What is the rationale against an Alito filibuster?

[DefenseLawyer]

A radical nominee, a weakened Republican leadership, for the life of me I can't come up with a sound political argument against the filibuster.

[Rainscents]

1. Brain Dead?

[quiet.american]

2. Well, I keep hearing our Dem reps. say they don't have the votes anyway.

They think it's pointless because eventually the craven Republican majority will vote him in.

[DefenseLawyer]

6. Well that is the same question really, not an answer

If they don't have the votes, it means that there are Democrats that won't stand with the party. What is THEIR rationale? Do they really think that standing against a right wing extremist will hurt them politically? It would seem to me that anyone that would buy that as a reason not to vote for an incumbent Senator probably wasn't going to vote for him anyway.

[quiet.american]

10. Er....

Even if all the Dems do not vote for Alito, they would be outnumbered by the number of Republicans who would. In order for them to have the numbers to reject this nomination, a Republican or Republicans, would have to side with the Dems against Alito.

[DefenseLawyer]

18. Er....

No. That's wrong. It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture to end a filibuster. The Republicans have 55.

[quiet.american]

20. Er.... :)

Not speaking in regard to the filibuster, but in regard to the nomination. It may still be a question, but from what I've read, the Dems still think a filibuster would be pointless, because ultimately, they don't have the votes.

[Coexist]

33. Sometimes sending a message of solidarity is important too...

Oops, I forget... Er..

[quiet.american]

42. :)

I totally agree. I don't know what it would take... what we're saving our "dry powder" for. It's maddening.

[Wordie]

47. Exactly. What are we "preserving the filibuster" FOR, exactly. What could

be more important than this vote?

[bowens43]

54. Do you honestly think

that the republicans will allow a filibuster of a supreme court nomination? They may allow a filibuster of some appeals court nominations but that's about it.

[Wordie]

60. Do the Republicans really want to destroy the fillibuster? Can they afford

to be the ones who destroy it? Would they make good on their "nuclear option" threat? That's the question.

[bowens43]

46. Every Dem voting against Alito on the floor of the Senate

would be sending a message of solidarity.

[Coexist]

62. Yes, bowens43, it would

I totally agree.

[mazzarro]

3. Spineless opposition party! -- n/t

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BillZBubb]

5. Sure, let's keep him off because of his religion!

Give me a break. Hopefully the quality of your posts will improve with time.

[rodeodance]

7. they do not think they have the 41 nec. votes for this.

[mojavegreen]

17. theocrats

Which one don't you care for? Not completely in step with the party line?

Old -school dems had no problem denouncing the catholics or protestant bible-thumpers. It's the new PC "toleration at any cost" liberals who are letting the theocrats take power.

[alittlelark]

65. ?

[shraby]

8. Religion cannot be used as a test to

qualify or disqualify a person for a position. Read your constitution.

[mojavegreen]

14. Church and State clause

I think that's debatable, regardless of the Constitution. If judges' religious beliefs are affecting their decisions (and that is certainly the case with Scalia), then that should be considered. The Church and State clause would seem to prevent any sort of religious grounds from being part of a decision, but Scalia recently claimed something like governmental power came from "God', not by consent.

Secularists should question religious "freedoms." Fundamentalists, Catholics, orthodox jewish people, or radical muslims for that matter, do pose a possible danger to a secular society. I think Jefferson and Madison both were as worried about theocracy as they were about permitting religious freedoms; the whole point of the Separation clause was to keep theocrats (like the Puritans of the time) from controlling politics or the Courts.

[bowens43]

28. No , it's pretty clear.

The Constitution prohibits a religious test and the First Amendment (there isn't a Church and State clause) only prohibits the government from establishing laws in respect to religion and it protects completely the right of the individual to practice his religion.

From Article VI:

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

I think you lost your argument as soon as you said 'regardless of the Constitution'. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What bush and the NSA are doing they are doing 'regardless of the Constitution'. We liberals have more respect for the Constitution then they do.

[mojavegreen]

34. the "Church and State" clause

So allowing Scalia (and the other theocractically-inclined judges) to make use of his own religious superstitions and biases to influence his decisions is acceptable then? The First Amendment is the "Church and State" clause, and is referred to as such, or as the Establishment clause. The US Supreme Court has traditionally interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires a "wall of separation" between church and state. Recently Scalia and other judges have argued that posting the 10 Commandments at courthouses is acceptable. That appears like a violation of the 1st Amendment except, perhaps, to catholic or fundamentalist judges.

[bowens43]

37. It depends on the context and that's what have ruled.

You seem to be suggesting that only atheists should be judges. The Constitution requires that there be no religious test. Period.

[mojavegreen]

38. No religious test

Not really man. But if a judge allows his religious beliefs to influence and dictate his opinions then there is an issue isn't there? It seems if there is no religious test, and no allowing of any religious concepts to influence governmental policy (including the judiciary), then Judges are prevented from using any sort of religious justifications. What if a muslim was nominated for a judicial position and decided to enforce various Koranic laws (say preventing women from owning property)?

[bowens43]

45. What judge has used religious justifications in a ruling?

Are there any Koranic laws on the books in our country? I don't think so.

[mojavegreen]

59. Scalia

Il Duce Scalia used them in a recent case involving the displaying of the 10 commandments. Google search it if you are interested. Other State and Fed. judges have as well. The Koranic example is what is called a hypothetical

[bowens43]

9. Well

a filibuster can't be maintained. A filibuster will NOT stop the appointment. A filibuster may however turn many of those in the center who voted republican last time but who were leaning toward voting Dem in 2006 back to the republicans. It will also energize their base when they use the nuclear option. It will be spun on the news networks as a HUGE loss for the Democrats and a HUGE win for bush.

Right now we are in the position of probably regaining control of both the house and the Senate. A filibuster , even when it can succeed, is a risky political move. In this case, it can't succeed. Most Americans are not as passionate about this issue as we are. Most Americans in the center , will see this as obstructionism. They will see it as the Dems trying to exert the will of the minority on to the majority. Most Americans , Democrat and Republican believe that the president should be able to appoint anyone he choses. That, they believe, is the price of losing an election.

If we could win this one, it might be worth the risk but we can't win this one.

[DefenseLawyer]

12. Which is it?

Is it an issue that most Americans aren't passionate about or is it an issue that will push swing voters to vote republican? I don't see how you can say it is both in the same argument. I tend to think that the average voter wouldn't get what the filibuster was even about, or frankly, even that it had happened. The "risk" of being labeled "obstructionist" doesn't seem that damaging to me. But then I am no Bob Shrum, so what do I know?

[bowens43]

19. Two seperate issues.

First , most Americans really are apathetic about the court. I doubt that two out of five could even name a single supreme court justice.

Second , the filibuster will be seen by those in the middle as as the action of a sore loser. The minority trying to over throw the majority in a sneaky way. I of curse don't see it like that but most will. If we could win this, it would be worth it but Alito IS going to be confirmed. The republicans in their weakened state can not afford a loss of this magnitude. They will change the rules. I don't see what mounting a filibuster that we can't maintain will do for us in 2006.

The press will make this appear to be a HUGE loss for us and a HUGE win for them and the people will believe it.

[DefenseLawyer]

40. I understand your distinction

but I am not sure it makes sense to me. The electorate is apathetic about the court, yet totally in tune about the arcane procedural workings of the Senate as it relates to the nomination process? I just do see it. I can't see a Democrat incumbent being so damaged by supporting his party that he would "cross the picket line" so to speak and help the republicans defeat the filibuster.

[bowens43]

43. Let me try to be more clear.

I didn't say that they were totally in tune about the procedural workings of the senate. IMO when the news of a filibuster of Alito hits the air waves it will be spun as a 'trick' by the Democrats to deny the majority the ability to chose their nominee. Because most Americans are not familiar with the internal workings of the senate , they will believe it to be 'trick'. When the repugs change the rules (and they will) it will be looked at by those on the right and most of those in the middle as a huge victory for the republicans and a huge defeat for the Dems. Most Americans believe that the majority party has earned the right to have their nominees. The filibuster will be looked at negatively by all but those of us on the left.

I'm also not saying that an incumbent will be hurt by supporting a filibuster. I am saying that I believe that those in the center who voted republican in 2004 and who are leaning toward voting Democrat in 2006 may be turned off by the filibuster. They may see it as nothing more then partisan politics. We need those in the center in order to regain control. If all we do is bring back the incumbents, we haven't won anything and we still won't control the Senate or the House. I see no positives for us in using the filibuster. It won't stop the nomination and it won't help us to get more votes in 2006.

[Wordie]

49. Since the Republicans came up with the term, "nuclear option," I think the

tables could easily be turned against them if they were ever to try use it. The term itself just sounds so extreme, that it would just add to the list of Republican negatives for the fall elections. I don't think they'd risk it. They are in a profoundly weaker position than they were when they first started threatening to "go nuclear." They don't want to lose the filibuster themselves.

And with Bush's increasingly scary power grab, a strong case could be made on the issue of presidential powers, leaving the religious issues aside.

[stray cat]

11. an even weaker democratic group

No difference in outcome if all the dems vote no or if there is a filibuster. Although a fillibuster followed by the nuclear option will divert attention from republican corruption scandels and Iraq.

[DefenseLawyer]

21. That assumes

that Frist has the political muscle to made good on the nuclear option. I'd say it's moderate Republicans that would have a hard time explaining why they sided with Pat Robertson to change the rules of the Senate in order to assure that a radical got on the Supreme Court.

[bowens43]

25. I think that there isn't Republican in the Senate

who won't support a rule change at this time. They can't afford a loss of this magnitude. Not with all of the scandals, the poll ratings and the war against the people of Iraq.

[DefenseLawyer]

29. Their leadership can't afford the loss

But are Republican Senators in otherwise blue states facing the same political reality at home? Does a moderate Republican in a close race really gain by falling in line with Frist and Santorum, neither of whom is long for this world (politically) anyway?

[bowens43]

30. Gain? Maybe not but they will certanly lose votes

if they support Democrats over Republicans and party support (money for re-election).

[stray cat]

26. My impression is moderate repubs are voting yes to Alito

I sure haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

[David Van Os]

13. They are followers, not leaders.

Their political strategies are all about trying to construct better weather vanes. Leadership requires being the wind.

Forget them. They're irrelevant. Concentrate on defeating Republicans in your state and local elections.

David Van Os
Democratic Candidate for Texas Attorney General
www.vanosfortexasag.com

[FogerRox]

15. "for the life of me I can't come up with a "

" sound political argument against the filibuster. "

Neither can I -- SO SHUT THE SENATE DOWN

.jpg

[omega minimo]

16. $!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$:hide:$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$:scared:$$$$$$$$$:hide:$$$$$$$$$$$$$:boring:$$$$$$$$$$$:scared:$$$$$$$$$

[bkcc]

22. Some Democratic Senators just don't care.

Think about it: if you're a Dem who's only worried about re-election, letting Alito get confirmed isn't that big a deal. We, as the voting populace, can threaten to vote out any Senator who votes for Alito. However, it looks to me like some Dems are daring us to do that because they figure that we can bitch and complain all we want, we're not going to vote them out at the risk of losing their seat to a Republican.

I hope I'm wrong about this, but frankly that's the only reason I can see for the apathy surrounding the most important Supreme Court confirmation of our lifetime.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Campaign funds, as usual. Gotta keep the cash flow intact.

Don't want to piss off the deep pocket masters..er, donors.

[Innocent Smith]

24. Here is the political argument (not that I agree)

The filibuster happens and the Repubs are able to invoke the nuclear option, but by only a very narrow margin (only 50 or 51 votes). A year from now Bush gets to put another person on the Supreme Court and the filibuster is off the table.

Now imagine that the filibuster is not used this time. The Repubs lose 2 or 3 seats in November 2006. Bush gets as opening next year, but the filibuster is still available and there are now not enough votes to get the nuclear option passed.

That is the only argument that I have heard that seems somewhat reasonable. That being said, I think they should filibuster now and not base their actions on what may never happen.

[Orangepeel]

27. a *political* argument?

the political argument is that a majority of a particular Senator's constituents think that Alito ought to be confirmed and he/she doesn't want to go against that given they can't win anyway.

Why the constituents might think this is another question. Maybe they don't know how radical the nominee is. Maybe they know but don't think that his positions are particularly radical. Maybe they think that radical ideology isn't a good enough reason for keeping someone off the court.

But, considering those factors makes it an argument about leadership or communication rather than politics.

[mdmc]

31. why bother?

The Dems can't stand up for anything, except republican lite stances. Why the hell would the Dems choose Alito to stand up and fight against. They could care less.

[Coexist]

32. they're just keeping their powder dry, doncha' know

that there dry powder is for the BIG fight - we will just never actually GET to the big fight - because NO FIGHT seems to be important enough to these people.

[KnowerOfLogic]

36. Right, they're keeping their powder dry for...for...for something... nt

[LittleClarkie]

35. If most of the Dems want to filibuster, but the gang of 14

doesn't, the reason not to filibuster will be that they simply didn't have all the votes they needed. It will have been the Conservative Dems who held us up. And I don't know what their reasoning will be.

Some are saying it will be the fault of all the Dems. Personally, I would focus on the Conservative ones mainly.

[spanone]

39. A bunch of chickenshit Democrats, that's what.

Remember the voting for bush* war???? That got 'em real far. These bastards have to prove they are different from the republicans!!!! Maybe they are not. MOST of America does not want the Supreme Court in their bedroooms, mabye the democrats do. I'm at a loss with this deal. Where the hell is the LOYAL Opposition? I AM a democrat.

[jobycom]

41. They will have two basic rationales

First, if they try a filibuster and don't have all the Dems on their side, the media will blow it up into a catastrophic failure of the Dems.

Second, if they do have the votes, but the Repubs will simply nuke the filibuster and confirm Alito anyway, the media will again assure the American people that the Dems are a bunch of whiners and amateurs who got what they deserved for trying to tear down the wonderful Alito and his poor crying wife.

Most of the nation doesn't want to see partisan bickering, and no matter what our reasons, the media will spin it as a triumph for the Republicans and a spoiled temper tantrum for us. Every senator knows the hardcore Dems want to see a filibuster, but every senator also knows that they have to win the votes of the middle independents, not the Dems. So if their polls show that they won't gain anything by filibustering and will instead lose popular support and make it more likely that the Repubs will win in 2006, they won't risk it.

It would be nice to have an objective media that would report exactly why the Dems oppose Alito and would simply transmit the Dems' message to the public, but as we all (should) realize, the MSM will lie and spin to make the Dems look bad and the Repubs look good. So more than likely, a filibuster would hurt us. If the research polls show otherwise, they'll try it.

Like it or not, that's what they are thinking. Not "I really don't want to anger Republicans" or "I am really a Republican in Democrat garb" or "my corporate paymasters won't like it" or any of the other silly fantasies some people have about them. It's all about what their polls show about how the public will react. It's all about winning the next election. Whether it's right or wrong, that's their rationale.

[bowens43]

44. I think this is a perfectly reasonable way for them to look at it.

Right now , everything is looking up for the Democrats. The Republican party is in disarray. It is still likely that Rove will be indicted, it is likely that the Abramoff scandal will bring down at least a few more more Republicans, there is a chance (although slim) that the Supreme court will rule that the redistricting in Texas was illegal, polls show that Americans favor a Democratically controlled congress by a widening margin. The chances of a filibuster stopping the appointment of Alitio are slim to none so why risk it? I really don't see that we have anything to gain from a filibuster (assuming of course that the repugs will change the rules) but we do have a lot to lose.

[bread_and_roses]

48. Supreme Court is about more than "Right now"

We could be looking at thirty years or more. Decisions that will alter life in US for generations. THAT's a lot to lose.

[jobycom]

51. If there was a chance to block him, your point would be relevant.

And if there is a chance to block him, they will take it. But they have nothing to gain by making a vain, symbolic gesture and losing the filibuster (which would be a stronger possibility after November if we make gains in the Senate) when they have no chance to block him. We don't need symbolic gestures by pouty children, we need professionals in Congress taking the opportunities when they come.

Reid will know going into the vote whether they have enough votes to sustain a filibuster, and whether the Repubs will nuke the filibuster for it. All the voting and angry whining is all for show, like pro wrestling. When Reid steps on the floor, he'll know the outcome. If he doesn't lead the filibuster, it's because the votes aren't there. At that point, it's all about spin to make themselves look better to the mainstream, wishy-washy voters who decide elections, not about feeding their egos.

[bowens43]

53. Exactly the point I've been trying to make.

If they decide not to filibuster it will be for good reason, if they decide TO filibuster it will be for good reason. Either way, I'll support their actions.

[bowens43]

52. A filibuster won't stop that.

The republicans are not going to let this nomination go down the tubes. They can't afford it. They're about to lose power and they know it. They will change the rules, I'm sure of it.

[bread_and_roses]

50. Someone tell me again why I should ever again vote for a "lesser of two

evils Democrat" if the Dems don't fight this one? The Supreme Court has always been the trump card anytime I stood in a voting booth wondering about voting for a Dem who didn't particularly stand up for the issues I care about. So here we are.

[bowens43]

55. Becuase the lesser of two evils IS the lesser of two evils.

[jobycom]

57. Tell me again why any liberal would want them to fight it if it is going

to strengthen the Republicans and still not block the nomination?

They'll fight if there is a point in fighting. If there isn't, they'll know that going in to the vote. To committ suicide for symbolic reasons instead of living to fight when the odds favor us (say, after the 2006 elections, when we may make gains in the Senate but still not take control) is not fighting. It's quitting. Suicide is always quitting.

We ain't in grade school, we're playing for keeps. If the Nader fiasco didn't show everyone how serious this all is, I guess nothing will. People voted for Nader because they didn't want to vote for the "lesser of two evils." They got what they wanted--the greater of two evils. Are they happy? Sadly, I think some are, because they are doing it all again.

You get two viable choices: if you don't vote for the one in the minority, you are voting for the one in the majority. All other beliefs are just vanity and ego. After 2000, and after five years of Bush, I don't have any patience with vanity votes.

[DistressedAmerican]

56. Because They Are Spineless Weasels That Know We Will Keep Voting For Them.

They play to the middle because the assume we on the left will keep supporting them since the only viable alternative is Repug.

Maybe it is time to show them they are wrong in that assumption and watch them go down for their own arrogant assumptions about leftist voters?

Not like they are winning with our support anyway.

[jobycom]

58. They play to the middle because that's where the election is won

Votes in the middle count twice, because if they don't go to us, they go to the Repubs. As for anyone on the "left" who doesn't support the Dems (except in some local elections where third parties are viable), they are helping the Repubs. That's how we got Bush in the first place. Imagine what the world would be like right now if Gore had taken office. Now realize that Gore would have won if Nader hadn't convinced the voters of a couple of states to swing the vote to the Republicans (he was the difference in other states than Florida, too). That's what Nader and his purists got us: Bush and everything that's happened in the last five years. Want more of it? Then let's fight the Dems for refusing to committ suicide for symbolism's sake. Don't like Bush? Then understand that the party that wins the middle controls the nation. None of us like it. I hate it as much as you do. Maybe more. I hate it so badly that I'm going to swallow my pride and do everything I can to defeat the Republicans no matter how long it takes. Your action is your business, but quit calling my party spineless weasels. Throwing temper tantrums is spineless. Sticking to a strategy even though it raises bile in your throat is courageous. These Dems are courageous (excluding a few obvious Repub suckups).

[DefenseLawyer]

63. Have you seen any polling

that suggests this massive backlash among the electorate to a filibuster? I mean I realize that Republicans will try to spin it that way, but why are you so convinced they will succeed? Personally I see a collective yawn from the average voter about the whole process, except from people already in tune with the process and already committed.

[jobycom]

64. No, but that's my point. I'm saying that the Dems have the polls

and they know what their basic 2006 strategy will be. They may filibuster--we don't know yet. My point is that if they don't, it's not because they are weasels or corporate suckups or any of that nonsense, it's because they know they don't have the votes in the Senate to win, and they have polls showing how people will react if they do it anyway. If they do filibuster, they either know they have the votes to win, or they have research suggesting people will approve of their stance.

We get all caught up on these issues and get too mad when they don't go our way, but we are getting mad at the wrong people. We are just going to lose 95% of the battles we fight. I said after the 2004 "election" that we better be prepared to not be happy about anything for the next four years. We have no power in Congress. We have no way of winning a battle that the Repubs are united to win. Not on nominations, anyway. Blame Bush, blame the Repubs, blame the voters, but blaming the Democrats is just blaming the victim.

[DistressedAmerican]

67. If They Can Not Muster 40 Votes To Stop This Guy...

The whole damn party is spineless. Any Dem that refuses to be part of those 40 is doing us all a GREAT Disservice that will be hurting the country for decades to come. Again, that is not a winning strategy. Until you can show how it is, I can't agree with you. Win a few and get back to me about strategy.

[rman]

69. "Dems could take a stand that's supported by public opinion..."

"Democrats read the polls way more than I do, their leadership. They know what public opinion is. They could take a stand that's supported by public opinion instead of opposed to it. Then they could become an opposition party, and a majority party. But then they're going to have to change their position on just about everything.

Take, for example, take your pick, say for example health care. Probably the major domestic problem for people. A large majority of the population is in favor of a national health care system of some kind. And that's been true for a long time. But whenever that comes up -- it's occasionally mentioned in the press -- it's called politically impossible, or "lacking political support," which is a way of saying that the insurance industry doesn't want it, the pharmaceutical corporations don't want it, and so on. Okay, so a large majority of the population wants it, but who cares about them? Well, Democrats are the same. Clinton came up with some cockamamie scheme which was so complicated you couldn't figure it out, and it collapsed."

There Is No War On Terror
Noam Chomsky
http://www.alternet.org/story/30487

[DistressedAmerican]

66. I'll Stop Calline Them Spinless When They Act Like They Have Spines.

Those of you that act like Dems sucking up to the middle are employing a winning strategy do not have the election victories to back that claim up. When you start winning with that strategy, maybe I will endorse it.

[Coexist]

68. Me too.

Boxer, Conyers and several others show them on occasion, and make us so proud. Why are these moments so far and in between.

Many good coaches have a small, safe playbook, but Special Team's, and offensive razzle dazzle often throws your oppenents off makes them constantly re-think and analyze their defense, making it difficult for them to get back on offense. It time to get our defense off the field and let them rest.

Offense - offense - offense. Now.

[wadestock]

61. Jerry made the best argument

He's becoming one of the best anti-Limbaugh neutralizers.

He put it so susinctly....

He's smart...
Yes we know that...
but with the power elite of this country taking control of congress....
and the executive office....
really the only thing we have left is the supreme court....
which can intepret the constitution in the favor of...

the "little guy"