In the interests of clarity

[eggman67]

I've seen many posts here inferring that the filibuster is a means of preventing Alito's confirmation to the SCOTUS. I think it's important for people to understand that this is not the case. Come Tuesday Samuel Alito will be confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Stopping that isn't the point now. The question is no longer will he be confirmed, but how will he be confirmed with a bang or with a whimper.

So why filibuster then? It's a matter of principle, politics & PR.

What needs to be considered is how to use a principled stand politically. Count on the fact that Bush will be trumpeting Alito's confirmation on Tuesday night. A unified principled stand would make great fodder for the SOTU rebuttal.

[BuyingThyme]

1. Why can't a filibuster prevent a Tuesday confirmation?

[cali]

2. As I see it, the repukes already have

more than enough votes for cloture. I'm not sure what the OP is saying.

[eggman67]

6. What I'm saying

Is that even if they didn't have enough for cloture, even if all 44 dems + Jeffords voted no, they do have enough votes to change the cloture rules. Which is exactly what they'll do.

That said, I'm not saying the Dems shouldn't filibuster anyway, I'm just saying people should understand why they should and most importantly not attach false hope to the idea that Alito's confirmation can be stopped.

[electropop]

40. The nukular option will drop major fallout on the rethugs.

It will only amplify the resounding defeat they are facing this November.

[helderheid]

my question too

I know they aren't one and the same but I still believe we can block this confirmation.

[eggman67]

3. Because 5 minutes later

The rules will be changed by a simple majority.

[mikelewis]

4. Not true...

They can attempt the Nuclear Option but there's a good chance that they won't have the votes to trigger it. That's why the big push to ignore/silence the filibuster.

[eggman67]

7. I have no doubt

that they have the 51 they need. Especially with Lindsay Graham being one of the gang of 14 and with dem members of the gang saying publicly that this doesn't rise to the "Extraordiary Circumstances" standard.

[mikelewis]

13. You got to have faith eggman...

you got to have faith. There is more to this story than a giant taxpayer phone bill. I can guarantee you that. This battle has already been won and we are the victors. It's all over except for the counting and we'll take care of the counting. On Tuesday, you'll know exactly what I mean.

[eggman67]

23. I'd like to friend, I would

And if come Tuesday, 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats flip on this I'll come right back here and eat my words - as soon as I wake up from the fainting spell that is:)

[BuyingThyme]

5. I don't think the Senate would, let alone can, work

that fast.

[eggman67]

8. It's my understanding that the vote

on the rule change would immediately be called following a failed cloture vote.

edited for speling :)

[DemInDistress]

9. YOU SOUND LIKE A DEFEATIST...

just what the bush crime family would like...dissention in the ranks. Who in DC have you called? Write any emails? fax anyone? I disagree with you. Lets pull out all the stops and if necessary SHUT DOWN THE SENATE.
BTW, are you a progressive? Be honest..

[eggman67]

10. Did you bother to read the post?

The post where I said they SHOULD filibuster?

[sandnsea]

11. We're closer than you think

If we could get all our Democrats and just a couple more Repulicans, we actually could defeat Alito on the famous upperdown vote. We aren't in the fringe minority on Alito at all, several red state Democrats are voting against him. I even saw a PA poll that said the majority there don't want him. Once the bipartisan ball is rolling against Alito, the filibuster becomes a whole lot easier, even if we're short a vote or two on upperdown. A Supreme Court Justice replacing Sandra Day O'Connor should have broad bipartisan support.

[eggman67]

12. Upperdown?!

You really think that 6 rebuplicans and 3 announced democrats are going to flip on this by Tuesday and actually vote down the nomination outright?

Which 6 republicans?

[sandnsea]

17. May already have Chaffee and Snowe

So that leaves 6, without Nelson, Byrd or Johnson. You get 3 more, Collins, Smith & maybe one from NH or Ohio, and it's possible these other Dems will flip back over.

Most importantly though, it's the PSYCHOLOGICAL advantage of the strategy. People truly are sheeple and when they believe that their fellow Americans aren't sold on Alito either, they'll start raising their voices. Just like with Schiavo. In fact, why that isn't being used as an example of the kind of privacy Alito will take away from people is beyond me. Anyway, that's the only way I can see to counter their TP that this is all hopeless because everybody wants Alito. It's just not true and the people don't know it.

[eggman67]

20. Actually you'd need 4 more Republicans with Chafee & Snowe

You need a total of 6 Rs and flip the 3 Ds or 9 Rs. Bless you for your optimism, I just can't see that happening.

I think their best bet is to take a principled stand by voting no on cloture, force the R's to change the rules and then try to club them over the head with it.

[sandnsea]

24. Psychological Strategy

Like I said, it's the psychological strategy that's important anyway. We aren't countering the talking point that the majority of the Senate supports Alito, that's the key thing. That's what's important. And the truth is, we are closer to 51 than we are to 40 on filibuster. No on Alito, No on Cloture. We should push both.

[eggman67]

29. Well we'll see on Tuesday and I hope youre right

I just think it's best to plan for the most likely outcome. I've seen sights set too high too many times followed by a deadly malaise that comes when those expectations aren't reached.

I prefer realistically set sights, not low, just realistic, and if we exceed that expecation, so much the better.

I want make it clear one more time, not to you becaus you obviously understand what I'm saying, but to anyone who might be reading, that I THINK THEY SHOULD FILIBUSTER.

Sorry for shouting, but some people don't seem to understand that I support it. I just think we should recognize it as at minimum a principled stand be prepared for and have a plan for what is IMO the most likely outcome. I'd rather that than have people rending their garments an gnashing their teeth come tuesday night.

[sandnsea]

30. I find negative threads useless

Perhaps you could explain the need for them, because I honestly have never understood it.

[eggman67]

33. I don't see it as negative to say

that this lemon can be made into lemonade. His eventual confirmation is just reality as I see it. Since I see it that way I'd like to see something good pulled from it.

Did I say don't fight?

Did I say don't filibuster, don't call, don't write, don't bother?

No, I didn't. I said do fight, do filibuster, do call, do write, do bother.

I just asserted what I believe to be a political reality, and stressed the need to deal with it.

There are others who see this confirmation as inevitable and think why bother. I see it as inevitable and say here's why you should bother.

How is providing a reason to fight negative?

[sandnsea]

38. Well I must have missed it

Because I didn't see anything about taking a principled stand because it's the right thing to do in your post.

And the last thing we need is a bunch of blather about political posturing and PR.

I've got some letters to fax and phone calls to make.

[eggman67]

43. Just for the record

"So why filibuster then? It's a matter of principle, politics & PR.

What needs to be considered is how to use a principled stand politically. Count on the fact that Bush will be trumpeting Alito's confirmation on Tuesday night. A unified principled stand would make great fodder for the SOTU rebuttal."

A principled stand is by definition made because it's the right thing to do.

[sandnsea]

46. The rest of your post

Obliterates any principle that might have existed had the word stood on its own.

People are SICK of politicians figuring out "how to use a principled stand". The second they do that, it becomes UNprincipled.

Which must be why I missed any shred of principle in your post the first time around.

[eggman67]

48. What?

The whole point of taking a principled stand is to sway public opinion by doing the right thing even when it's risky. It's called leading by example, what's unprincipled about that?

[DemInDistress]

14. read it twice now,,,,

Come Tuesday Samuel Alito will be confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Stopping that isn't the point now. The question is no longer will he be confirmed, but how will he be confirmed with a bang or with a whimper

your words..

[eggman67]

16. You apparently stopped reading too soon

"So why filibuster then? It's a matter of principle, politics & PR.

What needs to be considered is how to use a principled stand politically. Count on the fact that Bush will be trumpeting Alito's confirmation on Tuesday night. A unified principled stand would make great fodder for the SOTU rebuttal."


The REST of my words.

[DemInDistress]

19. GOOD THING YOUR NOT A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR

YOU ALREADY GAVE HIM THE JOB...SAD
WHAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT "SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT" BTW ARE YOU A PROGRESSIVE? BE HONEST

edit for spelling

[eggman67]

21. What don't YOU understand about

NOT BEING ABLE TO SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT!

How do you suggest they do that?

[DemInDistress]

22. SNIFF SNIFF...I SMELL A PROGRESSIVE

i NOTICED YOU DODGED THE ANSWER TWICE

[eggman67]

25. Because it's none of you're business

I have no need to provide any bona fides to you, and it wouldn't matter in any case because you only see what you want to see. This conversation is over.

[DemInDistress]

26. I KNEW IT.....EOM

[Sal Minella]

32. You should have known it from the spelling. eom

[eggman67]

34. Spelling? n/t

[ProSense]

15. Because that's what the Republicans want people

to believe. I'm not convinced they'll do it, and I'm not even sure they have the votes. And if they do present it and it succeeds, they better hope they win back the Congress come Nov., which could lead to all sorts of problems for Republicans (impeach Bush).


Fight like the future is now: filibuster.




edited to add comma

[eggman67]

18. I'm convinced they will do it, and frankly I'd like to see them forced to

"Fight like the future is now: filibuster."

I agree. I've said as much several times now.

[Justitia]

27. I'm not sure if the repubs would go nuclear or not, but I wouldn't........

hesitate to call their bluff on it.

I have absolutely no fear of the nuclear option, from our perspective it simply gums up the works, which works to our advantage anyway.

To be honest, I don't think they would really know what to do if it came to that, and I'm not convinced they have the political will - in this current climate - to do it. I saw the first glimmer of this hesitancy in the whole "gang" agreement. If their power was completely assured, they never would have agreed to such a thing. Instead, their partisans stepped back into the shadows and allowed their more "moderate" looking mbrs to broker a compromise. A party in full bloom of power would never have done that. Of course, it sucked for us, but we are the less powerful here.

I do not want it to go nuclear, I'm not in favor of the resultant drama, but I am absolutely fine with it if it does. I am very, very curious as to what they would do with it. Our role is easy - we make them tip their hand and then do exactly nothing. We would force them to bare their teeth for Alito, proving what a nutcase their appointee must be for such a radical step, then the balls in their court, but they have absolutely used the MAXIMUM ZENITH of their powers over us. We are no more handicapped than before.

So, what will they do? I really don't know, but I'm not afraid to find out.

[eggman67]

31. Couldn't agree more

I think they should force it. The only place we differ is that I think they DO have the political will to do it. Out of the seven republicans in the "Gang of 14" they only need 2. 2 of the seven were on the Judiciary committee that voted Alito out to the full Senate Graham & DeWine.

We're in complete agreement on not being afraid of it though.

[Justitia]

35. We had extensive discussions on here on post-nuclear proceedings

a while back - we talked about the agreements between the parties as to how the senate would operate in such a case, I learned quite a bit.

Should it happen, both party leaders said normal appropriations operations would continue (paying the bills, etc), but the Dems said ALL new business would cease. This is not the same as the gov't shutdown by Gingrinch in the 90s in anyway whatsoever. So, if the bills get paid and the bldg isn't padlocked, I can live with no new business - that definitely hurts them more than us because they couldn't cram their totalitarian legislative agenda down our throats (as a rule change would imply to their sheeple followers).

The new status cannot continue, the rule can be changed back in 5 minutes under our control, so we have NOT lost our ability to exert it over them should we gain a majority. Trust me, after not being able to so much as fucking order lunch without unanimous consent (no more convenient waivers from us - ha!), I suspect we wouldn't be in nuclear winter very long.

There are lots of various parliamentary procedures we discussed in this scenario, and unfortunately I have to take off at the moment, but it can probably be searched or someone else can pick it up that remembers.

Anyway, I'm not afraid of jumping in front of the Alito Bullet Train to Dictatorship by virtue of a nuclear option threat.

[Cats Against Frist]

44. I wish I could nominate your post

I feel the exact same way -- for the same reasons. I don't think they'd force the rule change -- and I don't understand the "obstructionist" thing -- and they don't have the numbers all sewn up. Chimp's rating is in the toilet, party has a corrupt image, and despite the 56 percent of idiots that think Alito should be confirmed nationally, seems to me that a state-by-state survey takes a slightly different picture -- in Pennsylvania, more people DO NOT want to see Alito confirmed. The same brush that could be used to paint the red-state Dems as "obstructionist," could also be used to get the Blue Republicans who ARE NOT representing their own states out on their asses. It's bold, certainly, but I don't know that the GOP would respond the way they're threatening to.

ON EDIT: I correct myself -- only 47 percent, and 33 percent in the latest polls support Alito nomination. Lot's of "don't know enoughs."

[omega minimo]

28. Bullshit. Defeatism is its own reward. You've counted the votes already?

[DemInDistress]

36. thanks omega...this person already gave the job to alito

and wants the dems to holler afterwards, I say draw the line here and now..filibuster this judge who btw
1.supports the strip searching of 10 year old girls I have 2 nieces
2. supports mentally challenged people who get sodomized in the workplace. he puts the burden upon the mentally challenged to prove the workplace is hostile.
3. alito was not forthcoming with his testimony the threats of subpoena were mentioned..

SHAME ON DEFEATIST PROGRESSIVES.....

[omega minimo]

39. Kerry told Senators NOW is the time. There IS NO Later!

John Kerry :yourock: That was a "Mr. Smith" moment. That is the kind of Reality we are talking about, not negative self-fulfilling prophecies and "essentially" having already counted the votes. Where are Constitution-loving (real) Republicans? Do they have a gun to their heads?

#5. would make George King.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x263563

[DemInDistress]

41. YOU ARE SO COOL.....

THATS WHY I GOT PISSED OFF AT THE POSTER OF THIS THREAD...HE GAVE THE JOB TO ALITO AND THE VOTE HADN'T TAKEN PLACE YET..I ASKED IF HE WERE A PROGRESSIVE AND HE DECLINED TO ANSWER...ARE THEY DEMOCRAT PARTY SPLITERS?

:toast: :toast: :hi: :hi: :dem: :kick:

[omega minimo]

51. If it weren't in play, MSM wouldn't be trying SO HARD to say it isn't

Some folks fall for that.

The OP wanted to point out a positive of how this could be "spun" by Dems after the fact.

But the point of the filibuster is to fly in the face of the "conventional wisdom" that says "eh, why even try............................" :boring:

:patriot: + :wtf: = FILIBUSTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Interesting aside:

OP's "comment" in profile says:

"All or nothing thinking generally results in getting nothing."

B-)

[eggman67]

37. Essentially yes

It's my understanding that so far 53 Rs & 3 Ds have announced their intention to vote for confirmation. I'll give you the 3 Ds plus Snowe & Chafee. Who are the other four R's you're going to flip?

[Czolgosz]

42. You make two underlying assumptions that are not necessarily correct.

First, you presume that we cannot get 41 votes to preclude cloture. If we can get 41 to resist the cloture vote, we can shut the government down -- that's the idea behind the filibuster.

If we can successfully mount a filibuster by winning the cloture vote, you apparently assume that Frist can successfully invoke the nuclear option. This would be a constitutionally questionable breach of the Senate rules. Sen. (and box turtle enthusiast) Cornyn and other GOP hacks argue that they can rewrite the Senate rules because -- they say -- the filibuster rules have never been applied to a judicial nomination. That's simply false. Do not let the Republicans get away with this blatant effort to rewrite congressional history regarding the filibuster of judicial nominees and the Supreme Court. In 1965, the Senate easily confirmed Judge Abe Fortas to the Supreme Court. Just three years later, when President Lyndon Johnson nominated Fortas to serve as Chief Justice, there was obviously no question about his qualifications because Fortas was already serving on the Supreme Court. Based only on Fortas's judicial views, however, the Senate Republicans launched a successful four-day filibuster of Fortas's nomination in September of 1968. Whenever you hear some Senator saying that there is no history of filibustering a Supreme Court nomination based on his out-of-the-mainstream judicial views, ask them to look up the front page of the Washington Post from September 26, 1968: "A full-dress Republican-led filibuster broke out in the Senate yesterday against a motion to call up the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas for Chief Justice." The New York Times ran as similar story that day, and many news outlets around ran the story later that week.

Don't buy the Republican bullshit about the filibuster has never been used on judicial nominees!

[eggman67]

45. No I think you CAN get 41 votes to preclude cloture.

The "nuclear option" is where I disagree. I think they'd do it and get away with it and come to regret it.

[Czolgosz]

47. What authority makes you believe this? How else do you also suppose Frist

can unilaterally change the Senate rules?

[eggman67]

49. How it works

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

"A point of order is a parliamentary motion used to remind the body of its written rules and established precedents, usually when a particular rule or precedent is not being followed. Ordinarily, a point of order compels the Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may choose to vote down the point of order. When this occurs, a new precedent is established, and the old rule or precedent no longer governs Senate procedure. Similarly, it is possible to raise a point of order and state that the standard procedure of the Senate is actually different than its current rules and precedents suggest. If this point of order is sustained, a new precedent is established. Points of order are subject to debate, meaning that the Senate can discuss whether or not the point of order should be sustained. A motion to table (end) debate on a point of order, however, is not debatable: it requires an immediate vote. This makes the nuclear option possible.

The nuclear option would begin with a filibuster or other dilatory tactic by the minority. A senator from the majority would then raise a point of order saying that the filibuster or dilatory tactic is not permissible in this circumstance. The presiding officer would rule in favor of the point of order. The minority would appeal the ruling, thereby opening debate on the point of order. The majority would then move to table debate. A vote on tabling would follow immediately. The majority would prevail with 51 votes, and debate would be tabled. Then Senate would then proceed to vote on the point of order itself. The majority would again prevail, and the filibuster or dilatory tactic would be barred by the new precedent."

[ProSense]

50. Forget the nuclear option, it's not germane to this effort. Thanks. n/t

[Czolgosz]

53. I think this effort is independent of the nuclear option, but if we win

this fight, the nuclear option is the next fight.

Like this fight, if we win in the nuclear option dispute, we win; if we lose the by Frist exercising the nuclear option, we will have forever marked Alito and the judge who resulted from "court packing" and each of his dasterdly rulings will rightfully be remembered as the result of this grotesque partisanship at the heart of his selection.

[Czolgosz]

52. The American Constitutional Society has some more detailed analysis:

Frist would invoke a controversial procedural maneuver known as "the nuclear option." Under this procedure, the person chairing the Senate, presumably Vice President Cheney, would rule that filibusters of judicial nominations are unconstitutional. Nuclear option proponents contend that only a simple majority vote (51 senators) of the Senate would be needed to approve that ruling - despite the fact that Senate rules require a 3/5 vote (60 senators) to stop a filibuster and a 2/3 vote (67 senators) to amend filibuster procedures. ...

The filibuster rule is the last remaining protection against President's often repeated aim of packing the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, with judges ideologically attuned to Justices Scalia and Thomas. ...

It is unlikely that the Republican Senate leadership and the White House will move to implement the nuclear option unless they are confident they have the 51 votes to prevail.

<http://www.acsblog.org/judicial-nominations-201-guest-blogger-new-push-to-confirm-rightist-judges.html>

I think that Frist may have more difficulty than you imagine getting 51 votes to change the senate rules, and if he does it will be forever remembered in the history books as the right-wing's court packing scheme which will taint the Roberts-Alito court and which will appropriately call attention to the fact that the had to rewrite the rules to appoint Alito as a clearly Republican threat to our rights. Every vote where Alito molests the Bill of Rights will be a reminder of where we stand and where they stand. I'm not so confident that Frist can get 51 Senators to join in his court packing scheme.