This One Man may be why Dems can't fillibuster Alito.............

[KoKo]

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:HqX4MKunnqIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stephens+Justice+John+Paul+Stephens,+Supreme+Court&hl=en

Justice John Paul Stevens (born April 20, 1920) is an American jurist who has been a U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice since 1975; he is the oldest and longest serving justice currently on the court.


Justice Stevens, because of his age, could be the next Judge Bush will need to replace. If the Dems have only "ONE FILLIBUSTER" before the "Nuke Option" kicks in then they maybe feel that they want to save it for the replacement for Stephens if it comes before we can take back the Senate and House.

That may be why we are seeing "foot dragging" on Alito fillibuster. They don't want to take a chance that someone even worse than Alito would totally tip the balance if we lose Stephens. Stephens wrote the "dissenting opinion" on Bush vs. Gore.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Who is actually worse than Alito?

IMO, the reason they won't filibuster is that they are completely without spines.

[cali]

22. Pickering , Owen, Rodgers-Brown, and quite possibly

Luttig are worse than Alito. I sure wish alito won't sit on the court, but I agree with the author of the original post. Justice Stevens, arguably the most liberal of the Justices may well not make it through the bush years. We need to take back the Senate and make it impossible for bushco to name another Alito style conservative. Failing that, the Senate needs the filibuster when and if one of the liberal Justices dies or steps down.

I actually have some hope that Alito won't be as awful as advertised. He didn't come off as an arrogant idealogue in committee. And by and large, he doesn't come off that way in his writing. In addition, a lot of democrats testified on his behalf. When Souter was nominated, I , along with most women's groups opposed him. It seemed clear that he'd vote against Roe. We were wrong. Souter has become a reliably liberal vote.

One last thing: I wish we'd stop lionizing O'Connor. She was no liberal. She wasn't even that moderate. The Undue Burden test, which she came up with, has served the right well when it comes to dismantling Roe.

[StClone]

34. I disagree: O'Conner proved she wasn't in with the Boys

And there are no true Liberals on the SCOTUS.

[Justice Is Comin]

63. We need

the HOUSE. The senate is a cherry. Once we have that House again, look out.

[LiberalInGeorgia2005]

62. Many many much worse than Alito

The grass is always greener on the other side. If Bush nominated someone like J. Michael Luttig, people here might accept Alito.

[Flabbergasted]

2. Could be? How does stevens side?

[aquart]

3. If not now, when?

This is an insane reason. What difference would it make once the fascist imperialist is on the court. What possible difference?

[KoKo]

14. Because one more of them would make a majority. Stephens is more

important than O'Connor. O'Connor was a "swing vote" while Stephens tends to be more liberal than O'Connor. The Dem Establishment may feel it's better to save the Fillibuster for Stephens replacement because it's more critical.

:shrug:

[Cocoa]

4. they can filibuster Alito

the dems haven't ruled it out, I don't think we should.

[KoKo]

19. They "CAN" but they will lose their Fillibuster power because of Frist's

NUKE option. Remember Frist was going to take away power of Dems to Fillibuster until an agreement was reached with the 14 Senators that they would "limit" their use of Fillibuster to keep it. From what my understand is...if they Fillibuster they have only one time to use it before Frist pulls the plug. That's why they may feel it's wise to hold onto it.

I don't agree with their assessment! I feel Alito SHOULD BE Fillibustered. But, I was just pointing out that they may feel Justice Stephens replacement might be more important to hold the Fillibuster option open. Stephens would be a huge loss to Democrats. Whereas O'Connor was a swing vote.

[bowens43]

33. You understanding isn't correct.

They don't have one time to use it BEFORE Frist pulls the plug. That wasn't the agreement. The agreement was that there would be no filibuster of judicial nominees except in the case of extreme circumstance. This doesn't rise to that level according to most if not all republicans in the senate.

They don't get a free filibuster.

[zanne]

39. True. No free filibuster.

The whole "compromise" was that the Democrats caved in.

[bowens43]

43. But they did get something for it

and someting is better then nothing.

[KoKo]

54. And according to Dems on Pundit Circle...Alito is "kinda clean." So..Dems

would be pushing to Fillibuster and risk losing it over a nominee by Bush who should "sail through."

That's what it comes down to. Do the Dems want to waste their "powder" or keep it dry for the next one.

[Wordie]

67. But would the Republicans make good on the threat?

The Republicans are in a much different position than when the threat was first made...much weaker overall now. They don't want to lose the fillibuster either. It seems its not a completely clear cut situation. And is there any indication that Stephens plans to resign during Bush's remaining time in office?

[IndyOp]

5. They must filibuster Alito - APPEASING BULLIES DOES NOT WORK!

:kick:

[stray cat]

35. Losing and refusing to play any more doesnt fly well either

[IndyOp]

37. We are way, way past losing and refusing to play...

The Elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 were stolen. The current administration is illegitimate and insane. We *must* put the brakes on now. It is already too late. The Dems must be pushed to use the Spines we know they have. The Rules of Gentlemanly conduct were violated long, long ago.

:kick:

[BattyDem]

6. That was the theory when they didn't filibuster Roberts

It went something like this:

Roberts will vote the same as Rehnquist, so why "waste" a filibuster on him. Dems want to "save it" for the next Bush appointment to the SC. :eyes:

Enough of this shit! Hey Dems ... if you insist on rolling over and playing dead while our country and our Constitution is dismantled by fascists, then RESIGN so we can have some REAL representation in Washington for a change! :grr:

[mom cat]

16. Bingo. I am tired of waiting for the tooth fairy! ACT NOW!

[catmother]

7. meanwhile alito is in and the damage will be done. if SCOTUS

decided the 2000 election results without roberts and alito what else will it do?

i am just totally disgusted. the news shows are saying that the dems approached the hearings the wrong way. we look like fools. i feel angry and depressed. the repubs are running the whole country and i feel powerless.

[Peace Patriot]

25. Don't feel depressed. FDR faced the same situation, re: his New Deal--

a dinosaur Supreme Court from the previous era of robber baron looting and financial meltdown. They kept ruling against New Deal programs. The Constitution does not state the number of Justices. So FDR tried to increase that number (perfectly legal) in order to infuse it with new blood. The rightwing press called it "packing the Supreme Court," and FDR lost that battle; however, as a result of his pressure on the Supreme Court (and the overwhelming will of the people), one justice changed his mind about FDR's progams. Thus Social Security (among other things ) was saved.

My point is that there are a lot of possible strategies that can circumvent a fascist and criminally appointed Supreme Court but the critically important condition for success of those strategies is RESTORING OUR RIGHT TO VOTE. Right now, we have a wholly non-transparent election system, controlled by Bushite corporations, using 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code in the new election theft machines, with virtually no audit/recount controls. Our vote is our mechanism of sovereignty as a people. It has been taken away, quite deliberately. Our elections have been privatized, and are under the control of rightwing Bushites (mostly Diebold and ES&S, two related companies). We have a country in which the great majority of people oppose Bush and all his policies (polls show this overwhelmingly), but we can't get our will implemented. We have some Democrats, and most Republicans, who are holding power illegitimately, as the result of rigged elections.

Restoring election transparency, and retrieving our right to vote must therefore be our NO. 1 PRIORITY. Once we restore transparent elections, you will see a leftist swing in this country such as we have never seen before. I guarantee it. But election reform is a big "if." We have a lot of work to do.

---------

Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

[ClintonTyree]

31. And this will happen with a Reich-Wing stacked court.......how?

Our voting "rights" will be even more compromised with Alito sitting on the bench. This will make it that much easier for the Reich-Wing to violate voters rights.

No good can come of this. None. Trying to find a reason the Democrats won't use the filibuster is grasping at straws. There is every reason TO use the filibuster, but of course our elected "Democrats" would rather "keep their powder dry". :eyes:

I've had it with this bunch of gutless, spineless worms that call themselves "democrats".

[Donna Zen]

8. A couple of ways to view this:

If the Dems fail to give Alito the boot, then it is more than likely the rightwing will feel enabled to go for more of the same. Always bully a bully. Giving in Alito doesn't take care of the Stephens replacement although it might make it worse.

[KoKo]

20. Good points...and I agree...but they might be afraid of losing the option

to fillibuster by using it on Alito.

[Donna Zen]

40. Is it an option

...if you are afraid to use it?

What did we get by sitting back in fear? Patricia Owens and her motley crew of anti-American flacks. If we use the fillibuster and dump Alito, and if the republicans use the nuclear option, who looks worse. Senators who stand in opposition to be counted or senators who break the Senate rules. And it should be remembered that if we lose it, they lose it too.

The real problem here is that the Democrats failed to make the case to America as to why Alito is so horrible for America's future. As George Mitchell said the other night (paraphrase) the Alito nomination swings the court away from a position of moderation and over to the far-right. This is a big deal and the Democrats didn't create "the drama" befitting the occasion.

I agree with Mitchell. Now a fillibuster may not send a mighty message but this certainly should/could be framed as the Democrats out to save the country. Strangely enough, that is exactly what it is.

[Justice Is Comin]

64. This is crazy.

It's like paying insurance premiums all your life and driving 30 miles an hour so you never have an accident.

This is no game. Frist whimpered right into his corner after he saw what his tantrum got him after Reid shut the place down. There would be such a free for all in the Senate if he tried to outlaw filibusters that he would be signing his political death warrant.

The elephants got so much shit coming at them now, it couldn't be any worse if they were walking behind a manure spreader. The Hatfields are never going to get along with the McCoys and it's time we showed them we are grabbing some balls....AND SQUEEZING.

[stillcool]

9. Not good enough...

any hypothetical does not trump reality. If Alito is confirmed nothing will stop the hemorrhaging of democracy.

[mazzarro]

10. Yeah right!

when that opportunity comes, we will be given another reason why it will best to hold back on the filibuster. I don't buy it for aa second. The fact is if we don't use it, the rethugs will never take us serious and will never expose their own Achilles heel.

[fooj]

11. Remind our senators what REAL integrity and honor is all about...

send them this picture...



Peace.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. appeasement does not work

they don't filibuster, kiss this republic good bye, end of dissuasion. I would not be too shocked if next thing we learn is that George is declared King for life and the House and Senate are dissolved, with the concurrent cancellation of the Constituting permamently... with the blessing of the court.

[Canuckistanian]

13. Alito tips the balance, for good

After that, it doesn't matter so much. This is the one to filibuster.

[formernaderite]

24. agreed filibuster now...to show the what's ahead

at least the issues will come to the forefront. I happen to think the democratic senators did a piss poor job at enlightening the public on Alito's political beliefs.

[Child_Of_Isis]

18. House and Senate are dissolved.

Do you think they will get to keep their welfare checks?

[BlueCaliDem]

42. Wanna Read Something REALLY Scary?

Ever heard about Secret Societies?

Yes. Skull & Bones is one; originated in Germany, of which three generations of Bush men are members.

Ever heard of "New World Order"?

How about "Global Union"?

Or, the Free Trade Agreement?

Remember that brief news piece doing the rounds but quickly silenced by MSM regarding a "Shadow Government"?

If you so choose, please set tinfoil hat on head:tinfoilhat:and click on the link below:

http://www.4rie.com/rie%201.html#anchor976758

I saw a documentary on the History Channel this morning (instead of boring myself with rightwing cheerleading shows running amok on cable) and did a little "googling".

Reading this "conspiracy 'theory'" (remember! election fraud in 2000, 2002, and 2004 were also considered "conspiracy theories" by just about everyone--but those who didn't listen, pushed, and now we know election theft and the wide conspiracy to make it happen was NOT a myth) it CAN explain just why things are happening as they are.

Those who say there might be plans to get rid of The Constitution and our Bill of Rights might not be all that wrong.

Like I said...it's scary stuff. Not necessarily true (although many "conspiracy theories have materialized since), but YOU be the judge.

[mom cat]

15. Whine, whine, drag feet because "maybe"? What about Vanguard?

That should automatically defeat Alito.

[ret5hd]

17. gotta keep that powder dry...

how often have we heard this? There will ALWAYS be "another fight over the horizon", there will ALWAYS be a battle on a later day, ALWAYS.

If we are always saving our powder for that last final battle, we will have lots of powder that is never burned.

[ClintonTyree]

21. Sorry, that's just plain WRONG!

Our Democratic "leaders" are always "saving it" for when something REALLY important comes along. :eyes: They're chicken-shit bush enablers and I'm sick to death of this "saving it" shit! :grr:

I'm as close now to abandoning the Democratic Party as I've ever been. If they stand for nothing then I'm wasting my vote for them anyway and might as well vote 3rd party. I am sick to death of this Party abandoning the people that do the most work trying to help them succeed.

THERE IS NO ONE WORSE THAN ALITO! :nuke: Christ, the god-damned Democrats would confirm Hitler for Supreme Court, "just in case someone worse came along". :puke:

I've had it. Not one more gad-damned dime will I give to the Democratic Party. Judging by their actions, they sure as hell don't give a shit about me or anyone else in the country if they're not going to filibuster fucking Alito.

I'VE HAD IT! :mad:

[leftofthedial]

23. Yeah. King George might reanimate Heinrich Himmler and nominate him

WTF?

Face it. The corporations want Scalito. The corporations own most of the Dems. They'll hem and haw and try to figure out how to keep Democratic voters from revolting and voting them all out of office. They'll have their staffers post non-filibuster apologist threads on sites like DU. They'll play victim. They'll hold onto their one bullet until the battle is already over and we're all goners. The Congressional Dems, other than a handful of Reps, are gutless corporate whores.

[Aaaargh]

26. No, they DON'T have "one filibuster"

That's not how it works. It's like this:

"The nuclear option is a phrase used to refer to the method by which a change can be made to the rules of the U.S. Senate with only a simple majority vote rather than the two thirds vote historically used. With the ability of a simple majority to change any Senate rule, the Senate's time-honored stability would be obliterated - thus the metaphorical term, "nuclear".

The nuclear option, as envisioned, would allow a Senator to raise, as a point of order, that a particular rule was unconstitutional. In this instance, the rule change that was contemplated would have allowed 51 senators (including the Vice President) to stop a filibuster on judicial nominees. A filibuster blocks a vote by preventing the end of debate on the matter. Under the present rules, 60 votes are required for cloture, the ending of a debate.

Under the nuclear option, 51 votes could end the filibuster and bring the nominees to an up or down vote. The point of order would be ruled on by the presiding officer and, if sustained, would presumably lead to those who oppose the rule change filing an appeal. The proponents of the rule change would immediately lay the appeal "on the table", where now a simple majority - as opposed to the historical two thirds majority - would be sufficient to prevail and change the rule."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Thus, it's not like the Democrats can filibuster one time successfully and cause a nomination to be withdrawn, under the threat of a rule change afterwards. The Repigs can vote to END A FILIBUSTER BY CHANGING THE RULE, and then table an appeal and leave it there.

This whole 'Gang of 14' deal has proved to be a trap for Democrats. It only serves to give more advantage to the Repigs. Now Senators Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee can tell the Democrats whether they can filibuster or not, without it appearing to the public to be a THREAT from the hard-right Repig leadership to change a longstanding balance-of-power rule. Instead of "we will take away the Democrats power to filibuster" from Frist, the media reports that Olympia Snowe "does not think that a filibuster is justified." A nice cushion for the Repigs, isn't it? And that's ALL it is. In fact, Snowe is saying that she (and other fake moderate Reigs) would vote for the rule change if Dems try to filibuster.

The SPECIFICATIONS for that 'Gang of 14' deal called for the president to consult with the Senate prior to making key nominations. HE DIDN'T DO THAT WITH ALITO, but it obviously doesn't matter at all to these pseudo-moderate Repigs.

There's NO reason to believe that these fake moderates, who are really serving as reassuringly smiley-faced operatives for the hard-right Repig leadership, will EVER allow Democrats to use the filibuster under this arrangement -- certainly not over a Supreme Court nomination, when they're now saying that there's nothing wrong with hard-right, openly corrupt nominee Alito.

Thus, the only use of a filibuster right now is to make a point, and force the Repigs to show their true face. Worth doing in this instance? I think so, if nothing else is left. In effect, Democrats have ALREADY lost the power to effectively filibuster without Repig consent, which is an absurdity.

[KoKo]

28. Well said.......thanks for posting that. I agree it was a "trap."

I could never understand why Senator Byrd helped them work it out. I thought it was just another excuse for them not to oppose Bush at crucial times.

Senator Byrd had even said when he argued against the Iraq Resolution that if the Dems approved it they might as well hang out a sign: "Gone Fishing and go Home" because they would give all the authority to the Executive Branch and there would be no point in hanging around. I have to feel that Byrd thought that unless he negotiated to try to keep the Fillibuster they would lose it forever.

But, it was a trap maybe they just couldn't avoid. Who knows any more what they do and why.. :-(

[havocmom]

29. Yep. I keep telling the DLC to kiss my sig line

And I post it in body of text when sig lines are off due to heavy traffic. Seems that is when it would get the most attention ;)

Force the bastards to go public with their heavy handed tactics. Letting them bully is not a good plan. They are gonna prevent filibuster one way or another. Force them to do it directly, where the whole world is watching.

If somebody is gonna rape you and tells you to be quiet or you'll get hurt, they are hurting you with or without your screaming. I say scream bloody murder. If you get killed, let there be DNA evidence under your fingernails! Go down fighting.

[libodem]

27. this whole dilemma

reminds me of why it was so important for them to steal both of the last elections. This tidbit has probably been on their 'agenda' for years: to load up the Supreme Court with their cronies. This enables them to do precisely what they like to have done for them, not provide justice but to tip the scales their direction when they want their own way, especially on something as important as deciding elections. Dems may never win an other election, again. This is Fascism at it's finest. Better yet most of the people still think we have a Democracy. At best we are a Federated Republic, and all of their followers are fooled. Our congresspeople should consider what the repubs would do if the situation were reversed. Their side is so much better at playing the righteous indignation card. 'They' would filibuster in a heartbeat and if 'we' were threatening to take away the filibuster, 'we' would be condemned for trying to dismantle a traditional part of the way congress has always worked....oh I could go on...but I'll spare all of you more ranting....Fuckalito now

[David Dunham]

30. Guys, Bush won in 04 and gets pick judges, We must win in 08

[ClintonTyree]

32. And put up with Scalito on the SC for the rest of his life?

And "bush won in '04"? Are you somehow related to Feinstein? :shrug:

[shance]

36. The number of fillibusters we use, are up to the Democrats using it..

It is there for the Democratic leaders to use.

If they are being intimidated and threatened by the Republicans, they need to SPEAK OUT to Americans and say it, like Murtha has done.

They must fight back.

[hlthe2b]

38. I think the failure to fillibuster Alito will send a green light ....

Bush* will feel total freedom to pick the most radical nominee he chooses.

[KoKo]

45. It's my worry also...but being "politicians" they might go to protect

themselves and the "fillibuster" privilege. That's what I think they thinking about. The trade off from an ANGRY LEFT as opposed to all the "Undecideds" they will pick up in 2006. It's a "calculated risk." Cut off the Left and their anger over this to give the LEFT all they want if they can regain the US House... (which is the most important for investigation, impeachment and all the rest.)

They have always "cut loose" the Angry Left when political considerations were more important. They've been WRONG in the past...but will they be WRONG this time? :shrug: If they keep the power of "fillibuster" then they have options. Losing it by going with US and what WE WANT...could lose them an opportunity to twart another spear thrown by Bush that THEY think could be WORSE down the line before 2006 Election...and remember Bush is always ready to thwart them at every turn. Recess Appointments and "In your Face tactics" are what Bush and "THEY" thrive on. :shrug:

Just saying..I'm trying to get inside their brains to see how they think...

[hlthe2b]

46. I'm sure this is the political calculus...

but, I just don't think it works against the Repugs who have shown a penchance for fighting in any way it takes to prevail.... I also fear it fuirther weakens the Dems (by their failure to take a stance and fight) in the eyes of those moderates/independents they think they would pick up...:shrug:

[KoKo]

48. Agree...what else can one say...

It's a sorry state of things we are in.. :-(

[hlthe2b]

60. this piece from dailykos adds another possibility

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/15/202540/074

....Why wouldn't most of the Democrats filibuster Alito? The entire point of the Nuclear Option battle was to reserve the filibuster so Democrats could use it to prevent the court from being tipped into the hands of a Scalia-inspired majority. Alito will almost certainly side with Scalia and Thomas far more than did his predecessor, Sandra Day O'Connor. I was thinking about that the other day, in wondering why there were no clear signs that the Democrats would sustain a filibuster of Alito's nomination. And then it hit me; is it possible that the Democrats have calculated that Alito doesn't represent a net change on the court?

Remember, the original replacement proposed for Sandra Day O'Connor was now-Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts is seen by just about all as a likely clone of O'Connor on many issues. O'Connor was seen as probably the most pro-business Justice on the court, and Roberts was expected to be her clone on those matters. Then Chief Justice Rehnquist died, and Roberts' nomination was transferred from O'Connor--who hadn't yet vacated the bench--to that of Rehnquist.

more

I sure hope there is method to the seeming madness

[McCamy Taylor]

41. Alito is a liar and a sexist, racist pig. He is bad enough.

[KoKo]

49. Exactly......but.......it's a "calculated risk" for Dem Politico's and

they just might take the bait to save "Stephens Spot" on the Supremes. :shrug:

[Donna Zen]

53. May these words help

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.--Patrick Henry

Where is the guarantee that we will be stronger in the future? Where is date certain Justice Stevens leaves? We did not chose this fight, but we must fight with everything we have. It is that important. I don't think many will switch their votes because they believe that the Democrats need strengthening or because the republicans are too strong. The voters we need are currently voting for the macho party, this will not impress them.

One other thing: I understand that because I wish to stand and fight, because I reject the wishy-washy politics of the DLC, because I resent the influence of tainted big money, there are those who label me as a leftist, or even a far leftist. What I am is an American that loves the ideals upon which this land was founded. And I read. I understand that people like me are no longer represented in Washington. So call me what you will, but don't expect me to buy it.

[KoKo]

58. A great post...and must read.. Inspirational..to gather wisdom from those

who've been through this before. A King we had to break away from...no matter if his view of World Dominance was correct or not. And Breaking Away gave some human beings a brief window of history to truly enjoy some freedom...UNTIL NOW!

Thanks for this post...it's truly inspirational.

[Doctor_J]

44. You cross that bridge when you come to it

Right now we have a completely unacceptible candidate about to take the bench. Confirming him would be signing a death Knell for justice in the US. Send him packing, and show Smikr that he needs to pick a sane, seasoned jurist, not a partisan, lying, incompetent crony, for the high court.

[KoKo]

47. But..."THEY" might not see Alito as a Liar the way we do. Calculated Risk

is what "THEY" might be thinking. Repugs kind of "ground them down" when Mz. Alito shed her tears..(many of us think it was a stunt) but it was a "power play."

[UDenver20]

50. Great point ... n/t

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

51. Maybe so, but that is like kinda crazy, ya know?

There may always be one wose lurking in the future.

If we let that stop us, we never act, always wait for that one worst case.

arggghhhh!

[KoKo]

52. .you are meaning "the enemy out there might be WORSE than the

one we KNOW!" I get you.......and if that's what "THEY" are thinking then they are really "out to lunch in their heads." :D

but it's also very SAD for our Democracy...if they go that far...stringing it out...waiting for "tomorrow." :-(

[Dr Fate]

55. It's the "Keep Your Powder Dry"... for the "Battles To Come" argument...

We have heard variations of this strategy over and over during the last 3 election cycles we lost.

"I'll See You In My Dreams!"

[Donna Zen]

56. Or leaving us high and dry?

Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

[Strawman]

57. uh huh

and maybe Santa will fly in to save the day if that happens first.

Those who are not for filibustering want to live in make believe world and think that this entire process is above politics. As long as the guy is qualified, * can appoint any judge of any ideology. If that judge restricts our rights, well that's just the way the ball bounces. It won't be anyone in their families who will be forced to carry their rapists child. You won't find any daughter of a Democratic Senator dead from an illegal abortion. Nope, they'll still have options. If they won't filibuster Alito to replace a swing O'Connor, they won't do jack shit.

[sendero]

59. That makes no sense whatsoever..

.... if we do or don't filibuster Alito - the nuclear option is available at any time. If they use it now, or use it later - exactly what is the difference?

[tritsofme]

61. The logic goes that some moderate Republicans

might be willing to go nuclear on a nominee that is filling the seat of a moderate or conservative, but it would be much more difficult to justify a RW ideologue replacing a liberal justice.

I don't know if I agree with it or not.

[sendero]

65. I'm sure I don't..

... that implies that there is some logic to their position. If that were the case, they'd understand that we can't accept an idealogue in place of the swing moderate.

The Dems need to filibuster, even though they probably cannot stop this confirmation.

They need to show that they can and will fight ONCE IN A WHILE.

[Rene]

66. Then we need some h o n e s t rebugs to vote NO on alito

They've got to find their spines to stand up to busco.
repug conservative does not equal religious whacko.