Challenge to Democrats: 'NY Times' Calls for Filibuster on Alito

[Jon8503]

By E&P Staff - Published: January 26, 2006 12:25 AM ET

NEW YORK Although it has opposed the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme, it was by no means certain The New York Times would take the strong step it announced on its editorial page on Friday: challenging the Democrats to launch a filbuster on the matter when a vote nears next week.

"A filibuster is a radical tool," the editorial admitted. "It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court."

The Times said that Alito's entire history "suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress... His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.

"It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination.

"The Alito nomination has been discussed largely in the context of his opposition to abortion rights, and if the hearings provided any serious insight at all into the nominee's intentions, it was that he has never changed his early convictions on that point....

"But portraying the Alito nomination as just another volley in the culture wars vastly underestimates its significance. The judge's record strongly suggests that he is an eager lieutenant in the ranks of the conservative theorists who ignore our system of checks and balances, elevating the presidency over everything else. "

A new Gallup poll, completed earlier this week and announced Tuesday, finds American adults backing Judge Samuel Alito's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court by 54% to 30% with the rest undecided. But asked if they became convinced that Alito would overturn Roe v. Wade, opinions dramatically shift: from 54% to 30% in favor of his confirmation to 56% to 34% against.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001918870

[Burried News]

1. Nothing would hurt Republican Lite than an attempted filibuster.

All the more reason to do it.

[herbbrown]

2. Because a filibuster would hurt Biden and Clinton when they're President

Earth to Joe and Hillary, you're not going to be President!

[Burried News]

6. Good morning - Welcome to DU.

:donut:

[ClintonTyree]

3. What will it take to convince the public that Alito would overturn...

Roe v. Wade? Paying attention might be a start. Apparently people have no idea what this man stands for, if they did there wouldn't be any question that they'd oppose him.

"A new Gallup poll, completed earlier this week and announced Tuesday, finds American adults backing Judge Samuel Alito's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court by 54% to 30% with the rest undecided. But asked if they became convinced that Alito would overturn Roe v. Wade, opinions dramatically shift: from 54% to 30% in favor of his confirmation to 56% to 34% against".

PAY ATTENTION AMERICA!

[Tesla]

4. Roe V Wade will be the least of our problems when they take over.

Hell, women will be wearing burkas soon.

They'll only start hiring men for jobs.

They want to put em ,"Back in the Kitchen".

Let alone just RIGHTS in general will be a thing of the past.

Women really need to think about this, especially HILIARY!!!!

[cali]

7. There's now way to put this politely:

Bullshit. We need to confront the real threats Alito's confirmation poses; and it's not women having to wear burkas. Women are not in danger of being pushed out of the workforce. The real threat is the expansion of executive power. Roe, in fact, will still be protected by a slim majority.

[Tesla]

9. Exactly!!!!

"The real threat is the expansion of executive power."

[annabanana]

5. fax numbers here for the "won't filibuster" crowd:

The most likely suspects are the 7 Democrats in the Gang of 14.

Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut - fax: [phone]
Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia - fax: [phone]
E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska -fax: [phone]
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana - fax:[phone]
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii - fax:[phone]
Mark Pryor, Arkansas - fax: [phone]
Ken Salazar, Colorado - fax: [phone]

[Caro]

8. What will it take, Democrats? Stormtroopers in our living rooms?

I respectfully submit, that will be TOO F*&#%@ LATE!

Call your senators toll free at 888-355-3588

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[newyawker99]

10. Jon8503

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


NYer99
DU Moderator