A failed filibuster may well be worse than none at all

[dsc]

This will be the first time a Supreme Court nominee will be filibustered totally on the grounds of ideology. Fortas was likely done that way but the fig leaf used was his financial dealings. This will set a precedent which will be used in the future when a President Feingold, Clinton, Kerry, or some other Democrat wishes to name a liberal to the court. This might well be used to freeze the court as it currently is. Fine and dandy for those whose rights have been firmly ensconced in precedent but not so fine and dandy for those whose rights haven't.

Win or lose this will become a precendent that will be used against a liberal Justice at sometime in the future. If it wins it may well be worth it. If it loses it surely won't. For then we will have Alito and also will have forever given the 40 most conservative members of future Senates a right to veto any Justice they see fit to veto. I am not sure I would like giving the likes of Thad Cochran or Elizabeth Dole that much power.

[jsamuel]

1. already know that, this is a line in the sand

and if "purely idealogical" includes someone who will uphold the president's words over the constitution, then that is the way it should be.

[democrattruth]

82. absolutely true

[Eric J in MN]

2. Samuel Alito lied to the Senate in 1990 saying he would recuse himself

from Vanguard cases (a company he had about $400,000 in mutual funds with.)

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2006_01_09_samuel_alitos_corruption.asp

[dsc]

5. that is true

though we barely mention that or his more important lie about his membership in the concerned alumni of Princeton. We are clearly admitting that this is about ideology.

[mzmolly]

12. I agree that this needs to be "marketed" differently.

Democrats suck at marketing. I'm thinking we should INVEST in a professional marketing team for gosh sakes?

[AZBlue]

78. YESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We really need to overhaul the marketing efforts of the Dem party, from the national office down to the smallest grassroots office. I've been nagging about this for a while, but no one seems to care about it.

[no_more_rhyming]

94. Too late this time

The MSM has hung the obstruction party sign around our neck already. We played right into Roves master plan. (insert tin foil here)

[mzmolly]

7. Exactly. This is an "ethics" issue.

*ehem* ;)

[TheVirginian]

84. The A.B.A. cleared him of any ethics violations. It won't stick.

[mzmolly]

87. Doesn't matter, he is not trustworthy.

On with plan B! :hi:

[TheVirginian]

88. No one will believe its not partisan-based if this is the "smoking gun".

It won't stick.

[mzmolly]

90. Sorry but if 911 is linked to Iraq - a legit issue like this WILL stick.

And given 60% of Americans want Alito filibustered as it is TODAY, I'm willing to role a few dice.

[agingdem]

3. We are the opposition party...

time to oppose!

[rhett o rick]

93. The Demo Party isn't opposing. A few are

and we will see who they are today. It is high time we kick out the Repub Lites and reclaim the Party.

[benburch]

4. Bullshit.

Was the opposition to the Nazis worse than none at all, even though they failed? Nope.

We need to fight this now because after Alito there is nothing left to fight for.

[dsc]

10. one could argue that it was

If they had spent more time working with each other and opposing Hitler then he may never have been Chancellor.

[benburch]

14. I doubt it.

Like Bush, Hitler's thuggery knew no bounds.

[mydreamcametrue]

6. Right you are.

That is why there will be no filibuster.

[efhmc]

8. If I knew that it would be used against a liberal in the future, at least

I would know there would be a future for liberals. Without a filibuster, I am almost sure there will not be.

[boobooday]

9. It doesn't matter at this point

What matters is taking a stand against a slide towards tyranny.

There is no choice on this, and this is not the time to make political calculations.

And the idea that "if we play nice, they will too" is obviously been proven false.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. Don't Know Bout Precedent, But This Willl Absolutely Hurt Our Image

I have no misguidance about that. I've known from the first call to arms that this decision will be one of integrity and simply doing what's right, not one for political gain. I'm not sure if others feel the same, but I have had no doubt that this filibuster will definitely be used against us and take away some of the momentum we have been feeling from some of the other scandals going on. Some that may have been starting to approach our party may shy away again for a bit, and the right will have a field day crucifying us for the effort. We are definitely sacrificing some political health for this decision, no doubt at all.

Fact is though, for me, is sometimes you have to do the right thing anyway even if it hurts you politically. Fighting Alito is definitely one of those times we will sacrifice our image for standing up for what's right. But hopefully, months down the road, whatever political loss we suffered from this will be erradicated and we will have gained momentum again from the ongoing scandals.

[dsc]

16. It isn't short term I am worried about

frankly I doubt it will do diddly in the short term politically. I do fear that when in 2010, President Feingold or President Kerry or President Gore nominates Tribe for the Supreme Court it will then bite us in the ass. I would be willing to pay that price if it actually keeps Alito off the Court, but if it doesn't then that would really suck.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. You Missed The Point. It Is Being Done Because It Is Right, Not Because

of political implications.

[Catrina]

25. A Democratic Majority in the House and Senate should solve

that problem, not to mention that once we take back the House and Senate in Nov. and the hearings into all the corruption of the Repulican Party, not to mention possible impeachment hearings, begin, it is my opinion that the Republican Party will be spending their time trying to rebuild what was once a party with some integrity.

When the Abramoff Scandals (how many are there?), the K Street Project, the neocon plot that got us into war, the Valerie Plame Affair, Domestic Spying, The Spies in the Pentagon scandal, the Forged Niger Documents scandal, Enron, and on and on, take down the House of Cards that is today's excuse for a Republican Party, it will be a long, long time before they have a majority again, imo, and by then, Alito will be a footnote in history, only brought up, the way others are today, to show that 'Dems do it too' but with little effect.

[dsc]

31. far from it

The whole reason we are resorting to a filibuster is that it doesn't require a majority. Barring the virtually non existent possibility of us winning 61 seats in the Senate this precedent will not serve us well.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

13. Dean supports it. Since you oppose, write to him with your argument. n/t

[jsamuel]

15. This is awfully reminiscent of the Iraq War Resolution: let's just vote Y

es

It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

We have to fight for what is right. We should have stopped the Iraq War Resolution.

[dsc]

20. I actually agree we should have stopped that

but we could do that with just an up or down vote. This will forever alter the way court choices are dealt with and I am not sure to the benefit of liberalism.

[jsamuel]

28. no, that isn't true, people used an argument just like that for the IWR

They said:

"If we ever need to go to war again, we don't want to set a precedent that congress will defy the president."

[sheelz]

17. He was selected for his ideology.

He needs to be unselected for his ideology! Our Constitution is at stake! Filibuster is the only option!

[shance]

19. This has nothing to do with ideology. He was dishonest and didnt answer

the questions. Period.

His ideology is merely a symptom of the much larger issue - which is HONESTY.

[dsc]

23. then we should say that

we aren't. We are saying he will overturn decision x or decision y.

[ProSense]

33. That's exactly what should be said: he will. Why should anyone believe he

he'll uphold it? The RW has been itching to do this and they will pressure anyone to reverse it in the same way they pressured on Schiavo.

CNN: 55% against or unsure about Alito on Roe v. Wade

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=264999&mesg_id=264999

[dsc]

34. because in a few years

I don't want nominees to be denied because they will read the 14th amendment to give rights to gays.

[ProSense]

38. The public isn't sold on Alito. If the public is sold on that issue

at that time, then fight like hell then too. There is no excuse.

[sheelz]

24. Within their ideology is dishonesty--at the root!

[doublethink]

21. "unitary executive" almost 5500 times on White House Web site"

From LuckyTheDogs post here ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2411796

A failed filibuster or no filibuster will lead to the same thing anyway, but in fighting for the truth and not giving up, maybe more Americans will be more informed of just what's at stake. That could come in handy down the line IMHO. Peace. :)

[Catrina]

30. 'Moon Unit Exectuive!' In more ways than one, Bush is a puppet of people

like Sun Myung Moon.


Sorry, I couldn't help it when I saw the word 'Unitary' ~ what sort of language is that anyway?

[doublethink]

49. Here ya go......

unitary
adjective
1 unitary
characterized by or constituting a form of government in which power is held by one central authority; "a unitary as opposed to a federal form of government"

2 one(a), unitary
having the indivisible character of a unit; "a unitary action"; "spoke with one voice"

3 unitary
of or pertaining to or involving the use of units; "a unitary method was applied"; "established a unitary distance on which to base subsequent calculations"

4 unitary
relating to or characterized by or aiming toward unity; "the unitary principles of nationalism"; "a unitary movement in politics"

Note: when Alito argued that that no President is above the law, he wasn't lying since he believes in the 'Unitary Executive' theory which in turn means 'The President is the law. So how could he be above it? :crazy: Peace. :)

[bookman]

22. We're there already

The times have changed so that I believe we're there already. The types you mention would filibuster whether we do it now or not.

[ihelpu2see]

26. It has to be part of the thought process, I'm sure Kerry has had these

thoughts. I have other concerns, American people have short attention spans and even shorter patients with Political parties causing an uprising. I would hate a filibuster to ruin our the chances of a big win in 06 and the possible impeachment of GW in the winter of 06!!

[xultar]

27. I kinda see where you are coming from. Memories are long in the senate

This could be a haunting matter.

We better take the senate back and keep it for a few decades.

[debbierlus]

29. The right will do what the right will do

And, they would not hestitate to filibuster.

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. They have to stand up to the * regime!!!!

It's about time some of our senators grew a fucking spine. I am sick of their inaction and inability to do ANYTHING because they are the minority. They are making their voices heard. I applaud them.

[Cocoa]

35. if the GOP wants to filibuster a future dem appointee

they will do it. If there was no precedent they will say fuck precedent.

[Little Star]

36. Oh sure

if we Dems lay down on this then the ever so play fair repugs will certainly lay down when its their turn in the minority. What dream world do people live in?

[bowens43]

37. a failed filibuster will absolutely be worse

then none at all. Not only for the reason that you state but also because it will hurt us in November with swing voters. Unless some miracle occurs, Alito will be appointed , filibuster or no filibuster.
Under these circumstances any thing that may cost us votes should be avoided.

BTW, expect extreme flaming (being called a traitor, a naysayer, a coward etc)for suggesting that a failed filibuster isn't a good and noble thing worth what ever it may cost us.

[Gman]

39. By George, you've got it!

A filibuster will focus all the attention of the country on the evils of the Coup of 2000.

[PBass]

40. Bush threw down the gauntlet, when he nominated Alito

Remember that Bush campaigned in 2000 as "a uniter, not a divider". If Bush was really a uniter then he would have nominated a moderate judge. Instead, he slapped the Democrats in the face by deep-sixing Miers for an even-more conservative judge, a judge who is outside the mainstream.

How will Democratic Senators respond? Will they show some leadership and fight for Democratic principles? Or are they just some folks who happen to collect a paycheck for working at a government job?

Voters (including swing voters) want to be inspired by strong leadership! Out here in the real world, we are sick and tired of weak leadership!

Remember during the 2004 election, when John Kerry was 'swift boated". I guarantee that a lot of "swing voters" thought to themselves "If John Kerry won't stand up for HIMSELF against these swift boat attacks, how can I expect him to stand up on MY behalf?"

The public wants STRONG LEADERSHIP. Hell the public will even vote for the "illusion" of strength (which is what Dumbya gives them).

[John Q. Citizen]

41. Got to disagree on a few points.

Supreme Court justices are always confirmed or opposed based on ideology and policy grounds. Who cares if someone makes up an excuse.

There is plenty of precedent to blocking nominations to the Supreme court. Did Meirs hurt the Repos back home? Not much.

If you believe the 40 most conservative Senators would allow a liberal to go unopposed to the very last breath, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Your predictions of some future woe for standing up and patriotically obstructing the appointment of a fascist (or corporatist if you prefer) judge is curious. I would think the voters would appreciate the Democrats for the passion of their convictions at least.

We must take a stand, win, lose or draw. So let's fight to win.


Dear Party, Dear Party who woulda known
Alito's a fascist it's plainly been shown
I wanna vote yes then I wanna vote no
I can't seem to win which ever way that I go,
Signed Red State Demo Senator.


Dear Red State Dear Red State
You have no complaint,
You are what you are
And you ain't what you ain't.
So listen up buster, and listen up good,
Quit wishing for bad luck and knocking on wood

sung to the tune of "Dear Abby" by John Prine

[dsc]

44. Marshall Brennan Blackman

to name three.

[John Q. Citizen]

57. That was pre- 9/11, dsc. A different Senate and a different world.

Haven't you noticed?

If one likes the direction of the "new world' then I suppose one would do what they can to sustain it.

If one feels we can do much better, and one has deeply held moral beliefs and values, then one feels obligated to use any legal means to stand up and protect their country, their families, and their people.

It really is all about values, and being willing to stand up for ones values. Tried and true at the ballot box I hear.

[tn-guy]

79. Have to disagree.....

"If you believe the 40 most conservative Senators would allow a liberal to go unopposed to the very last breath, I've got a bridge to sell you."


Ginsberg was a liberal by any definition. I'm having trouble remembering the "40 most conservative Senators" who opposed her. Could you help?

I'm not trying to pick a fight but it is important for people to not get so carried away with their fervor for a particular position that they fail to remember recent history. Making an argument that is easily demonstrated to be false or hyperbolic is a sure way to lose credibility for any other arguments one may make.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

83. Who suggested Ginsberg to Clinton? Do you know, cause I do....

Orin Hatch. Yes, that's right. He suggested Ginsberg and Breyer.

Yet now they try to spin around and say she was sooooo liberal, but we voted for her anyway.

Snip>
Strong argument -- if only it had happened that way. Either those peddling this conveniently muddled version of events don't remember it correctly or they are betting that others won't. Listeners beware: Those who don't remember history are condemned to be spun by it.

In fact, then-Judge Ginsburg was a consensus choice, pushed by Republicans and accepted by the president in large part because he didn't want to take on a big fight. Far from being a crazed radical, Ginsburg had staked out a centrist role on a closely divided appeals court. Don't take it from me -- take it from Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). In his autobiography, the Utah Republican describes how he suggested Ginsburg -- along with Clinton's second pick, Stephen G. Breyer -- to the president. "From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democratic administration," Hatch writes.

snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005111401021.html

[TayTay]

42. It is not right to put this man on the Supreme Court.

I do not want a justice on the court who thinks it's okay to shoot an unarmed kid in the back of the head. I do not want a justice on the court who thinks it's okay to strip search a 10 year old girl.

The purpose of the filibuster is also to get the President to come to Congress, as Pres. Clinton did with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer and ask the other party to make suggestions for who can get through the process and who might be a candidate agreeable to both sides.

That's how it should be done. That's also what is at state here.

[A Simple Game]

43. It doesn't matter if the filibuster fails or not.

The Republicans are playing by their we are the majority rules.

If they return to being the minority party, they will start playing by their we are them minority rules.

If a filibuster suits their purpose, they will use it, no precedent needed.

[depakid]

45. Yeah right

I often agree with your takes, but you're WAY off base here. The precedent was already set BY REPUBLICANS when they blocked so many of Clinton's appointment.

The Republicans WILL NEVER abide by any agreement- formal or informal. Just like a domestic abuser. There's no appeasing people like that. And as long as we're talking about Dole- look at what Bob and the Republicans were able to stop- with just the threat of the filibuster in 93-95 with only 41 Senators.

Were they "punished" for being "obstructionists?" No- they were rewarded with control of both houses- which they've held ever since- do in no small part from weak and ineffectual "leadership" and campaigns marked by just this kind of misguided thinking.

[Mass]

46. The good news is that Dean, Durbin, and Stabenow

disagree with you.

They all understand why it is important to fight. In addition, you seem to think that the GOP never tried to filibuster a Democratic nominee. It is simply not the case. They have several times and they will whether we oppose Alito or not.

[dsc]

47. The only Supreme Court nominee they filibustered

was Fortas and that was over finances. They didn't filibuster Marshall to take one example.

[Mass]

52. Sure because Clinton listened to Hatch when he chose his nominees

Hatch proposed Bryers and Ginsberg. Granted, those were good choices, but if Clinton had chosen who he wanted at the beginning, do you actually believe that they would not have filibustered.

The Democrats had said Alito was a bad choice from the get-go.

Alito is a really bad choice and we know it. If we continue to be afraid of what the GOP will do when there is a Democratic president, we will simply never have a Democratic President.

[dsc]

54. they wouldn't have needed to filibuster

as they had a majority. I am pretty sure that is why he took their views into account.

[Mass]

55. Ok, we can be afraid and do nothing.

But this is not the Democratic Party I support.

They did just that in 2002 and they lost the election.

They did just that in 2004 and they lost the election.

At least, let's stand for what we stand, just because it is the right thing to do.

I think we have to agree to disagree on that.

[tritsofme]

59. Nope, the 103rd Congress had 57 Democrats. nt

[dsc]

71. He got to name Ginsburg in 95 and Bryer in 96

both after the disasterous elections of 1994

[tritsofme]

73. Ginsberg and Breyer were confirmed in 1993 and 1994 respectively

in the 103rd Congress.

[flpoljunkie]

63. Many folks do not know that Hatch proposed both Ginsberg & Breyer.

And what do the Democrats get from Bush? The back of the hand--no consultation whatsoever.

Bush and Rove play hardball. It is about time we do likewise.

[tn-guy]

76. In fairness, Fortas should not have been confirmed

The issue with the Fortas nomination was more than just finances. During the hearings it came out that Fortas, while a sitting justice regularly attended White House staff meetings and gave LBJ briefings on secret court deliberations. In other words he not only ignored, but actively subverted the separation of powers between the courts and the executive. Imagine the uproar if a current justice, say Scalia, was found to be doing the same. Frankly, Fortas should have been impeached for his actions.

[many a good man]

48. Maybe a liberal nominee SHOULD be able to attract the 40 most conservative

We are seeing right now how hard it is to raise 3/5ths to filibuster a nominee. Maybe lifetime appointments should only go to moderate jurists whose ideology does not stray too far outside the mainstream, like Unitary Executive theory clearly does. Maybe these kinds of appointments really should be national consensus-building exercises, not dramas of raw naked partisan aggression. I reject your hypothesis.

Maybe the president could start by offering a nominee WHO HASN'T WORKED IN A REPUBLICAN WHITE HOUSE advocating extremist views. There are plenty of qualified judges who have never worked in anybody's WH. Sometimes its good to encourage politicians to "reach out" across the aisle to fulfill important government functions. Let the people decide on the next election day which side is putting ideology above country.

[dsc]

51. The Judiciary is supposed to stand up for unpopular

things. I would hate to have Brown v Board put up for a vote in 53.

[many a good man]

58. Ideological/partisan jurists can never be truly independent

Without supermajorities a case like Brown might get a second look by the Court, too!

I wonder what the hearings were like for THESE guys:

[Snivi Yllom]

50. it could guarantee 2-3 more conservative SC appointments

I think at least one more is likely before 2008. And it's even odds the GOP keep the WH in 2008. Same goes for the Senate.

A filibuster will lead to the nuclear option being wielded and the freedom to use it repeatedly. The next SC nominees most likely be far more conservative that theor replacements.

I see no upside.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. So we don't filibuster this one

and then the next one, well we can't filibuster him either for the same defeatist reasons and then the next one has to be let through as well.

So we fight when?

[Snivi Yllom]

74. forcing the nuclear option lowers the bar for Bush

it makes it easier to get an even more conservative justice through confirmation if another vacancy opens during this term, or even worse, between 2008-2012 if the GOP wins the WH again.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. Eh ? Excuse me but the bar is on the floor.

Alito is as far right as they want or need. He will vote as he is told to vote and he will vote for the imperial executive and against Roe v Wade. There is no lower bar we are heading for here. "an even more conservative justice" is a figment of your imagination that you are using to justify doing nothing, sitting still, bending over.

[bettyellen]

86. that didn't address the question: we fight when?

and we count on them being as docile when we have a nomination? not too likely, is it?

[Snivi Yllom]

91. thats the point

you have to WIN the WH and the Senate to effectively fight

[bettyellen]

95. so your answer is never to fight.let's just pretend we are okay with alito

and when things go to hell in a handbasket, they can say we went along.
no thanks, i don't like the results of this strategy so far.
more foolish soulesss DLC drivel that's put the party in the sad spot it's in rigfht now.

[Surya Gayatri]

53. Do not agree!

This line must be drawn in the sand even if it is finally trampled upon and erased by the majority--we may lose in the short term, but gain in credibility in the long term.
It's less about ideology than the overall unsuitability of this nominee who obfuscated about his beliefs & obscured his background during an equivocal and evasive parody of a hearing. SG

[Armstead]

56. It will be used by the GOP anyway -- Regardless of what is done now

You have more faith in the Republicans than I do. Once shoes are on the otehr foot, the Republicans will be doing exactly this.

I don't think it matters one whit whether the Democrats "play fair" on this one. All of the Democrats could vote for Alito and say "We are doing this out of respect for the institution" and still the next time a Democrat is in power the GOP will do everything possible to scuttle all Democratic nominations.

Never forget the impeachment. You want to talk about a nasty precident.

[TruthStream_dot_org]

60. Blah Blah

so I guess we should all just accept our fate and bow to our republican masters so we dont 'look bad'. Blow me.

[tritsofme]

61. You're right you know, but some people make their own reality.

Clinton replaced anti-Roe Byron White with pro-Roe Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and she got 96 votes.

We have now made the new standard for confirmation to the SCOTUS 60 votes, and it would be incredibly disingenuous to bemoan this fact when the next Democratic president wants to make his appointment to the Court.

[Armstead]

64. There is an important point you are missing

Clinton only submitted Ginsburg after actually soliciting advice and suggestions from Republicans.

He didn't thumb his nose at the GOP by nominating some hard-core lefty who would provoke a fight.

Rather than compromise and be reasonable, Bush has submitted a nominee guaranteed to provoke a fight.

[tritsofme]

65. I find Clarence Thomas to be much more objectionable than Alito

Not to mention tremendously more qualified for the job.

And he won confirmation in a Senate that had 55 Democrats.

Such a thing would never happen today, it is a different culture in Washington today.

And I think the confirmation process is changed forever.

[Armstead]

66. In an ideal world all nominees would be moderates

I don't believe any Supreme Court justice should be political. They should all be down the middle, and judge each case on its oewn terms.

But that's not the world we live in. Bush could have at least nominated a moderate conservative. But instead he thumbed his nose at at least half the country.

We can bend over and take it, or we can fight back. Yiou can be damn sure the Republicans would be doing everything in their power to avoid an "up or down vote" if the she were on the other foot.

[liberalpragmatist]

67. Well, Roberts got 70+ votes

Personally, I think if Democrats had planned longer-term for a possible filibuster, they should have voted en masse for Roberts - given him an 80 or 90+ confirmation so to put them in a better spot to oppose Alito.

As for a possible filibuster, I honestly don't know what to think. I doubt it'll go long enough to provoke a change in the Senate rules - the Nuclear Option. So I do kind of wonder what the end game is. And I am aware of the precedent it sets, although I will say that maybe 60+ votes for a Supreme Court Justice is a good thing.

[mmonk]

62. I disagree on the premise.

First, a failed filibuster is no worse than no filibuster. Second, Alito may very well mean a change in the way the constitution is administered, and may be an erosion of the concept of checks and balances. It has nothing to do with liberal and conservative, but more the concept of representaive government and protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority (in government).

[SeaBob]

68. fillibuster

Has anyone thought about flooding republican senators with anti alito messages?:evilgrin:

[Warren Stupidity]

69. I guess a future Democratic president

will have to find nominees that are acceptable to both sides of the aisle. Oh well..

The point is that Alito is ideologically unacceptable, has ethical problems, and refused to answer questions honestly. The point is that blocking this nomination is worth fighting for, even if we lose the fight. The point is that the very soul of the Democratic Party is what is at risk here, and that makes the prospect of some future problem with an intransigent Republican minority a risk I am more than willing to take.

At least if we stand and fight here an intransigent Republican minority is a distinct possibility.

[LSK]

77. please tell us when Unitary Executive has been in question before?????

Never in history has a President allowed himself a signing statement and threatens to be above the law.

Im sorry, the stakes are too high.

Filibuster is the ONLY option.

[in_cog_ni_to]

80. 61 of Clinton's nominees were pocket filibustered.

end of subject.

[AndyTiedye]

81. It Is About Upholding the Constitution

My most recent missive to our Senators:

Alito Must Not Be Confirmed

Alito's interpretation of the Constitution would replace the
separation of powers with a "unitary executive".

Our Founding Fathers had experienced a "unitary executive"
before, under the English King. They fought the American
Revolution to get free of it. They carefully crafted the
US Constitution to ensure that we would never have a
unitary executive here. For over 200 years it has worked.

If we give that up now on account of the threat of "terrorism",
the terrorists have won.

[Misskittycat]

85. We have to try - no matter what. n/t

[Czolgosz]

89. This is cowardly and also inaccurate. Fortas was filibustered on

ideological grounds. Alito's filibuster should be on more than ideological grounds - he also lied to the Senate in his prior confirmation regarding recusal from Vanguard cases and during this confirmation questioning Alito would not answer questions.

It is cowardly because it knuckles under to First's nuclear threat. The Republicans will do everything they can to fuck a future Democratic nominee no matter whether we play nice this time or not. Moreover, this issue ought never arise because Democrat presidents have previously respected Senatorial courtesy on judicial nominees, and have consulted with both parties' Senate leader before naming a Supreme Court nominee. It is Bush who has made this a partisan issue by failing to consult with Democratic leaders before nominating Alito (of course, they would have suggested someone who was not a radical prick if that had happened).

If we can hold fast on the cloture vote, we can force the nuclear option. I doubt First can get 51 votes to go nuclear. If he fails, we win. If he gets the 51 votes, the story is that Democrats went to the wall for what we believe and the Republicans changed to rules to pack the court. If it comes to that, this story will be remembered by the public every time Alito slimes the Constitution.

[rhett o rick]

92. If we lose here, we won't have to worry about procedure in the future. nm

[McCamy Taylor]

96. What judge will oppose a right popular with the majority like Roe v. Wade?

I doubt that any judge who OPENLY states a view like that prior to a confirmation hearing would ever get through the nomination process much less get onto the floor under ordinary circumstances. The Reagan era memo would usually be enough to exclude a candidate. W. went too far with Scalito.

[OzarkDem]

97. Ideology will be used against Dem appts in the future no matter what

Its a new right wing world. When will our Dem leaders in Washington DC realize the right wing conservative train has left the station a long time ago.

No matter what Dems do or don't do, right wingers will use the ideological standard against Dem nominees to SC. Their job is to do all they can to ensure Dems are able to recover enough power in the future to even nominate someone.