OPEN THREAD: should democrats filibuster the Alito nomination?

Is Alito an extremist who will help take away our God-given abortion rights?

Will he continue the conservative Supreme Court trend of giving away the farm to the corporations? (as in the recent eminent demain decision?)

Will he help Thomas and Scalia restore Christian prayers in the schools?

Will a new conservative court restore the sodomy laws that make blowjobs a criminal offense even between married couples?

Are individual rights in America in big trouble?

Comments

[Daniel K]

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes!

Bush lost all political capital he may have thought he had with his dismal record last year and there is no God given right that his nominations be approved come what may.

Alito should be filibustered to make that point loud and clear.

[Andrew]

Alito is not perceived as being non-partisan, and that's what most people probably expect from a judge, therefore Democrats stand to lose nothing from a filibuster.

If they don't then why don't they just lay down and die.

[joanie]

This time it wasn't the conservatives who made the decision on eminent domain. It may be the only time in my lifetime I will have agreed with Clarence Thomas or Anton Scalia on anything!

Those two, along with Rehnquist and O'Conner were dissenters. Couldn't believe it. O'Conner's minority opinion was well stated. As I recall, Thomas even wrote a separate dissent in which he sided with the liberals and NAACP! Unbelievable!

[Brian]

I dont get it KIRO has the lucky bucks too send the radio staff pitsburg. for a week but that dont have the money to hire a good radio host to take of stock yard Vinnie show , Let , me guess???????????? what Vinne going to talk about on his next show .................... Foot ball and food

[rugerac]

The Dem Party is running out of opportunities to demonstrate backbone, determination and leadership courage.
This may be their last best opportunity.
You can see already how Hillary has frittered away advantages and opportunities by trying to play middle-of-the-road when m-o-t-r is in reality dominated by repuglican quicksand.

[audioslave]

I personally think that a filibuster will do nothing for the Democrat party except split it apart even more than it is. Plus it will be quickly extinquished by the nuclear option.

What is wrong with a judge who will interpret the constitution and not legistlate from the bench? Isn't that why we elect our congress, so they can make legislation, and propose amendments to the constitution? That is not the job of the judiciary.

[Critter]

yes, yes, I hope so, yes and yes.

[chris]

Supporters of George W. Bush are furious that some Democrats might filibuster Samuel Alito's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. But 15 years ago, the Republicans mounted a crucial filibuster of their own to block an investigation that might have destroyed the legacy of the Reagan-Bush era -- and ended the political viability of the Bush Family

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/012706.html

[ExDem]

It sounds like there's this echo chamber of "Alito is an extremist" that appears to be at odds with the prevailing opinions of Alito. That echo comes from the same people that claim someone is extreme if they say abortion is troubling or wrong - a position that polls show a majority of our population hold. Yeah, that's out of the mainstream.....

I hope they try to fillibuster and that the Senate just removes the fillibuster for confirmation votes while retaining it for legislative votes. If the Democrats want to play to their paranoid, far left wing, they'll go down in flames. It might actually be a healthy thing for the Dems - it might give them a good opportunity to divorce themselves from the self-destructive part of their party. Then, maybe our government can get back to some genuine statesmanship and perform a higher percentage of positive functions.

[Steve]

Listening to all the Democratic, progressive, and Liberal talk show host out there you would think the Democratic Party is going to sweep this years mid term elections and take control of the Congress. If this thinking is correct, and of course they always tell the truth ( like John Kerry won the 2004 election), why are they so worried about one candidate to the supreme court. With control of the Congress, they would be able to put their candidates in the top court the next time one is available. So whats the problerm.

[joanie]

"If the Democrats want to play to their paranoid, far left wing, they'll go down in flames. It might actually be a healthy thing for the Dems - it might give them a good opportunity to divorce themselves from the self-destructive part of their party."

Ah, again, ExDem, you claim to know better what is good for us than we do.

You say this is not personal yet you constantly bash me. You see, I'm a progressive. Believe it not, I think I know what is best for me.

Regarding the filibuster, if republicans nuke it, they are hurting themselves too. They won't be in power forever. There will come a time when they'll wish it were there.

I think our current group of congressional democrats have shown themselves to be cowardly. If Republicans nuke the filibuster, let it happen. It would be a legacy left by the Republicans that history could judge.

I'm for a new party. One that is truly accountable to the people rather than big money.

[Lump]

Chris sez, "Supporters of George W. Bush are furious that some Democrats might filibuster Samuel Alito's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. But 15 years ago, the Republicans mounted a crucial filibuster of their own to block an investigation that might have destroyed the legacy of the Reagan-Bush era -- and ended the political viability of the Bush Family"

You're absolutely correct and that is the role of filibuster which first appeared in the mid 1800's However it appears that you conveniently forget that several previous posts to this blog described the role of the Senate in a judicial confirmation. The duty of the Senate is to ADVISE and CONSENT. The Democrats were to first and only to filibuster judicial nominees in order to allow a MINORITY of Senators to oppose the choice of the President of the United States therefore forcing a vote from a simple majority, 51 votes, to a super majority of 60 votes.

The abuse of the filibuster in this manner in effects stops the vote from going to an up and down by all members of the senate. You may not like being in the minority, but that's too bad. All this crap put forth by the lunatic fringe of the left led by Kennedy and Kerry only highlight the desperation of the Dems. The continual bashing against a qualified judge with a 15 year history on the federal bench and deemed "highest qualified" by the Bar Association only shows the mean vindictive side of the libs.

And this meaness will cost them in the coming elections regardless of the alleged corruption of the Republicans because nobody wants a bunch of whiny assed crybabies in power, let alone the cut and run crowd who won't protect the citizens of the USA.

[joanie]

Believe it or not, Lump, I actually sort of agree with you.

Even though polls show very differing opinions of Bush on various issues, Americans voted twice for this guy. So, an up-or-down vote for his nominee would be something those of us on the left would have to live with. My personal opinion is that a conservative Supreme Court could tear this country apart . . . but then maybe not.

I still blame the democrats for being spineless and i would support a filibuster. But, I don't think they've got the courage to do it. And I think the American people deserve whatever they get.

Hope this doesn't sound contradictory: I want the dems to do something courageous; but I also think that the American people who voted for George Bush deserve his kind of government and the rest of us will have to live with it.

[Trip]

It always warms my heart to see such CONCERN coming from right-wingers about the internal workings of the Democratic party.

They always seem to know what's BEST for progressives, as they try to stamp them out forever.

Filibustering Alito is a NO-BRAINER, folks. If the Democrats hope to keep their base and keep getting those donations, they'll fight this to the end, win or lose.

After all, this is how conservatives got to be where they are today. Losing only made them more determined than ever to work the refs in the media and kept the cash coming in.

It's really funny to see the wingnuts run in circles trying to figure out why, if the media is so liberal, liberals are pushing back so hard on Chris Matthews. Katie Couric, and the Washington Post for their shoddy RNC-fax-based reporting.

And just remember, so-called "conservatives"...the day will come when all the power you've grabbed for getting those warrantless searches and nuclear options and unnecessary wars will fall into the hands of a Democratic President.

Then we'll all pull out your quotes about how it was all perfectly legal and club you over your flat heads with them.

[Fremont]

Joanie, progressive that you are, how do you contemplate a conservative court NOT tearing the country apart? Are you harboring an iota of hope that Alito might be untrue to his precedentail ideals, or do you mean that overturning Roe v. Wade, etc. might not be disastrous? I agree with you and Molly Ivins that we need a party of courage, but I disagree that giving the Republicans what they voted for would be a justice to the (still debated) majority of us who didn't vote or voted against Bush. Filibuster to the end!

[joanie]

Fremont, yes, I want the democrats to filibuster. But, I'm not a prophet. And I didn't want to be guilty of what I believe conservatives do-thinking they know best about everything!

I believe just as you believe that the good ole days of alley abortions, dead teenagers and unwanted babies is not the future I want for this country. In fact, it breaks my heart. But, I can do only so much. Progressives can fight only so hard. Sometimes, people have to hit bottom before they realize the folly and destructiveness of their choices.

Unfortunately, we'll all go down with them.

[Fremont]

The fact is, Joanie, you are probably right....but, as the conservatives say "the truth hurts!" Maybe some anti-depressants will keep us from going down before the abyss sucks us in....Dr. Weems?

[sparky]

The shoe was once on the other foot..In 1991, the Democratic-controlled Senate was planning an investigation into whether Republicans had conducted secret negotiations with Iran’s Islamic fundamentalist regime during the 1980 campaign, when Jimmy Carter was still President and Iran was holding 52 Americans hostage.
The hostage crisis destroyed Carter’s reelection hopes and gave an important boost to Ronald Reagan when the hostages were released immediately after he was sworn in as President and Poppy Bush became Vice President.
10 years later some Democrats wanted to get to the bottom of recurring allegations that George Bush Sr., a former CIA director, had joined clandestine negotiations with Iran in fall 1980 that may have delayed release of the hostages for political gain, what was called the “October Surprise” mystery.

Meanwhile, Republicans were worried that a full-scale October Surprise investigation might implicate Bush in near-treasonous talks with an enemy state and devastate his 1992 reelection campaign.

So, in November 1991, Republican leaders used the filibuster to block funding for the investigation. The Democrats mustered 51 votes – a majority – but fell short of the 60 votes needed for cloture. A fully funded investigation was prevented.

So all this stuff I hear the Republicans say about how the fillibuster needs to receive the nuclear treatmeant....will you still feel this way when there is a Dem. President, and there will be someday, and that President wants something that you dont and you dont have the power to stop it without a fillibuster...what then?

[audioslave]

Just to clarify, the nuclear option that has been mentioned is ONLY FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES who, whether they are liberal leaning, or constitutionalists, deserve an up or down vote.

As I stated before on this blog, Democrats have already filibustered 10 judicial nominees by this president, more than any in history. Now that certainly has set a precedence, hasn't it.

If you all really believe in our constitution, then why is there a problem having a judge that will INTERPRET the constitution, adhere to the principle of stari decisis, and not try to re-write it by legislating from the bench?

[sparky]

You don't consider granting a President the powers of Unitary Executive as legislating from the bench?

The citizens of Oregon voted on a law allowing a person to end his or her life. This falls under States Rights. The SCOTUS barely passed a ruling leaving the law alone. Thomas, Scalia and Roberts wanted to tell the citizens of Oregon that an issue they drew up and passed in a vote could not happen. Is this not legislating from the bench?

[audioslave]

From Blathering Michael:

"Are individual rights in America in big trouble?"

I say, hell no.

This also seems to be a prominent cry from the extreme left, along with how our rights already have been stripped away. So I pose this question:

Can anyone tell me, give me a name, and a background story of any American citizen in this country that has had any of their constitutional rights denied them, not given due process, or basically been illegally mistreated in direct relation to to the policies of the administration of this president?

[audioslave]

Sparky, you wrote:

"The citizens of Oregon voted on a law allowing a person to end his or her life. This falls under States Rights."

Shouldn't an issue, such as abortion be left up to the states too?

And this:

"You don't consider granting a President the powers of Unitary Executive as legislating from the bench?"

I honestly don't know what you mean by that statement, please clarify.

[joanie]

The Constitution is "interpreted" all the time. According to George Lakoff, UC Berkeley professor, the cases that reach the Supreme Court do so because they don't fit easily into the parameters of the Constitution. Thus, the Supreme Court must "interpret" the Constitution to fit the case. Each member of the Court will bring his/her values, beliefs and experiences to that task. So, Alito's values, beliefs and previous decisions are very pertinent to understanding his future rulings and his confirmation.

As far as legislating from the bench goes, isn't that what they did in 2000 when they overrode the Florida Supreme Court?

Finally, Audioslave. adhering to the principle of stari decisis (precedent) is exactly what the congress is trying evaluative in the case of Alito. Will he or won't he?

This is a much more complicated concept that Audioslave indicates. If it were all that simple, there would be much less concern than there is.

Alito is a "strict father" kind of guy - at least according to his earlier decisions. Is that good for the country? We'll see.

[ExDem]

If Alito is so dangerous and unqualified, why haven't Kennedy or Kerry or Durbin or Schumer tried to get him impeached from his current seat on the Federal Court? Surely such an extremist that so actively legislates from the bench should be removed.

Fine, I won't offer any advice or sympathy for the Democrats. Let them do whatever they want to do.

We all like facts. So here is a fact - Democrats have been losing elections nationwide for over a decade. They used to own both the Senate and House. In 1993 - 1994 they had the House, Senate and Presidency. Now they are the minority party. So, who am I to offer any advice to such a successful team?

I guess all the people nashing their teeth on this blog and others know something that the rest of the country doesn't. We must all be doomed and not even realize it. Of course, here's a possibility that those loud sentinels may not have considered - maybe they're wrong. They've been on the wrong side of the elections for over a decade now, so maybe the majority of our country is sending them a message.

[joanie]

ExDem says,
"If Alito is so dangerous and unqualified, why haven't Kennedy or Kerry or Durbin or Schumer tried to get him impeached from his current seat on the Federal Court?"

Because he power he has on the Federal Court is less than that which he will have on the Supreme Court. That should be obvious.

[JoAnne]

Audioslave says name a US citizen who has had right infringed directly due to the president of this country. I submit Jose Padilla. In Military prison for 3 years. His crime? Nobody knows, no charges have been brought. No Attorney, no nothin' So be careful, audioslave, we live in a police state now, and anyone can be declared an enemy noncombatent. You or I may be next.

For those who ask why Bush has not been impeached-just look to the Republican controlled congrss. Ihope and pray that this country can rise up and overcome the crooked voting machines to change things in 2006 and 2008

[joanie]

ExDem says,
"Fine, I won't offer any advice or sympathy for the Democrats. Let them do whatever they want to do."

Thank you. We don't want your advice or sympathy. Never have and never will.

Good ideas, good debate with evidence. Now, that's another story. We'd love to engage you in that!

[audioslave]

Ex-Dem,

The record of the voters does speak volumes, doesn't it.

I'm always reminded, when extreme liberals can't understand why some election turned out the other way, or if their opinions don't come close to mainstream America, of this actual story from the McGovern supporter, after Nixon's 49 state landslide victory, lamenting that she couldn't believe Nixon won because she didn't know a single person that voted for Nixon.

It's a big country, and its not isolated or controlled by the big metropolitan areas that are liberal strongholds, as some might think.

[torridjoe]

I'll give you another name--Brandon Mayfield.

[Fremont]

Okay, BlatheringM, here's one: JOSE PADILLA! Padilla, an American citizen, was held for three years without being charged, thus overstepping his constitutional right to due process. He was jailed as an " illegal enemy combatant" under Bush's authority until The Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Bush had no such authority. That order was stayed pending appeal, however, and Padilla was still in jail. The Supremes granted certiorari (agreed to hear) the case, but they found that it had been improperly filed because it named Rumsfeld instead of the commanding officer as Padilla's custodian. Padilla was still in jail. The case was AGAIN appealed to the Supremes, but this time they declined to grant cert, saying it should first be heard by the Circuit Court of Appeals. So, the Circuit Court heard the case, and said that Bush did, indeed, have authority to detain Padilla wihout charges. Padilla was still in jail. Finally, three years later, Padilla's appeal on its way AGAIN to SCOTUS , Padilla was charged with conspiring to "murder, kidnap and maim people overseas", charges that had NOTHING to do with the original cause of his detention, (most of which was in solitary confinement). On January 3, 2006, Padilla was transferred from military to civilian custody, where he waits for SCOTUS to decide whether to hear his appeal of the government's authority to keep citizens it designates "enemy combatants" in open-ended military confinement without benefit of trial. I dread having Scalito on the court that will be hearing Padilla's case. I consider this a stare decisis example of the abrogation of rights of citizens that can be expected in the future of the USofBush! Talk about filibustering....

[Fremont]

Oops! Sorry, JoAnne, you scooped me on Padilla....and my post should have been addressed to Audioslave, that raging redneck!

[joanie]

So, Audioslave and ExDem, as you embrace each other with your anecdote of one and generalizations about the country, how do you respond to these specifics for which you asked and these bloggers who answer your question and challenge your ideas?

[Mike Barer]

Filibuster! I don't want Mr. Alito on our Supreme Court.

[Fremont]

Yeah, Audioslave, how about Brandon Freakin' Mayfield? We demand an apology from you and Chris Matthews!

[audioslave]

Joanie's submission:

"I submit Jose Padilla. In Military prison for 3 years. His crime? Nobody knows, no charges have been brought. No Attorney, no nothin' So be careful, audioslave, we live in a police state now, and anyone can be declared an enemy noncombatent. You or I may be next."

Joanie, I knew you were going to mention Padilla, and that's great, let's take a look at his profile, and I don't think you or I will be next. However, if you have this background profile....then maybe

Jose Padilla, enemy combatant, Chicago gang member, once convicted of murder. Converted to radical Islam, moved to Egypt, and met with members of Al-Queda. According to a report from the Associated Press, Padilla was a protégé of a top lieutenant of Osama bin Laden. Arrested in 2002 on suspicion of trying to explode a radioactive dirty bomb.Charged in November 2005 with supporting terror campaigns in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

I don't have a probem with his detention as an enemy combatant, during which he has cooperated with the government.

[joanie]

Audioslave, Padilla wasn't my submission.

[audioslave]

oops, JoAnne, sorry Joanie

[ExDem]

Joanie says it's OK for an extremist that legislates from the bench to occupy our Federal Courts. That's obvious.

You talk about the Padilla case - and it appears that he has had his case work its way through the courts. No court yet, even at the Federal level, has ruled against the actions of the government so far. It would be a far different matter if it had never been heard by the courts at all. So you're not happy about it, keep complaining. But, be aware, that the Padilla situation is not unknown to the rest of the country and it doesn't appear to be a problem to the vast majority of people. Otherwise, something different would have resulted - Senators would be taking to the air demanding action, the press would be constantly calling for his release, etc. The absence of those types of actions says volumes about how the rest of the country sees that case.

Are there any other cases of note in this country of 300 million? Should we all be terrified by our government given that there are a few isolated cases of note across the 4 years since 9/11?

[torridjoe]

exdem--I don't understand what your point is. Freedom from unwarranted spying is why men died at Valley Forge. You don't NEED to come up with someone whose rights have been abused--the laws THEMSELVES do the abusing. They are wrong, they are un-American, and they are contrary to the ideals the nation was founded on. If we sell our freedoms like you propose, we're just a rich version of Iran.

[Lump]

Joanie sez, "As far as legislating from the bench goes, isn't that what they did in 2000 when they overrode the Florida Supreme Court?"

The Supreme Court ruled that Florida had NO jurisdiction in a federal election. In fact, it was Florida trying to legislate from the bench and that's why it got booted.

[audioslave]

Fremont says:

"Yeah, Audioslave, how about Brandon Freakin' Mayfield? We demand an apology from you and Chris Matthews!"

I'll give you one more apology Fremont.....read on....then you decide. Here's the gist of Brandon Freakin Mayfield:

Mayfield was detained and held for two weeks as a material witness in the terrorist attack that killed nearly 200 people and injured about 2,000. He was released with an apology from the FBI.

According to the FBI, Mayfield's fingerprints matched the print lifted by Spanish authorities at 15 particular ridge points. This is far more than what is often required in criminal court to assert an absolute match. In the Washington Post a law professor at the University of Virginia, wrote "experts have declared positive fingerprint matches in court after finding even fewer than eight points."

Okay, an honest mistake, but given the gravity of the crime commited, I don't have a problem with this either.

Maybe I should ask, is there any blatant disregard for any U.S. citizen's rights, without any cause, that should alarm us that we live in a police state?

[Steve]

I'm kind of glad Padilla has been in jail getting three meals a day on tax payers expense instead of killing three innocents a day on liberal expense.

[joanie]

ExDem writes:

"Joanie says it's OK for an extremist that legislates from the bench to occupy our Federal Courts. That's obvious."

Where did I say that?

ExDem writes:
"You talk about the Padilla case . . . "

"You talk about the Padilla case . . . "

No, I didn't.

I'm curious about Fremont's submission. What do you have to say about him?

[Lump]

Trip sez, "And just remember, so-called "conservatives"...the day will come when all the power you've grabbed for getting those warrantless searches and nuclear options and unnecessary wars will fall into the hands of a Democratic President."

Isn't that just like a loonie starting some BS? The lefties change the rules, get pinned to the mat and start to whine when it backfires. I guess if it's good enough for the lefties to use then it certainly is good enough for the righties to do. Your favorite ex-pres used warrantless searches, fled from the word nuclear, rolled over on fighting terrorism, and still managed to keep all his girl friends happy. You gotta quit hanging out with Chris and Andrew.

[joanie]

Sorry for the weird post, Audioslave. I changed to Earthlink and my internet service went down and it took forever to post and somehow I wasn't able to preview it.

I'm about done with Earthlink . . . anybody else?

[audioslave]

Fremont said:

"Oops! Sorry, JoAnne, you scooped me on Padilla....and my post should have been addressed to Audioslave, that raging redneck!"

I just went and looked in the mirror, and carefully with another mirror, I looked at my neck. Nope, it wasn't red. What ever do you mean Fremont? Because I have a differing opinion, the color of my neck changes color?

[Fremont]

ASS (AudioSlaveShort), where are you getting your information? Padilla was never "convicted of murder", nor was he charged with "supporting terror campaigns"....And, so what if he was a gangsta and a hood? Blathering Michael is a Hood, but that doesn't mean he's also a terrorist! Your point is well made in your commnents re: Mayfield "Given the gravity of the crime, I don't have a problem..." with an innocent person being illegally detained on false evidence for a crime he DIDN'T COMMIT!
So, all you leftist wackos, have you signed petitions on Daily Kos or LeanLeft, etc. and called your senators to join the filibuster?

[joanie]

As I look at these comments, I think one of the basic differences I see between us is that I would rather see ten guilty people go free before convicting one innocent person.

While none of us thinks the government is coming to get any one of us tomorrow, we have taken the first step down that very slippery slope which can eventually lead to that very thing. I wish we'd not taken that first step.

[Fremont]

ExDem says "No court yet, even at the Federal level, has ruled against the actions of the government so far". Wrong! On December 18, 2003, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals (a federal jurisdiction), declared that the Bush Administration lacked the authority to designate a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil an "illegal enemy combatant" without clear congressional authorization. That ruling was appealed, but it was a ruling AGAINST the Bush Administration.

[Fremont]

ASS, I apologize. A redneck, according to Dictionary.com is "A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude". I shouldn't have assumed that you're white. Sorry.