I am so sick of hearing this nonsense about filibustering Supreme Court nominees

[dsc]

Never, as in not one single, solitary time in the history of the entire nation, has a Supreme Court nominee who didn't face what were widely known to be legitimate ethical problems, been filibustered. Not one, single, solitary time. To take just one example, Thurgood Marshall, who several racist southerners filibustered when he was named to the Appeals Court. But when he was named to the Supreme Court the very same racist Senators didn't filibuster him. It just isn't done. This was a known fact when we voted in 2004 and are known facts when we vote in 2008. There is one, and only one, way to stop the likes of Alito and Roberts, that is to make sure we don't have Republican Presidents. We are in this mess because Gore and then Kerry, didn't become President. For all of this other lies, Bush did exactly and precisely what he said he would do.

For the record we stopped several lower judges using filibusters and via the judiciary committee.

[blondeatlast]

1. You're damn right and I had forgotten about all of that.

It's been a long time since I've ventured into GD?P and this is the first post I clicked on.

Nice work--K&r.

[Vincardog]

2. I am sick that they refused to filibuster asthese FASCIST Supreme Court nominees

[dsc]

5. Never once in the history of the country

Oh, and lets explore the precedent, what exactly would be the difference between us filibustering justices we don't like and them filibustering justices they don't like. I certainly wouldn't want the new standard for justices to be whatever the 40th most conservative Senator decides is OK. The simple fact is that the Supreme Court ought to follow election returns to some extent. I am sick of people who willingly vote for people other than Democrats then turning around and wanting to be protected from their own foolish decisions.

[Vincardog]

7. MAybe you should be telling the Bushilini voters they should not support filibustering

[dsc]

11. name one, one single solitary SC nominee other than Fortas, they have filibustered

Go ahead I am waiting. Other than Fortas who had ethical problems not one single, solitary SCOTUS nominee has been filibustered.

[Vincardog]

15. WTF has that to do with opposing these FASCIST THUGS? They should have.

[dsc]

17. It has everything to do with it

Something that has never, not one single, solitary time, been done in 200 plus years would have never flown.

[Vincardog]

18. And the Wright brothers should have never tried at Kitty Hawk. Give me a break

Who are you working for?

[cascadiance]

47. This is like saying no congress has ever impeached and convicted a president...

... and therefore we shouldn't try to do it now!

There IS a time to do such things! Yes, I'm for trying to have a government that acts with civility towards the other side and does things respectfully. But we DO NOT live in that age now! These f's have not had any kind of respect for our side for the last decade or so and have been stepping all over us! At a time of war, the gloves come off! There may be a time down the road where we can have civil government again, but first we need to get rid of the fascists in power now and the rules that have been erected to allow corporate elites take away the power of the people to put them into power. Once we have that torn down, perhaps we can erect something more honorable and respectful of HONEST opposition. We don't have any of that available to us now. And as long as we don't violate basic rules of ethics in terms of bribery, etc. I say we use whatever rule possible to get these guys out of power!

[ProudDad]

59. WHAT ETHICAL PROBLEMS????

He was a LIBERAL.

Oh, yeah, that's an ethical flaw.

Never mind :sarcasm:

[dsc]

66. As a sitting Justice Fortas took money from groups arguing before

the SCOTUS and again as a sitting Justice he lobbied for LBJ on the war effort. Those are ethical problems.

[endarkenment]

3. I am sick of all the rationalization for why this crap is acceptible,

We did not fight. We did not even try to fight. We bent over. There is no defense for enabling fascism.

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. Exactly!

[firefox_fan]

46. I'm sick too!

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Has any president nominated people so patently unqualified for the job?

The Senate has a constitutional duty to consent on presidential nominations. Implicit in that is a constitutional duty to withhold consent. Past failures to excersise that duty is not an excuse.

[dsc]

6. by a majority vote

We would, with total justification, be outraged if say a Lawerence Tribe or Mario Cuomo were to be filibustered.

[Vincardog]

8. That is why we have elections. The elected people are supposed to REPRESENT US.

[dsc]

12. yes

and like it or not, they won the election, we didn't. I am referring to 2004.

[Vincardog]

14. In 2004 they stole the election AGAIN. VVPB or refuse to recognize SHAM elections

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. God forbid someone who represents the people should run

We have seen time and again that candidates who are not owned body and soul by the corporations have absolutely no chance of winning an election; the corporations will not allow it.

[Vincardog]

16. That is why we have to kick the Fucking parasitic corporations out of our government

[MonkeyFunk]

9. Yes

George H. W. Bush. Thomas was probably unqualified for the job.

Alito and Roberts, though were qualified.

[endarkenment]

10. Senator Kerry puts your nonsense in perspective.

"This decision is a terrible blow to civil rights in our country, and a disturbing reminder why we filibustered Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court in the first place. This decision has turned Brown vs. Board of Education’s promise of fairness and opportunity for all upside down. This is, simply, overheated ideological and judicial activism run amok, and our state and everyone who believes in equal opportunity have work ahead to ensure that progress is not reversed.”"

Have a nice day.

[ProSense]

19. That is a ridiculous argument. It's this kind of political posturing why this country is a mess!

It must be political posturing because who argues against stopping the courts from going wingnut?

I guess nothing ventured nothing gained. That argument could be used to turn back every first in history: the right for blacks to vote, every civil rights legislation. Remember: Never once in the history of this country has a wartime president been defeated? We need firsts! Alito was the absolutely wrong candidate for the bench and there were enough Democratic votes to filibuster. In total, had everyone used their better judgment, there were 47 potential votes to support the filibuster, 42 voted against (only 40 were needed), four Democrats voted for, and one Dem did not vote.

Might I remind you there has never been a woman or African American president either.

Senate Tries Supreme Court Justice


edited typos.

[dsc]

21. Truman and Johnson

were both defeated (they ran for their party's nomination). Incidently nearly every civil rights legislation faced a filibuster. And I would like an answer to this, just what is to stop the GOP from filibustering liberal justices if we had filibustered Alito and Roberts?

[ProSense]

23. Nothing stops them from filibustering anything now!

Both Johnson and Truman decided not to run.

[dsc]

24. then why no filibuster of Marshall?

[ProSense]

30. What point are you trying to make exactly? This was a huge goof! n/t

[dsc]

31. You claim that the conservatives filibuster anyhow

if that is the case, then why didn't they filibuster Marshall? They certainly didn't want him on the court. The simple fact is that there are certain rules and one of them is that Justices don't get filibustered unless they have ethical issues. Alito and Roberts didn't have ethical issues. The one we should have filibustered was Thomas.

[ProSense]

35. "Alito and Roberts didn't have ethical issues." Are you kidding me? n/t

[ProSense]

36. Explain to me how a record of trampling on civil rights and today's vote is ethical?

Segregation ethical! Please stop trying to rationalize a stupid move that put us in a precarious predicament.

[dsc]

37. disagreeing with their policies isn't ethics

The one and only filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee was of a man who was being paid to teach by people who argued before him on the SCOTUS and who had lobbied, while a Justice, to get Democrats to vote for the VietNam war. Neither Alito or Roberts had anything like that in their histories. By your standard conservatives could easily justify filibustering any liberal for the mere fact they favor abortion or gay rights.

[ProSense]

38. Disagreeing with Bush's politics isn't about ethics right? Is supporting torture unethical?

edited for sense.

[ProSense]

39. Is ignoring laws passed by Congress unethical? n/t

[ProSense]

40. Is this unethical:

“Mr. President, if this pattern is not enough to show how truly dangerous Judge Alito is, then take a look at some of his opinions.

“In Sheridan v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co., Judge Alito wrote a lone dissent—opposed by all of the other judges on his court—eight of whom were Republicans— which would have made it more difficult for victims of discrimination to sue their employers. Applying a similarly high standard of proof—one the majority believed would eviscerate the protections of Title VII—Judge Alito dissented from a decision to allow a racial discrimination claim to go to trial in Bray v. Marriott Hotels.

“What is the practical impact of these decisions? They keep victims of discrimination from having their day in court.

“It is not as if Judge Alito’s insensitivity toward victims of discrimination are evidenced only in his judicial opinions. In 1985 job application to President Reagan’s Justice Department, Alito wrote that his interest in Constitutional law was driven, in part, by a disagreement with Warren Court decisions on reapportionment—decisions which established the principle of ‘one person, one vote.’ And he said that he was ‘particularly proud’ of his work to end affirmative action programs.

“Judge Alito’s hostility to individual rights is not limited to civil rights. He consistently excuses government intrusions into personal privacy—regardless of how egregious or excessive they are. In Doe v. Groody, for example, he dissented from an opinion written by then-Judge Michael Chertoff because he believed that the strip search of a 10-year old was ‘reasonable.’ He also thought the government should not be held accountable for shooting an un-armed boy trying to escape with a stolen purse, nor for forcibly evicting farmers from their land in a civil bankruptcy proceeding without any show of resistance.

“This pattern of deference to government power is reinforced by a speech he gave as a sitting judge to the Federalist Society just five years ago.

“In his speech, Judge Alito ‘preach(ed) the gospel’ of the Reagan Administration’s Justice Department: the theory of a unitary executive. Though in the hearings, Judge Alito attempted to downplay the significance of this theory by saying it did not address the scope of the power of the executive branch but rather addressed the question of who controls the executive branch, don’t be fooled. The unitary executive theory has everything to do with the scope of executive power.

“In fact, even Stephen Calabresi, one of the fathers of the theory, has stated that ‘(t)he practical consequence of this theory is dramatic: it renders unconstitutional independent agencies and counsels.’ This means that Congress would lose the power to protect public safety by creating agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission—which ensures the safety of products on the marketplace—and the Securities and Exchange Commission—which protects Americans from corporations like Enron—and the President would gain it.

“Carried to its logical end, the theory goes much further than invalidating independent agencies. The Bush Administration has used it to justify both its illegal domestic spying program and its ability to torture detainees. The Administration seems to view this theory as a blank check for executive overreaching.

You can read a lot more here

[dsc]

41. I think he should have been defeated in an up or down vote

but he wasn't. Like it or not, Bush and the GOP Senate won in 2004. It isn't like Bush didn't promise this sort of Justice. On the contrary he repeatedly promised to nominate this kind of Justice. Sadly 1 out of 3 pro choice voters, 1 out of 4 LGBT voters, 2 out of 5 Hispanic voters, and about 1 out of 3 union workers either didn't care or didn't believe him and thus voted for him giving him his margin of victory. Hopefully those people will believe the next GOP candidate when he says he will nominate Justices like those.

[ProSense]

42. The SCOTUS appointed Bush in 2000. Dems had the votes to filibuster Alito and should have. n/t

[ProSense]

43. "Like it or not, Bush and the GOP Senate won in 2004."

No I don't like it. They've been cheating in elections from phone jamming in 2002 to all the issues, illegal and unethical, coming to light in the prosecutor firings. Is that okay with you too?

[dsc]

48. There is no evidence whatsoever

that they cheated in any 2004 Senate race and Kerry would have at best won an electoral vote victory with a popular vote loss even if he got Ohio. Sometimes the people choose wrong and this is one of those times.

[ProSense]

49. This is about Alito and the filibuster,

but there is a lot we don't know.

Fired prosecutors scandal shines suspicion on 2004 election, and it's not voter fraud

You comment reminds me of the NYT article making premature claims, or claims when the jury is still out.

A lot of these cases are still unfolding .

Back to Alito. Today 's vote, and the one a few days ago, proves why the filibuster should have been upheld.

[ProudDad]

62. THEY'RE FUCKING FASCISTS

to me that's a serious ethical issue.

They are TOTALLY OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM of American thought and theory.

[wisteria]

20. There is always a first time for everything. Alito deserved filibustering.

I am sick of people claiming things can not be done.

[onenote]

25. I don't think the issue is whether something can't be done at all, its whether it

can be done as a political matter. Take the Roberts nomination. Twenty five Democrats voted against cloture, 18 voted for cloture and one (Harkin) didn't vote). Sure, any and all of the Democrats who didn't vote for cloture could have. But take a look at who most them were: 12 of the 18 are from states that voted for chimpy in 2004. Its not that these Democrats couldn't have supported a filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee, its whether they could've done so and not put themselves and, ultimately the Democratic party, at risk.

[ProSense]

27. They voted against him. So what difference does it make? They did not support his nomination! n/t

[onenote]

26. I wish that we could've stopped these guys from being nominated

and that's why I will support whoever the Democratic party nominates. Period. Because anyone appointed by any of the Democratic nominees will be better than anyone nominated by any of the repub nominees.

But filibustering would've been a pointless and ultimately self-defeating gesture, I believe. What were we going to hold out for in place of Alito or Roberts? Someone who a Democratic president would nominate? Wasn't going to happen and no one would have expected it to. Notwithstanding what we may or may not believe about the validity of chimpy's election here at DU, there is no basis for suggesting that most people think he stole the election in 2004. And under those circumstances, the Democrats would've been setting themselves up if they responded to the Roberts and Alito nominations by demanding that, instead, chimpy nominate a clone of William O Douglas.

Again...the way to stop nominations that we don't like is to make sure someone we do like is making the nominations.

[tammywammy]

28. excellent post

I agree.

I wasn't for a filibuster of the SCOTUS nominees. Just for the simple fact that once it's on the table, it'll always be on the table. Just like if we started impeaching Alito and Roberts, you can't just impeach b/c you don't like them. And once you start that ball rolling, it'll come back to bite you in the ass.

[ProSense]

29. Filibustering would have been pointless? Then why did 25 Dems support it?

Alito and Roberts are not your run-of-the-mill conservative judges. Go here and read the links to Alito and also Kerry's speeches.

[dsc]

32. for the same reason that many Senators who knew better voted for the war resolution

If they didn't support the filibuster they would have pissed off the base which was needed for winning offices such as President. Which is the flip side of why people like Kerry and Clinton voted for the war.

[ProSense]

34. That doesn't make sense! The Democrats who didn't support the filibuster voted against Alito! n/t

[onenote]

51. Because they felt SCOTUS nominees should be voted on

Its not really that difficult. They recognize that if they use filibusters against SCOTUS nominees,they are setting a precedent that will be used in the future against SCOTUS nominees that they support. And they voted against the nominee because they didn't support a nominee. If everytime forty senators didn't support a particular action it was stopped, the Senate would cease functioning. Every bill would pass by a margin of at least 60-40. That's never been the case in the past and Senators know it and act accordingly.

[ProSense]

52. They were worried about precedents? From this administration?

Are you kidding?

[onenote]

53. I'm not even sure what your point is

Of course they are concerned that if they take an unprecedented action that they've opened the door for the other side to take that action in the future.

[ProSense]

55. That argument does not hold water!

It's a cop out! The Constitution and civil rights mean something, and they mean more than worrying about whether or not someone will be filibustered in the future. What's that argument: Bush would have nominated someone else. So be it, likewise a future Democratic nominee. This was too important!

edited in bold

[ProudDad]

63. Federalist Society = NAZI PARTY

NO jurist who belongs to this bunch of FUCKS should be allowed within 20 miles of a judicial appointment.

They'd fit right in with the "People's Courts" of Nazi Germany.

[MiniMe]

33. Remember the "nuclear" option

They would have changed the rules of the senate to make all votes 50 or more. In a way, its a shame they didn't invoke it, then the dems would be getting a lot done.

[Stinky The Clown]

44. I agree. I've been trying to make a similar point myownself ......

.... specifically that the essence of the CAUSE goes back to the 2000 election ..... and more specifically, in Florida where some guy who said he wasn't going to challenge .... in fact did.

Here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1204929

Here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1207011

[petunia.here]

45. but mom, everybody else is doing it.

[Zandor]

50. But it's a chance to bash Democrats!!!

Quite a pastime for some.

[sampsonblk]

54. Ridiculous argument. Just plain ridiculous

Just because it isn't done does not mean its wrong.

[ProudDad]

56. As the roberts court would say

"precedents are made to be broken..."

I still blame the cowardly Dems...

[ProudDad]

57. Wrong!!!

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm

Of course it was "conservative Dems" who fucked this one up...

Same kind of cowardly bastards that seem to be leading the Dems now.

[ProSense]

61. Great research! Precedent for filibuster, but there is and always should be room for firsts! n/t

[dsc]

67. From your link

Fortas became the first sitting associate justice, nominated for chief justice, to testify at his own confirmation hearing. Those hearings reinforced what some senators already knew about the nominee. As a sitting justice, he regularly attended White House staff meetings; he briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed the war in Vietnam. When the Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course, Dirksen and others withdrew their support. Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.

end of quote

That was blatently unethical behavior by any standard. Johnson got way too cute here and it blew up in his, and our, faces. We would, with full justification, have had fits if Reagan had pulled this stunt.

[ProSense]

68. I can't believe you're still trying to justify your flawed argument!

Alito should have been filibustered. Period!

[dsc]

69. So you think it is perfectly ethical for a SCOTUS justice to do what Fortas did?

Yes or no. Not some long emotion filled explanation. I was accused of saying Fortas was unethical falsely. So yes or no.

[ProSense]

72. Huh? Filibuster Fortas, but you seem to think Alito and Roberts are poster boys for ethics! n/t

[dsc]

74. legal ethics yes

I have seen not one single, solitary charge against the ethics of either man. Everything was about policy. I have no idea how I would have voted on Fortas, who would have likely lost an up or down vote as well given the filibuster total, but I don't think filibusters over strictly policy issues are a good standard to set for SCOTUS nominees.

[ProSense]

75. Supporting torture is legal ethics? You have blinders on! n/t

[ProSense]

77. Repealing civil rights is legal ethics? n/t

[David__77]

58. I agree in part.

I find it wonderful that so many Democrats voted against cloture, however. Bush changed things, not Democrats. He declared war on the "cordiality" remnents in US politics. Democrats do need to use all political tools at their disposal to get desired results at this point. But if masses aren't in the streets and otherwise enraged and demanding this, then can we blame the wavering elected Democrats?

[LoZoccolo]

60. I give my recommendation to this thread!

Also notable is the fact that the two latest conservative justices had a harder time getting confirmed than any of the liberal ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_supreme_court#Current_membership

[madfloridian]

64. They allowed extremists to be appointed. You are wrong.

Without standing up.

It was their job to protect the rights of women, to protect the rights of the people against corporations...they did not.

You are just wrong.

[dsc]

71. No it was the voters job

and they didn't do it. Bush repeatedly, over and over again, vowed to put Alito type judges on the court. 1 in 3 pro choices either didn't care or didn't believe him. 1 in 4 LGBT voters either didn't care or didn't believe him. 1 in 3 union members either didn't care or didn't believe him. 2 in 5 Hispanics either didn't care or didn't believe him. They, and anyone else who didn't care or didn't believe him are to blame.

[Usrename]

65. You are completely 180 degrees wrong about history.

No president, ever, has received up or down votes on all his court nominees.

That's pure bullshit talking points from the right wing.

It just is not true.

Try and look up what rule 4a in the Senate Judiciary Committee was all about, and try and find out how Orin Hatch decided to interpret that rule.

Up until 2002, at least one minority vote was required to get a judge out of committee. This rule was put in place to keep fillibusters of judges off the floor of the Senate. They were shot down in committee instead.

Hatch decided to ignore the rules of the Senate completely, he wanted to nuke the Senate, along with a bunch of other assholes.

Get your history right if you are going to make this argument. Because history shows your argument is bullshit.

[Usrename]

70. Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
On The Breach Of Judiciary Committee Rules
March 27, 2003



It should concern all members of the Committee, of both parties, that during the course of the February 27 business meeting, the Committee’s current majority repeatedly violated our longstanding Committee rules and unilaterally declared the termination of debate on two controversial circuit court nominations. This is no small matter. It is of significant importance not only for now, but also for the future, and my detailed statement this morning is offered so the record will be clear for audiences now, and later.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200303/032703d.html

Get your history correct.

It isn't all that difficult.

First, stop listening to the right-wing noise machine. They are liars.

[dsc]

73. Those are circuit court nominations

which have had a different standard. To cite one example, Marshall was filibusted on his appeals court nomination but not his SCOTUS one.

[ProSense]

76. Now Leahy is wrong? One example and the fact that Alito was wrong for the courts.

Do you think Justice Breyer is wrong about the assault on the courts?

[dsc]

78. I think that is what elections are about

We lost. I see no principled difference between filibustering their qualified nominees and them filibustering ours. The rule, for two centuries, has been that qualified SCOTUS nominees don't get filibustered. I don't want to see the next Democratic Congress have to get Imhoff's permission to appoint SCOTUS nominees.

[ProSense]

79. Whether it's a SCOTUS or lower court, it makes no difference.

Filibuster was the right thing to do. Oh and Gore won! What they did in that case was not ethical. All the things they're being investigated for are not ethical. Let's not go there again.

[ProSense]

81. Btw, is it your opinion that they won so we have to deal with Iraq?

A lot of Bush supporters, 25% of the country is equal to millions, don't believe what Bush did was unethical? Is that OK?

[dsc]

84. The Senate won an election too

On Iraq Congress is given a coequal, some would suggest leading, role (declaration of war). We should cut of funding to the war.

[Usrename]

82. You are really being hard-headed about this.

Do you really think that there won't be any filibustering of liberal justices when the time comes?

Don't you think that no matter who is in power they should have to find someone acceptable to a supermajority in order to have them serve on the Supreme Court?

And what about that Meyers nomination? Why was that necessary?

[Warren Stupidity]

85. Bush 'won' two hugely questionable elections.

The first one only those with blinders on refuse to admit was a farce that involved, ironically, a compliant supreme court arbitrarily and corruptly selecting their party's candidate as the 'winner', and the second one remains an inexplicable statistical anomaly. The argument of a mandate for bush to choose whomever he pleases seems a bit off tune under the circumstances.

[onenote]

87. We can all agree that chimpy's victories were questionable

But it doesn't change much. Do you think he's not really the president? Here's a test. Call up the secret service, give them your name and address and threaten chimpy. Then challenge your arrest by arguing to a court that he's not really the president.

I agree that there were all sorts of shady goings on in 2000 and 2004. But the fact is that most people don't see it that way.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. It invalidates an argument based on propriety and precedent.

Yes the cabal occupies the white house. However the OP hung his case around propriety and precedent and we are in a situation that is unprecedented and is vastly improper.

[onenote]

89. not if the "situation" as we view is not viewed the same way by a majority

that's where things get hung up. We may feel that chimpy's election(s) were "vastly improper" but the majority of the public doesn't. So propriety and precedent probably do still matter.

[Warren Stupidity]

90. "the majority of the public doesn't."?

You know this how?

But it really doesn't matter much. The situation we are in is unprecedented and vastly improper. Public opinion does not alter this reality. It is a simple fact.

[onenote]

91. Polls consistently show that a large majority of voters

are very or somewhat confident that their votes will be counted accurately while only a relatively small minority are "not very confident" or 'not confident at all" of this result. The fact that pollsters keep getting this result year after year is a strong indication that a majority doesn't buy into the notion that the election results have been rigged.

[Warren Stupidity]

92. I've actually never seen those polls.

However you are simply making a new argument to supplement the failed argument that it would be improper to fillibuster fascist nominees. I don't really care if the vast majority thinks that Bush was legitimately elected or not. This regime long ago moved outside the bounds of normalcy and propriety on many grounds: from election fraud, to the fraud and deceipt over the invasion of Iraq, from the casting aside of the geneva conventions, to the clearly illegal warrantless wiretapping, propriety simply is not relevant.

[ProSense]

93. Which polls say that?

This was shortly before the 2006 election:

The embrace of the democratic process comes despite the view of some that it is flawed, with significant percentages saying their votes do not count. Only 45 percent of Democrats are very confident their votes will be counted, and only 30 percent of blacks are confident. Almost six in 10 of all voters polled had a lot of confidence their votes will be counted, according to the AP-Pew survey.

Voter Confidence Declines, Survey Says

[onenote]

94. here are a couple

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html
(scroll down to the fourth question from the bottom)

http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm
(scroll around half way down the page)

These polls are not that far off what the story you quote states: Democrats are less confident than repubs and independents that votes will be counted correctly. But if around half of Democrats think votes will be counted accurately, and larger majorities of indies and repubs feel that way, that means a lot of people aren't going to be sympathetic to the argument that its okay for Democrats to break with precedent because chimpy wasn't legitimately elected.

[ProSense]

95. The breakout is different, but they are similar overall. Still, what does it have to do with

precedent? The filibuster and none of the investigations have anything to do with the legitimacy of Bush as presidency. Everyone knows the circumstances of his selection by the SCOTUS and he ran for office again in 2004.

[onenote]

97. I apologize if the point is getting lost in all the posting,

but its simply that using the issue of the legitimacy of chimpy's presidency as a justification for an essentially unprecedented filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee on the Senate floor would have been a mistake given the public's general apathy or lack of support for the notion that chimpy's presidency is illegitimate.

[ProSense]

98. First of all, it's not

unprecedented. And second, there are many constitutional experts who don't agree with that argument. Here is one.

[Usrename]

80. I don't know how to make the facts any simpler.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of judges have never gotten an up or down vote, to all the courts, including the Supreme Court.

What is so different about how you think justices are selected for the Supreme Court? The same advice and consent clause in the Constitution applies to all judges.

Did you even read Leahy's statement?

Orin Hatch violated the rules of the Committee. Do you understand that in accordance with the rules of the Committee that Roberts and Alito would never even get to the floor of the Senate?

Why can you not accept that you are completely wrong about this?

These facts of history should not be in dispute here.

Again, I suggest to you that you first abandon the talking-points of Orin Hatch and try to look at this subject in a more honest fashion. It should soon become clear that Hatch is a lying piece of shit, and nothing that he says can be taken as fact.

[dsc]

83. Thomas got there

and I don't think he had any majority support. As to your other point about supermajorities I think that would be a horrid idea. Do we really want the next Democratic President to have to get 60 votes for his or her nominee? Frankly I don't want that.

[onenote]

96. Can you point to the SCOTUS nominees that have been filibustered?

The Leahy statement has nothing to do with SCOTUS nominees. Even Harriet Meiers, who didn't get an "up or down vote" wasn't filibustered -- she withdrew before the debate even started based on the fear that she would get an up or down vote and would lose.

Also, the Leahy statement related to a specific rule applied by the JUdiciary COmmittee to the Committee's consideration of any matter (not judicial nominations). As for whether Hatch violated the rules of the committee, that sadly is a matter of interpretation and the Committee chair typically gets the last word. Leahy is absolutely right that under Rule IV, in order to pass a motion to bring a matter to a vote in the Judiciary Committee it is necessary that one member of the minority party support the motion. Hatch's explanation for why that rule didn't prevent him from calling a vote on the Cook and Roberts nominations to the Court of Appeals was that the rule does not limit the prerogative of the Chairman calling a vote without waiting for a motion. Now, that may be one bullshit explanation, but the way things work in the Senate, when the Chairman interprets a rule, that interpretation typically is binding. Of course, the good news is that now that the Democrats are in control of the Committee, that same interpretation holds -- Leahy should be able to take action to end Committee consideration of a matter and bring it to a vote even if every repub wants to keep on yammering about it. If Leahy isn't taking this position, he's making a mistake imo.

In any event, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with issue of filibustering SCOTUS nominees. As far as I know, there was no attempt by the Democrats to prevent a Committee vote on either Roberts or Alito. I could be wrong about that and would be interested if anyone has more specific information on that point.

[depakid]

86. And Alito didn't have known ethical problems? Please.

I really am sick and tired of apologist posts like this. And- for the record- damn near every single judge- no matter how extreme, has gotten onto the bench one way or another.

As to the cowardice re: Alito

Senate Democrats are pressing Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. about his rulings on cases that involved financial companies in which he had investments, a sign that ethics questions may play a role in his confirmation hearing.

In letters and private meetings this week, several Democratic senators asked Alito for fuller explanations of why he ruled, as a federal appellate judge, on cases regarding Vanguard and Smith Barney Inc. after promising to recuse himself from those cases. Alito had at least $390,000 in Vanguard mutual funds when he ruled in a 2002 case that favored the company. He also ruled in a 1996 case involving Smith Barney, which was his brokerage firm.

.......

When the Judiciary Committee confirmed Alito to the appellate court in 1990, he promised in writing to disqualify himself from any cases involving Vanguard or Smith Barney. But in 2002, he and two other judges ruled in Vanguard's favor by dismissing a complaint that the company had improperly seized some private accounts and blocked the owner's widow from obtaining the money in them. When the woman complained, the court set aside the judgment and had another panel of judges hear the case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902073.html

And THAT's from the Washington Post! Go figure...

The Democrats had AND have the power to put the brakes on the far right agenda- they simply choose NOT to do so- and even worse- they make up excuse after excuse, just as they did with Alito.

That's NOT leadership- and that's precisely why people get cynical and stay home on election day.

[Toots]

99. Just "Bork" their ass and get it done with..

Never in the history of the entire USA has there been such an economical turn around as when Bush* took office. Never in the History of the USA was there such economic expansion as during Clinton's term. I could go on and on with "never in the History of the USA" but I won't. Your argument is very weak...

[BootinUp]

100. Few of the regular congress bashers at DU have any real concept

of politics imho.

[ProSense]

101. On the SCOTUS' repeal of 100-year-old antitrust law

On the SCOTUS' repeal of 100-year-old antitrust law

[ProSense]

102. Justice Breyer: "Rarely in the history of the court have so few undone so much so quickly."

Justice Breyer: "Rarely in the history of the court have so few undone so much so quickly."

[ProSense]

103. No More Roberts or Alitos?

No More Roberts or Alitos?

This is good stuff!

[ProSense]

104. Question: Why did Roberts and Alito turn out so conservative? Answer: Partisan entrenchment

Question: Why did Roberts and Alito turn out so conservative? Answer: Partisan entrenchment

[ProSense]

105. The Florida recount and signing statements

The Florida recount and signing statements