Sunday Discussion Group

January 15, 2006

The “fight” over Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination wasn’t supposed to go this way. This guy not only had a voluminous record after 15 years on the appellate bench, it was all almost embarrassingly conservative. Dems and progressive groups had several weeks to prepare, craft a compelling narrative, pressure moderate and vulnerable Republicans, and narrow the argument against Alito’s confirmation down to a couple of salient, persuasive points.

Then the hearings started — and things didn’t go according to plan. What do Dems do now? As I see it, there are a few options.

* Do nothing — Alito’s going to be confirmed and if Dems peel off a Republican vote or two, they’d be very lucky. We could filibuster, but the public may resent what it sees as partisan obstructionism. Moreover, Frist & Co. would execute the “nuclear option,” which would make it even easier for Bush to pack the federal judiciary with more far-right jurists. With some savvy strategizing, maybe the Alito vote could be used effectively in the 2006 campaign.

* Filibuster and beat the nuclear option — Alito’s record demands that Dems take a stand. What about the nuclear option? There are, according to the Gang of 14, at least seven Republicans who are not entirely comfortable with the idea of ending judicial filibusters with this dishonest gimmick. Dems could filibuster, block Alito, and win the nuclear-option fight if the GOP doesn’t have the votes.

* Invite the nuclear option — If Republicans went nuclear, that might not be such a horrible thing. There’s the obvious notion that the public may not like the Senate GOP changing the rules in the middle of the game, but more importantly, the next time there’s a Dem majority in the Senate and/or a Dem president, this would be a move the Republicans regretted.

So, if you’re advising the Senate Dems, what would you recommend?

I’d advise them to throw the repub barking point right back in their faces. Alito gets no ‘straight up or down vote’ because he refused to provide straight up or down answers. Nuclear be damned. This guy is out of the mainstream and the Dems should stand on their principles.

  • If they can get get close to having all 45 Dems on board, filibuster. If it’s only 41, it’s probably not worth it; at that point, the Democratic establishment should make it a high priority to run the quislings out of office.

  • I say they give it up. They’ve lost and are only making themselves look stupid and out of the main-stream.

  • Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

    Sorry to say I’ve been away from TCR for over a month. On Dec 12 at 3 am my face had a nasty collision with our toilet – apparently an unsignaled sudden drop in heart rate caused me to just black out and collapse. A quick trip to the Emergency Room led to days in intensive care, multiple CT scans (subdural hematoma), a pacemaker, prepping the ruptured right eye for eventual replacement, weeks of physical therapy (I actually had to re-learn how to sit up, stand, etc.). I got home a week ago and, though I’m making steady progress, find it a struggle to concentrate long enough read TCR or contribute.

    One of the benefits or my long hospital stay (and my lack the memory of that time) is that I missed our record-breaking stretch of rainy days here in the Pacific Northwest. I also have no memory of Christmas or my own birthday. What do remember on “coming around” is that the United States tossed away something which has made in unique for 230 years: its system of “checks and balances”.

    A bold experiment, born of the Age of Enlightenmen, awash in the language of Newtonian mechanics, the United States is almost the only example of a government which, by design, is intended to limit itself.

    With the virtually assured ascension of Alito (especially considering whom he replaces), the last component of our government is no longer able to act as a check. Over the last decade the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House have been taken over by knee-jerk rabid extremist Republicans. Not conservative Republicans, either … just play-along party-liners who threaten anyone of thought. The few remaining thoughtful Republicans and all the Democrats don’t know how to play opposition politics (that, or they’re too unwilling to give up their time at trough). The press long ago gave over it’s “fourth estate” watchdog function to nicely coiffed bubble-headed smiley faces on TV.

    All the individuals who make up our government are merely taking advantage of the opportunities we provide. The real reason behind our loss of the system of “checks and balances” is the dumbing down of the American people/electorate. TV’s responsible for that. So is this Administration. It has fomented and exploited our fears (9/11), getting us to prefer an across-the-board one-party rule which respects no one’s privacy or right to differ. It has walked away from treaties, waged unprovoked wars of conquest and tyrrany. In short, after 230 years of Thomas Jefferson’s “experiment” the once-great United States of America has chosen the path previous democracies have: oblivion.

    A sad thing to come back to after my month away. I’d take some comfort from the anger I hear from the 17-year-olds I know, but I think it’s too little, too late. At 66, I’m glad I won’t be around to experience a post-Jeffersonian nation.

  • Ed – Sorry to hear about the health problems. I have always enjoyed your contributions to this blog and hopefully you will be able to continue to share your insights. The story you told of your father, and about him saying that they finally got Nixon, before he died has always stuck with me.

    Don’t give up hope, roughly half this country tried to get these thugs out of office in the last election, so we’re not a small minority. I try not to predict the future of our present course, I can only see the certainty if we don’t try to alter it.

    I’m holding my breath on the Alito nomination. Maybe Harry Reid has something up his sleeve, I hope.

  • Filibuster. If Alito is confirmed, there will be no limits on the executive branch. Not much to lose and everything to gain.

  • First of all, Ed, Yikes! Hope you’re recovering OK, and try not to collide with any more toilets.

    As for the Nuclear option, I think Democrats should proceed as if it is not on the table. It can be argued that the filibuster is good for our democracy overall, but it should not be the partisan burden of the Democrats to maintain that while the Republicans wield the nuclear option to their advantage. After all, what’s the good of a filibuster if you can’t use it?

    Whether we should filibuster Alito is a separate question. I personally think the Democrats need to put up a fight over him even if we don’t have the firepower to bork him. The more of a fuss and publicity we throw up over alito, the more of a liability he will be at election time.

  • I’m going to have trouble typing this because my heart and my head are in such utter conflict.

    From the start, I have argued that we filibuster Scalito. He is more conservative than he lets on, and that results in two controversial, hair’s-breadth elections somehow tilting the Constitution hard right for 40 years. That outcome seems impermissible. I have often fended off concerns about the nuclear reaction to my position by saying we must not worry about that — we should call their bluff, because a filibuster kept in hiding out of fear isn’t doing us any good anyway. We should spend the goodwill we racked up in passing Roberts. I have consistently taken these positions for months now, even before Alito specifically was named.

    Nonetheless, I could not have foreseen how badly the Senate Dems, sadly aided and abetted by the MSM (the Today Show had a graphic up all morning saying “Have the Dems Gone Too Far?” over pictures of the Mrs. in tears, for chrissakes!), would fail to set up a filibuster. The R’s and Alito outmaneuvered the Ds all week. Because we did not have a coherent strategy or good message leadership, we hardly laid a glove on the nominee.

    As a result, I do not think we have left ourselves in a credible position with the general public to filibuster. The overwhelming majority has not studied this the way most of us have; they have just the sound bites, and frankly we lost the sound bite battle. Even my wife, who wanted to move when our state voted red, thought Specter got the better part of the dust up with Kennedy when she heard it on NPR.

    I think we blew the set up and now a filibuster would be seen by the public as out of line, unjustified, highly partisan — and it would undermine and drown out the one good meme we have going re: the Republican Culture of Corruption.

    We have little choice but to suck it up, let Alito have an up-or-down (over some powerful floor speeches which hopefully are better thought out than the hearings were – and use that JoeW line about a lack of up or down answers) and prepare to run in teh future against how far right the R’s have moved the courts.

    We also have to learn from this lost opportunity — and then get all of our focus back ASAP on Culture of Corruption. The real answer is to win elections before another Sup Ct vacancy arises.

  • Welcome back Ed. Though this “Bush World” gets darker every day–like some sort of “nuclear winter.”

    My wife says that the Republicans should go ahead and overturn “Roe”–believing that a shock to the system would wake Americans from their narcoleptic sleep. I’m not so sure that would work. The “ancillary damage” that lies ahead to individual rights, limits on government power, the environment and worker safety (limits on corporate power) may yet be truly profound. An unfortunate truth may be that only after oppression can their be liberation–that is the wheel fortune will eventually make “a one-eighty.” I just don’t know whether I or the country will ever recover.

  • I think the first thing to realize is that Alito has not yet been confirmed. Certainly, it looks bleak, but we shouldn’t quit until the last vote has been cast. What exactly should we do?

    First, the committee hearings are water under the bridge. Stop complaining about how badly the Democrats did. Second, it is now up to the Democratic whip to pull his caucus together to filibuster Alito. Third, it is time to inform the public why we oppose Alito. Fourth, we must counteract the Republican noise machine which will figuratively take to the streets and blare through bullhorns mounted on trucks, “every nominee deserves an up or down vote.”

    There is not much to add on the first point.

    The argument for holding the caucus together is that it is time to fight. It is time to draw a line in the sand. Show Bush that there are limits to his power.

    Why we oppose Alito is clear he is an authoritarian. He says that a judge must look at the facts of each case and make his decision on those facts. However, he consistently votes in favor of authority over individual rights. There is no getting around it he is biased and, to give him the benefit of the doubt, he is oblivious to his own bias. Make no mistake about it though, this man was nominated for the job precisely because of that bias. We oppose him precisely because of that bias.

    JoeW’s suggestion of “No straight answers. No straight vote.” Is a good counter punch to the noise machine. Also we must start hammering the King George meme. King George sees Congress and the Courts as annoyances in his quest to re-make the presidency in to a monarchy. Our founding fathers saw the Congress and the Courts as an essential safeguard against a president that sees himself as a king. King George has shown that he has no respect Senatorial advice and consent when he made 17 recess appointments to side step a Senate controlled by his own party. He simply wants what he wants the Constitution be damned. We are standing firm because this is the wrong man for the Court. We are standing firm because a President is not a King.

  • Ed, you posted while I was composing. I am happy to see you back and still in form. I hope you have a speedy recovery.

  • Welcome back, Ed. Sorry to hear about your accident but glad to hear that you’re on the mend.

    I’m so discouraged about what went on last week that I think the best we can hope for is that more dems vote against him than vote for him.

  • Ed – welcome back. I’m sorry to hear about your
    health crisis. I was wondering why we hadn’t
    heard from you, but figured you were on another
    international jaunt for the holiday season. I
    believe the last was to Italy? Anyway, I wish you
    a speedy recovery and good health from here
    on out.

    On topic, I agree with Helen:
    “I say they give it up. They’ve lost and are only making themselves look stupid and out of the main-stream.”

    I think something momentous has occurred. A
    seismic shift, if you will. I feel it in my bones, and
    have for a couple of weeks. We have lost. The
    right wingers have won the war. And the American
    people share their vision of this new, hateful,
    brutal world that they represent.

    I’m not saying we should give up. But we’re
    something like the resistance now – the neocons
    have prevailed, and are now the occupation
    force. We are the lowly insurgents.

    As for Alito, it’s over. That battle was a
    slaughter. Forget it. The Dems dropped their
    weapons and ran for the hills, like the
    feeble cowards they have become.
    Resisting his coronation can only make
    them look more like petulant children.

    Sorry for the gloom and doom, but I have
    to call it as I see it.

  • Holy crap, Ed – that’s too bad – I hope things get better, good to see you back.

    Like many people have already said, I too think the Dems blew this with the hearings.

    Since they were unable to lay out a clear reason to oppose this guy, a filibuster’s only going to come across as sour grapes.

    Personally, I’d like to see the Dems (all of them, damnit) abstain from the Senate vote on Alito. Make it clear that this guy was put there by the Republicans without looking like sore losers by voting against him.

    IMHO, the idiots on the Judiciary Committee did a half-assed job of spelling out the many reasons for voting against him.

    Simply say he gives them no confidence that he’s without a political agenda, that he’s given every indication he’s going to be a “judicial activist” & abstain.

  • The problem as I see it is that there is no actual “smoking gun” to point to. He is clearly conservative – no surprise there – but the Dems had little concrete to work with.

    If the Dems could get a few Republicans to support opposition, they should fight.

    If 55 Republicans are voting to confirm, then that would include the few rational ones – Specter, Snowe, etc. – a filibuster is likely to trigger ther “nuclear option” and it would succeed.

  • I agree somewhat with Rege. The only “high ground” that we have left to oppose Alito on is because he is deferential to power of the federal government at the expense of “the little guy” (individual liberty). Unfortunately, that’s not much high ground. Though, if the Democrats can play “the big bad government card” in the 2006 elections, they can make a crack in the Republican coalition for the future.

    Also, regarding the 2006 election, the Democrats should focus on the “Culture of Corruption” and “King George” memes.

  • Make them try the nuclear option. Filibuster is the way to go. Let us get everyone on the record.

  • Welcome back, Ed. Juntos pedemos in the direction of Bushco & the GOP.

    Look at Alito’s bio. He’s worked for the man all his life. Never defended anyone except the man. Sounds like a ref on the take to me. Whatever the Dems do, they sure don’t have to vote for the guy.

    Alito, Samuel A. Jr.
    Born 1950 in Trenton, NJ

    Federal Judicial Service:
    U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Nominated by George H.W. Bush on February 20, 1990, to a seat vacated by John Joseph Gibbons; Confirmed by the Senate on April 27, 1990, and received commission on April 30, 1990.

    Education:
    Princeton University, A.B., 1972

    Yale Law School, J.D., 1975

    Professional Career:
    Law clerk, Hon. Leonard I. Garth, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1976-1977
    Assistant U.S. attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977-1981
    Assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1981-1985
    Deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1985-1987
    U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1987-1990

    Race or Ethnicity: White

    Gender: Male

  • From the beginning, I wasn’t looking at this as one we could win. Rather, I saw the goal for the Dems to be to comport themselves as properly as possible, so that whatever people saw of the confirmation hearings would reflect well on the party’s vaules and redound to the Dem’s long-term political benefit. No matter what, we need to work on our “big picture” narrative. Part of the reason Dems lose is because they are doing an inadequate job, I truly believe, of composing an alternative narrative that explains in an accesible way what’s going on in this country, and delivering that narrative to the public. Instead, the Democrats focus on discrete, short-term little engagements and goals, and when those situations slip away, the Dems say, “Well, we lost,” and then they forget about it. What you don’t have is every single liberal TV commentator or guest on a TV still bringing up what dicks GWB, Chertoff and Mike Brown are, ever since Katrina– but why not??? It was a huge scandal. So the Democrats can always use more work on establishing and maintaining their big narrative, even if it’s in a context where they don’t think they’re really going to win. If they don’t provide people with the rationale– the framework from which to understand Democratic arguments in all situations, even when faced with the Republican argument– then the Dems will always be unprepared to face a challenge, and long term losses are inevitable.

    Then, there’s just a question of whether filibustering or not filibustering is the best thing to do to contribute to the narrative: how likely it is that bad consequences would result, do the bad consequences negate the benefits to the narrative, etc.

    However, maybe I’m not thinking outside of the box, if that’s as far as I take it. Alito was a member of a bigoted group in college. I don’t think it’s too ambitious a goal for liberals in this country to say that by this time in history, we’d prefer that nobody who even belonged to a group like that a long time ago become a public official. We have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of if we go straight up to everybody and say, “Look, this guy was trying to keep women out of school. And now he’s lying about it. This is unacceptable. But these are the kinds of people these Republicans keep trying to put into public office. These people aren’t fit. They don’t represent the people and the Republicans have to find people that do, to nominate.” And then the Dems have to really stand firm, and hold the line. Make their actions dramatic enough to see.

    If people start to hear what Alito did, and get worked up about it, then maybe even the Dems win on the vote. Unless we’re counting on just waiting for the Republicans to lose steam, the Dems need to try to intercept the ball– to pull off something like this– sooner or later. This might be a good time to try.

    The problem is that the Dems maybe are working with really bad material. The Dem senators were capable enough to get themselves elected, they’re just not capable enough to oppose the GOP effectively, and now the GOP has accumulated advantages that maybe make one or two particularly effective Dems’ abilities irrelevant, when the only other Dems the capable Dems can turn to for support are unmotivated or unskilled. Also, maybe some of the Dem senators or their staffs are in denial about how effective they are. I suspect that we could be doing better, but that people just aren’t trying hard to look for the things we need to change.

    Also the press isn’t behind us. In my local (New Jersey) paper, the first paragraph of the front-page article about Kennedy and Alito, the day after Kennedy confronted him, explained pretty simply that Alito was in CAP and what CAP was about. Even WSJ that just had a little smidgen about it in their front-page news summary thingy explained it right away. But NYT had two paragraphs of fluff before the third paragraph explained why CAP is an issue and why anyone’s upset about it. That’s not a well-written article. Bad, bad NY Times.

  • Ed, so sorry and welcome back.

    Our system of checks and balances is having a similar collision with a toilet and is hanging by a thread and is on life support.
    Have the republicans really thought this one over????

    The powers of a supreme president whose party dominates both houses and has deleted the safeguards to protect the minority party interests
    Now has totally pissed of the minority party with years of arrogant abuse, poor govenment and corruption………..and the polls are showing unrest with status quo…

    What happens (please god) when the minority gains power and inherits this enhanced power in a cut throat climate of political retribution with so many scores to settle? and so many investigations to televise?

    Instead of the nuculear option , I suggest solar… bring on the sunlight!!!

    A sophisticated and skilled public relations campaign based on truthfully educating our citizens. Ghandi and Martin Luther King spoke with moral authority because they were guided by the truth of inner principles.

    I think the dems best option is to expose the declline of democracy with honest credibility.
    Enlighten the nation about the necessity of checks and balances, to “rediscover democracy”, and not engage in slime tactics but offer a politics of honesty and decency.
    Unless Democrats offer a real alternative to business as usual in Washington, our liberty, truth and justice are in for the big flush.

    The challenge is in this age of “Swiftboat” reality where Orwellian lies predominate and heros are cowards and cowards are heros…. how can the truth be believed?

  • If these dems don’t fight to the death (even if what that means is only the death of the filibuster) then WHAT GOOD ARE THEY?

    Dear Democratic Party,

    If you do not fight this, then you are dead to me.

    Sincerely,

    Totally Demoralized and Disgusted with You

  • The key to filibustering is the right reading material.

    As most people have figured out, this isn’t just about Roe.

    I suggest the following:

    The text of Alito’s formal and informal opinions concerning the commerce clause
    The text of the clean air act, clean water act, and endangered species act.

    The text of Alito’s formal and informal opinions concerning the unitary executive
    excerpts from the nixon water gate tapes, Bush’s signing statements, Iran contra hearings etc.

    and just keep going with affirmative action, reproductive privacy, police powers / search and seizure, etc.

    PS if I type in to the box below “it depends”, “green before it’s ripe”, “Generally the hue of that portion of the visible spectrum lying between red and yellow, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 590 to 630 nanometers” it doesn’t work.

  • The democrats are no different than the republicans. We are now an oligarchy, not a republic. This dead-eyed Alito is one more nail in the coffin of our nation. A one-party government, just like the late USSR.
    The democrats are paid by the same special interests, they do not care who does what as long as they are paid.
    They all need to go.

  • B,

    I see that ,as I was until recently, you are of the impression that a filibuster actually involves getting up and speaking for hours on end. However this is not how filibuster works in the Senate anymore. There is no “reading material”. Described at a VERY BASIC level, someone indicates that they intend to filibuster, then someone from the other side calls a vote to see if they have enough votes to end the filibuster. If there aren’t enough votes to cancel the filibuster, then the nomination gets set aside and the Senate goes about other business.

    This makes the filibuster FAR LESS obstructive than it once was, since the Senate can at least go about other business rather than being entirely held up by the filibuster. If the dems do decide to go with the filibuster, I hope they do a good job of making it clear to the general public that they aren’t obstructing the Senate from accomplishing other business. It will go a long way towards preventing a backlash for perceived obstructionism.

  • I agree with Swan, almost completely, in that the Dems dont have a message, and couldnt get together on a way to attack what the stonewalling they should have known was coming. Since they failed in that job, the filibuster now is out of the question. You have to set it up properly and they didnt, shame on them. The point I disagree on that everyone keeps making is that our country doesnt agree with the way the Republicans and the far right are acting. Maybe we are a country of bigots after all. It might be a slim majority, but it’s not a static characteristic. We can become more free and more tolerant, or we can go the other way. Perhaps we are going the other way. Perhaps its gerrymandering taking effect, concentrating the votes of the populace that would put such persons in office, but face it, they were voted in somehow. Look at Germany in the early 19th century – were these people natural born fascists? I doubt it. I think though, that if you want to make baby steps toward fascism and intolerance, the US in its current incarnation is exactly how you’d do it. Im disgusted with where our country is heading, and Im very afraid how far we might go if we cant get these people out of power. Im almost as sick of the Dems for not figuring out a way to better characterize and make clear the damage being done to our country and find a way to put together a solid marketing program to the people to wake them up.

  • I say filibuster. If the Democrats refuse to filibuster in order to preserve the filibuster, then they only people they’re “preserving” it for is the Republicans, and we know that the pubs would not hesitate to use it if the Dems took control of the Senate. We may lose the use of the filibuster through the “nuclear option,” but at least it would be the pubs doing it to us, not us doing it to ourselves. Because, in essence, if we refuse to use it for fear of losing it, we’ve *already* lost it – only we’ve lost it through our own cowardice.

    What’s more, backing down would lend some truth to the perception that the pubs are “strong” and the Dems are “weak.” The pubs use their “strength” to do things that I abhor, but I think it’s clear that they never back down, and they never back off. In this, and in the service of progressive causes, we should emulate them.

    Tell the pubs, if you want my filibuster, you’ll have to come and take it – and unlike your backroom arm-twisting and secret re-writing of legislation hours before the vote, the whole country will see you do it.

    Never back down. Never back off.

  • Just vote against Alito. This Princeton flap is illuminating not in itself, but as the Huff-Post points out:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060115/cm_huffpost/013826;_ylt=AjVIwX1petSTEMjBdl5U5D2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI-

    It’s not so much that he was involved with the contemptible ‘Concerned Alumni of Princeton’, it’s that he likely wanted to use it to suck up to conservatives of the 1980s but realizes that’s an untouchable organization in the here and now. Strangely, conservatives pillory Bob Byrd over his lamentable KKK connections which he has spent decades disavowing his actions and that organization. Alito, however, is doing the obvious and old shuck and jive and the Dems should make a specific point about that. I mean, who really believes he didn’t know that CAP would be known and received by conservative power-brokers when he was looking for a job? Please.

    The point gets back to the general theme that this is what the GOP is about – exclusionary practices, darn-near discrimination, preference for the elites. This should be easy to weave into a coherent tapestry against GWB and the fiscal and social policies of the GOP; those things should the opposite of what most Americans want. Drum up the ‘who you know’ aspect of GOP leadership and I’m sure a lot of Americans will feel the lump in the throat that comes from such exclusionary aristocracy.

  • Marilyn G, you sound like the Nader supporters from 2000 whom I grow angrier with by the day. In 2000, Nader assailed the Dems, arguing “there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans,” and his supporters argued with real Democrats that the only change could come via third parties.

    With the benefit of hindsight, is anyone here REALLY willing to argue that, had Gore taken Florida in 2000, this country would be in precisely the shape it is in now?

    Dems are far from perfect (far, far, far in fact), and I’m not even a Gore fan, but it is simply not plausible to argue that Gore would have squandered our international standing to the degree Bush has, that Gore would have burned through the surplus at the rate Bush has, that Gore would have overrun as many of our civil liberties as Bush has, etc etc ad nauseum.

    One of the first things we need to do is beat back the myth that just because neither party is ideal, they are somehow equally and indistinguishably bad. Everytime they hear that one, Dick Cheney and his robber-baron oil-mongers laugh heartily and light up another cigar. That argument (i.e. the left-of-center circular firing squad) has done nothing but help R’s — and is the SOLE reason we are even having to argue over whether or not to filibuster Scalito.

    Sorry. But moments like this really bring out my frustration with what Nader did to this country in Florida in 2000.

  • If the Democrats in the US Senate are unwilling to take a stand for a woman’s right to chose, individual liberties and other important constitutional principles by at least attempting a successful filibuster and defense against changing the Senate rules, the so-called “nuclear option”, then what the hell are they willing to take any stand for?

    Everyone knows the game Alito and the Republican senators have played: he’s going to, if confirmed, be a reliable vote to eviserate Roe, undermine the privacy rights of all Americans and allow the return of a Nixoian Imperial Presidency. Conservatives know it, I know it and you know it; heck, even Bush knows it.

    Some may say one has to pick one’s fights and not pick a fight one knows one is going to lose.

    I say this fight is worth the risk.

    Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. I regret I have but one life to give for my country. As for me, give me liberty or give me death.

    The gaunlet is down, the time is now or never.

    Democrats need to use their spines, stand for some principles, before even the vestigages atrophy and disappear completely.

  • Filibuster. A tool that you never use is the same thing as no tool at all. Does this court the nuclear option? Fine, then go forward anyway. Better to court losing the filibuster than to fail to use it out of fear of losing it. Besides, the nuclear option has a good chance of turning into something like the Sciavo affaire.

  • I don’t think the filibuster is off the table.

    I don’t think we are at all a country of fascists, either. I don’t think the situation is as dire as some are saying.

    The Democrats have a very compelling message. The fact that so many people keep voting Democrat is a testament to this. We all just need to tweak things a little so that more people will “get” the message, even when they are hearing a bunch of lies from Fox News.

  • Ed, welcome back. I was very worried about you, as your much-appreciated history lessons have been sorely missed. I know this sounds bizarre, but I feared that you had met the grim reaper… and am very pleased to have you back here! Good luck with what sounds like will be a very long recovery period. May I suggest some good opera to soothe the soul in these trying times (Cavalleria Rusticana would be good start!).

    Concerning Alito, I say damn the torpedoes and fillibuster. What is there to lose, except that too many DINOs will not support that (the Nelsons, Lieberman, Landrieu, to name a few). Our country is almost lost, and I fear it will die out with just a whimper rather than a bang.

    Thank you SCOTUS, in 2000 you planted the seeds of our own destruction. Thank you, Justices Kennedy and O’Connor, for helping this lunatic group hijack our Constitution and our government. Thank you Dobson, and Falwell, and all the rest of the American Taliban, for ignoring Christ’s mandate to care for “the least of these, my brethren” so that now this cabal can destroy and maim millions and millions of innocents across the face of the Earth. Thank you, CCCP (aka MSM) for worrying more about your invitations and payoffs than in holding these incompetent and corrupt thugs accountable. And thank you, DLC, for ignoring our true Democratic Party values in search for the non-existent center — you found the fool’s gold and think you’ve hit the mother lode.

    All the above, of course, is serious sarcasm. The only real “thank you” goes to Mr. CB, the non-troll commenters here, and most of the rest of the left blogosphere, for the tireless analysis, optomism, cheer-ups, and efforts to hold the Lying.Fucking.Bastards. accountable. When this country falls apart to the fascists, and another group cries out to be saved, at least we can say, “We told you so.”

  • Go nuclear…does anybody think the Repubs were playing nice during the years when they were outside power in Congress??? Go nuclear and see what Frist does next – I’m sure Harry Reid can outfox him.

    The whole Repub strategy relies on the Dem’s uncanny ability to fold just when some real backbone is needed…

    And welcome back, Ed Stephan…do take care of yourself and feel better – pad yourself with bubble wrap and a bicycle helmet if you must…I always look forward to your witty and thoughtful postings.

  • Swan, we arent yet fascists, but rather just a country that is run mostly by them. We could be a bunch of bigots though; it’s not clear one way or the other. But if potential bigots are lead by even nastier types, they will pander to the country’s worst instincts, and we will erode what we stand for even further. The situation isnt dire yet, its the disturbing underlying trend and direction, which if sustained, will lead us to our doom.

  • Should have posted “invite nuclear”…and I think Harry Reid should tell Frist that if he tries to do away with judicial filibusters then the Dem’s will do away with all filibusters when the Dems next come into power…after all, doing away with the filibuster requires only a simple majority vote rules change.

    (And others have speculated that doing away with all filibusters might not be such a bad thing…would tend to make Congress more parliamentarian and the public would be able to grasp accountability more readily…and then when the Dems are next in power – and the filibuster is done away with – they can more easily pack the courts and trash this generational conservative judiciary…lol.)

  • Filibuster, and if the Republicans use the nuclear option, call Alito’s installation at the Supreme Court illegitimate.

  • First off, CB, we can’t count on all seven Repubs in the Gang of 14. Graham has already said he’d vote to hit the button if we filibustered Alito, and DeWine (for reasons I can’t understand given the trouble his party is in back home) is leaning that way as well. So that leaves us with 50 sure votes in case Frist decides to go nu-cu-lar–all 45 Dems plus McCain, Chafee, Collins, Snowe and Warner.

    That said, I think we’re missing one key point here–one of our guys can place a hold on Alito until the hearings into Shrub’s spying gambit are complete. Changes the whole face of the argument.

    If we don’t go with that move, I say filibuster–and if Frist decides to hit the button, Graham and maybe DeWine get exposed as liars. Not only that, but we can say that even if some people back home think that filibustering Alito is going too far, that doesn’t excuse Frist and friends stomping on minority rights.

  • If the Dems won’t stand up and fight now, when will they? This nomination will be a terrible blow to women’s rights, individual rights, civil rights, God only knows what other rights. This seat is the “swing” vote. I for one am more than a little tired of these facists stealing our personal liberty from us. The only relief the individual seems to get is through the courts, but if these people have their way, things could get much worse. I don’t want to find out what will happen when Sam is confirmed; for once it is time for the Senate to show some courage.

  • A quote from time mag. on the growing stink of elephant poop.
    *******
    A loss of 15 seats in November would leave Bush with a Democrat-controlled House for the final quarter of his presidency, which his advisers believe could mean a nightmare of gridlock and investigations into Administration decisions and activities. In perhaps an even worse scenario for Bush’s legacy, one of the city’s best-connected Republicans said his friends are starting to fearfully consider what he calls the “whole shebang” theory: that the party will hold on to the House this year but just barely, then lose the House, Senate and White House in 2008.
    *******
    Let’s hear it for the “whole shebang” theory !!!!

  • I’m with Gracious — To me this is not a political issue, this is a sack of shit being placed on the bench to rubber stamp a shift to fascism.

    Not only should Alito be fillibustered, win or lose, I will not support any Senator who votes for Cloture. As far as I’m concerned, if you can’t stand on principle with something as fundamentally important to not just progressive ideas – but our whole system of goverment, you’re a worthless sack of shit too and unfit to serve.

    Really, to me it is that important. Some things are understandably triangulated for politcal gain. Letting a lying, spying, crap ball with

  • Great to read an Ed Stephens comment after a long absence. Ed, I had you and the Missus sipping strong coffee and reading fat books beside a broad Avenida in some warm friendly place while Bellingham got it’s winter drenching. Sorry to hear the reality was much less pleasant and much more frightening. Good luck on continued speedy progress back to full health.

    Alitowise, the filibuster should be utilized. This post http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/14/231221/921at DKos is in regards to a NYT editorial which observes that Alito is likely to give aid and comfort to what is already an Imperial Presidency run amok.

    It would be nice if the Dem’s could make a professional show of it and emphasize the nobility of the cause and act like they know what to do with the mechanisms of power when given the opportunity. And it would show who can be trusted to stay on point and who talks the talk but won’t walk the walk. Even if defeat is a forgone conclusion, standing on principle will garner more respect than rolling over.

    At some point, on some issue, the public needs to know what the Dem’s stand for. Start with Alito. Doesn’t seem like there’s much to lose.

  • The Dems need to inspire the voters. They didn’t do in 2004 and lost. They should decide what they are about. If it’s Republican Lite, then they should vote according to tomorrow morning’s polls. If they decide to become a party of the people, and to protect what is left of American democracy, they should say so — and announce it with a filibuster. If The People want a democracy, they will respond in favor. If not, at least it was worth a try.

  • The democrats need to make a stand or quite pretending they’re going to. Either “shit or get off the pot.”

  • Just one more thing here– today Kevin Drum wrote that:

    Senate Dems pretty much followed the script favored by the blogosphere. Strip searches? Check. Membership in CAP? Check. Abortion rights in danger? Check. Imperial presidency? Check. This was the activist case against Alito, and it failed miserably.

    I think Kevin’s comments are coming up a little short here, and they could use a little clarification: the Dems can mention these points, but if they didn’t manage to energize anybody, that doesn’t mean that those points weren’t the points they needed to use in an argument that does rile everybody up. Any seasoned trial lawyer will tell you that presentation makes a big difference. These kinds of things really are like a trial where Dems and Republicans argue to a jury– the American people. With an opponent vying against you, who is trying his hardest to make a compelling case, just mumbling the substance of your best points is not good enough. You have to present them well.

    I don’t think anyone should make it sound like they’re suggesting that we throw in the towel or that we can’t win with the arguments we have. The fact is that sometimes you can put in a better effort than you have been, and sometimes that’s what it takes to win. The GOP really does seem to put a lot more time, thought, and effort into determining what’s persuasive to people, and then implementing that presentation. It certainly seems like that might be one factor that’s making the difference for them, nowadays.

  • Filibuster, on the grounds that people who don’t provide meaningful answers to questions in appointment hearings cannot be evaluated, and don’t deserve to be considered.

    (Best wishes for your continued recovery, Ed.)

    • Comments are closed.