Paging Tay Tay Again! Though they say they KNOW the public

[saracat]

doesn't want Alito, WHY won't the Dems use the filibuster? So what if we don't get him eliminated, it would show we tried. As someone said if this nomination is worth filibustering, what is? Why are they all voting NO but saying he will be confirmed? Is there any point to opposing this guy? I just don't understand. Maybe I am not sophisticated enough but the only thing I can think of is they are letting the public see what a creep the GOP would put on the SCOTUS and will balme them for it come election time. This stinks however as it reminds me of Nader teaching the Dems a "lesson " at the expense of the nation!
Scotus is a lifetime position and it won't matter to me "after' he is seated"if' he is. The damage will have been done.The Dems will have no way to rectify it. Why would they be taking this gamble? Or are they? I keep trying to understand.

[MH1]

1. Who said they won't filibuster? Last I heard it was still an option. n/t

[whometense]

2. As far as I know

- and I've been really busy at work this week, so I may have missed some of the action; please do correct me if I'm wrong - the only dem who's announced he's voting for Alito is Ben Nelson.

That leaves 44 - enough for a filibuster, esp. if some of the moderates can be won over. Is that right?

[saracat]

3. I was reading this in WAPO!

WP: More Democrats Say They Will Oppose Alito: Filibuster Less Likely
More Democrats Say They Will Oppose Alito
But Filibuster Less Likely, Strategists Note
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 20, 2006; Page A04


A procession of Democratic senators, including two who supported the confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., said yesterday that they will oppose the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. They warned that he would not provide a judicial check against the expansion of presidential power or be properly vigilant about protecting the rights of ordinary Americans.

The mounting Democratic opposition underscored the sharp partisan divide that has developed over Alito's nomination, after Roberts was confirmed with 78 votes and solid bipartisan support. But although Democrats appear increasingly united in their opposition to Alito, they remain divided over whether to pursue a filibuster against the nomination.

A filibuster is increasingly less likely, Democratic strategists say, despite pressure from some liberal interest groups for Democrats to keep the option alive. But Democrats are more united in their desire to seek an extended floor debate over Alito -- even as they acknowledge that his confirmation is virtually assured -- because they believe polling shows that the more the American people learn about Alito's record and writings on civil liberties and other subjects, the more they will oppose his addition to the high court.

The newly announced opponents included Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.); Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee; Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Democratic whip; and Sen. Ken Salazar (Colo.). Leahy and Salazar had voted in favor of Roberts. On Wednesday, Sen. Max Baucus (Mont.), another Roberts backer, said he will oppose Alito....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[Inuca]

5. I keep hoping...

... in spite of everything I hear and read that they WILL. Notice that the WP article says that "A filibuster is increasingly less likely, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGISTS say", which I read to mean that they speculate like we do. I would really like to hear something from Byrd... And though I keep hoping that when push comes to shove next week they will at least attempt a filibuster, I am also apprehensive of what will happen if they do. I just finished reading http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011902515.html">Kennedy's statement, very good summary of why Alito on the SC is a scary thought.

[TayTay]

4. I'm not your source on this one.

I am four-square for a filibuster. I give to NARAL, both locally and nationally for the epxress purpose of trying to block nominees like Judge Alito. I have contacted my Senators and I think they would filibuster his confirmation vote on the floor.

To me, this really is a test vote. There are a number of Senators who specifically said in the their campaigns for the Senate that they would act to block anyone who sought to overturn Roe. They collected money on that promise. IMHO, those Senators owe *us* because this is a specific pledge they ran on. (I am thinking of Dianne Feinstein in CA. How can she not filibuster this nominee? She got money from CA residents based on her pledge to keep abortion safe, legal and rare.)

I am sorry Saracet, I cannot help you understand this one. This is a core issue and a defining moment for the Dems in the Senate. They should filibuster this nominee based on his views on abortion. Of course, I also think his extreme views on the power of the Presidency and his disturbing and way out-of-the-mainstream views on granting the President near dictatorial power to do whatever he wants without regard to the civil liberties of Americans is another huge reason to deny this man a seat on the Supreme Court. He is the wrong man at the wrong time.

[karynnj]

12. I think the extreme views on the power of the Presidency are even more

a reason to filibuster than Roe vs Wade. The liklihood is that anyone Bush would nominate will be intent on over turning Roe vs Wade. In fact, if Alito is blocked by a filibuster on primarily that issue there is no way that a person without a strong pro-life background would be nominated. I seriously doubt that this can be stalled till 2009.

The extreme view of the executive branch being far more powerful than the other 2 branch is not accepted by all conservatives. It would be great if we could pull an influential conservative into opposing him.

For Kerry, this is so in line with so many speeches he's given in the Senate. On that issue, he is pure American values, constitution and high school civics class. That's the America all these patriots claim to believe in. This has to be the high ground on this nomination.

[TayTay]

13. I do think there were better things to talk about at the hearings.

But there are a certain number of Dem Senators who ran on the idea that they would stop judges like Alito from overturning Roe. (Dianne Feinstein has collected money from committed CA Dems for years after mounting just these kind of appeals. Her campaign lit says that she would help to hold the line against the extremists who sought to bring back the days of back-ally abortions. She is very, very vulnerable to a charge that she is not doing what she said she would do. This is what she collected money with the express committment to doing. Ahm, this is not good.)

[ProSense]

14. I'm holding out hope

I read somewhere that 37 of the 44 Democrats were committed to voting no. Six were undecided, and I wonder if the six includes any of the Democrats who recently announced opposition?

[karynnj]

16. When speaking from Israel, Kerry indicated he needed to

fully study the hearings before deciding. So, he may even be in that count - though I doubt there's any doubt what he will do.

[whometense]

17. I don't think Kerry has announced

his vote yet, but I think we have a pretty good idea which column he'll be in. :-)

[karynnj]

15. I agree that that should be a reason for her (and others) to vote against

him. I agree that she is not doing what she promised.

I simply don't think that in fighting this it's the right issue. It may be a given that Bush will get someone pro-life (and the Democrats will vote against him), but the question I have is whether the next choice by Bush might be less extreme on power issues.

That said the "best" pro-life judge (though Bush would never nominate one) would be a much more difficult vote for Democrats. Imagine a Massachusetts (or similar state) judge who has views like Casey or Kaine - who on almost all issues is in line with mainstream (even moderate/left) views, but who feels that Roe vs Wade did over reach what the privacy amendment meant in the constitution. Voting for that candidate would really hurt a Democrat with NOW etc, but voting against him would hurt him with many moderates.

[TayTay]

19. This is the Casey situation in PA

The idea behind voting for Casey is that he will vote for funding for the social programs that help women to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

The judging is more difficult as judges are supposed to interpret the law, not create it. We had this situation in Mass when Gay Marriage became a legal concept after the Goodridge case. There are problems with this. (See the archives on this in the BGlobe: http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/)

(Interesting side note: Slavery was declared illegal in Massachusetts in 1781, during the Revolution. It was done by judicial ruling. Hmmmm. See this for more detail: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2h38.html )

[whometense]

20. Good point.

I think in this case anyway, Roe should almost be a side issue.

If no limit is put on presidential power it won't much matter what anyone thinks of Roe.

[kerrygoddess]

22. something I heard on this

From someone on staff with a Judiciary Dem, is that the negative MSM coverage has gotten some of the Dem Senators to back off. There is simply not enough consensus from them for filibuster and I assume they have concerns of losing that ability if Frist pulls nuclear option.

As for DiFi, I have read her statement over and over again from last weekend. She never said she will not filibuster. She said -- "I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster." That's basically the same thing I heard yesterday from my other source. DiFi will not confirm Alito and she can't filibuster if she does not have the backup.

They are all very frustrated from what I understand and at this point so I have been told, they want to move on to issues that they have some opportunity to to get something done -- the NSA hearings that will start in Feb, and some initiatives around the SOTU.

I also heard earlier in the week, that if they do filibuster they will keep it hush until the time arises because of the negative press.

[whometense]

23. That makes sense.

I also heard earlier in the week, that if they do filibuster they will keep it hush until the time arises because of the negative press.

I'd been wondering about that, myself. I don't see that they'd gain a thing by announcing their intention to filibuster ahead of time. It would only serve to calm the angry citizenry, which would be a negative for the dems.

[ProSense]

18. I just posted

in GD-P an article stating that Hispanic leaders are opposed to Alito.

[MH1]

27. Not only that, but his views on the Commerce clause

seem to indicate that he would vote to overturn almost every conceivable regulation against corporations, especially environmental regulations.

From earthjustice.org:

http://www.earthjustice.org/policy/judicial/whats_new/index.html#alito

Alito also wrote a dissent that would have unjustifiably restricted Congress' authority under the "Commerce Clause" (which is the basis for most federal environmental laws) when he claimed that the law prohibiting the possession of machine guns was unconstitutional. Conservative Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn denounced Judge Alito's opinion as "wrong," and called it "legislating" from the bench.

It seems to me this man is a menace on any judicial bench.

[sandnsea]

6. Nelson, Landrieu, Nelson, Pryor

I'm betting they won't sign on to a filibuster and may even vote for the guy. Pryor and Lincoln flip around so much that I can get a read on them. But Nelson and Landrieu are always throwing in the monkey wrench, as does Bill Nelson and maybe even one of the ND Senators. I'm guessing they just don't have the votes.

[whometense]

7. I think you're probably right

that they don't have the votes.

But they sure as hell should. And Chafee, Snowe, Specter, and Collins, at the very least should be voting against Alito.

[sandnsea]

8. Well, I hate to say it

Because I really don't like criticizing Dems, but they did a pretty poor job making the case against Alito. I read Edwards' email and that was how they should have done it. It got sidetracked with CAP and Vanguard. The mine ruling, the retarded boy, abortion and then executive power. That should have been it, but I think that all got lost in the CAP and Vanguard stuff. And here it is Friday and I don't think we've made any headway against Alito at all. I would really like the DNC, or somebody, to start naming names when this stuff goes down.

[TayTay]

9. Sad but true.

And Teddy K went down the rathole on CAP and left himself open to a charge of hypocrsy when it was found out that he belongs to a club at Harvard that excluded women. (That he didn't attend, but still.) I think the Dems should have talked about the other issues.

Sigh!

[Inuca]

10. Agree

Especially EXECUTIVE POWER

[ProSense]

11. What I don't understand is the

Republicans' sweeping approval. Is the pro-choice Republican a myth? Wouldn't this impact them too?

[sandnsea]

21. Did we engage them?

I know on Roberts they said they believed he respected the principle of established law, or something to that regard. I remember I went to a couple web sites hoping they just weren't being heard and was surprised to find they were supporting Roberts. I haven't looked with Alito, it's just too discouraging.

[ProSense]

24. I hope the Republicans

heard from their constituents. In fact, I read that one of the largest (or the largest) Republican pro-choice group opposes Alito's confirmation. The Hispanic community's opposition is also key---and the opposition is about the assault on civil rights. I would think that opposition from these two groups puts some Republicans in an awkward position.

[rox63]

25. Ben Nelson (D?-NE) actually said he supports Alito

So not only won't he join a filibuster, he intends to vote to approve Alito. :puke:

Is there anyone on this forum from Nebraska who can go bitch-slap him for the rest of us? :spank:

[ray of light]

26. yes. and we need to call moderates to get them to cross party lines

I called him anyways! Just call.

And I called Sen. Reid's office to ask them to 'lean' on him...