If Clinton had nominated someone as far to the Left as Alito is to the Right, what would the Republicans have done? You can bet that they would have done everything in their power to stop the nominee. Our side doesn't have the stomach to fight. We need to elect some Dems who have the courage of their convictions. Politicians like Feinstein have become "placeholders" instead of representatives.
Posted by Marvin Toler at January 15, 2006 02:53 PMWe need to hate Democrats with all they're worth. The Republicans already know we hate them, but we can sneak up on the Dems and destroy them when they're not suspecting a thing. And from those ashes, we can lock in a Republican majority in this country for the next fifty years.
Posted by Backatcha at January 15, 2006 02:56 PMAlito is the WORST CANDIDATE IMAGINABLE, not because of his position on Roe v. Wade (which is a lurid sidelight) but because he was chosen for political reliability. We already have a "unitary executive" and congress is just a bunch of bagmen. Sew up the Judiciary and there is no path back to democracy.
Jonathan Alter gets it, DiFi does not. I agree with Aravosis' post that if the Dems can't organize opposition and represent the rest of America, then the first reforms must be Dems on Dems. Things won't get worse because they can't get worse - the Dem leadership is completely ineffective, and the only limits on the Bush cabal are their own ineptitude.
We'll start by cutting off the money...
Posted by Blitzen at January 15, 2006 02:58 PMThe problem is what do we do when the electorate cheers at what the Supreme Court does next. I fully expect a media to cheer and gratify the conservative population when Roe v. Wave is struck down, or executive power is validated as the unitary power of the land over legislated law.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 15, 2006 03:25 PMWe at the grassroots demand that our Senators filibuster. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but if we don't demand, they certainly won't. I have two Republican Senators, but I will still send them messages demanding they support a filibuster or at least vote against Alito. There is no point in wailing on the blogs if you don't do something as well!
Posted by nhselectwoman at January 15, 2006 03:31 PMThe Democrats are not going to filibuster, but I sure as hell would like just once to see them united in their vote against Alito.
The only hope for the Supreme Court would be for Kennedy to become the swing voter, but even then there are no guarantees.
Posted by Judith at January 15, 2006 03:42 PMJust do it. Filibuster, it's better if the case for the filibuster isn't airtight. Let the majority violate their own rules with the 'nuclear' option and at least get something out of the Alito debacle.
2006 is coming and it's time the left played to win. It will be an absolute joy to shut Republicans up when they so desparately want to filibuster someone.
Give them enough rope. Beat them with it for a few years and then put it (filibuster) back in place. It is an important part of the debate.
D
Posted by Dilapidus at January 15, 2006 03:44 PMDear Marvin,
Did you ever hear of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Yes she is a democrat, appointed by Clinton in 1993 right before the Republican Revolution. Yes she was and is an extreme left wing liberal. Yes, she was the chief litigator for the ACLU.
And YES, she won confirmation by the US Senate 96-3.
So I guess your premise that Clinton could have never gotten a liberal through the Senate is wrong...oh and then again what about Breyer?
Oh, I guess your wrong there too, since it was 89-9 in his favor, and I might be wrong, but the Republicans took control that following year.
So quit your whining and look at the historical facts before you start mouthing off your hypocritical assertions.
Posted by Carpediem at January 15, 2006 04:22 PMGive them enough rope. Beat them with it for a few years and then put it (filibuster) back in place. It is an important part of the debate.
Its time we played to win. The thuglicans better think long and hard about a world where Democrats hold all these newly played cards.
I could live with Alito as Scotus if the Dems could then use the next 10 years to ram progressive legislation down their minority party-assed throats.
…look at the historical facts before you start mouthing off your hypocritical assertions. Posted by CarpediemAccording to the historical fact, both those judges are moderate, not liberal. According to historical fact, Clinton wanted to appoint Bruce Babbit but was adviced by Orin Hatch, a right wing moonbat what candidate would be acceptable to the Republicans and he offered up Ginsberg's and Breyer's names.
Clinton did not set out to nominate Ginsburg for the court. He set out to nominate Bruce Babbit, who, by all means, would have had the qualifications equivalent to Roberts. Instead, Orin Hatch told Clinton that Babbit would not be confirmed by the Senate, and gave a list of names which included Justices Breyer and Ginsburg.
I realize that no smear is too trivial for moonbats, but merely being a lawyer for the ACLU is not proof of communist party affiliation. The ACLU is an organization that defends the rights of citizens across the political spectrum.
Here's another mention of this well known historical fact
There are key differences, as I see it, between Bush's meeting last week and the scenario described by Orin Hatch. First, Clinton made a call - completely unpublicized, not a media-manufactured event - to the minority leader. Bush invited Senate leaders to the White House for a photo-op. Hatch delivered specific suggestions to Clinton - which turned out to be the next two (and last two) Supreme Court nominees - Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer.
Check the historical facts before you continue to make such a fool of yourself.
If Clarence Thomas is qualified 99% of judges are. So let's just raise a white flag and let the wingers rule!
Posted by Yoni at January 15, 2006 05:21 PMAny Republican who votes to confirm Alito will be asked when he is up for reelection "Why do you support strip searching little girls?" I have to wonder how my Senators are going to react to that question.
Posted by Ga6thDem at January 15, 2006 05:56 PMMike, now you are just being flagrantly dishonest. NO ONE of any intellectual understanding considers Breyers and Ginsburg as Moderates. Heck they consider Stevens and Souter to be in lock step with them.
Then again, you liberals have always had problems with definitions of words, so I guess whether Ginsburg "IS" a liberal all depends on what the meaning of the word "IS" is.
I'll not debate with you any further if you continue to be intellectually dishonest. Besides, I thought this website LOVES the word LIBERAL be proud of it, cherish it. Breyers and Ginsberg are LIBERALS.
Posted by Carpediem at January 15, 2006 05:59 PMForget to filibuster Alioto, it is time to filibuster Feinstein. She comes from a precint that is full of liberals, who do nothing, but led her rethoric give a pass to conservatives.
Hi, San Franciscans wake-up. The trio Feinstein, Lantos and Liberman has sunk any Democratic values left.
Those Mickey Mouse Democrats pretend to be liberals whem in fact they are more Republican and conservative from what the party is.
FILIBUSTER Feinstein, put your money in candidats stand up to reactionary march to a fascist America. In other words, Feinstein is an appeaser.
Posted by censor at January 15, 2006 06:10 PMGinsberg did not run from her record or hide her politics like Alito. His lying (CAP and varying explanations) and questionable ethics (refusal to recuse are grounds enough).
No, the democrats need to mount a filibster (even if it loses). When the right to choose disappears, people are going to remember who put up a fight and who allowed it. By not filibustering the democrats once again surrender any ability to differentiate themselves.
Further in primaries we need to pick off every democrat who crosses the line and refuses to support the filibuster. Once again the Washington based party has fallen far behind public opinion (which supports stopping Alito if Roe is threatened). Given that those Washington democrats never talk to anyone outside of the Beltway, that is understandable.
However, understandable is no longer acceptable. These people need to take their graft and go home.
[As for anyone who thinks that a progressive majority in Congress can overturn a conservative court, I direct you to the extraordinary steps Roosevelt had to take to pack the court in 1930s. Or go back further to see how the Supreme Court rolled back all regulation around the turn of the 20th century.]
Posted by Cath at January 15, 2006 06:13 PMI say filibuster!
If anything it sends a message to fence Repukes; "Damn, the Dems are united for once. They will be a force to be reckoned with. They actually have some balls. I could vote for an agenda like the united Dems follow."
But it will turn into a major pissing and moaning contest, where the Dems make their own party look like a bunch of fucking idiots.
The repubs were saying Alito was ranked 4/98 for indepence. From what I've read, this ranking is based on how many times a judge dissents from other judges from the same "party" (judges appointed by a prez of the same party that appointed him or her.) I guess the idea is that if you dissent from your own party, you're more independent because you're not just towing the party line. But in Alito's case, his dissents weren't toward the middle, they were further right than his conservative colleagues. Something's wrong with this ranking system.
Alito scares me, because where he can look at the law either way, he chooses to see it in a way advantageous to those in power. Executive power scares me even more than the abortion rights question, though that bothers me a lot. I have some hope that Alito will disappoint conservatives, at least sometimes, because he seems to worship the law like some worship the bible--no wiggle room. And sometimes that won't bode well for conservatives.
A question about abortion--who would be able to bring a direct challenge to Roe? A pregnant woman saying "hey, I don't think I have the right to abort"? Who would be able to bring such a case?
Posted by CG at January 15, 2006 06:16 PMYou said this the other day and I agreed with it. What do they have to lose? The republicans already control all branches of gov't with the assistance of Diebold elections ...if they aren't willing to fight all out for their principles at this point then just what good are they? Republicans don't play by the same set of rules Mrs. Feinstein, they'll hurl names and call you traitor even if you voted for Alito or Bush for that matter. Don't you get it yet...you are the "enemy" just because you have a D next to your name...and that really is all that matters and counts to kkKarl Rove and Co.
Dammit stand up and fight for something you believe strongly in for once Democrats. People are yearning for you to be bold and to lead, and to stand up for yourself by fighting for it fairly and that does include a filibuster. Just take a strong stand. Dammit...Just to it!
I have had arguments with strong progressive friends on this... they agree with Feinstein..
I agree with Soto... and I believe this is a war, and the next big battle is in November... when you face a superior force, you have to continually and slowly weaken your enemy... but in this case the fighters chosen in the Judiciary committee completely failed to prepare correctly and failed to extract a cost for this nomination...
Democrats are fighting against an enemy that has the "high ground", not the moral high ground obviously... but the strategic high ground of owning both Legislative branches, the Executive branch and soon the uppermost Judicial branch... if you have to fight against such an enemy you better have a very very good strategy and a "Robert E Lee" and a few Stonewall Jacksons.. the Democrats have neither at present.
Posted by MN lefty at January 15, 2006 06:25 PMFilibuster or no more $$ from me, my dear dem politicians.
Posted by Sharon at January 15, 2006 06:27 PMWhat the hell does voting against Alito do if you know you don't have the votes to stop him?
Sounds alot like voting for Nader because you did'nt like Kerry.
CALL AND EMAIL BOTH OF YOUR SENATORS ASAP
FILIBUSTER NOW OR BUSH IS CHIMPEROR FOR LIFE
Posted by mparker at January 15, 2006 06:53 PMA responsible Congress would have put off the Alito hearings until after it had investigated and determined the scope of the FISA lawbreaking by Nero Jr. Congress has absolutely no obligation to respect the nominee of a president who has engaged in impeachable offenses.
Sandra Day is happily hearing cases over at the SC, no need for false concern over there.
Of course, we don't have a responsible Congress, nor do we have Dems who have the stomach to even raise this argument, though it seems strong to me.
I'm with the pro-filibuster posters above who say, if not now, when? Wasn't this the reason we were "preserving" the filibuster?
Make them break existing Senate rules, over-rule the parliamentarian, and install Nero's right wing, executive branch loving, prayer in schooling, right to lifer over the vocal, public, fierce opposition of Dems.
What's the mighty Wurlitzer's response? Nero deserved an "up or down" vote on his selection of the fourth Clarence Thomas for the Court? Sheesh.
Posted by euzoius at January 15, 2006 06:54 PM
If the Democrats don't filibuster and Roe v Wade is overturned, the Democrats will rue the day they did not support filibustering.
Posted by sf at January 15, 2006 06:57 PMI weep for my children who will have to live in a Thomas-Scalia-Alito-Roberts world.
Posted by Cookie Monster at January 15, 2006 07:05 PM… Breyers and Ginsberg are LIBERALS. Posted by CarpediemAre you calling Orin Hatch a liberal? Are you saying that Orin Hatch would recommend LIBERALS? These two are moderates nothing more and nothing less. Your continual mischaracterization shows how poorly informed, partisan, and dishonest you are. There is no debating with the likes of you. I merely point out the lies in your statements and counter with the facts and supporting links.
Filibuster or no more $$ from me …Posted by SharonThat is a good plan. Let's only support those politicians who share our philosophy and have the courage to act on our behalf. I no longer support my Congressman, Henry Waxman, because he voted for the Iraq invasion while 90% of his district opposed it. I even tried to get someone from the Green Party to challenge him, but Waxman is too entrenched. Posted by Mike at January 15, 2006 07:24 PM
Cookie Monster---those Worthies are the reconstituted Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Those Americans without children are the lucky ones.
(Never fear, I'm not a religious nut. In fact, in the 1930s the four conservative justices who banded together to strike down one after another of FDR's new deal programs on "conservative" grounds were wittily identified as "The Four Horsemen." It took a constitutional crisis to defeat The Four Horsemen by a unified Democratic Executive and Congress, neither of which we have today. Again, too bad for the kids.)
Posted by euzoius at January 15, 2006 07:34 PMIt's distressing to have Senator Feinstein as my representative in the Senate. She is a disappointment who does not deserve to represent me. She is certainly qualified, but if I had a chance to filibuster against her being in the Senate, I would.
I also agree with Toler, that if Clinton had nominated someone to the left as Alito is to the right, the Republicans would have filibustered until the nomination was withdrawn. Feinstein should give another Democrat a chance to do the job she does not have the stomach for.
Posted by prabhata at January 15, 2006 08:03 PMFILLIBUSTER Feinstein DOLLARS. San Francisco wakew-up!
Posted by censor at January 15, 2006 09:18 PMIf Thomas is qualified then everyone who thought of taking the LSAT is qualified.
Posted by Brian Boru at January 15, 2006 09:20 PMMike said:
I no longer support my Congressman, Henry Waxman, because he voted for the Iraq invasion
I feel your pain, but for my money, Waxman is the best of Congress. A bad vote, yes, clearly. But don't forget that is job is not necessarily to vote what the majority of your constituents would vote.
Posted by Dilapidus at January 15, 2006 10:08 PMYes, steve. Presidents get to pick their judges. Surprise, surprise.
Kudos to DiFi, who does truly represent The People. She's a much better example of How To Be a Senator than Babs Boxer is. DiFi approaches every issue with an open mind, instead of some pre-fed liberal stance.
If Clinton had nominated someone as far to the Left as Alito is to the Right, what would the Republicans have done?
You mean like Ruthie? They voted Yes.
Posted by muckdog at January 15, 2006 10:41 PMMuck, I would argue that a president with a 40% approval rating isn't to be shown any deference whatsoever.
Posted by Steve Soto at January 16, 2006 12:14 AMAlso, the so-called "Ginsburg precedent" is a myth. President Clinton nominated Ginsburg on the recommendation of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Clinton did not try to shove his left-leaning nominee down the Republican's throat (pardon the pun) the way Generalissimo Bush has done with Roberts and BorkAlito.
Posted by fafnir at January 16, 2006 05:15 AMNero-Con 1: Ruthie is a liberal!
Liberal: And what in her record supports that?
Nero-Con 1: Ruthie is a liberal.
Liberal: Her record shows, if anything, she is right of moderate.
Nero-Con 1: Ruthie is a liberal.
Liberal: And what in her record shows that?
Nero-Con 1: Ruthie is a liberal.
Liberal: Can you cite speciifc examples supporting your thesis?
Nero-Con #2: Ruthie is a liberal.
Nero-Con 1: See!
Nero-Con #3: Clinton got a blow job!!!!
Nero-Cons in unison: Rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble.
Posted by phidipides at January 16, 2006 08:33 AMGood one, phidipides!
Posted by pessimist at January 16, 2006 09:05 AMConservative: Clinton recieved a consentual blow job from a subordinate. That subordinate was specifically protected under a new federal law, signed coincidentally by Clinton to protect women from being sexually harrassed in the work place. The principle, espoused by great liberals was that employers, supervisors, etc., who held authority over employees, should not be allowed to use that authority to "get a quickie".
Since Clinton was married, and since he was accused of doing similar acts against another subordinate while Governor in Arkansas, then his sexual propensity to violate the civil rights of federal and state employees was in question.
So it was more than consentual sex, since the law finds that an employee can not consent, per se.
So to keep this fact out of the news, Clinton chose to LIE to a Federal Judge while under oath in a Civil Rights case, for doing that which he denied doing.
Plus, the Evil Ken Starr, being such a dispicable character, did a DNA test to finally lay to rest the lies that the Clintons used. Starr also subpoendaed Clinton to a Federal Grand jury in which Starr told Clinton in the days before the hearing, that the DNA tested positive. In other words, he let Clinton know after the test results came out and before he had to testify that his lies were proven false.
Why? to perhaps bring Clinton back from the depths of destroying any amount of respect that remained in his office. (Starr could have sandbagged Clinton, but let him know the facts before he testified.)
Liberals: He lied about having sex, thats all. Its none of our business. Starr should be strung up and hung.
Conservative: Lied, yes, but under oath regarding a case involving the Civil Rights of another U.S. Citizen....
Liberals: You guys are just sex perverts, Clinton should be King. Get over the sex. You need a blow job yourself.......
yada yada yada...
to vote what the majority of your constituents would vote. Posted by DilapidusI disagree. The job of a congressman is to represent his constituents, their interests and policies. Would you excuse someone voting for a lobbyist position contrary to his/her constituents?
You mean like Ruthie? They voted Yes. Posted by muckdogPay attention. Ginsberg is not as far to the left and Alito is to the right. Orin Hatch, (moonbat, UT) suggested her as a acceptable to Republicans. That is why they voted affirmative. By the way, the Republican congress and Orin Hatch blocked more of Bill Clinton's appointees than the Democrats did of Bush's despite your incessant whining to the contrary.
Liberals: You guys are just sex perverts, Clinton should be King. Get over the sex. You need a blow job yourself.......Posted by carpediemYou have become incoherent on top of your usual ignorance and McCarthyism. If you were honest, you would know that Ms. Lewinsky came on the Clinton. Remember the famous thong? If you were honest, you would know that consensual relations are not harassment. If you were honest, you would know that Republicans, not Democrats, are the ones who tolerate a president who arrogates the power of the legislature and violates the American Constitution. Posted by Mike at January 16, 2006 02:55 PM
You need a blow job yourself.......
Could you find another blog to come out on?
Posted by pessimist at January 16, 2006 05:05 PM