Why filibuster is a terrible idea.....

[BigYawn]

If it succeeds, repugs will be forced to go nuclear.
For those who don't know what that means, the senate
passes a change of rules procedure to require 51 senators
instead of the current 60 to confirm ALL judges.

If God forbid they are forced into going nuclear,
FOR THE NEXT 3 YEARS EVERY RW JUDGE GETS CONFIRMED by
a simple majority of 51.

If the filibuster fails, we gain nothing, ofcourse.

So either way filibuster gains us nothing, but sucks a
lot of oxygen out of our winning issues such as Healthcare,
Jobs, Social Security, Environment, etc etc etc.

Lets face the reality. Alito was confirmed when 55 repukes
were admitted to senate on November 2nd, 2004. Our ONLY goal
should be to regain either the senate in 2006 or both Senate
and WH in 2008. Until that happens, just hope for the best
but prepare for the worst.

[unblock]

1. and if we DON'T filibuster, they STILL get every nomination they want

what a pointless argument.

this is a way to show some unity and spine. and no, the banana republicans aren't "forced" to use the nuclear option, that's their choice, and a flagrantly rule-violating one at that.

[fooj]

2. Well said.

Peace.

[BigYawn]

8. Actually, if they don't go nuclear they still need 60 senators to

confirm every judge who comes up. So it is HARDER
than if they need only 51 senators to confirm.

[jsamuel]

13. and then they use the nuclear option just as you already posted...

you are going in circles...

[BigYawn]

35. Let me repeat and re-explain....

If they go nuclear, from that point forward all they
need is 51 senators for every judge who comes up
before the senate. That includes SCOTUS, Appellate
courts, and every other federal judge.

The reason why they have not already executed that
option is because they know someday we will be in the
majority. But at this point in the Alito game, they
can nopt afford to roil their base by not going nuclear
if filibuster succeeds.

[jsamuel]

42. but in the future, when they need 60 votes, they can just nuke then too

The problem is that under your theory, there is NEVER going to be an appropriate time to filibuster. EVER. Because in the future, when we need to filibuster to get someone on the court, they will then still need 60 and will nuke.

Do you realize that they need 51 votes to get someone on the court and 60 votes to stop a filibuster? Or are you confusing the vote for/against with the vote for cloture?

[BigYawn]

54. NOT. There WILL be appropriate time for a filibuster if

the judge being considered has low poll numbers.
All the polls I have seen give Alito aprox 60%
approval rating from the general public.

Therefore we neither gain popular support from a filibuster,
nor we stop Alito.

I totally understand the frustration of our base seeing
Alito get confirmed without a fight. My whole point is,
from a cold, hard political perspective, we gain nothing
and lose precious time and energy with a filibuster for Alito.

[jsamuel]

56. CBS: 90% of Dems, 69% of Inds and 37% of Reps Oppose/Unsure of Alito

Nearly 40% of Republicans are Opposed/Unsure about Alito. I doubt there will ever be another nom. that will be worse than that...

The media has been playing word games to make you think the public supports Alito...

Show me this "poll" that says 60% support Alito, not "thinks he will get in".



CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 20-25, 2006. N=1,229 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).



"As you may know, George W. Bush has nominated federal Judge Samuel A. Alito to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. What do you think right now? Should the Senate vote to confirm Samuel Alito as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, or vote against Alito, or can't you say?"

Vote all adults (and by party)

Confirm 33% (Republicans 63%; Democrats 10%; Independents 31%)

Vote Against 18% (Republicans 2%; Democrats37%; Independents 13%)

Can't Say 46% (Republicans 33%; Democrats49%; Independents 52%)

Unsure 3% (Republicans 2%; Democrats 4%; Independents 4%)

My footnote: Totals from above
Opposed/unsure
37% Republican
90% Democrats
69% Independents

[BigYawn]

61. Thanks for that poll data, do you happen to recall what were Bork's

poll numbers? He was successfully filibustered. But
then we got SCALIA who slipped right under the radar.

That is another problem with filibusters. The next
nominee slips through.

Do you think if Senators Kerry and Kennedy would come out
as forcefully against dismantling Social Security instead
of the Alito filibuster, it would gain us more votes in 2006?
I seem to think so. And there are many other issues I would
rather keep in front of the public than Alito.

Gaining senate seats in 2006 is all I want to spend energy on.

[jsamuel]

64. "Gaining senate seats in 2006 is all I want to spend energy on" - I agree

That is the problem. I think we will accomplish that by fighting, unlike the IWR when Dems layed down and let the Repubs do as they please.

I understand that you think "picking our battles" is a good idea. And you are right to a degree. For example, I don't think it is a good idea for Dems to start saying Marx was a great guy. However, fighting a nom. that nearly 40% of Republicans don't like and 90% of Dems don't like is a GREAT battle for Dems. But that isn't why it is a great fight. It is a great fight, because the Dems can show their democratic principles (the so-called "values" issue).

[BigYawn]

80. Only time will tell if you are right, and perhaps as early as next week!

[high density]

17. ?????

You don't make any sense, man!

[unblock]

23. i see. they "need" 60 votes except when the don't get it. then it's 50.

[jsamuel]

yeah... makes a lot of sense, doesn't it

:eyes:


Then the BigYawn comes on every time and tells us that a filibuster is a bad idea every time. Then they still need 60 votes... then they only need 50, but then they need 60, then they need 50... blah blah blah

[Burning Water]

57. It's like being mugged

by an armed robber.

You either give up your wallet and all your valuables, or you get the shit kicked out of you, maybe get shot and killed, and still give up all your valuable.

The poster is right. We need to reclaim the Senate and the White House.

[AndyTiedye]

114. We've Been Getting Mugged And Robbed (even Murdered) in the Elections Too

What makes you think 2006 or 2008 will be any different?






...committed to helping to deliver the electoral votes of Ohio to the President."
Walden O'Dell, C.E.O. Diebold Corp

[Burning Water]

122. Because we know

what's going on. Because we know how they do it. Because we can't, and won't, let it happen again.

We'll have people at every polling place. We'll have good, patriotic Americans watching for the slightest misdeed by the Repukes. We will take every violation to court.

And if we don't, then we deserve to lose. We know what they're going to do, and we are the majority. We can stop them, if we will.

[AndyTiedye]

128. We Have Heard That Before

We'll have people at every polling place. We'll have good, patriotic Americans watching for the slightest misdeed by the Repukes.

We did all that in 2004. When we started to get in the way of their theft, they declared a "terra alert" and threw all the observers out.

We will take every violation to court.

and all courts lead to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts presiding.

This is why the Supreme Court matters so much.

[Burning Water]

126. Well, then

if you're already convinced that we've lost, why fight at all? Just go ahead and make your own life as pleasnt as ppossible in the 4$th Reich.

[AndyTiedye]

127. I'm Convinced We Need to Fight This Nomination!

If our efforts to fight the fraud in court and to have any chance of success,
we have to keep BFEE lackeys like Alito off the Supreme Court.

[annabanana]

3. buh bye, "unanimous consent"

It would be a GOOD thing to have all the bills read in their entirety before being voted on, dontcha think?

[Justitia]

14. bingo. -eom

[BigYawn]

59. Yes! I am all for it....eom

[in_cog_ni_to]

77. That's EXACTLY what they should do.

and will. :)

[TahitiNut]

97. Yes, and I'd love to see a real quorum call every time less than 51 ...

... Senators were present, and a request for 'Order' when they're not nailed to their seats.

[mike_c]

4. if we never take advantage of the filibuster, the pukes...

...don't have to go nuclear because dems simply allow them to succeed with a 51 percent margin anyway-- the "up or down vote" that we don't oppose for fear of the senate rule change-- and without even putting up a fight. The repigs hold all the cards here, but the least dems could do is force them to put them on the table.

[jsamuel]

5. How many threads have you started with the exact same point?

[BigYawn]

15. My only 2nd on this or any other subject. I am sorry to pour cold

water of hard reality on a lot of people here.
I admire their zeal and work, but I would rather channel
it in more useful issues than this utterly useless
filibuster thing.

[jsamuel]

the problem is your "hard reality" ignores reality, see post 13

[Carni]

53. People said it was utterly useless to contest the electoral vote

in 2000 too--so our gutless wonders in the senate didn't...that worked out well don't you think?

[ulysses]

6. and in November

we will, again, be The Party That Kept Its Powder Dry, But Never Shot At Anything.

[Mass]

7. How do you expect that people think the Democrats will fight for

all you list if they never fight a battle because they think the battle is lost?

[BigYawn]

19. People will love us if we fight for Social Security, universal one

payer health care, outsourcing of job, environment....
on and on

[Mass]

26. No, they will think we are going to stop fighting before the end

just like on all these other issues. I am sometimes asking myself the same question.

We cant do anything on all of these issues because we dont have a majority either. Why should I believe that the same people who say we have to stop fighting because we dont have the vote will not do the same things on all these subjects and say we have to vote for the Republican bills (remember the Bankruptcy Bill and CAFTA, it was exactly like that).

It is not that I dont believe that the Dems should not fight for those. It is that, with each battle they do not fight, I wonder why I should believe they will. So fight for this filibuster, even if we lose it, and people will understand that the Democrats are serious when they fight.

[AndyTiedye]

117. Last Time The Dems Tried to Do Health Care, They Got Run Out of Town

Last time anyone proposed universal health care (I seem to recall their names were "Clinton")
it didn't go over very well.
The Dems got routed from both houses in the next election.:-(

I think health care may still radioactive for a lot of Dems on that account.
They won't take on the health care industry again any time soon
(especially now one of their own is running the show in the Senate).

[Kahuna]

22. Right. Exactly. The constant criticism is that the Dems don't stand for

anything. Why? Because they're afraid to lose? That's BS. They should fight and fight and fight. They should put the Repukes on record as voting against the people instead of always conceding like whipped dogs.

[BigYawn]

63. Fighting against Alito gains us the votes we ALREADY have,

in order to gain in 2006, we need to gain more voters
than we had in 2004. IMHO Social Security protection,
affordable healthcare, tax fairness, protecting environment
better than shrub is doing, getting out of Iraq ASAP, these
are issues which gain us more than Alito.

[AndyTiedye]

118. If We Let Alito In, Roe Falls. Abortion Becomes Illegal

Some here think that will bring the pro-choice people more into our camp.
But it may not work that way if they think we abandoned them.

[shraby]

9. So.....we should just lay down and let

a terrible choice of judge be given a seat on the Supreme Court for life. I'm sorry, a line has to be drawn in the sand and Alito is where it is. A person with his philosopy should never be allowed a position like that for life.

[jsamuel]

10. please respond to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x265349

[Nutmegger]

11. Sorry - I disagree

If we allow ourselves to be intimidated by the so-called "nuclear option", then we're the ones who have lost. Only when we don't stand up will Bush Inc continue to do what they do.

I doubt they will risk changing the rules because, someday, they will be in the minority. Let's call their bluff.

[BigYawn]

25. I respect your right to disagree in a civil manner, thanks for that...

I don't think we leave them a choice. They will look
so bad to THEIR BASE if ALito nominations goes down.
They will have no choice but go nuclear if filibuster
succeeds.

[jsamuel]

27. They have a choice, you are making excuses for Repubs nuking us...

poor, poor Repukes...

and you still haven't responded to post 13

[BigYawn]

37. I respect your right to disagree....that is why we are all here...

to put forward our ideas and opinions.

[Nutmegger]

40. No problem, I don't want to flame you just because we

see things differently.

If they do go nuclear, then there's no doubt in my mind that they will regret it. I only hope all Americans will see how dirty they play. The Repukes, no matter what they say, have filibustered in the past and the Dems didn't pull this "nuclear option" out of the air.

[caligirl]

12. It is THEIR CHOICE to take no prisoners with the N option. Nothing

the dems do is an excuse for their over reaching power hungary choices. Co dependent thinking that their actions are our fault is part of the party sickness.

We go down fighting and they suffer the conseuences of their power grab in Novemeber.

[BigYawn]

102. You might be right on that but in the meanwhile, for the next 3 years

every Federal judge, not to mention possible vacancies
on SCOTUS will all be confirmed with 51 votes instead
of 60 as is now.

[TayTay]

16. The nuclear option was already detonanted last year

in all but name. The Rethugs have gotten every appointment they have wanted and the Dems have done nothing about it. In some cases, like the Bolton appointment, the President had to do a recess appointment to get Bolton to the UN.

I will not give any money to any Senator who doesn't support the filibuster. Not one thin dime. If the DSCC wants anymore money from me, or time or effort, then they had better produce. That's what it's about.

[BigYawn]

103. So you will throw some of our senators to the lions just because

they saw in their political survival the best
recourse was to abstain on filibuster? Would'nt you
rather have a few DINO's instead of helping their
opponents by withholding your support?

Just remember evn the DINO's add up towards a possible majority
and therefore towards a majority leader in senate and
also chairmanship of every committee...all very useful
postions for wielding power.

[maddiejoan]

18. Might as well give them your lunch money too.

I mean the reality is that mean ol' bully is gonna take it anyways.

[BigYawn]

104. Listen, they have the majority right now, let them have their

judge. We will concentrate on winning back the majority
in 2006. Then the shoe will be on the other foot.

[Vinca]

20. On the other hand . . .

if they end the filibuster, our new Democratic president and Democratic senate will have no trouble at all getting his or her nominees in. Then, of course, the 'pukes will whine about the unfairness of it all. I say go for broke.

[BigYawn]

105. I will grant you nothing much will be lost if we go for broke on

filibuster. So long as it does not drag on for weeks
and suck all the oxygen out of what I consider are our
best issues for winning additional votes in 2006.

My main problem with filibuster is even if it wins,
it does not stop Alito if they go nuclear. Then the time
was wasted. And time wasted can never be recovered.

[pat_k]

21. As opposed to what's happening now??

This is one is near the top of the "absurd rationalization" list.

When something will be stolen from you the moment you pull it out of your pocket, it is as good as gone already.

[mzmolly]

24. I appreciate another perspective -

thanks.

[BigYawn]

28. And thaNks you too...I read your numerous posts with interest..

You are a valuable contributor here.

[mzmolly]

68. Thank you very much.

You are as well. ;)

[Fredda Weinberg]

29. You don't need to defeat a bully

All you have to do is stand your grand and reveal your opponent's cowardice.

[BigYawn]

32. You really think the repugs can backout of Alito without losing

face with their bas constituency? Just put yourself
in their shoes.

[jsamuel]

34. You make our point for us: We put the Repukes in a BAD situation

they are between a rock and a hard place...

They either "do whatever they have to for Bush" or they "hurt their relationship with their base"...

[BigYawn]

108. Yes, if it was an easy choice, they would have done it already...

It is most certainly a duble edged sword (to go nuclear).
But if filibuster succeeds, we are cornering them into
executing the nuke. I am sure Frist is scared shitless of
the RW fundies if Alito is rejected and he did not go nuclear.
They will hammer the repugs in November for sure.

[Fredda Weinberg]

39. Think more than one step ahead

No matter how this episode ends, fighting for principle strengthens us and intimidates our opponents.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. Maybe you should stop putting yourself in their shoes

And start putting yourself in our shoes.

Or better yet, put yourself in the shoes of a 17 year-old woman in Georgia who has gotten pregnant and chooses to end the pregnancy. This is three years down the line, when Roe v. Wade is overturned by radical conservative ideologue Samuel Alito and his batshit crazy cohort. Put yourself in her fucking shoes.

This isn't about "tactics," at the end of the day. It isn't a football game. It is about issues, and much more about that 17 year-old than about various political machinations and your dubious strategic speculations. Jesus Christ, man get a little fucking perspective.

[Fovea]

75. Indeed

In their place, they have a minority base who have extraordinary investment in the Repub goals.

But the majority of Americans are opposed to the core goals of the Repub base.

So yes, by all means, let them either cleave to, or abandon their base. Either way we can de laminate the artificial republican coalition, and by so doing, neutralize it.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. no here is a better strategy:

roll over and put your butt in the air in the classic act of submission.

[Fredda Weinberg]

41. LOL!

Exactly ... it's all about posturing. In the wild, it's how beasts avoid physical conflict.

[BigYawn]

44. There is a time to fight, and sometimes it is better to save

your ammo for another fight with a better chance
to succeed. Every good general will ask the troops to
retreat when the odds are overwhelmingly against and
live to fight another day.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. This is a good fight to lose.

Losing through the nuclear option ends the current "de facto nuke" and forces the Republicans to act overtly like the bullies and thugs that they are. They will spin and spin, but the fact will remain that they changed the rules 'cause they were going to lose, and everyone understands what sort of person does that: a spoiled bully. And guess what: we are heading right into the '06 campaign. They timing could not be better.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party has been avoiding fights it can't win for years and years and the result is that the party now has a reputation for being weak and uncommitted, for standing for nothing.

The worst case for standing and fighting is that we suffer a tactical defeat that in reality will put us in a stronger position politically. The worst case for standing and fighting is that Alito gets on the court and the nuclear option is made explicit rather than implied. The best case for running and hiding is that Alito is still on the court and the nuclear option remains implicit rather than explicit. The thugs get to portray the Democratic Party as not committed to its own core principles, as weak and vacillating and undisciplined, and they do not have to look like the bullies that they are.

Your strategy here is a strategy of perpetual defeat with no end in sight. You are wrong as wrong can be.

[Patsy Stone]

78. And you are right as right can be.

Great post. Thanks for saying what I was thinking! :thumbsup:

[AndyTiedye]

115. The Odds Are ALWAYS Overwhelmingly Against Us. More So Every Year.

The longer we wait, the more of an uphill battle it becomes.

They own the news, they own the voting machinez,
even most of the churches.
If Alito is confirmed, they will own the Supreme Court,
and since the Supreme Court decides disputed Presidential and Congressional elections,
that's the ball game, folks.

[Indy Lurker]

30. Why would the Repubs go Nuclear?

Why wouldn't they just let the filibuster continue till enough Dems eventually cave in.

How many senators are willing to bring the senate to a halt for a month or two.

Starting a filibuster will be the easy part, Maintaining it will be tough, especally when they are known to be enough votes to confirm.

Worst cases would seem to be holding up the senate for 6 weeks, then caving in anyhow.

[BigYawn]

48. You have an excellent point...but if the filibuster does succeed

then the repugs have no choice bvut go nuclear.
If they don't, their base contituency will kill them
in November 2006. Alito, from their viewpoint, has
come a long way, theough the gruelling interrogation
in judiciary committee, and has favorable poll numbers.

By putting myself in their shoes, I do not see how they
can avoid going nuclear if cornered into that.

Ofcourse, if filibuster fails as you point out, they won't
go nuclear because they are also afraid of it. Someday they
will be in minority.

[Yupster]

71. That's a point I made a few days ago Indylurker

If you were Bush why fear a filibuster?

Right now he's facing an electoral defeat and maybe an electoral realignment in November. He knows this.

Why not have a giant fight over this to reshuffle the deck completely?

Why not let the Democratic senators filibuster? In the meantime spend millions on a public relations campaign to turn the public against the Dems. Have important bills stacked up which can't be passed until the "Liberals finish their temper tantrum." Let Jay Leno tell Ted Kennedy jokes night after night for weeks.

Meanwhile keep the focus groups and polling going and if public opinion turns toward the Demcratic side, then you can end it by going "nukular". But in the meantime, let the Democratic senators roast in public opinion for a month or three with the government "shut down."

One thing we saw with Newt Gingrich was that a confrontation like this is easily started, but not easily ended without looking like total capitulation. Just think about Bush so far. Is he going to compromise and pull Alito's name? That doesn't sound like Bush to me. He'll let the filibuster continue and hope it ruins the Dems in the next election. If Bush is anything, he is dsciplined.

So those who say there is nothing to lose by a filibuster, I believe are wrong.

Maybe it's just out of frustration, but I think on balance I'd still like to see one.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Oh please we've been down this before.

You present a deliberately false set of options. It is entirely possible that the attempt to change the rules will fail - oh wait you left that option out - oh wait that would be HUGH!!!11!

You fail to address the argument that by avoiding the nuclear option by not filibustering this hideous nomination we have effectively given the Republicans the nuclear option WITHOUT THEIR HAVING TO LOOK LIKE THE THUGS THAT THEY ARE.

Let the thugs pull the trigger. Great timing. Leading right into the 06 elections the Democratic Party is standing and fighting corrupt incompetent intolerant thugs and bullies. Great! Bring it on!

[punpirate]

33. No, not exactly...

... you're confusing a vote on cloture and the normal confirmation vote.

60 votes are required to end debate and bring a vote to floor--that's a vote on cloture.

Once that vote is brought to the floor, only a simple majority of Senators is required to confirm the nominee.

Therefore, the only point in the process at which Democrats have some control over the situation is on a vote for cloture.

Beyond that, if the `pugs were to bring on the so-called "nuclear option," they would also have to break their own Senate rules to do so. The "nuclear option" is a change to a Senate rule. The Senate rule governing rule changes is Rule 22. It requires that the rule be amended by a 3/4 vote of the entire Senate. They can't do it without violating their own rules. If they attempt to make that rule change by ignoring rule 22, I suspect the Senate will break down through a protracted filibuster on the rule change itself.

The filibuster is a sound principle, grounded in other legal precedent--the majority may not tyrannize the minority (in this case, by forcing unacceptable judicial candidates through the process on majority vote alone).

Cheers.

[Armstead]

38. Winning issues?

If the Democrats were taking proactive positions and fighting for them, you might have a point.

But the only real fight they's picked -- Social Security -- was actually defeated by Republicans who bailed out on Bush.

If the nomination of a SC justicer who will effect every other of those issues is not the time to fight, what is?

[BigYawn]

46. I would fight like hell against Alito confirmation if a

successful filibuster stops him. IT DOES NOT.
Please read what I would like to concentrate
fighting on, in my other posts on this thread.

[Armstead]

52. This is the Big Enchilada

So many issues are important, but this one of those rare occasions where they all intersect.

If the Supreme Court starts shooting down Congressional power, it won;t matter what legislature is eventually passed.

If the SC starts shooting down environmentsal regulation, it won;t matter what our environmental programs are.

Etc.

Saying a filabuster is doomed to fail is participating in a self-fulfilling and self-defeating prophecy.

The polls indicate a significant number of Americans are either opposed to Alito or -- almost as important -- admit that they don't know much about him. If nothing else a filibuster would put the core issues front and center.

[froshty1960]

70. Call me naive or crazy

... but can't we fight for everything? Why does there have to be a choice?

Maybe we could also think in terms of smaller steps... if a filibuster prevents Alito's confirmation on the day Bush wants it (SOTU day), shouldn't we try it? Won't we be eroding Bush's base by showing him that he can no longer get what he wants without a fight?

[BigYawn]

89. We don't want to fight for everything because our resources are limited

For best results in 2006, we have to pick the issues which will
give us the most return on investment.

Filibustering Alito will definately make the base happy, but 99%
of them already voted democratic in 2004.

We must go after those who either stayed home or voted repub in 2004.
And with limited resources of time, energy and money, no sense wasting
them on unproductive issues.

[BigYawn]

88. Ok then why not call and email the leaders on those winning issues

instead of wasting energies on this dead end filibuster?

[confludemocrat]

43. Throw in the towel BigYawn, yer ass is smoked!

There should be a mercy rule when an OP this devoid of a defensible point is dismantled like this and have the mods close it.

[BigYawn]

45. I am not throwing in the towel on Social Security, Universal

healthcare, outsourcing of jobs, taxcuts for the very
rich with huge budget deficits, environment, etc. I
just will not waste my energy on useless issues.

[Dogmudgeon]

47. You shouldn't smoke ass, conflu ...

It's bad for your health, you know.

:evilgrin:

Anyway, we need MORE than just a single filibuster to deal with Bush and Company. If the filibuster fails, screaming "Treason! Whore!" isn't going to do a whole lot more than spark a run on cough drops.

We're going to need to go to Plan B whether or not the filibuster succeeds; then, the long-term plan; the next battle; and so on.

Do you think that Team Bush is going to give up that easily? Not a chance!

I enjoyed considering the anti-filibuster position. It gave me some insight on what's going on. But then again, my own position is to fight and not quit -- ever.

I'll have plenty of time to name-call when I'm dead.

--p!

[marions ghost]

49. "Living to fight another day"

is high holy BS.

We are going to have to live to fight EVERY day the hijackers are in control.

:patriot: :kick: filibuster :patriot: :kick: filibuster :patriot: :kick:

[BigYawn]

51. Perhaps when you get as old as I am, you might think different.

[marions ghost]

62. Old is not equivalent to smart

...from what I've seen.

[BigYawn]

81. Nope, not smarter, just more cooler headed, more analytical, more

patience displayed. Not to mention richer hehehe.

[marions ghost]

121. oh yeah

how about another stereotype of aging --which I see in my line of work?

Let's talk about the older person who is MORE rigid, more dogmatic, more self-serving, more arrogant,
more skinflint...well, you know...more REPUBLICAN.

As for richer, I have rarely seen a rich person do anything creative or constructive or truly generous with their money. Usually they hoard it, spend it on useless junk for themselves, or apply a bit of it to conservative causes so they can make themselves feel better about what they did (or didn't do) to get it.

Sure, people become more shrewd and calculating as they get older, but generally in America, it's All About Moi. Young people who have been paying attention know they have a lot to lose with Alito and they know when they're being sold down the river by their elders. Young people are being asked to fight in Iraq but they are also needed to fight the more gut-wrenching political battles for Democracy here in the homeland. So I take issue with your blanket assertion that fighting back is a youthful affliction. Sure, pick your battles, but the Rethuglicans have made EVERYTHING into a battle. When you're dealing with white collar thugs and criminals, it's usually best to resist.

"Live To Fight Another day" = can also mean "Shut Up and Put Up."

[bluestateguy]

55. At some point you have to take a stand and take your chances

If a right-wing Supreme Court appointment is not that moment, I don't know what is. Your argument would make sense if we were talking about a district court judgeship, but in this case the stakes are much higher.

[BigYawn]

107. I will concede that it is ok to take a stand but with a big "if"

and that is that this filibuster does not drag on
for weeks and months. November 2006 is fast approaching,
there are tons of issues which I consider more productive
for getting votes in next election.

[flpoljunkie]

58. If Frist had had the votes last April, he'd have pulled the trigger then.

But after three months he did not, and the "gang of 14" prevailed--saving Frist from a vote that would have likely ended in failure. If he did not have the votes then, it is highly unlikely he would have them now. And with the Rethugs as nervous as they are about us kicking their asses in November and taking back the House and the Senate, they will think long and hard about "pulling the trigger."

http://www.theocracywatch.org/filibuster_predict_post_apr28_05.htm

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.

[BigYawn]

91. Ofcourse the repugs don't want "nuclear" as first option,

it is a two edged sword and they know it. But if you
corner them on Alito, I am afraid they might just go
for it. If Alito goes down, the RW base will simply
hammer Frist and company in 2006 elections, and they
know it.

[flpoljunkie]

123. Or, they may become disenchanted, feel betrayed, and stay home!

Your guess is as good as mine.

[JackORoses]

60. ...

yaaaaaaaawwwwwwwn...


they don't have the votes to go Nuclear
Next Topic,please

[BigYawn]

92. They need only 51 to go nuclear, not 60.

[MercutioATC]

66. One issue with that...this is probably the last appointment in the next 3

years.

Assuming we regain control of the White House, WE'D only need 51 votes to fill the next spots that open up.

[BigYawn]

93. Correct on the 51. But no way to be sure there will not be more

vacancies in 3 years. 3 years is a long time when you are
in 80's and have had bouts with cancer.

[MercutioATC]

95. Granted. I still think we're probably safe for the next 3 years.

[BigYawn]

100. Don't forget there are perhaps 50 federal judges to be confirmed

for every one on SCOTUS. Once the nuclear option is
in effectr all the federal judges get confirmed with
a simple majority of 51 as well.

[MercutioATC]

101. I hadnt considered that. Excellent point.

[DefenseLawyer]

67. Why letting Bill Clinton campaign for Al Gore was a terrible idea...

Why voting against the Iraq War Resolution was a terrible idea...
Why responding immediately to the "swift boat" attacks was a terrible idea...
Why calling Bush a liar about Iraq was a terrible idea...

Sorry Mr. Shrum, you were wrong then and you are wrong now.

[BigYawn]

94. Nope I am not mr. Bob Shrum, and I was and am for all those you

listed. IMHO 2000 was in reality too close to call.
2004 could have been won if we had a short and concise
message such as the Contract with America in 1994 which
enabled a win for the repugs after 40 years of minority
status.

I am hoping and praying we will come up with a 1 page message
listing 10 points why the voters should vote democratic in 2006.

[ProSense]

69. Why this is a lame argument.

The Republican will lose their majority, Bush will be impeached and Democrats have no plans on appointing RW judges.

[BigYawn]

87. I certainly hope so, but it is impossible to say there will be no more

vacancies on SCOTUS until November 2008 when shrub will
finally retire to Crawford, Tx. My understanding is that
some justices are pretty old, some are recovering from cancer,
so it is impossible to say if there will be no more vacancies
during shrub's tenure.

[Fovea]

72. In reality

When they invoke the unconstitutional option, they give us a phenominally big club to beat them with in 06.

They lose the Senate, we have the nuke option in place, and a lot of whining and gnashing of teeth occurs on the other side of the aisle. If they do this, we well make them pay a dozen times over, then we will change the rules.

Fighting now hurts SCOTUS, but with a strong win in 06 and 08, the impeachments will follow for Scalia and Alito, both of whom are impeachable.

By November, the lumpen center will notice that their world is on fire.

If you have no stomach for a bloody, brutal fight, I suggest you hide in the storm shelter until we have wrested democracy back from the neo-fascists.

Because the non-aggression strategy as regards the Republican party is losing us both the base, and the
only question is how far we well allow us to be backed into a corner and marginalized.

We have an chance to fight at the moment, because of a lot of people exposing the criminality of the junta. I suspect this is the last chance. We must run a bite, claw, and stab political year. In November, we will win.

[BigYawn]

86. Could'nt agree more on what is needed, just differ on what are our

best issues in getting us there. I would rather have
Kerry use his pulpit to raise hell against privatization
of Social Security, Kennedy raise hell against taxcuts for
the very rich when federal budgets are exploding, etc. etc.

There are so many ripe issues for 2006. They have been drowned
out by this filibuster. I hope for God's sake this matter will
be resolved soon, like next week, and then the democrats in
leadership positions can get back on winning issues.

[FreedomAngel82]

73. So you like the idea of fascism?

[BigYawn]

82. Nope, I like the idea of concentrating on winning the senate in 2006,

and that means concentrating our efforts on those issues
which will yield the most votes.

I have listed those winning issues several times in this thread.

[smartvoter]

74. If you can't use it for fear of losing it, you've already lost it. nt

[BigYawn]

83. One never wins everything in politics, one has to try winning just

more than losing. I have listed some of our winning issues
several times in this thread. I do not wish to get sidetracked
on issues unlikely to win votes.

[PBass]

99. So you think Dems can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

By filibustering now, how does that prevent Dems from fighting on social security and other issues? It simply does not prevent anything of the sort.

You say Dems have "limited resources", how so? I don't see the filibuster using up much of anything at all.

Your whole attitude reeks of defeatism, I'm sorry. And I think defeatism is one of the biggest problems Dems have.

Out here in the real world, the voters want strong leadership with Senators who are willing to fight for what they believe in, without worrying about "how's this gonna look". Democrats who won't fight will lose on the issues time and time again, even if they have the numbers on their side.

It's a complete waste of time to be worried about 'making the other side mad'. The Republicans are bluffing on the nuclear option, they do not have the votes and they don't have the will. You can bet that the "make my day" comment was pure bravado with no backup. The GOP is looking at possible loss of control of both the House and Senate in just over 6 months... they'd have to be damn fools to kill the filibuster. Plus changing the rules like that will be a disasterous move re: public opinion. Bottom line, nobody is going nuclear. But if we filibuster, we win even if they do.

You seem to be hung up on Alito getting confirmed even if the filibuster is used... SO WHAT. If the Democratic Senators have any principles they will fight the confirmation. They must go on the record as trying everything possible.

I see the filibuster as a CAN'T LOSE maneuver, if Democrats explain their position to the public.

[Stockholm]

76. Will the last democrat pls turn of the lights

Obvious Big Yawn is not a woman.

Bush is gone in -08, Alito will screw the US over for the next 40 years.

NGU

[BigYawn]

84. If Alito loses, Alito#2 is waiting in the wings. Bork lost & we got Scalia

What you are overlooking is that to stop the RW judges
on to SCOTUS and other federal courts we need majority in
senate or the WH. Alito is here because we lost both in 2004.

Filibustering Alito will not help as much as concentrating
our fire on Social Security, Afforadable healthcare, Iraq war
conclusion without undue delay, high cost of gasoline and other
fuels, exploding budget deficits partially created by taxcuts
for the rich, miners safety, on and on and on and on.

In case you missed, my whole point is, let us not forget why
the Alito's of this world can be dumped on us. It is because
we keep losing elections. So better learn where it will do most
good to use our precious energies and resources.

[B Calm]

79. This is a BULLSHIT thread!

[BigYawn]

85. Would you care to explain in a civil manner why it is bull shit thread?

Or you just throw rocks and run?

[Binka]

116. He Doesn't Need To Explain Squat 90% Of The Responders Feel The Same

And B Calm did not throw a rock he threw a cow pie. You've had enough explanations. You laid down a faulty and cowardly gauntlet take the hits or get out of the DU kitchen!

Please do not ask me to explain, if you can not understand this you might as well go choke on your toenails.

[B Calm]

119. You ever work along side an office suck up?

[JHLerch]

90. Filibuster Rebellion

The answer is to make the Alito filibuster more than just a judge. Make it a cause!

The American political and government system is in a crisis. We are a two party nation. It is called balance of power. One party rule is called Communism or dictatorship. The Republican congress and WH are totally blocking all attempts to deal with this crisis of scandal, corruption, abuse of power, incompetence and gross mismanagement.
.
Maybe it is time to use the filibuster of Alito to bring the whole thing to a screeching halt until the WH and Republican Congress comes clean. Democrats should filibuster until the following list of demands are met:

1. Appointment of independent prosecutors for the NSA spying activities, VP energy company meetings, Abromoff Corruption of Republican politicians, WH outing of secret agent, Downing Street Memos, Iraq contracting and reconstruction corruption, Missing $9 billion in pre-war Iraqi government and oil funds, American run Iraq Provisional Authority activities, FEMA incompetence, whistle-blower protection agency corruption, and the Tom Delay scandal.

2. Convene true bipartisan congressional investigations and hearings on abuse and torture of prisoners, electronic voting machine integrity and hacking, WH misinformation on Iraq war justifications, extent of 2004 election corruption and manipulation, Haliburton corruption, and the Medicare drug insurance company fiasco.

3. Restore full document and witness subpoena powers to the Democrats.

4. Restore full Democratic participation in House/Senate conference committees.

5. Release full 911 commission part 2 report immediately.

Filibuster is the only power that the Democrats have left to stop this one party takeover of all government and judicial power.

Invoking the Republican named "nuclear option" to stop this filibuster will most likely produce massive outrage by the American public. The very idea of a one-party American government is outrageous.

We call it the Filibuster Rebellion.

[BigYawn]

96. The jury is out on whether the nuclear option will hurt or help

the republicans. All I know for sure is that they have
the votes to exercise it.

[B Calm]

120. I hate to say this, but you are acting like a damn COWARD!

Thank God you were not along side of me during the Vietnam War!

[WildEyedLiberal]

98. Why you are being defeatist and pro-Alito

I actually don't know that answer to that, but I'd like to.

[dethl]

106. Why are you just bending over and taking it from the Rethugs?

Your civil liberties are at stake. Why do you take them for granted? What do you expect to happen if we just idly and let this all happen? Nothing will ever change if you don't act. The filibuster is only the first step.

[BigYawn]

109. For reasons I have already stated, but I will summerize again...

First, even with a successful filibuster, they have
the nuclear option with just 51 senators. So we simply
do not have enough votes to stop Alito in finality.

Second, a filibuster does solidify our base, but
it does not gain much from the center where we need
additional votes to gain seats in 2006 November.

Third, we are losing time and energy on a non-productive
issue and not hammering on all our other issues which in
my opinion will win us votes. I have listed those issues
in several posts here. With only 9 months to go, we don't
have time to waste. If filibuster drags on, precious time
is wasted.

In no way do I wish to minimize the undesirability of Alito
ascending to the SCOTUS. But wishing is one thing, and reality
is another.

[PBass]

112. I can't say that any of your points resonate with me

"First, even with a successful filibuster, they have
the nuclear option with just 51 senators. So we simply
do not have enough votes to stop Alito in finality."

So what? So Democrats should only fight on issues we are guaranteed to win? How pathetic. That is certainly not what a leader does.

"Second, a filibuster does solidify our base, but
it does not gain much from the center where we need
additional votes to gain seats in 2006 November."

Wrong. We just lost a presidential race a year ago, because voters in the center said "I'm not sure what John Kerry stands for" and "John Kerry doesn't inspire me". The way to win votes from the center is not to make the message even more bland, the way to win votes from the center is to show bold and decisive leadership.

"Third, we are losing time and energy on a non-productive
issue and not hammering on all our other issues which in
my opinion will win us votes. I have listed those issues
in several posts here. With only 9 months to go, we don't
have time to waste. If filibuster drags on, precious time
is wasted."

Losing time? Can't say I get it. And I'd say we are currently GAINING energy, not losing it. The Alito nomination is at least as important as any of the issues you already named, so I can't see why anyone would want to gloss over it, in favor of something else. Your approach seems to be a lot like the typical old strategy that "Democrats aren't competetive in some states, so lets not even campaign there. Lets only spend our time and money campaigning in the states we know for sure we have good odds in".

That strategy of skipping the uphill battles has proven itself to be a HUGE LOSER for the Democratic party, time and time again.

[BigYawn]

110. Thank you all for posting very thoughtful responses...Good Nigh!

It is late and I am headed for the sack. Probably will
stay awake thinking of monday and tuesday!

[Czolgosz]

111. God forbid America gets the idea the Democratic Party stands for anything

[liberalla]

113. Filibuster Rule Change Opposed - read this

check this out:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=266798&mesg_id=266798

[MadHound]

124. What a foolish, foolish, circular chain of reasoning

"If we don't give them everything they want, they're going to get everything they want." That is essentially what you're saying here, and it is just outright stupid friend.

What the fuck good is it to have the filibuster if we never use it? They'll still get everything they want, eh.

Sorry, but the Dems must filibuster, for many, many reasons. First of all Alito, with his unitary executive theory is the most dangerous man outside of the executive branch in our government today. He will coronate Bush as dictator for life, and then we'll all be screwed.

Secondly, besides the healthy continuance of our democracy, a woman's right to her body is also at stake. Alito will take that away in a heartbeat.

Third, the Dems need to put up a fight to show the world that they can indeed still fight. If they don't, they can kiss the left wing, and the anti-war votes goodbye, not only for '06, but forever, and that will destroy the party. Many many people are watching this vote carefully, and if the Dems cave again, we're gone, period. The Dems would do better to fight the good fight, and even if they lose, go down swinging. At least this way they will retain enough respect to see them through the next couple of elections. Don't fight, and they're going to go the way of the Whigs.

Fourth, filibuster and tell the 'Pugs to bring the nuke option on. This will only show the public just what kind of bullies and assholes reside in the Republican party. The Democrats can still shut down Congress with procedural maneuvers, and use the bully pulpit in order to fan public sentiment against the 'Pugs. This will spell certain doom in the '06 elections, and once the Dems have control again, they can revoke the nuke option.

There is no more important issue right now than this nomination. The very future of our country, as we know it, is at stake. To sit back and give up without a fight would damn us all to a dictatorship, and tar the Democrats with the labels of cowards and quislings, something that they don't want to be remembered as.

[Skidmore]

125. Our "winning issues" will still be winning issues because there

is no way that Rs can address them in a manner which doesn't strip all but the wealthy of economic security. This IS where we need to fight--to protect the rights of women, children, minorities, and the worker. If we don't fight now, then we are no better then them. I'm for forcing them to hang the albatross around their necks and owning it. Fighting them will leave them stuck with this stinker for a couple generations--that's what it will take to right this wrong.