What will happen if Alito nomination is defeated? History has an answer

[Wordie]

Another argument against a fillibuster bites the dust...

What will happen if the Alito nomination is defeated? History has an answer

Some who do not want to see Alito on the Supreme Court ask why it’s worth fighting to defeat the nomination since George W. Bush could just come up with another, equally objectionable nominee if Alito is rejected. Here’s our answer.

First of all, each nomination has to be evaluated on its own merits, and a nominee whose record shows him or her to be unfit for a lifetime seat on our nation’s highest court should not be confirmed.

In addition, history has shown that when a president doesn’t get his way with his first or second choice for the Supreme Court, he may select someone with broader support and a more moderate record the next time around. For example, President Nixon twice failed to get a nominee confirmed to the Supreme Court spot vacated by Justice Abe Fortas: the nominations of Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr. in 1969 and G. Harrold Carswell in 1970 both failed due to Senators’ ideological and other objections to the nominees. President Nixon’s third try, Harry Blackmun, was a consensus nominee who was easily confirmed. And of course, he turned out to be a moderate Justice, most well known for having authored Roe v. Wade.

And don’t forget what happened after President Reagan nominated Robert Bork to a vacancy on the Supreme Court in 1987. Judge Bork’s views were very extreme -- he had publicly stated that there was no constitutional right to privacy, and he advocated narrowing other fundamental legal protections such as the right to free speech and to equal protection of the law. After a loud public outcry, the Senate rejected the Bork nomination. President Reagan’s second choice, Douglas Ginsburg, asked that his nomination be withdrawn after a controversy arose over his past use of marijuana. President Reagan then selected Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed unanimously. Upon his confirmation, Kennedy reportedly received a note from Justice Blackmun welcoming him to "the good old No. 3 club." Although Justice Kennedy is certainly conservative, he has proven to be very different from Bork. For example, Kennedy authored the Court’s opinion in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas, holding that the constitutional right to privacy bars a state from criminalizing consensual sex between adults.

And the fallout from the Bork battle didn't end with Justice Kennedy's confirmation. For the next opening after that, in 1990, the first President Bush -- eager to avoid another heated confirmation fight a la Bork's -- named David Souter, who has turned out to be a moderate on the Court.

Of course, there’s no way to know what will happen next if the Senate rejects the Alito nomination. But Alito, don’t forget, is Bush’s second choice, picked after Harriet Miers' nomination was withdrawn. If the Senate says "no" to Alito, perhaps the White House, on its third try, will come up with a qualified, less extreme nominee. History suggests this is no pipedream.

http://www.nominationwatch.org/2006/01/what_will_happe.html

If you follow the link, make sure to look around at some of the other anti-Alito things posted on the Nomination Watch site. Its got some good ammo to use in your LTTEs and emails to Congress.

[babylonsister]

1. Not too 'wordie', great info! nt

[NMDemDist2]

2. excellent info, K & N n/t

[Dr Fate]

3. As opposed to giving in to Bush, which has NEVER benefited the U.S.

n/t

[Wordie]

5. What's the point of preserving the fillibuster, but losing the war?

Alito is a huge threat, and once confirmed, he will be there for decades. That's something worth risking the fillibuster for; I can't imagine anything likely to come up for a very long time in the future that could be more important.

It makes no sense not to call the Republicans bluff on this, imho.

I've been putting in my letters something urging the Senators to follow Harry Reid's lead in what to do about this. I trust Harry to sense the political winds better than just about anyone. He's been right on the money every time so far. I'm hoping he says to go for it. If he doesn't, I'll trust his instincts.

[Dr Fate]

31. I've heard this "battles to come" a lot over the last 3 elections we lost.

We are always "keeping our powder dry" for "the next battle," arent we?

[mom cat]

4. Thanks...K&R Keep fighting this one!

[IndyOp]

6. Excellent post! Thanks. (nt)

:kick:

[Peggy Day]

7. I called many R congressmen in many States

Anyway, I can't believe that the congress would vote against itself. It's almost like they want to fail.
I still love y'all
Love to spend a night with Peggy Day

[nicknameless]

8. So many reasons to reject Alito, regardless of whomever * picks afterward.

And O'Connor will remain on the Court until a replacement is confirmed, so we shouldn't feel pressured into giving fascists a pass.

[Wordie]

13. Bush and the Republicans have been weakened since "nuclear option"

threat was made. It's a different ball game now. Would the Republicans dare to really use the "nuclear option"? Would they have the support of the country? I think there's a real question that they would. The next few days are crucial. I'm eager to hear what Dems are really saying.

[jillan]

9. wow - check it out-------}

http://www.nominationwatch.org/2005/12/momentum_agains.html

:evilgrin:

[NMMNG]

11. Excellent! Let's hope all of the protests have some effect.

:thumbsup:

[Rainscents]

12. Wow... looks good!

Ok, when do they all come out and start scraming?!?!

[TheBaldyMan]

10. K&R'd great link

with lots of info on 'nukes' and filibustering - thanks wordie

[depakid]

14. One of the best arguments for a filibuster

Is that the corporate media has been making a full court press to try to stop it.

ANYTHING that the corporate media supports is ipso facto NOT in people's best interests.

That's why you'll never hear honest analysis like what's in that link.

[Glidescube]

15. Didn't the ACLU shower him with accoldades?

If so then he is as good as in.

[ClassWarrior]

16. Nice try. This is the first nomination since Bork that the ACLU OPPOSED.

Enjoy your stay at DU.

NGU.

[FogerRox]

24. It was the BAr ASsociation that gave Alito a Qualified rating

Ahem

[radio4progressives]

28. to be specific, it was the ABA American Bar Association. But ...

the National Bar Association came out OPPOSING this nominee. (appeared in the confirmation hearings and argued their point of view)

[batmansmom]

26. Didn't you learn we check our facts?

Quote:

"The ACLU opposes a Supreme Court nominee only when his or her record clearly indicates that the nominee is fundamentally hostile to civil liberties. With that context and standard in mind, we believe there is no choice but to oppose the Alito nomination."

Here's the link: http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=iTfn9AW3y_x9d174BvMD9A..

[formercia]

17. What's the rush to confirm Scalito

Sandra Day O'Connor still sits on SCOTUS and until she leaves, Scalito is redundant.

[Mind_your_head]

18. Thanks for the info ~ K & R

This is very helpful info for forming letters/emails to the Senators!

[mojavegreen]

19. Interesting article, but.....

authentic Democrats should always question the role of the American judiciary itself, and not simply grill the SCOTUS nominees and think that is sufficient. It's debatable that the SCOTUS should have the power that it does; moreover, there are all sorts of problems with the State and municipal civil and criminal courts that most liberals are simply not aware of, or ignore. Judges' overrule right for one: that modern judges have the power to overrule any sort of evidence whenever they want to is not much different than the obscene power of judges from the 12 century.

Creating tribunals instead of single judges, improving the grand jury system (allow indictments of judges), involving psychologists and scientists in the courts to a greater degree, and ending immunity for corrupt or incompetent judges and prosecutors are just some of the reforms that should be on the table. End the tyranny of the Black Robe gang.

[No Exit]

20. That's total bullshit, what you call "judges' overrule right"

I am in courtrooms every week. You don't know what you're talking about.

Don't assume I have been a "liberal". I am a former prosecutor, and voted republican up through 2000.

You are buying into the bullshit that wingnuts are selling--this crap about "activist judges". Bullshit.

What we have is an ACTIVIST PRESIDENT. He claims to want "strict constructionists" on the bench... then he goes and makes law. That is EXECUTIVE ACTIVISM.

Lawmaking is the province of the legislative branch.

Get off the kool-aid.

[mojavegreen]

21. Courts are neither democratic nor logical

The courts are not democratic. That's a liberal myth. Even when they appear liberal--say by granting rights to gays--they are not liberals.

I recently witnessed a judge exercise his overrule right in a courtroom a few weeks ago. A report from a probation officer contained numerous factual errors; the defendant objected, and provided all sort of evidence (including sheriff's report) showing the report was wrong, and the judge overruled it. That happens ALL the time. Introduction of evidence can be overruled. It's just the big govt. liberals have this idea that judges are some sort of liberal authority when they are petty TYRANTS, as are the prosecutors.

The Law is not science, nor is it even logic. American law is a joke, meant to protect the wealthy and the property owners, and really a continuation of the Tory common law.

[No Exit]

22. "American law is a joke, meant to protect the wealthy and the property

owners, and really a continuation of the Tory common law." Agreed. As it stands now, that is a true statement. And what better person to lead the movement to continue to rape the citizen, than TORY George W. Bush and his TORY henchmen?

Sorry your friend's probation hearing--or probation violation hearing--didn't go well. I wasn't there, so I don't have the facts.

You can go on and on about the courts, a la wingnut propaganda, but the fact is, our most pressing problem right now is the executive branch. We have a president who thinks he is a king.

The only chance ordinary people have is when there is tension or fighting between the various factions of the rich/powerful/craven. It is only then that ordinary people can catch a few falling crumbs.

That's why I'm very pleased to watch the republican debacle currently going on in the house of representatives.

And while we're at it, let's not forget who WROTE those laws you don't like, in the first place: for the last decade, it's been the REPUBLICAN congress. And it shows--the country is in worse shape than it has been in for a long, long, time.

[mojavegreen]

23. That's not exactly true

The attempt by some democrats to make the judiciary seem like some last bastion of truth and decency against the executive and legislative branches is mistaken. I'm against BushCo, and in favor of the filibuster but it's time for the Democrats to acknowledge a few libertarian ideas and oppose the power of the courts. That the State and Fed judges make liberal decisions occasionally does not at all entail they are some replacement for a rational democratic politics. Ending the immunity of judges and prosecutors is one non-partisan proposal that democrats ought to support, even if some of those who you term "wingnut" (you don't mean straight caucasian male do you?) also support it.

ID politics is a real problem for much of what passes for the left these days.

[No Exit]

29. "some of those you term 'wingnut' (you don't mean straight caucasian

male do you?)"

I've had it.

I've fucking had it. I am so fucking sick of, whenever I try to engage certain people--whenever I try to tell certain people that I was WRONG in backing the republicans for all those years--they then start up with the "you must be some bleeding heart tree-hugging blah blah blah liberal wacko" bit. Yes, I know those weren't your words, but that is the SENSE OF WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. I recognize it immediately, because I endured it over and over on certain websites which were home to both democrats and republicans.

Fuck your accusation: fuck your accusation that I use the term "wingnut" to "refer to straight caucasian (sic) males". I call paranoid. You are paranoid.

You are talking to someone who was opposed to the feminist movement.WAS. (Until George W. Bush converted me to the other side of the political spectrum: the side that is against HIM.) Someone who is not homosexual, although I must shamefacedly :sarcasm: admit that I never advocated killing or imprisoning people for being homosexual. You are talking to someone who voted for: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush (wish I'd shot myself in the head b/f I'd ever voted for any Bush), DOLE (for Christ's sake), one vote for Perot, and I VOTED FOR GEORGE W. BUSH in 2000.

So SHUT THE FUCK UP with your little insinuations that I would use the term "wingnut" to refer to someone simply b/c he was a "straight caucasian (sic) male."

I am just guessing here, but I think you had a bad experience with a judge either in a child support or other domestic relations type case, or, as I speculated earlier, you watched a judge slam a friend whose probation officer allegedly lied on him.

So I hardly consider you to be unbiased regarding courts--at least, as long as you continue to be angry about the outcome of whatever court case it was that involved you personally.

I consider the judiciary to be one of the three co-equal branches of government. In the current political conditions, I consider the judiciary to be the last branch which has not been completely bought, paid for, and taken over by the Bush/GOP machine. That is the only reason I would favor the judiciary over the other branches. This is a temporary bias; should the judiciary go the way of the other 2 branches, you will hear ME screaming about its corruption just as loud as YOU are speaking about it now.

Objectively speaking, the 3 branches are co-equal. Subjectively speaking--that is, looking at how it is now, and looking at what peoples the branches currently--the judiciary has more going for it than do the filthy, murderous republican-controlled executive branch, and the greedy, bought-and-paid-for, republican-controlled legislative branch. This may change soon, though, as the Bush administration is about to install its monarchist Alito in the highest court.

Yes, I used to be a supporter of republicans. NEVER AGAIN. NEVER. As in, NOT EVER.

Get the picture: Junior Bush is driving away people who used to support the republican party. Just as he is driving away nations who used to support the United States. Junior Bush must be impeached and convicted.

[Wordie]

25. It was Alito who thought up the idea of "signing statements" while working

in the Reagan WH. I agree completely that we have an activist executive.

And although the wingnuts would fail to see it, we would have a RW activist judge in the case of Alito. But they are only concerned about liberal "activism," anyway.

[No Exit]

30. Oh, but you see, it's not "activism" when THEY do it!

:sarcasm: Just as it's not "greedy sleazy personal injury plaintiffs and ambulance-chasing trial lawyers" when THEY (see: Santorum, Lott) file a personal injury suit.

[radio4progressives]

27. excellent post ...

tried to nominate but i guess it's over 24 hours old..so it wouldn't let me..

but this is an excellent piece to keep handy, bringing up points that never even occurred to me!

imagine that! ;)