibility myself. The Repubs are

none too happy about this nominee, either. It will be very interesting to see how this confirmation hearing goes. Miers doesn't seem to have the full support of Bush's own party. They might do the job for us.

We need to realize one thing, however. Bush is not likely to nominate anyone that Democrats could really support. He is too beholden to his base, for one thing, and too adamant about imposing his will upon anyone who opposes him.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Enough of this appeasement!

Renhquist should have never been on the Supreme Court because he kept Blacks from voting, and Roberts shouldn't either because he is Opus Dei.

We should start debating how to get rid of the Federalist Society scum that we already have on the bench instead of giving the rightwing another pass.

[Mandate My Ass]

35. Long term gain? It's a LIFETIME appointment!

According to you, the only benefits to caving are hypothetical and quite unlikely.

She might be moderate and we might win a seat or two. Has any of the other dem appeasement translated into recapturing Senate seats lost to the GOP? Since Dems don't vote in lockstep even the gain of a few seats wouldn't translate into any gains AFAIC.

She's a rabid anti-choice fundie. Roberts is an Opus Dei nutjob like Scalia and Santorum. Get real.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

63. Not only is it lifetime, but Miers tilts the court from O'Connors.

[MadHound]

39. Yes, why should the Dems fight this nominee?

After all it would spoil their record of not fighing any of Bushco's nominees:eyes: We got suckered by ths one-two nomination punch. Meiers is simply a Bushco toady, being put in place to persue a pro-corporate agenda, and to cover Bushco's ass if any of his many potential legal problems make it to the Supreme Court.

The nomination that should have been seriously contested is Robert's, but for some bizarre reason they didn't feel any pressing need to fight the nomination of a poorly qualified, supremely eveasive, and most likely seriously RW fundie candidate. The rolled over on his nomination because even though he was going to become Chief Justice, it was thought that his ascendancy to the Supreme Court wouldn't effect the balance of power. The conventional wisdom was that we should save our ammo for what was assumed to be a serious RWer. Instead, we get a candidate whose experience leaves a lot to be desired, but much less to hang our opposition on. We got suckered, again. The Dems can't oppose her on ideological reasons, since her most obvious leanings, pro-corporate, fits right in with the New Dems pro-corporate slant. And bringing up potential problems with Meiers obviously being a Bushco lap dog will be dismissed out of hand as tin foil hat musings.

So yes, we should oppose this nominee, if for no other reason than to show that the Dems can still oppose something, anything. But that isn't going to happen. The person that we should have really fought tooth and nail against, Roberts, got a free pass, and sadly it appears that Meiers will too. And thus we will watch as corporate America's rights and power increase, all at the expense of our flesh and blood citizens. Perhaps it is time that we all incorporated our individual selves. It might be the only way we have left of retaining the rights that our forefathers fought and died for.

[onenote]

59. I never said Dems should vote for her.

But filibustering her will only set us up for another fight and another filibuster. THen what? We enter the 2006 elections with the issue turning on whether the Dems can get chimpy to nominate someone who will expressly and openly state, under oath during their confirmation, that they will not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? That any nominee who, like Roberts, won't say (but who we know will in fact vote to overturn) is going to be filibustered? Suddenly that becomes the focus of the campaign, not the economy, not the war, not corruption. We shoot ourselves in the foot politically by energizing the other side and drowning out our best issues.

onenote

[MadHound]

61. And God forbid that the Dems have to fight twice.

It might take them back to the days of yore when the party actually acted as a real opposition party, instead of a rubber stamp.

And quite frankly what is wrong with this spilling over into the '06 election? What, are we unable to articulate clearly and consisely what are objections to a particular candidate are? Are party members only able to address one pressing issue at a time? Are we that afraid of the Republican spin machine?

C'mon friend, Bushco is reeling. People are starting to wake up and realize that they've been duped on everything the Iraq war to who Bushco has appointed(Mike Brown). This is indeed the time to start really closing in for the KO blow, not let up and let them dance away. Keep hitting them on every front, from the war to Katrina to the Plame case and yes even unto the nominees for the Court. The Dems have for too long been either asleep or scared and haven't fought hardly a thing. It is time for them to rise up and realize that they are strong again. If not now, when? If not here, where?

But sadly, even with the ship of Bushco taking on some serious water, and having some large holes in their ship of state, the Dems will probably back off, and Bush will win again, and thus we all will lose. And you see, for you and I, this nomination will have real consequences as such a pro corporate Supreme Court will continue to give every right to the corporations, and strip away the rights of flesh and blood humans. Yet for those with serious money or power, be they Democratic or Republican, these thing won't effect them. Kerry and Clinton, Boxer and Feinstein are all shielded by their position and their money. Thus, what is all too destructive and real for us is merely another part of the game for them. A point won here, a point lost there. It is high time these so called leaders of ours stand up and start fighting like it is their lives on the line, not ours. Maybe then they'll be a real opposition party again. Until then, sad to say, they'll remain neutered lapdogs, doing whatever their corporate masters wish of them.

[m_welby]

42. miers, brown, it doesn't matter at this point

we've lost the court. the '04 election saw to that. It's done, it doesn't matter who he nominates, they are ultra right. Will she vote to overturn roe-wade? most likely or george wouldn't have nominated her(along with supporting a huge pro-business agenda, as well as most likely being a corrupt, unethical, 'social darwinist' idealogue).

She's a crony, just all the rest, but you can bet she'll toe the republican line on that, it's what they've been working towards all this time, changing the court. It's the most important (and far reaching) ideological fight to them.

Does anyone think that anyone he nominates will be better (or worse) than another one? The only thing he won't do is nominate someone he can't control, someone that might "move left" like souter. Anyone who believes that might happen is dreaming, GW (and the reactionaary right)wants a conservative court and they will get it, it's done.

We need to destroy these idealogues so that they never control either of the other 2 branches of government again AND so that when the opportunity arises the court can be returned to a moderate, sane, REPRESENTATIVE body.

[bunny planet]

44. Its turning up that she is an uber corporate lawyer and has questionable

ethics (perfect for the blivet). Her law firm was sued for fraud under her watch, she was head of the Texas State Lottery when there was some shenanigi related to covering up Bush's National Guard Service, she was actually with Bush when he received the August 6th, 2001 PDB, advised him on Abu Ghraib, and that's just what we do know. She was his WH counsel for God's sake. I don't think he appointed her over Roe v. Wade anyway, he's putting her and Roberts in there to save his and his henchmen's necks should indictments come down. I just smell desperation in her appointment, the fact that he didn't throw the fundies a big chunk of red meat means that he has other concerns and he just needed to protect himself above all else.

So with this nuclear option, we can only filibuster once so it better be the very worst candidate we save it for. Isn't Frist under investigation for insider trading, doesn't that weaken his position on the nuclear option. Time to take off the gloves, so what if we had a 'gentlemen's agreement' about the filibuster, such an agreement is unconstitutional anyway, and we all know that the Republicans have never been gentlemen. This woman should obviously not even make it out of committee, she is a walking 'conflict of interest', and the Preznit is already refusing to turn over any of her documents under the guise of 'executive privilege'

This nominee stinks, not sure the exact reason she's there, but there are enough reasons to be very suspicious. She should not be confirmed. Bush is obviously worried about something, he wants her confirmed in a hurry, by Thanksgiving. Leahy says not until December. I think we should stretch it out even further, make him sweat.

[mmonk]

51. I disagree

It's now or never unless you know for a fact that she doesn't fit the plans of the so called "strict constructionists". Too much at stake to roll over and have the lives of so many Americans become affected.

[leesa]

52. It's a lifetime appointment of a Fundie lunatic. Stop thinking politics

and start thinking about the future. She has no experience and some interesting ethical/illegal instances in her background. She MUST be disapproved of or people will take Dems for the spineless wimps they are.

[onenote]

56. politics is how we get the future we want

How else do you see things improving?

onenote

[oc2002]

55. any democrat that votes for Miers is no Democrat.

nt.

[onenote]

57. Reality Check

A couple of questions. Ponder them and then answwer honestly:

Will chimpy ever name someone to the Supreme Court who will state openly during their confirmation that if/when the issue comes before them they will vote against overruling Roe v. Wade?

Will he nominate someone, like Miers and Roberts, who will not openly state that will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Will we suspect that whoever chimpy nominates will, despite their refusal to address the issue, almost certainly be a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?

How many years left in chimpy's presidency?

If you believe the answers to these questions are no, yes, yes, and 3, then answer the next question:

Will the Dems pay a political price if they filibuster any Supreme Court nominee for the next three years that has not publicly stated he/she will overturn Roe v Wade but also refuses to openly state under oath that they will support Roe v. Wade?

I think the answer to the last question is yes. I also think it makes the court the issue in the coming elections, instead of the war and corruption and the economy.

onenote

[onenote]

58. dupe

[Bernardo de La Paz]

62. Mistake. Go to the mat. There will be hurricanes & indictments before 2006

This is why Roberts was not filibustered, so that Democrats can and should go to the mat on this one. Demand documents and paper trail. Bush did not want a fight for a justice because he can't afford one. Thus he made a coward's choice in Miers who has no obvious paper trail and what trail there is will be litigated to death over "attorney client privilege".

Fight cronyism tooth and nail.

Miers is unqualified by lack of experience, philosophy, temperment, and cronyism.