Read the whole thing. He nails it...absolutely nails it.
Filibustering Alito: The Clarence Thomas FactorA little recent history lesson here: So back in 1991, at the end of the crazed finger-jabbin' circus that was the hearing on Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the vote was a 7-7 tie, with the odious Dennis DeConcini breaking ranks with his party to ensure that the Thomas nomination didn't go down the toilet like so many pubic hairs flicked off so many Coke cans.
<snip>
And, of course, they didn't make it. Sure, sure, Democrats knew that Thomas wasn't qualified, that his nomination was a cynical ploy, a game of racial chicken started by George Bush I. Sure, sure, Democrats called the 52 to 48 vote in favor of Thomas a "statement" or some such shit, but, at the end of the day, Clarence Thomas took Thurgood Marshall's seat on the Supreme Court.
<snip>
See, the debate on Samuel Alito is one of those "If I had known then what I know now" moments. It's one of those "If you went back in time and had a chance to shoot Hitler, would you do it?" moments. (No, the Rude Pundit's not comparing Alito to Hitler - that'd be Bush. And, no, he's not advocating shooting Alito - instead, use a tranq gun on Karl Rove.)
There's many, many reasons to filibuster Alito, ideologically and politically. At the end of the day, sweet Senators, look at Clarence Thomas - look at his decisions, his dissents, his deep desire to eviscerate individual rights and freedoms like they're pig carcasses in the slaughterhouse. Ask yourself if, at the end of another decade and a half, you wanna look back and wonder if you did everything you could, even if you failed, to prevent another extremist from getting on the court. Ask yourself what kind of America would you be looking from. Act like that's what's at stake.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/filibustering-alito-clarence-thomas.html