Alito -- NOT a "Done Deal"

[pat_k]

The DC parrots are out in force.

"Squawk! It's over! Done Deal! Squawwwkkkk! Dems failed! Squawk! Inevitable!

They are trying to convince themselves, deny reality.

IT IS NOT OVER!

If you know the fascists are a menace, YOU MUST DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER to make the Alito Filibuster a reality. We have no choice. We must fight. We must open their eyes to the fact that they have no choice either.

It's not about any issue. Nope -- not even abortion. It's not about any legal argument, unless you want to talk about the Bush v. Gore treason. It's not even really about the next election. It's about our own self-esteem/sense of empowerment and whether we can foster any in the near future -- or ever.

Clearly, there is no downside here. This one is black and white.

Prove Their/Our Strength, Conviction, and Courage
OR
Prove Their/Our Weakness, Equivocation, and Cowardice

We/They have no choice This is it. Do or Die.

Alito is emblematic of unlimited executive power. The fight against Alito is our Normandy in the campaign to drive out the Bush regime and the ever-expanding dictatorial powers they claim.

It's simple. The truth is plain for all to see. The Bush syndicate is not "pushing the bounds of executive power," they are not "out of bounds." We must reject their euphemisms. They have committed crimes against our constitutional democracy. Crimes. We need to call them that.

The fascist propagandists are doing what they always do -- burying the truth in manufactured complexity, euphemism, and deceptive "debate".

The process is not new. The most "sophisticated" are the most vulnerable. In D.C. the "professionals" (reporters, analysts, elected officials) are the key recipients and unwitting vehicles of propaganda. With the force of authority, they pass along the outlandish and tortured arguments that the USA is a dictatorship. If they do not stand and fight Alito with everything they've got, they legitimize those tortured arguments.

We CAN open their eyes. Like the child who knew the emperor had no clothes, you don’t need to be a constitutional scholar to recognize high crimes and abuse of power.

We are the voice of truth. The Emperor has NO CLOTHES.

They know it. They can see it. Their self-delusion is a house of cards.

Get out there and knock it down!

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. As one who shares a home with thee birds

they would not be repeating human speech... sorry...

That said, time to fight

[Cocoa]

2. Harry Reid is going to pressure the wavering dems on Wednesday

let's soften up Ben Nelson, Diane Feinstein, etc. in the meantime. :bounce:

[depakid]

4. He'd better- that's his job

and so far, he's had a pretty poor track record.

There need to be real consequences for repeatedly undermining traditional Democratic values. That's the only way this sort of thing will ever stop- and that's the only way the dems will regain any relevance again in national politics.

[Senator]

7. <deleted>

[Straight Shooter]

15. Excellent point! "repeatedly undermining traditional Democratic values."

:thumbsup:

[Wordie]

20. Here's some ammo, from Media Matters, re: Feinstein's questions to Alito

ABC's Stephanopoulos omitted key part of Alito quote to claim Alito had "backed down" from supporting strong executive power

Summary: On ABC's World News Tonight, George Stephanopoulos cropped a clip from Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito's nomination hearing to suggest Alito had "backed away from past statements suggesting a supremely powerful president." But contrary to Stephanopoulos's assertion, the entirety of Alito's response illustrated that he has not, in fact, "backed away" from earlier views on executive power.

On the January 12 broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight, ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos cropped a clip from Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s nomination hearing to suggest that Alito had "backed away from past statements suggesting a supremely powerful president." But contrary to Stephanopoulos's assertion, the entirety of Alito's response illustrated that he has not, in fact, "backed away" from earlier views on executive power.

Stephanopoulos' segment featured a clip of Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asking Alito: "If we have explicit authority under the Constitution to pass a law, and we pass that law, is the president bound by that law?" Alito was then shown as replying: "The president is bound by statutes that are enacted by Congress." However, in his full response, Alito also indicated that the president is not bound by congressional statutes when such statutes are unconstitutional. The second half of Alito's quote, which Stephanopoulos omitted, is the exception that swallows the rule: the president is bound by statute (the first half), except when he is not (the second half) -- specifically, when that statute is unconstitutional. The full quote indicates that Alito did not in any way "back[] down" from previously expressed views on executive power.

In his full response to Feinstein's question, Alito said:

The president, like everybody else, is bound by statutes that are enacted by Congress, unless the statutes are unconstitutional, because the Constitution takes precedence over a statute.

But in general, of course, the president and everybody else is bound by statute. There is no question about that whatsoever. And the president is explicitly given the obligation under Article II to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. So he is given the responsibility of making sure that the laws are carried out.

Alito's comments came in response to questioning by Feinstein on presidential authority and on the provisions of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) relevant to the current debate over the president's recently exposed authorization of warrantless surveillance in the United States in possible violation of FISA.

Referring to the cropped clip of Alito, Stephanopoulos said: "Democrats call that a platitude, but bottom line is they could not box in Alito on the big issues." But consideration of Alito's full sentence, rather than only the part Stephanopoulos aired, demonstrates that his statement in its entirety was, in fact, a platitude -- a truism learned in the first year of law school: A president is bound only to follow statutes that Congress had the constitutional authority to pass. The statement only raises questions; it doesn't answer them. What is the scope of Congress' constitutional authority? What is the scope of the president's constitutional authority? Alito's statement says nothing about that balance of power, much less anything about his views on whether FISA unconstitutionally restricts the president.

From the January 12 broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And he backed away from past statements suggesting a supremely powerful president.

ALITO: I certainly didn't mean that literally at the time, and I wouldn't say that today. The branches of government are equal.

FEINSTEIN: If we have explicit authority under the Constitution to pass a law, and we pass that law, is the president bound by that law?

ALITO: The president is bound by statutes that are enacted by Congress.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Democrats call that a platitude, but bottom line is they could not box in Alito on the big issues. Nothing Judge Alito said here will keep him off the court or constrain him once he's on the court.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601130014

[BurningDog]

22. I dont see a problem with that.

Isn't that how our government is supposed to work?

[Wordie]

23. I'm not clear on what you mean. Could you clarify? eom

[BurningDog]

25. Clarification:

He said that the president, along with everybody else in the country, is required to abide by laws passed by congress.

The exception is : The only way that the president (or anyone else for that matter) shouldn't have to abide by those laws if the laws are unconstitutional. I don't see how the overturning of unconstitutional laws equates to a supremely powerful president. Even if the overturning of the law increases executive powers, congress has the power to amend the constitution.

Granted, I wish he would have given specific answers to specific questions, however until the "Ginsburg Precedent" of not answering specific questions is settled, I don't see that happening from ANY court nominee.

[Wordie]

28. So the issue rests on what Alito would see as unconstitutional powers

of the President, which is my point. Alito has made several statements indicating his belief in a much expanded range of Presidential powers, that many would not agree with as being constitutional. However, if we make Alito the referee in deciding those sorts of issues, they are likely to be resolved in favor of the expansion of powers. His answer was not satisfactory.

[pat_k]

30. It's Worse. He showed his true colors in his answer to Biden's question.

Sen. Biden extracted an amazing revelation -- one that the entire DC analstocracy seems to have missed.

Thanks to liveoaktx, here's the video of Biden's question. At 09:45 we have:

Let's say we didn't want the President to invade Iran. The administration argues that we could pass a resolution saying "Do Not Invade Iran. You Have No Authority to Invade Iran", and the President could -- the next day -- invade Iran.

...So it is a really kind of important whether or not you think the President does not need the authorit of the United States Congress to wage a war when there is NOT an imminent threat against the United States. And that's my question.

Alito said he couldn't offer an opinion -- he'd figure it out if the question came before the court.

An outrageous response. Alito is telling us he doesn't know whether or not the USA is a dictatorship. For him, "dictatorship or constitutional democracy" is just another of those pesky open questions.

Think about it. Consider the situation:

The American people, through their representatives in Congress, express their will in a binding resolution such as the following:

"The United States of America is resolved not to attack County X, and the President shall not be authorized to order an attack of any kind on country X, until either, (1) this resolution expires 6 months from today, or (2) Congress passes an overriding resolution."

The phony "complex debate" (manufactured by fascist propagandists) can be blown apart with a simple question:

In a true America, if a resolution such as the above is in effect, can the President ignore the will of the people and unilaterally order bombs to be dropped on Country X?

Americans don't need to know constitutional law to know the answer to this is "Absolutely NOT!"

The notion that the 1973 war powers act/resolutions (which was passed by Congress and can be revoked or radically altered by them) empowers the President to ignore subsequent acts/resolutions of Congress is insane, but you don't even need to have ever heard of the war powers act to know that absolute power like that is never freely given to a leader; it is only taken by force.

As I said in the post that opened this thread:

Alito is emblematic of unlimited executive power. The fight against Alito is our Normandy in the campaign to drive out the Bush regime and the ever-expanding dictatorial powers they claim.

If they do not stand and fight, it won't just be another blow to their self-esteem and further proof of the "weak Democrat" image, if they don't fight against the fascists, they become complicit with them.

[Wordie]

32. You know, I remember that exchange with Biden, but what I don't

recall - or maybe I just missed it - is whether Alito was ever asked to follow up. Did Biden come back and ask the question of him again later? He said he would think about it, and respond, didn't he?

Anyone know if he did at a later time?

[pat_k]

36. I don't think they revisited the specific hypothetical. . .

Initially, I was ticked that Sen. Biden didn't press him on his absurd answer.

Then I realized that the Senator may have been thrilled when Alito refused to reject the hypothetical Presidential action as utterly and completely unconstitutional.

Sen. Biden "accepted" Alito's answer without any fuss and moved on. I didn't hear anyone return to it. The more I thought about it, the more I thought they may have intentionally refrained from pressing Alito too hard on it. I think Sen. Biden cornered him on this and didn't give him a shot at digging himself out.

There may be other similar instances. "Conventional wisdom" is wrong more often than not. Why should the conventional wisdom that "they didn't corner him on anything" be any different? Refusal to draw lines (particularly when talking about the limits of power) may have gotten Alito into deep trouble.

I can only hope I'm right, and Sen. Biden knows what he has. Unfortunately, they often fall victim to a fascist view of the law, where twisted logic can trump reality or basic truths. (e.g., Knowing with absolute certainly that more voters in Florida went to the polls intending to vote for Gore, but accepting the notion that "legal technicality" could trump that reality.)

[robbedvoter]

38. So, W, not SCOTUS can declare unconstitutionality? Nice!

No wonder ALL MEDIA would scramble to cover this one up - by gloating over "how well" Alito did.....
he just gave up the SCOTUS role in checks and balances on that answer!

[mom cat]

24. That is the spirit. It ain't over yet. Alito abused his judgeship in the

Vanguard case and should be thrown out and not rewarded. If we are really against the "Republican culture of corruption" we need to fight Alito with our every breath!

[Plausible]

3. couldn't agree with you more

Alito is kinda the fork in what the Rethugs have done to Democracy.

[robinlynne]

5. yes, let's speak up!

Right on!
Let's help get this message out loud and clear. Call your senators.
Everyone call Feinstein's office. Let her know we're watching.
These are extreme times and extreme circumstances.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

9. robinlynne

to DU!

:)

[kliljedahl]

12. Great graphic VLR

where'd you find it?



Keith’s Barbeque Central

[Viva_La_Revolution]

18. K!

:hi:

I found it trolling around on the net somewhere... :shrug:

[newyawker99]

17. Hi robinlynne!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Senator]

6. kick ('em in the balls) -- and recommended n/t

[pat_k]

8. Tell them we WILL NOT TOLERATE Dereliction of Duty

As noted by depakid, it's Reid's job to line up the troops.

But we have a job too. Making it crystal clear that we will not tolerate Dereliction of Duty.

Nothing they fear -- smear, threats of "backlash," whatever -- compares to the fears the members of our military must overcome to do their jobs.

We expect the men and women of our armed services to risk life and limb to protect our constitutional democracy. We can expect no less of our elected officials.

[Hailtothechimp]

10. Bolton got the same coverage from the media

Confirmation is assured, inevitable, unstoppable, etc. And then the Dems pulled off the filibuster, which was not reported with quite so much vigor.

Make Alito into the lapdog of republican presidents, and maybe it will work.

Hillary will never go along with a filibuster, though. She'll think this will be quid pro quo for her nominees when she wins. She won't, and it won't be, even if she does win.

[Cocoa]

11. "Key democrats say likely can't block Bolton"

sound familiar?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1524989

[Vincardog]

14. FK that Fight until hell freezes over than fight on the ice. I am waiting

for the vote.

[senseandsensibility]

26. Thanks cocoa!

Our memory is so short. I include myself in that "our", by the way. You're timely reminder has given me strength for the fight. :toast:

[pat_k]

31. Yup! ... and I'm not so sure.

Yep. The Bolton story arc -- "assured, inevitable, etc" and "weak Dems" and "brilliant execution by Repubs" -- was turned to dust overnight.

Just as "couldn't dent Alito," and other such "observations" will be erased, as if they had never been uttered, if the Dems take a stand and reject Alito for his inability to recognize when Presidential action clearly that violates our most basic tenets. (Biden's hypothetical is all they need).

The Alito Filibuster would be a giant step toward getting back to reality and identifying the crimes already committed by this administration as crimes.

On Hillary, I’m not so sure she would sit out a Filibuster, even if she were deluded enough to think it a mistake. She might consider possible future positioning ("I passed yours so you should pass mine"), but I doubt such considerations would determine her action on this. She is well aware of a fact of political life (one that President Clinton noted at the Democratic Convention): the American people will choose strong and wrong over weak and right any day (and of course, strong and right is unbeatable!)

Given a choice between showing strength by joining her fellow dems in a serious fight or capitulating to the Repubs, I would hope she would go for the show of strength.

[Imagevision]

13. Similar to announcing Fla. to Bush in 2000 - after all other networks

reported Florida went to Gore and Bush's cousin at FOXnews was the one to claim Bush's Fla. victory -- I'm just saying, they announce news like it's gospel and no-one calls them on it!

Bush could really use a fillibuster against Scalito just to draw heat away from current indictments & investigations still uncompleated because Bush's latest "Iraq is a grave threat" news item isn't flying too well..!

[neverevergivein]

19. Unfortunately, you might be right

Would a filibuster save Bush's presidency? After the spying and what not, could this be the ultimate diversion? don't get me wrong, I WANT a filibuster, but your point is valid. Yuck, what to do, what to do.

[pat_k]

33. As I note above, Rejecting Alito is part and parcel of defining the crimes

. . .committed by the Bush syndicate as crimes.

The notion that we are playing a game -- the battle of the news cycles -- does far more damage than good. We succeed when we put aside gamesmanship and internalize some basic truths.

The crimes committed by the Bush syndicate are out there for all to see. Just for starters:

• Torturing (violation of 18 USC Sec. 2441--War Crimes)


• Spying on Americans (violation of 50 USC Sec. 1809--Unauthorized Surveillance)


• Terrorizing all 300 million of us with the most colossal bomb threat in history -- mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes (violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 844(e) Bomb threat, 300 Million Counts; or 18 USC Section 35 Imparting or Conveying False Information -- Bomb Hoax).

Anything we can do to cut through the forces that are preventing people from seeing the truth has global benefits. When thinking is muddled with propaganda, it doesn't matter how many news cycles this or that scandal gets.

The fascist fantasies they invoke to convince us their crimes are not crimes must be rejected out of hand. Their fantasies are NOT ideas to be "argued on the merits." They are fantasies that must be rejected out of hand; they have no place in the "marketplace of ideas."

Consider what's happening with intelligent design (ID). As long as people think ID has a place in the realm of science, the propagandists are winning. Rather than arguing against ID (which just aides the propagandists) the notion that ID belongs in the realm of science must be rejected. ID must be tossed out on its ear.

So far, we haven't done a very good job of tossing out the fascist fantasy that Bush's actions can possibly be anything but abuses of power. Alito embodies the fantasy. His answer to Sen. Biden must simply be rejected as flat wrong. No argument needed. Just as ID is not science, it is lunacy to think the constitution gives (or even might give) the President the power to violate the will of the people, when our collective will is clearly expressed in a Congressional resolution.

In a sense, fighting to keep Alito and the fascist fantasies he represents off the court is akin to fighting to keep ID out of our science classes.

The fight against Alito will help to create conditions that will serve us in the fight expose and punish the criminals in Congress, on K Street, and in the White House.

There is no downside.

[Innocent Smith]

16. Meiers

Harriet Meiers was the nominee for three weeks, Bush standing behind her, Repub Senators too, and the Repub base kept making noise and making noise and eventually she was pulled. There is a lesson here about giving up too soon.

[pat_k]

34. Never Give Up! Never Surrender!

"Never Give Up! Never Surrender!"

--Cmdr.Taggart, Galaxy Quest

[BlueIris]

21. Indeed, it is not over.

March on my fellow DUers.

[senseandsensibility]

27. * is down below forty again in the polls

He has been WEAKENED by this, not strengthened. Even with the very timid "opposition" to Alito, it's still weakened him. Don't let the corporate media frame this. Let's look at the facts. He is down in the polls, and with a little strategy ( I know, I know...our side doesn't DO strategy):mad: we can WIN!!! But we'll have to make it happen.

[BlueIris]

29. I've noticed that issue, too.

And I've still got my feeling.

[pat_k]

35. No complex strategy needed. Just Say NO to fascism!

Our "leaders" just need to learn to take every opportunity available to them to JUST SAY NO!!

Alito is a gift. He embodies the fascist fantasy that Bush's actions can possibly be anything but abuses of power. Just like Intelligent Design has no place in the realm of Science, their fascist fantasies have no place in the "marketplace of ideas." We need to stop treating their fantasies as if they are valid ideas.

We can't allow ID in our Science classes.

We can't allow Alito and his fascist fantasies on the Supreme Court.

More in a post above:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=146536&mesg_id=149936

[kick_them_hard]

37. Well hell....

why dont we just email those repubs anyway and tell them we want a filibuster on Alito and we are very conscerned REPUBS and they better listen to us... :eyes:

[Kablooie]

39. Squawk! It's over! Done Deal! Squak! Dems failed! Squawk! Inevitable.

You will find that the above sentiment shall be accurate.

Sorry to let you know.

[Senator]

42. <deleted>

[pat_k]

43. I hope you are not saying "Can't happen, so don't try," . . .

Pronouncements that defeat is assured is no way to mobilize action.

Unfortunately, too many on the center/left do not act because they believe defeat is assured, and therefore action is futile -- "a waste of energy (as if we have some limited pool of energy that we need to conserve). Over and over I've watched as appeals to "practicality" and "realism" immobilize us. One of the primary reasons Democrats are viewed as wimps is their failure to "fight the good fights," come what may.

Like an addiction, "Can't happen, so don't try" is terrible habit that reinforces itself. People don't fight for something because "it's futile." The something never happens because people aren't fighting, "proving" the futility.

Conventional wisdom assured us (even mockingly) that we would never get a Senator to stand up and object to the Ohio electors on January 6th. No mainstream good government entity even considered fighting to make it happen. They were too busy whipping themselves for losing, when Kerry had in fact won. Citizen lobbyists took up the fight. Mainstream folks didn't jump on board until it was clear that the effort itself was energizing people in a way they might well capitalize on.

Had they acted sooner, who knows? We might have inaugurated President Kerry on January 20th, 2004. And acting "sooner" could have been as early as December 12, 2000. Who knows? We might have inaugurated President Gore on January 20th, 2001.

There are so many other examples.

We like to think of ourselves as reasonable people, but it is not reasonable to guarantee failure with the notion "can't be done, so don't try." That only makes sense if you believe in your own omniscience.

We get angry at people for being disengaged at the same time we are promoting their immobility with pronouncements of futility. We need to STOP IT!

It is time to be truly reasonable and spend our time acting. Even when we don't think anything will work, we must still act on principle.

Action begets action and the resources we can bring to bear are ever expanding as confidence builds. One of the most basic needs is the need to be effective -- people have a need to ACT. No matter how small we think our chances for success are, we must go for the BHAGs (Big Hairy Audacious Goals). Even if the ultimate goal is not achieved, there are ALWAYS wins and benefits along the way, not the least of which is simply engaging people in a common endeavor. If you want people to get hooked on action, just meet their need to be effective by celebrating the interim achievements -- e.g., tracking the number of previously disengaged people we are involving; the number of faxes, visits, phone calls, our efforts generate.

Some call it confidence; some call it faith. The label doesn't matter if we understand how powerful it is to act from the knowledge that anything is possible.

[Kablooie]

44. I'm not saying that at all!!

I'm saying:
Squawk! It's over! Done Deal! Squak! Dems failed! Squawk! Inevitable.

[mojavegreen]

40. SCOTUS = tyranny

Authentic Democrats should always question the role of the American judiciary itself, and not simply grill the SCOTUS nominees and think that is sufficient. While I support a filibuster (there is good reason to fear a theocratic Court), it's debatable that the SCOTUS should have the power that it does anyway; 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.

[Senator]

41. Everybody Read Post #33

If you've read it. Read it again.

Alito must be objected to on principle -- American principle vs Fascist principle.

You can consider it "creeping" fascism if you can't handle the pure reality of it, but that euphemism is no different from "expansive powers of the executive" which is the more vague, and therefore insidious, one the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy has been trained to squawk.

But the situation is no different than what was faced on January 6th. You either stand and object (in every way you can) or you become complicit with the perpetrators.

We only got Senator Boxer on January 6th. We have and will get more of "our leaders" to stand up on this, but enough to force the neofascists to take the "nuclear option" is the goal.

Yes, we must force them to "change the rules." We must "call their hand" whether it's a bluff or not. What they do or don't do is not our concern.

"You must make the injustice visible." -- Ghandi

--
www.january6th.org