How many Senators does it take to determine an extraordinary circumstance?

[Tom Rinaldo]

I've been wondering, what exactly would qualify as circumstances extraordinary enough to justify a filibuster against Alito in the eyes of the gang of 14? I'm sure I can think of some. A case of stolen identity perhaps, where it was discovered the real Alito was actually missing and the person seeking to join the Court was instead a skilled impostor. That would probably qualify. Or evidence proving that Alito was really an Iranian double agent, that should do it too. The thing is, why would we need a filibuster to stop Alito from getting onto the Supreme Court if something like that was true? I know the Senate has grown more partisan over the years, but I still have faith they could pull it together to vote Alito down without needing a filibuster if circumstances like those surfaced. Here's the real rub then, it should be obvious to everyone that circumstances extraordinary enough to justify a filibuster will never be extraordinarily obvious to everyone. If they were there would be no need to have the filibuster.

I do get and accept that extraordinary circumstances are supposed to be defined as something really significant, not just a disputed ruling about a portion of a campaign finance law or anything like that. But who decides when a problem with Alito reaches that threshold? Certainly not Senators who have no problem with Alito to begin with. Alito's supporters won't admit there are valid grounds to filibuster against him on, they like Alito the way he is. They WANT Alito on the Supreme Court. It's just Senators who have problems with Alito who are positioned to decide if the problems they have are serious enough, if the circumstances surrounding them are extraordinary enough, to justify a filibuster against Alito. So just forget anything Bill Frist and his allies say about the inappropriateness of threatening a Filibuster against Alito. They really need to excuse themselves from judging this matter. Maybe they can pretend that they own stock in Alito, because for all practical purposes they do.

Here's what I propose. I suggest that the Democrats who already plan to vote against Alito ask themselves the following: Do I have problems with Alito's position regarding Presidential powers relative to the judicial and legislative branches of our government? If the answer is yes, then I humbly suggest they whip out their personal copy of the United States Constitution and review some of the juicier sections, like the Bill of Rights for example. I then suggest they find a major newspaper somewhere, it almost doesn't matter which newspaper they pick, and flip through the pages of a recent weeks worth of stories. Due to an extraordinary set of circumstances they will discover that a major constitutional debate is currently raging throughout our nation.

It involves our fundamental rights as American citizens to be protected from potential abuses by unchecked government power. It involves the specific authority inherent in the Presidency to conduct a war when, where, and how a President sees fit. It involves our fundamental system of checks and balances between the three arms of our government, held dear by our nations founders and enshrined deeply by them in the United States Constitution. And, as circumstances would have it, with each passing day it increasingly looks like the ultimate hearing to determine which authority is and is not legal for the current President to exercise in all of these areas as specified in our Constitution, is headed directly to the Supreme Court to decide. And as further circumstances would have it, the potential swing vote on all of it will likely be cast by a man now nominated by that very same President to serve on the Supreme Court in judgment of him. From a constitutional perspective, the issues can not be more profound, nor the timing more momentous.

It's extraordinary when you think about it.

[leftstreet]

1. 4 to hold the ladder, 1 to screw in the....

...oh, that's not what you meant.
:)

I don't know the answer to your question, but very good post by the way.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Thanks, and extra thanks for "getting it". n/t

[bowens43]

2. it takes 51

41 to filibuster and 51 another 10 to agree not to chnage the rules.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. That's the math that gets us to the bottom line alright

I just get angry at Democrats who play along with this "extraordinary circumstances" to filibuster threshold crap, and then don't apply it to someone like Alito at a time like this. If they refuse to filibuster because they think they can't win, and don't want to look bad losing, then at least have the courage to admit that is their reason.

[0007]

4. I agree! It is a chicken shit way to play poker.

As much as I despise Ben Nelson, at least he comes out and sez he's supporting Alito.

[bowens43]

5. That may not be the reason.

Even if a filibuster is sustainable (and it's probably not in this case) it is a risky political move. We here at DU are not typical. We welcome a filibuster because we hate bush and we welcome the fight. However IMO most Americans will not look favorably on a filibuster, especially one that that fails. I doubt very much that this is a battle the republicans will allow us to win. The bottom line is that to stop a rule change we need at least 6 Republicans and ALL the Democrats in the Senate to say they will not support a rule change.If we filibuster and the republicans change the rules, it will most likely harm us in November.

Reid will KNOW, before the decision is made , whether or not it's winnable. If it's not winnable then a filibuster may not be a good idea.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. I invite you to make the case further

for why it would hurt us in November if a filibuster fails BECAUSE the Republicans change the rules on us. I can see the argument more clearly for how a Democratic filibuster failing due to 60 Senators voting to close off debate might hurt Democrats; our disunity and weakness would be showcased. But if Frist can only stop a Democratic filibuster by invoking rule changes through a straight party line majority vote, what have we lost in your view? The right to filibuster? It's use it or lose it time in my opinion. Being afraid to use it because we may lose it is the same as not having it in my opinion. So it comes down to making our case for why we can not allow Alito to become the swing vote on the Supreme Court. A filibuster can help us do that, especially if the Republicans lack the votes to shut it down under the old rules.