The Alito confirmation: How Democrats lost the political battle

[Burning Water]

Eventually, Democrats blocked 10 nominees, bragging that the successful filibusters would demonstrate that they also could derail any non-moderate Supreme Court appointment.

In fact, the tactic backfired badly. Senate Democrats came across as petulant obstructionists, perhaps the cause of Minority Leader Tom Daschle losing his Senate seat in the 2004 election. Even worse, Republicans were so enraged by the repeated filibusters that they began to reconsider the sanctity of the filibuster rule itself. Eventually, they threatened the “nuclear option” of abolishing the filibuster through a simple majority vote. That would have thrown the Senate into chaos, repealing a century-old tradition of comity and cooperation. Republicans surely would never have contemplated such a drastic measure, but for the Democrats' seeming refusal to respect the prerogatives of the majority.

The filibuster, it turned out, was a scorched-earth technique that could not be employed and re-employed endlessly. But rather than hold it in reserve for the Supreme Court, Democrats squandered it on a series of ultimately insignificant lower court appointments


http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060201/news_lz1e1lubet.html


Interesting take on the mistakes of the Senate Democrats. I'm not sure that I agree with all of it, but I would like to see your comments.

[wtbymark]

1. negotiate/debate with whom?

"the Democrats' seeming refusal to respect the prerogatives of the majority."

-if the "majority" (representing a minority) weren't driven by fascists, maybe there could be compromise. There is no compromise with this administration

[Burning Water]

2. Not sure I

understand your question??

[BillZBubb]

3. What pure sophistry.

They are "petulant obstructionists" when they use legitimate Senate rules to support their beliefs? Daschle's loss in 2004 didn't have much to do with filibusters. It had more to do with the sheeple in his home state buying the Repug lies on terror and fear--gotta support the "war" pRes'dent.

[Burning Water]

5. As I said,

I'm not sure I agree with everything said. Certainly, I didn't consider them to be obstructionists. But I can see how the Republicans might.

And, yes, they were certainly entitled to use the rules to support their convictions. the problem is, sometimes you have to pay a price for standing up for your convictions. Loss of friends, ruptured relations with your family, loss of job, loss of money, in some countries, prison.

So, the question is not whether they had the right to do so, but whether they were right or wise to do so. This is somewhat more ambiguous. If they had won, we'd all say "Yes". but they didn't win, did they?

And we want to correct that. We need to win in 2006.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. You are suggesting that giving in is the path to victory?

I suspect that the series of nominees that were rejected were deliberately put up to create the very crisis which we are now mired in.

It created the image of Democratic "obstructionism', allowing the false outrage at the use of the fillibuster. An old lesson from corporate management -- set up a series of abuses that force the union to strike, then use the strike as an excuse to break the union.

In this case, the union is the Democratic party.

[Burning Water]

13. Yes, sir,

I suspect that the series of nominees that were rejected were deliberately put up to create the very crisis which we are now mired in. That Karl Rove sure is smart. But why are we so dumb as to keep falling into his traps?? :sarcasm:

I don't suggest "giving in". I suggest seeing in what way we can beguile the majority party, and in the Senate it is the majority party, to see things our way occasionally, or partially. there is no earthly reason why they should vote our way when they ran, and won, on their own agenda. But people like to "get along".

I'm not saying give up our principles. I'm just saying we've got to work with what we've got, and we've got to realize that we're going to lose more than we win. And that's just the way it is.

But it could all change in November of THIS YEAR.

[fujiyama]

4. An interesting take

but his premise is flawed. He assumes that the repukes would have been a lot nicer had Dems not blocked those lower court appointments. There is no evidence of this.

[Burning Water]

6. No evidence the

other way, either, although I suspect that you are right. They're on a roll, and determined to do as much as they can while they can.

2006!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. They didn't "lose". They surrendered.

[Burning Water]

9. And American didn't "lose"

in Vietnam, they just left. Yeah, right. Alito is still on the court. no matter how I figure it, we lost.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

8. Only 38% thought there s/be filibuster. They also thought he s/be confirmd

Don't forget - the Merkin people either don't care, are not intelligent enough to understand the ramifications or believe all the propaganda and b.s.

In additon, the media - as usual - failed to do their job of informing us. Although so few people really watch the news or read the papers. If they get news - it's usually Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity on the radio.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/23/alito/

Only 38 percent of respondents said they think a filibuster by Democratic senators would be justified, and about a third said they believe Alito would vote to overturn the 1973 Supreme Court decision that struck down state laws against abortion.

-snip-

Only 34 percent of those surveyed said they believe Alito would vote to reverse Roe, while 44 percent said they think he would not. Another 21 percent said they were not sure.

[Selatius]

11. This is just one man's opinion. It's NOT AUTHORITATIVE.

Political analysis is built on opinion anyway. The facts say what they intend to say, but how they are read is subjective in nature. As the saying goes, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

[Burning Water]

12. No body said it was authoritative.

That doesn't make it wrong. Doesn't make it right, either. The speicific points have to be addressed with facts and logic. Something I am told is the currency around here.

[KoKo]

14. Repugs Fillibusterd most of Clinton's appointees for low courts... He got

very few appointments through. Then when the Repugs took over they rammed the ones they wanted through while calling the Dems obstructionists.

[Burning Water]

15. OK, but so what?

What works for the Repukes doesn't always work for us. Different personalities, different public perception, I don't really know why.

If we try something, and it doesn't work, we should move on and find something else that does. To keep pointing at how the Republicans got away with it doesn't help 1/2 as much as something new to try would.

This would work: Take back the Senate in 2006.