Is there a standard at which you would vote "No" to confirm, but...

[TheVirginian]

Not vote for a filibuster (support cloture)?

It seems to me that many people on this board believe that if you are opposed to Alito, you must filibuster, and there is no middle ground. Many others (including most of the Senators who have announced opposition to Alito and opposition to a filibuster, and have been labeled "gutless" for doing so), including myself, believe that there is a standard where it would be appropriate to say "I vote to not confirm this man", but it would not be appropriate to say "I will use the rules of the Senate to my advantage and prevent a vote".

If there is no middle ground on Alito, is there a middle ground at all? Would there be a candidate that this President nominates that would find enough favor with the DU crowd to say "We will let a vote on this happen?" If so, what would that person look like? If not, then where would it stop?

If a vote on defense spending, or health care appropriations, or tax cuts, went before the Senate and appeared to be destined for a party-line vote, would it be acceptable to simply vote "no" and let the measure pass, or would it be the responsbility of Democratic senators to filibuster and prevent the vote altogether?

The reason I ask is because, from the tone and attitude of many people here, they want the Democratic Party to be a true "opposition" party. In its truest form, they, logically, would demand that Democratic senators filibuster any matter that comes before the Senate that Republicans would win with less than 60 votes. This obviously would tie up the Senate, rendering it useless, and we suddenly don't have a government. If you believe this is too extreme, then where along the line between "filibuster everything" and "filibuster Alito" do you draw the line?

[joemurphy]

1. Alito isn't everybody. Democrats would be happy to have

someone in the Sandra Day O'Connor mold. Someone that would uphold Roe, for one thing, and not trash 40+ years of precedent for some contrary belief that a right of privacy doesn't exist.

Doesn't Alito's "unitary executive" theory and its implications bother you?

I think you're missing Alito's significance completely. Did you see this level of opposition with Roberts, for example?

[TheVirginian]

2. I'm specifically asking where people would draw the line...

But to respond to your points, I don't feel that great about the legal ground upon with Roe was decided. I'm all for the results of the decision, but, if we can be honest with ourselves for a moment, there's a lot of ammunition in opposing the decision, on strictly legal terms. If you ask my opinion, I think we should take the issue up at the state level, and push for a Constitutional amendment on abortion, or at the very least privacy. Then this issue wouldn't be nearly as divisive or controversial.

Alito's unitary executive theory does bother me, but the conclusions I've reached on my own independent research of the issue don't make me fear as much as the openly biased sources I've read on this board want me to.

And while its hard to compare the reaction to Roberts with the reaction to Alito, I do remember people calling Russ Feingold a "traitor" for voting for Roberts in committee and on the floor--and now I see that same word being carelessly tossed around again. I do remember people demanding that Democrats represent their concerned constituents and filibuster Roberts, yes.

[joemurphy]

4. Well, to respond:

1. You obviously don't care too much about stare decisis either if you don't like the "right of privacy". Did the decision in Griswold bother you as well? Do you feel the same way about the Texas sodomy decision?

2. Why aren't you bothered by the "unitary executive" theory? Do you think a President should have the right to torture enemy combatants, for example, if, in the exercise of his discretion, he believes it advantageous to do so? Even if doing so violates Federal law or a duly approved international treaty -- like the Geneva Convention?

3. Sure, you heard some calls for a filibuster. You'll hear just about anything on a blog this size. I also heard Ann Coulter say someone should poison Justice Stephens. Should we take that seriously too?

Do you think it would be a good thing if Roe were overturned? Where do you draw the line on the power of the "unitary executive"?

[TheVirginian]

5. There has to be a better subject title than this.

1. I care about and respect stare decisis, I'm just concerned that its a little flimsy, and might not hold up forever. Someone predicted that Roe would not just be out-right overturned; it would be slowly eroded by decisions that eat out from under it, then they would overturn "Roe" after it didn't mean anything. And I see that happening now, as the SCOTUS approves more restrictions on abortion. So why not take the time to pass through legislation on it now, rather than waiting for the inevitable?

2. There's many theories on the "unitary executive". I've studied them, even before Alito was nominated and before Bush started claiming it at every turn. Bush's application of it crosses the line, in big ways. But what Alito has said in his hearings, at the Federalist Society in 2000, and in other places, is not as extreme as the Bush Administraiton's application of the theory. I don't believe that Alito will be a rubber stamp for the Bush Administration. I don't believe, as some people on this site have suggested, that Alito will rule that the President is above the law.

3. Well, Ann Coulter made a point of saying it was a joke, as much of a moronic wench that she is. The people on this board were very serious about opposing Roberts, and about calling Russ Feingold a traitor. You asked me if the reactions were the same? My answer is, DU didn't make a forum dedicated to Roberts, but there are more similarities than there are differences.

[joemurphy]

7. And my response is:

1. Well, if it's "flimsy", it's been that way for 40+ years. There have been many decisions upholding it. None overturning it. Alito wouldn't say it was "settled law", something Roberts did without any hesitation. As to giving it the "death by a thousand cuts" I don't see that happening. I think Alito, Scalia, Thomas (and maybe Roberts, if he's a liar) are just the sort of stand-up guys to get rid of it in one fell swoop. You may not believe that, but I do.

2. Well, I don't recall Alito drawing any lines on the unitary executive in his testimony. What I do recall is him saying that a President could do pretty much anything insofar as the war power and foreign policy are concerned. His Federalist Society buddy, John Yoo says the same thing. You can trust him if you want to. I don't.

3. There are people here that wanted to filibuster Roberts. I didn't agree with them on that. I sort of liked Roberts. But I didn't like his Oregon death decision one bit. His aligning with Scalia and Thomas on that makes me wonder if I was wrong. Hardly a bow to states rights, was it? Roberts didn't have much of a record, of course. Alito does. You can make of it what you want. I don't like it much. I think a filibuster is totally appropriate. The Republicans filibustered Fortas for a lot less.

So do you think Alito's a moderate? If so, why?

[TheVirginian]

9. A response

I agree its been flimsy for 40 years. If it still exists 40 years from now, it will have been flimsy for 80 years, unless there has been an amendment to the Constitution strengthening it.

I don't think Alito is moderate; I think he is conservative, but I think he's well inside the mainstream of conservatism. And while Alito wouldn't be on my short, or long, list of persons to nominate to the SCOTUS, conservatives won the White House and both houses of Congress, and thus won the opportunity to appoint conservative jurists, as long as they're in the mainstream. I would vote "No" to confirm, but I have enough respect for the Constitutional process to not filibuster the vote.

[joemurphy]

10. And my last rejoinder before bedtime:

1. Well, the longer it's around, the more stare decisis comes into effect. It would be nice if it was enshrined in a written amendment. It would have been nice if the founding fathers had put it in the original Bill of Rights, for example. But I don't think it's necessary any more than I think Brown v. Board of Education needs to be put into an amendment. I wouldn't want to trust the constitutional right of privacy to the vagaries of the Constitutional Amendment process. Something as innocuous as the Equal Rights Amendment never got passed due to Republican machinations in states like Montana and Wyoming.

2. Well, my answer here is, if Alito wouldn't have been on your short list, why give him a lifetime appointment? Why not the best? The majority of Americans support Roe. Why not filibuster someone who is so averse to it? I don't think Bush's electoral victories -- both razor thin by any estimation -- gave him a blank check to put a Neanderthal on the court just as a sop to mollify his perturbed fundamentalist base. I also don't think we're "disrespecting" the Constitutional process by exercising the right to filibuster. Actually, requiring the Republicans to come up with 60 votes might make Alito's elevation more palatable -- at least then a more sizeable majority would be getting the job done. Also, I wouldn't get overly sentimental about "the Constitutional process" given how the Republicans are holding Landrieu (and arguably Byrd, Johnson, and Nelson) hostage by threatened reprisals in one form or another if they don't support your "mainstream" Sam Alito. In reality, your "Constitutional process" is just a glorified power play. It's really just about getting the votes -- nothing more than that.

[TheVirginian]

11. And my last, though you're already in bed...

1. As strong as stare decisis might be, its not concrete. All it takes is a justice who values it less than previous justices, and it doesn't mean a thing. A constitutional amendment is concrete, and though its subject to "vagaries" of the process, that process is a lot more democratic than relying on a fauly legal opinion written 40 years ago.

2. The answer is because I didn't win an election to the Presidency, nor did I win a majority of Senate seats; therefore, who is on my short list doesn't matter. I don't think Bush is putting any Neanderthal on the bench. I think Alito is a mainstream judge, and will be one on the Supreme Court. Simply being conservative is not merits for a filibuster.

If 60 votes is what's valued as a "good enough" majority to elevate someone to the Supreme Court, then why don't we alter the Constitution to say that every SCOTUS nominee must recieve a super-majority of votes?

Is there any proof that Landieu, or any other Democratic senator, is being threatened in any sort for voting a certain way? I haven't heard anything but blind speculation, which is based on partisan dis-trust.

[joemurphy]

12. I'd like to carry on, but I have to go to work tomorrow:

Let's just agree to disagree for now. Thanks for the civil discourse. I disagree passionately with you, but let's leave it at that for now.

Adios.

[berni_mccoy]

14. I suggest you read the history of filibuster and cloture

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

Filibustering has been around much longer than cloture. There is no need to change the Constitution when filibustering has been an effective tool in the past. In other words, if it ain't broke...

[patrice]

3. The line has to be drawn case by case. There are no absolutes.

You frame the situation as two mutually exclusive opposites. That is a false dichotomy. REAL strength is the ability to do BOTH: Oppose when necessary and Support when possible.

We want opposition to Alito NOT for opposition's sake, but because Alito is an extremist who will be bad for America in various ways.

My personal thinking is: It is not realistic to expect habits of mind acquired from 15 years in the judiciary and as a prosecutor before that to cease their influence on his thinking. Those deeply encoded cognitive habits won't just suddenly change because the man moves to a new office. I believe he will be a rational judge, but somehow, try as he might, he will almost always find he "must" side with Government over the Individual. In this time of trends toward prison privatization and Federal Mandatory Minimums, over the decades of Alito's tenure on SCOTUS, this will harm America by making our prisons even more crime career institutes and places where Communism breeds amongst the Disenfranchised.

[dsc]

6. This isn't the most direct of answers

but I wouldn't filibuster any appointment that would leave office with Bush and wasn't a foreign policy issue. Thus I wouldn't have filibustered Ashcroft but would have voted against him.

[FogerRox]

8. DSC yes--- good point & short

[berni_mccoy]

13. Alito has proven he can not be objective

He did not recuse himself when necessary and when ANY OTHER JUDGE would have.

He broke his word to Congress before. There is no doubt he would do it again.

He will seek to overturn Roe v. Wade and he will work to expand powers of the executive.

There is no middle ground on Alito.

Haven't the Dems shown enough middle ground? Bush's judicial appointees have been accepted over 95% of the time. And any legislative initiatives of the Bush administration that have failed have not failed because of filibustering... they've failed because they lacked support by republicans in Congress.

[TheVirginian]

15. That's great, but...

It doesn't answer my question, or address anything this thread is supposed to be about. I'm not asking why people oppose Alito, nor do I want to turn this into a debate about Alito. I'm asking, where do you draw the line on filibusters, if at all?

[berni_mccoy]

16. You draw the line when the guy proves himself a liar

and goes back on his word.

[TheVirginian]

17. You don't seem to be getting the point of this thread.

That okay, though. Good luck to you.

[Moosepoop]

19. THE POINT IS

that Alito's confirmation would be permanent. No do-overs. No changing or rescinding a "bad bill" later, when we become the majority again.

Your postulation that those of us on this forum would demand any and all legislation proposed by Republicans to be filibustered if it looked as though that legislation would pass by vote is preposterous. Legislation can be modified or reversed later. Supreme Court Justice positions cannot.

Yes, some people here did call for the filibustering of John Roberts, for the same reason that most of us are now doing so regarding Alito -- because of the irrevocability of the outcome. But Roberts was not filibustered, his nomination went to a vote and he was confirmed.

Alito is an extraordinary case, and that is why the extraordinary measure of a filibuster is being used. To make the suggestion that filibustering is what we intend to do with every single piece of legislation that we don't agree with is ludicrous.

Did I address your "point" to your satisfaction?

[Walt Starr]

18. There is no middle ground

Either you oppose him, or you do not.

The Republicans have filibustered a SCOTUS CJ nominee. Democrats must do the same. REpublicans set the standard to which the Democrats must play the game.

[Coexist]

20. NO- Legislation can be AMENDED or REPEALED or

ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

This is a decision that will affect our children's children - NO MORE throwing up our hands and saying 'we'll get them next time, next year, next election cycle.'

THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT. Period.