The New York Times today is calling for the Democrats to show a spine and filibuster Judge Alito. I find this to be completely irresponsible and only leading to the party's further slide into minority status. What is the Old Gray Biddie thinking? Just note that the Times is losing money steadily, and she still has no idea why. And she just keeps rushing toward the very cliff that will eventually doom her. Amazing.

Senators in Need of a Spine

Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.

It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination.

At the Judiciary Committee hearings, the judge followed the well-worn path to confirmation, which has the nominee offer up only the most boring statements and unarguable truisms: the president is not above the law; diversity in college student bodies is a good thing. But in what he has said in the past, and what he refused to say in the hearings, Judge Alito raised warning flags that, in the current political context, cannot simply be shrugged away with a promise to fight again another day.

The Alito nomination has been discussed largely in the context of his opposition to abortion rights, and if the hearings provided any serious insight at all into the nominee's intentions, it was that he has never changed his early convictions on that point. The judge — who long maintained that Roe v. Wade should be overturned — ignored all the efforts by the Judiciary Committee's chairman, Arlen Specter, to get him to provide some cover for pro-choice senators who wanted to support the nomination. As it stands, it is indefensible for Mr. Specter or any other senator who has promised constituents to protect a woman's right to an abortion to turn around and hand Judge Alito a potent vote to undermine or even end it.

But portraying the Alito nomination as just another volley in the culture wars vastly underestimates its significance. The judge's record strongly suggests that he is an eager lieutenant in the ranks of the conservative theorists who ignore our system of checks and balances, elevating the presidency over everything else. He has expressed little enthusiasm for restrictions on presidential power and has espoused the peculiar argument that a president's intent in signing a bill is just as important as the intent of Congress in writing it. This would be worrisome at any time, but it takes on far more significance now, when the Bush administration seems determined to use the cover of the "war on terror" and presidential privilege to ignore every restraint, from the Constitution to Congressional demands for information.

There was nothing that Judge Alito said in his hearings that gave any comfort to those of us who wonder whether the new Roberts court will follow precedent and continue to affirm, for instance, that a man the president labels an "unlawful enemy combatant" has the basic right to challenge the government's ability to hold him in detention forever without explanation. His much-quoted statement that the president is not above the law is meaningless unless he also believes that the law requires the chief executive to defer to Congress and the courts.

Judge Alito's refusal to even pretend to sound like a moderate was telling because it would have cost him so little. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who was far more skillful at appearing mainstream at the hearings, has already given indications that whatever he said about the limits of executive power when he was questioned by the Senate has little practical impact on how he will rule now that he has a lifetime appointment.

Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster — particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote.

A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

This is why they had to lay off half their staff in the last few years. No one buys their crap anymore. Literally.

I buy it and agree - filibuster the guy. He's an extremist who already basically said he will overturn Roe and believes in a more powerful presidential authority and executive powers.

I wonder how you will all react once the Supreme court gives the presidency more powers - and the president is a Democrat? I bet you will all be screaming bloody murder and try to remove the powers you so readily want to give the Bush administration. This goes forconservatives.

And that's the problem with the conservative mindset - it's narrow and short sighted.

Dick Morris has his take on this as well.

Why the Left Can't Sink Alito
By Dick Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 26, 2006
The reason Democrats and leftists did not get more popular traction in their opposition to the appointment of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court is that their worldview of what constitutes a good nominee is sharply at variance with that of the American public at large.

To the likes of Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-MA, Charles Schumer, D-NY, Hillary Clinton, D-NY, et al., the Supreme Court is a kind of super-Congress — nine special Senate seats — and the criterion for confirmation is agreement with the nominee on the key issues likely to come before the court. But to the American voters, the Supreme Court is above politics and ideology and confirmation should be awarded based on personal attributes such as integrity, intelligence, judgment, compassion, wisdom, maturity, fairness, and temperament.

Realizing this difference in perspective between the Democratic base and the public at large, President Bush has done very well with both the John Roberts and the Alito appointments. When his people forgot about the dichotomy — and nominated Harriet Miers who was seen as a poorly qualified if conservative candidate — they got their heads handed to them.

Of course, ideology is as important (if not more so) to conservatives as it is to leftists. But with the White House comes the ability to get men or women who share your ideology approved as long as they are objectively well-qualified. Bill Clinton learned that lesson when the Senate easily approved his nominations of moderate liberal Stephen Breyer and ultra-leftist Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Republicans then, as with Democrats now, could not rally public opposition to a judge simply based on his or her ideology.

The Robert Bork nomination failed, ultimately, not so much because he was a conservative but because his opponents managed to cast doubts on his temperament by engaging him in harsh rhetorical exchanges during his hearings. Clarence Thomas was not seriously opposed because of his conservatism but as a result of the allegations of Anita Hill that he sexually harassed her.

The failure of voters to understand the role of ideology in court decisions seems to fly in the face of the knee-jerk conservatism of Antonin Scalia, Thomas and, during his tenure, Rehnquist and the automatic leftism of John Paul Stevens and Ginsburg. But voters are not deluded; they simply do not see Roe v. Wade in quite the apocalyptic terms that both the Left and the Right do. To the vast middle of the American political spectrum, it is more important that a Supreme Court nominee be a good person with sterling credentials than be predictably for or against Roe v. Wade.

But, in an even broader sense, voters are increasingly appalled at the growth of partisanship on Capitol Hill. Clinton’s impeachment and the GOP government closures of the 1990s have left their legacy in the growing public impatience with shrill, blind partisan advocacy in their elected Congress. Their insistence on credentials and personal qualifications in Supreme Court nominees reflects their desire not to see this unappealing trait spread to the Supreme Court.

I just noticed that Drudge is displaying a flashing light, showing that senator John Kerry, the junior senator from Mass, who happens to be a Vitenam Vetran, is calling for a Filibuster on Alito.

It looks as thought the last gasp Jackasses are going to try for the Filibuster. This is the worst thing that they can do. Let's see if they manage to step in that bag of excrement again. I can't believe that they NEVER manage to step around it, over it, or by it, but RIGHT IN IT, Every time.

Why are these people so Stupid!? Perhaps some of our brilliant Democrats can tell us what drives the leaders of this party into doing what they do?

Here it is.

Sen. Kerry calls for filibuster of Alito: Unclear if Massachusetts Democrat has votes needed to block nominee



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry has decided to support a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, CNN's Congressional Correspondent Ed Henry reported Thursday.

Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, Henry said.

He announced his decision Wednesday to a group of Democratic senators, urging they join him, Henry said. Kerry also has the support of his fellow Massachusetts senator, Democrat Edward Kennedy.

Some senior Democrats said they are worried that the move could backfire.

Republicans need 60 votes to overturn a filibuster.

Senior White House officials said the move makes the Democrats look bad, and Republicans already have enough votes to overcome any filibuster attempt.

Dying gasps of the desperate.

Oh, you know they will, Greyman.

But you know something? Sometimes I wonder if Alito or the others would actually give the religious right what they want? Sometimes I truely wonder about that.

Actually, I believe that all of this is a intrinsic plan of the GOP to make sure they garner and quell a selected group of people in order to maintain assurances of victories in 06 and 08.

Now I understand that I could be wrong about that, but I feel if they open this can of worms that they are toying with, it can only bring about unrealized exigencies.

You two live in dreamland.

Please provide a VALID (ie. not left wing) link where he said this stuff.

He can't because there isn't one, even a left wing one.

The posters at the Democratic Underground are orgasmic.. Kerry calling for a filibuster... against Alito

Yeah, one of them said



What a stupid question. The answer is that Byre is running for reelection, you DipStick! He can't afford NOT to vote for Alito! Obviously these folks are slightly less then informed.

Well - you can start here where the story details it in his own words and rulings, briefs and opinions.
Alitos Own Words on Abortion

His opinions, rulings and briefs are pretty good indicators as to his opinions and can be easily used to determine how he might rule on a given topic. Solo - as a therapist - don't you use prior behavoirs and personality trights to help predict behaviours and then try to fix a problem by identifying these before making a diagnosis? Alito is no different except he's written about it for years and there is a robust record of his opinions and resume prior to being ushered rather reluctantly onto the court.

Clarence Thomas - one of the worst justices we've ever had in that he sits under the robes of Scalia without a mind of his own - was pegged by the dems down to the tee in that he lived up to every expectation that they envisioned with him and the precendents he set in his former career. The indicators revealed that he would be a mediocre justice and rule no differently then he had when he was a federal judge or in one of his many jobs in state and federal government.

But that pales in comparrison to his ideas and thoughts about Presidential Power. I would not want to see any president get the kinds of powers that the Current King George wants.

Want more links?

And Solo - you know better then to tell me something like I have no links when you know full well that I will have plenty in the wings just chomping at the bit for exposure to you right wingers!

This is such a huge looser for the democrats it's hysterical. Talking about stepping right in it!
The evidence against Alito is extremely thin. The arguments supporting his fair mindedness are quite substantial.
Kerry, Pelosi, Leahy, Shumer, Kennedy and crew are simply pathetic.