Why Confirm ANYONE to the SC Court

[Fescue4u]

Why does the Democrats feel that we must confirm any of Bushs picks?

Make it clear, we'll filibust anyone until the legal cloud over the administration is cleared up.

Why not hold out for 2 years until we get a real president?

[Nederland]

1. Because you can't

If you fillibuster that long the Republicans will change the rules and Democrats will really be fucked.

[Fescue4u]

3. But we are already fuked

If you cant use the filibuster, then what good is it?

[tridim]

8. You're assuming that all the Repubs still want to associate themselves

with the radioactive Bush administration and the insane fundies. I would have made that assumption a few months ago, but not now.

[aquart]

10. Then we highlight what they've done and change the rules back.

We do NOT have to go along with it. NOT with THESE POLLS. The country is begging the congressional Dems to take a stand.

Force criminal Frist to go nuclear. The Republicans want America to see they protect Big Business and hurt women? GOOD.

[Nederland]

15. Prediction

If Frist goes nuclear and Dems win back the Senate they will not change the rules back. They will enjoy being able to block filibusters just as much as the Republicans would, and they wouldn't have to take the blame for "starting it".


BTW, I doubt Dems will take the Senate given they have more seats at risk. The House they might take though...

[aquart]

18. Yeah. The Republicans are amazingly short-sighted.

They never imagine that giving themselves the right to do any damn thing they please automatically grants it to everyone else.

Spoiled little brats.

[niyad]

2. you are aware, of course, that with a repuke majority, it doesn't matter

even if all the dems abstain from voting?

[bryant69]

4. Well it wouldn't work

They'd just trigger the nuclear option, and get their dingbat in anyway.

It would also be easy enough to paint us as the extremists if that were our actual position.

I think the better strategy is to educate people on way Alito is not in the mainstream, and say that Bush could have put up a more moderate candidate but has chosen instead to pander to his base.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[aquart]

11. So what? We have to be seen STANDING UP.

These people are criminals who do nothing but hurt the American people. Let them do their worst. BUT WE HAVE TO BE SEEN OPPOSING THEM, NOT LYING DOWN FOR THEM.

[bryant69]

14. Yes

By the way you type in all capitals makes your argument seem stronger.

We do have to stand up to them; but we need to be able to articulate why we are standing up. And it can't be "Well they are Republican Bastards and so we don't want them to get what they want.

Bryant

[eallen]

5. The Republicans plan to run roughshod over Senate rules if filibustered...

The GOP "gang of seven" have said they would not stand for that. But they also have said they expect a filibuster only in "extraordinary" circumstances.

If we retake the Senate in 2006, then your strategy becomes a good one.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

6. That's not how it's done.

The Senate has the responsibility to advise and consent. Obviously, they don't have to vote yes on all of Bush's picks, but to seta policy of voting no like that is just bad form.

[Fescue4u]

7. bad form

Bad form is having a criminal administration make picks.

Why should the Senate legitimize the picks of a criminal?

[electropop]

9. "Advise and consent"

does not mean mandatory consent. That's not consent, it's extortion. If our Dems had guts they'd fillibuster all the nutjobs. Yes it's obstructionist. It's their duty to obstruct evil, even if they're not in a position to force positive change. We need them to at least hold the line. It's bad form to derelict their duty to protect us from the neoconvicts' dirty schemes.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

12. Of course it doesn't mean mandatory consent.

I just think we should at least consider the record of a nominee, before deciding to filibuster in advance.

[electropop]

13. Obviously.

But so far, it's been pretty safe to assume that the nominee is either unqualified or out of the mainstream. Definitely so with Roberts (corporate whore), Miers (egregiously unqualified), and Alito (religious nutjob). But yeah, can't oppose coherently without doing the basic research.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

16. Call me foolish, but I didn't think Roberts was that bad.

Judge Alito I don't know enough about (but it looks like he could be an activist). Miers was clearly unqualified, and shouldn't have been nominated, although her sacking by the right does reveal their hypocrisy.

[sandnsea]

17. Have to win majority support

We have to get about 65% against Alito to filibuster. That means there's no time for arguing amongst ourselves about strategy, we need to be doing LTTE's, writing to Senators, contributing to ad campaigns, to get the word out about why this guy is so bad.