Tired of hearing about the filibuster

[Charlie Brown]

I notice a lot of people here are attacking Dems who question the wisdom of filibustering Alito. Dems who believe it will simply bog down the Senate and label us as a party of obstructionism. Dems who do not want to risk losing the filibuster. Dems who want to preserve the power to filibuster over battles that are more in our favor (the Patriot Act, wiretapping, etc.). These are legitimate concerns, and they should not be ignored or shrugged off simply b/c a right-wing autocrat is up for the Supreme Court.

I am not sure what some of you hope to gain by filibustering Alito. The Republican members of the "gang of 14" (Graham and others) have signaled they will support the nuclear option of eliminating the filibuster and if we block a Supreme Court nominee, they will follow thru on it. Alito will be confirmed anyway, and we will have lost the power to block more dangerous legislation from the administration.

Alito will be confirmed to the Court, regardless of whether or not he is filibustered. That's a cold, hard fact, and I think it's time we started accepting the inevitability of that. We don't have to like it, but with a Senate of 44 Democrats, our concerns are moot.

I don't like Alito. He's an ideologue who was tailor made in the Justice Dept. to represent the interests of social conservatives and big business. His rulings on the Circuit level are misguided and represent the tyranny of the majority. I do not like Bush as President, Rumsfeld as Sec. of Defense, or Gonzales as Attorney General, but I've learned to live with it. We are the minority party in a "winner takes all" system, and we are going to lose many more battles, in spite of what posters at DU have to say.

I'd rather focus on battles that we can actually win rather than lost causes.

[Canuckistanian]

1. ..

:popcorn:

[leftstreet]

2. What battles do you believe "we can actually win?"

:shrug:

[Charlie Brown]

5. wiretapping, illegal searches, Bolton, Katrina relief

Do you think the filibuster will keep Alito off the court?

[fooj]

10. Katrina relief...

Shrub basically told the good people of NO they were on their own last week.

[leftstreet]

11. And when some of those issues reach a stacked Court?

Then what?

[Charlie Brown]

14. and filibustering Alito will prevent that?

He will be confirmed with or without the filibuster.

Some of you are setting yourselves up for a big letdown.

[fooj]

21. Actually, I think it's very unprincipled to take this approach.

Damn it! I believe in something! I believe in the liberty and justice my country ONCE provided its citizens!

The point, IMO, isn't about winning so much as it is standing up and saying ENOUGH!!! Will you ever be honestly willing to do that?

Peace.

[leftstreet]

25. So you're agreeing that with Alito, we can't win your other "battles."

Kinda circular there.

[fooj]

15. Well, I guess we can wait until something "important" comes along again...

:sarcasm:

[cornermouse]

18. Wiretapping and illegal searches will end up in front of the

Supreme Court. Gee, I wonder what will happen then?

And you plan to get Bolton out of the U.N. ...how?

Katrina relief? What you saw was what you get and will thus evermore. In other words nothing.


The next envelope the democratic party sends me asking for money will be returned with a note telling them why the envelope ONLY contains that note.

[Charlie Brown]

and using the filibuster on Alito will change that?

No, it will not.

[cornermouse]

26. One of the accusations that has stuck to the democratic party

is that they don't stick to their principles, that is they don't stand for anything. A filibuster would be a good start at illustrating to the nation that democrats do have principles that they are willing to stand for and fight for. It would even get news coverage. And THAT'S exactly why the democrats SHOULD filibuster.

And finally, if we're going to go down, its better to go down fighting.

[bowens43]

7. How about the November elections?

How about regaining control of the House and Senate? Pretty important battles , huh?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

13. How does supporting a filibuster conflict with winning Nov elections?

[bowens43]

29. a failed filibuster will cost us votes.

and there is NO WAY this one would be successful.

[cornermouse]

36. Failure to mount a filibuster could also cost us votes.

I say fight.

[debbierlus]

3. You want a lost cause - try having a supreme court with Alito on it

I will call and write and fight until the very bitter end.

This man is a DISASTER. This is a lifetime appointment. This is not something we can give up on. FIGHT UNTIL THE END.

We always here - 'next time'.

[Charlie Brown]

8. and the filibuster will not keep him from being confirmed

He probably will be a disaster, but there's no stopping him from confirmation.

[bowens43]

12. You don't get it.

We CAN NOT win this one. Period. Alito is a done deal. We do not have the votes to stop stop a rules change. It's not even close. It has nothing to do with giving up , it has everything to do with accepting reality.

[stillcool]

4. oh...you poor thing...

you're tired? go take a little nappy-poo. It's okay. That big-bad filibuster threat will go away, and you can go back to the things that are really important to you...maybe the coronation of King George?

[bowens43]

24. Brilliant rebuttal.

I have never seen a bigger bunch of whiners in my life. If the votes are there for a successful filibuster , they'll do it. If the votes aren't there is would be a dumb ass move.

[still_one]

6. Isn't it about time we did something?

this is NOT a light nomination. This individual is NOT simple an ideologue tailor made in the justice department. HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE SEPERATION OF POWERS

Roberts didn't have a paper trail, but alito does. There is no ambiguity here

If we don't fight this one, then the democrats in congress are part of the problem

[bowens43]

19. What would you like to do?

A FILIBUSTER WILL NOT STOP THE APPOINTMENT

[still_one]

38. HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Are you afraid of the "nuclear option"? Let them do it. They won't always have control

What am I doing? I have called MY SENATORS, AND THE DNC

I have given a good chunk of change throughout the years to the democrats. They want to see another cent from me, then they had better do there job or they can forget about me.

I have been a democrat for over 30 years, and the last six years have been the worst. We caved in on EVERYTHING, including the bankrupcy bill.

I will NOT support a party that doesn't fight

[fooj]

9. With all due respect...

I'd rather focus on battles that we can actually win rather than lost causes.

I've been hearing this argument ever since the 2004 Election. The Patriot Act and Wiretapping don't stand a chance if Alito gets in. Period. I'm personally tired of "waiting" for something IMPORTANT to come along. For goodness sakes, if this isn't important...what is?

Finally, I'd like to be a member of a party that STANDS FOR SOMETHING. After all, if you don't stand for something---you stand FOR NOTHING!

peace.

[bryant69]

16. Sympathize

There is an aspect of the chinese water torture to this situation. I don't agree with your assessment. Filibustering, even a losing filibuster, would show that the Democratic Party does have a little teeth, and would rally the base.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

20. Yes, it will show there is LIFE left in the party, opposition. There is

substantial doubt about this in many Dems right now.

[Dr Fate]

17. I'm sure there are even many more excuses for DEMS who cant fight Bush.

I've heard enough of them- I get it. We wont fight Bush- ever. Got it.

Enough with the excuses already.

[Justitia]

22. Easy for YOU to say SIR - you are a man, right?

What body part are you willing to cede control of to the GOP?

So easily and so quietly too!

YOU give up YOUR gonads and then I'll donate my uterus.

:crazy:

[Charlie Brown]

23. Alito will be confirmed whether we use the filibuster or not

I don't want to lose rights either, but I also live in the real world.

[Justitia]

28. When the gov't controls YOUR body, then tell me about the REAL WORLD

And you have no idea what would happen in a filibuster - it's wide open!

Why are you so willing to acquiesce and surrender in a fight where we have NOTHING TO LOSE?

They are threatening to "go nuclear" anytime we use the filibuster - so why is "later" better than "now" - for a lifetime appt to the highest court in the land????

Unreal.

[leftstreet]

31. "Madame Justice, do you promise to protect a man's right to a vasectomy?"

That's how SUrreal it all is.

[Charlie Brown]

32. If we filibuster Alito, we will lose the filibuster

Then you can explain to me what a brilliant move it was, and how it kept Alito off the court.

[hatrack]

37. What is the difference between being too scared to use the filibuster . .

. . . and not having the filibuster at all?

And then, please, tell me again about all the battles we'll be able to win if we just have the common sense to let this one go.

Using federal tax dollars to fund religious organizations? Oops, too late!

Outlawing torture? Oops, too late!

Stopping illegal spying on Americans? Oops, too late!

Stemming, if not stopping the steady flow of hack appointees to key Executive Branch positions?
"Zero Experience"
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/01/11/ed.edit.recess.0111.p1.php?section=opinion
Oops, too late!

Preventing massive ineptitude, corruption and fraud in attempts to rebuild Iraq?
"Audit Describes Misuse Of Funds In Iraq Projects"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2063832
Oops, too late!

Getting to the bottom of massive administration incompetence in handling the Katrina response?
"White House Accused of Foot-Dragging in Katrina Probe"
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24182023.htm
Oops, too late!

Trying to make sure that anti-abortion zealots aren't allowed to dictate the tactics US-funded efforts to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa? Oops, too late!

Blocking really bad legislation like the new Medicare presciption drug benefit? Oops, too late!

Blocking the extensions of massively expensive, fiscally ruinous tax cuts? Oops, too late!

Oh, but I forgot - they're just lying in wait, biding their time until they spring the Master Plan, yeah, that's the ticket!

:eyes:

[Charlie Brown]

39. ANWR would be history by now, if not for the filibuster

and probably still will be, if we lose the blocking power.

It's not a question of being "scared" to use the filibuster. It's a question of whether Alito is worth losing it over. And if we filibuster Alito, believe me, we will lose it.

[hatrack]

40. You didn't answer my question

Please answer me now - what is the difference between being too scared to use the filibuster and not having the filibuster at all?

[Charlie Brown]

41. Your question is irrelevant

No one is "scared" to use the filibuster. They're weighing the advantages of using it to the disadvantages.

"what is the difference between being too scared to use the filibuster and not having the filibuster at all?"

The "difference" could be very great when it comes to Katrina relief, the Patriot Act, ANWR, police powers, and a host of other issues that go beyond Alito (the SC may remain moot on a lot of this, and the court is still heavily divided). Even if we filibuster Alito, he will still be confirmed, so it seems a great waste to give it up just to make a statement against the administration.

[hatrack]

42. Whatever . . .

Here's what it comes down to: there should be a principle, something, somewhere, that calls for a stand.

Not careful calculation, not "weighing the advantages of using it to the disadvantages", not checking the focus group numbers and poll results, not worrying about how it might play back at home, not worrying about what Ken Mehlman or Wolf Blitzer are going to say, not holding a wet finger up to the wind.

"Taking a stand". You won't find any synonyms for it listed under "political realities", "the world as it is", "the risks are just too big" or "just facing the facts".

If Senate Democrats will not act, using the only weapon they have, to oppose a right-wing jurist; a judge who proudly listed his membership in a university group that opposed both minorities and women as proof of his conservative bona fides when applying for a job, but then managed to forget all about it; a man who couldn't come up with anything to say when faced with the fact of an innocent man facing execution except to post a juridical laundry list of just what legal hurdles would have to be cleared for that man to avoid death; a judge who saw nothing wrong with a mentally retarded man being anally violated with a broomstick handle; a judge who saw nothing wrong with strip-searching a 10-year old girl; a judge who saw nothing wrong with his participation in a case ruling on a company in which he had a $250,000 investment and a judge who, in days of testimony, said next to nothing of substance on any of these cases and who may receive a lifetime appointment to the swing vote on the highest court in the land, then when will they take a stand?

That's what I want to know, that's what tens of millions of pissed-off people all around this country want to know. What will it take to motivate the Democratic Party in Congress stand and fight on a matter of principle? Or is there no more room for principles? Either way, I'd like to know, so that I can either join the fight or stop wasting my time.

And if you can't understand that, if you want to yield AGAIN so that we'll save that secret weapon for . . . who the hell knows - then you have my sympathy.

[realFedUp]

27. www.nocrony.com

From time to time people will arise with the vision and the passion to inspire other people, and the bravery to take a stand for justice even if they have to do it alone. Sometimes tyranny maintains its power only by a kind of mental intimidation, a threat that would collapse entirely if it were just challenged. And whether those people are celebrated or not, all who take a stand against tyranny, in any way they can, deserve to be recognized as heros.

So it was with Rosa Parks. She was a simple seamstress who did not set out to be a hero. While she worked as a volunteer secretary for the NAACP, she did not see herself as a national leader. But on that day in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955, she decided she would no longer suffer the humiliation and surrender her bus seat because of her race. In her own words, "The time had just come when I had been pushed as far as I could stand to be pushed I suppose."

That one simple act of resistance precipitated the Montgomery Bus Boycott, perhaps the key pioneering event in the creation of the whole civil rights movement.

Today we have a Congress controlled by a numerical majority who operate as bullies. They hold votes open for hours at a time while they browbeat and threaten even their own party members. They disrespect and disregard long established rules of procedure and decorum. They exclude the participation of those representing at least half of the American people from any kind of meaningful decision making. And if ever opposed, they threaten they will not hesitate to further abuse their power by moving to abolish the right to filibuster.

Do they not fear the American people? Thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of our citizens are calling and emailing and faxing their senators right now to demand that Samuel Alito not be allowed to run our Supreme Court into some right wing ditch. And if you are asking, "Who will lead the filibuster that will stop this?" If you are asking yourself, "Who will stand up against the intimidation and the fear and expose those bullies for the fringe minority that they truly are?" The answer is . . . YOU are doing it right now.

With every personal message you send, you are telling our senators that it is time for we the people to take a stand. With every phone call you make, you are telling them it's time to take our country back. With every fax, YOU are a hero for democracy. The majority of the American people no longer believe in done deals. The other side has already lost, and the proof of it is that they are reduced to making empty verbal threats. They'll clean our clock one Republican senator was quoted yesterday as saying.

But privately the other side is telling its own few supporters that something dreadful has happened, that we actually think we can win, and that we will succeed unless they redouble their own lobbying efforts. And it's not working for them. On the Ed Shultz show yesterday, and Ed does not screen his calls, EVERY person who called in was demanding that there be a filibuster if necessary to save our Supreme Court from Samuel Alito.

There is only one way to deal with a bully. You must stand up to them. And we must keep standing up to them. We must keep calling our senators to tell them that the American people support them for taking a courageous stand. They must stand alone on the floor of the Senate, but we must continue rallying to their side. If the other side declares war on the filibuster we must call and call again to express our outrage. Each of us in our own way must find the courage to stand individually and declare, "The time has just come when I've been pushed as far as I can stand to be pushed."

NEW ACTION PAGE: http://www.nocrony.com/no_nuke.php

[Admiral Loinpresser]

30. You make a reasoned argument, but...

Alito represents a shift in the SCOTUS which may well mean the reversal of Roe v. Wade, toxic death (due to pollution) for millions of Americans (disproportionately poor infants in that class) and a serious further erosion of civil liberties and the bolstering of the presidency as a dictatorial office. The other issues you listed pale in comparison, because Alito is likely to serve for many decades.

Perhaps a filibuster is a lost cause. But I support it because the stakes are so high and the effects will endure long after Bush is dead and buried. (The only cheery thought in this whole thread!)

Losing the filibuster doesn't seem like a great loss at this point. The Gang of 14 compromise was essentially this: if you capitulate and don't use the filibuster when it is most needed, you can keep the filibuster. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.

[flpoljunkie]

33. R's may want to think twice on nuke option as still may not have the votes

If Frist had had the votes last year, he would not have hesitated to pull the trigger.

Republicans will want to think long and hard before they change the rules of the Senate on filibusters for judicial nominations--especially when we may well kick their asses in November and take back one or both houses of Congress. Do they really want to go down this road?

Call their bluff! Make Dick Cheney come in, if necessary, and break the tie to change the filibuster rules on judicial nominations.

Article from when this last came up in April, 2005:

Filibuster Vote Will Be Hard to Predict
Undecided Republicans Are Big Unknown

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 28, 2005; A04

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

Republicans are angry that Democrats have used the filibuster -- which can be stopped only by 60 votes in the 100-member Senate -- to block 10 of President Bush's appellate court nominees. Senate GOP leaders want to ban such filibusters, but some of their 55 members dislike the idea. All 44 Democrats and the chamber's lone independent flatly oppose it.

Democrats say a two-thirds majority is required to change Senate rules, but Republicans plan to use a constitutional argument to contend that a simple majority will suffice to ban judicial filibusters. For three months, lawmakers, aides and lobbyists have speculated on whether Frist can muster the 50 votes needed to enable Cheney to put him over the top.

Frist can lose only five Republicans, and three appear almost surely gone. Sens. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) have condemned the proposed rule change so sternly that party leaders assume they will side with Democrats. Many Republicans also expect to lose Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), although she remains publicly uncommitted. Collins "believes that the filibuster has been overused but would like to see the situation resolved through negotiation rather than a rule change," her office said yesterday.

If Collins, Chafee, McCain and Snowe oppose the change, then Frist could suffer only one more GOP defection Speculation hangs most heavily on Sens. John W. Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Arlen Specter (Pa.), all of whom say they are undecided.

[WI_DEM]

34. I agree with John Edwards, we should filibuster Alito

The SC is too important not to take this stand. Edwards said to "use whatever means" to block Alito, including the filibuster.

[LittleClarkie]

35. There's always the ignore button

That's about all you got. Because until the fat lady sings, it's going to be the topic of conversation around here.