Alito's Remarks on Roe May Not Be Fighting Words (Dems won't filibuster?)

[papau]

Ron Brownstein dares (?) Democrats NOT to filibuster Alito over abortion http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-outlook12dec12,1,7192065.column?coll=la-news-a_section

Alito's Remarks on Roe May Not Be Fighting Words

Ronald Brownstein
Washington Outlook

December 12, 2005

With the recent release of two memos that Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote during the Reagan administration, many Democrats believe they have found a smoking gun demonstrating his hostility to Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision guaranteeing the right to abortion.

In the two documents — one an administration job application, the other a Justice Department legal memo — Alito expressed a skepticism about Roe that liberal critics suspected, but could not prove, was also held by GOP court nominees Clarence Thomas and John G. Roberts Jr.

"It is difficult to imagine stronger evidence of a nominee's legal views on Roe v. Wade" than these memos, said Dawn Johnsen, a professor of constitutional law at Indiana University and former legal director at NARAL Pro-Choice America.

But it's still not clear these disclosures will seriously threaten Alito's confirmation. And if they do not, both sides might need to rethink basic assumptions about the politics of the Supreme Court.<snip>

If that's still insufficient to generate substantial opposition from senators who support Roe, Bush and his GOP successors might understandably conclude that overt opposition to legalized abortion isn't as dangerous for court nominees as they feared. In that way, the Alito memos may raise the stakes in this struggle more for the judge's opponents than for Bush. If the left can't win this fight, they can probably expect another one like it the next time a Republican president fills a vacancy on the high court

[acmavm]

1. Did anyone really expect the dems to take a serious stand on this

guy?

Maybe it's just me but I don't expect them to fight his nomination. Why should they, they're corporate and fundy masters are against it.

[Solo_in_MD]

2. He is a done deal

We should make some noise, but conserve our resources for a fight we can win. Sorry if I sound defeatist this morning

[MisterLiberal]

4. Sounds familiar

That's what I heard last time. If the Democrats don't make a stand on someone as rightwing as Alito then we need new leaders.

Enough talk! WE WANT A FILIBUSTER!

[cyr330]

3. What do you expect?

The chicken shit Dems didn't even say no to Bush when they had a majority in the Senate.

[pat_k]

5. Alito Embodies the Fascist Fantasy that Bush Crimes are not Crimes.

The fascist fantasies they invoke to convince us their crimes are not crimes must be rejected out of hand. Their fantasies are NOT ideas to be "argued on the merits." They are fantasies that must be rejected out of hand; they have no place in the "marketplace of ideas."

Consider what's happening with intelligent design (ID). As long as people think ID has a place in the realm of science, the propagandists are winning. Rather than arguing against ID (which just aides the propagandists) the notion that ID belongs in the realm of science must be rejected. ID must be tossed out on its ear.

So far, we haven't done a very good job of tossing out the fascist fantasy that Bush's actions can possibly be anything but abuses of power. Alito embodies the fantasy. His answer to Sen. Biden must simply be rejected as flat wrong. No argument needed. Just as ID is not science, it is lunacy to think the constitution gives (or even might give) the President the power to violate the will of the people, when our collective will is clearly expressed in a Congressional resolution.

In a sense, fighting to keep Alito and the fascist fantasies he represents off the court is akin to fighting to keep ID out of our science classes.

It's not about any issue. Nope -- not even abortion. It's not about any legal argument, unless you want to talk about the Bush v. Gore treason. It's not even really about the next election. It's about our own self-esteem/sense of empowerment and whether we can foster any in the near future -- or ever.

There is no downside here. This one is black and white.

Prove Their/Our Strength, Conviction, and Courage
OR
Prove Their/Our Weakness, Equivocation, and Cowardice

We must fight to open their eyes to the truth: We/They have no choice This is it. Do or Die.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=146536&mesg_id=149936