Liberal Oasis agrees: The Dems have to build up their credibility as fighters. If they vote NO, but don't filibuster, they'll look like pathetic wimps.

They're in a corner, but much better to go down swinging than reinforcing the wimp image once again.

The biggest message in the polls is that most people don't really care that much. Maybe they should, but they don't.

So this issue comes down to broader image: what do you want the party to look like? Wimps or Fighters?

Agreed.

And the end result would probably be the spectacle of Bill Frist and Dick Cheney ramming through the "nuclear option" to force debate to a close and install Alito on the Supreme Court regardless.

Given the administration's weak popularity, giving Republicans in elected positions -- particularly those that have to stand for reelection this year -- the opportunity to tie themselves to extraordinary partisan actions of the administration is not undesirable for the opposition.

Yes, yes, yes, please filibuster.

Please do so loudly.

Then you'll see Republican pick-ups in Florida, as well as Maryland, Minnesota, and New Jersey.
West Virginia could well be in play, as well.

Please filibuster. Nothing would please Rove & Co. more.

If we don't fight this nomination, we might as well decide we have no party. I suspect Karl Rove is praying that the Senate Democrats decide to duck and look weak again.

Would this end up hurting Democrats?

*Snicker* Of course it would and only liberals think otherwise. The American people support the Terrorism Surveillance Program to fight the terrorists and the overturning of Roe v Wade and Griswold so that the unborn can be protected from murder. If you try to filibuster, this will only once again prove to the American people what a bunch of radical leftists are really running the Democratic Party as you watch Democrats lose in the 2006 election.

I have little hope that this will happen as they rolled over and played dead for Gonzales, Rice, and Roberts. But who gives a shit about "tactics" for success in 2006 at this point? If they had fought every piece of shit nominee and legislation proposed by either the White House or the Republicans in Congress there would have at least been the chance that the rest of the country, including the MSM, would have paid closer attention to the clusterfuck that is the Bush administration.

As someone pointed out recently, who in his or her right mind would want to be the president that follows Bush? Jesus, that would make the guy following the elephants in the circus parade look like the most fortunate man on Earth.

I mist agree with GOP.
By all means filibuster.

GOP got it his point as I was typing. When someone from the GOP begs you to get into a fight - do so. Why? Because we know this GOP operatives say one thing and mean something else. Or is he assuming the good citizens of New Jersey want a theocracy to strip a woman's privacy rights? That is precisely what this Roe debate is about and I suspect most of the good citizens of New Jersey would be appalled at the American version of the Taliban, which is how I see these GOP efforts to overtune Roe.

Note to self:

Dancing boy in short pants more scary to Democrats than crying middle aged woman.

It's a loser, but sometimes you just have to prove you can take a beating.

The focus should be on the need to impeach Bush rather than allow him to expand his powers.

The little drunken snot, who never had a job in his life, demands an "up or down vote."

I say screw him. Let him demand until he turns purple.

I don't see why the senators are so goosey about this. Just stand here with a tube running down the inside of your trouser leg to a urine bag and read Cider House Rules into the record.

How tough could it be?

I actually really doubt that the repubs would pull off the nuclear option. They certainly aren't talking it up, and surely even a dope like Frist can count votes.

The nuclear option would be huge giveaway of the Senate's power all in one go. That has got to stick in a few Sentors craws even though they've been going along with the slow erosion.

the policy should be "fight be default" - contest everything and take the offensive wherever you possibly can. the objectives of fighting battles you're unlikely to win include:

1) delaying the opposition's attempts to prosecute other fights successfully

2) creating friction in the opposition's internal decision-making processes and muddying the chain of command (very damaging for authoritarian regimes everywhere)

3) training our activists/operatives in political tactics, and preparing them to engage in campaigns of their own initiative. this is impossible without small battles.

for long enough democratic-leaning citizens have felt powerless and hopeless... but once you give em some hope - once you demonstrate that some things are indeed worth fighting for and make clear why this is one of those things - you'd be amazed to see how people respond.

It could work -- so long as somebody locked up Biden, Byrd and Kennedy, and had the filibuster run by Senators elected after Reagan.

It isn't so much that the messengers are bad, as it is that nobody can see past them to the MESSAGE.

Filibusters used to be about matters of genuine national importance. The first one ever broken was by LaFollete, who was filibustering arming American merchant ships because, he predicted accurately, that would lead us into the First World War.

For all his sins, the filibuster record holder Strom Thurmond WAS genuinely fighting about a big issue, the eradication of white supremacy in the old South.

In the past couple decades, filibusters and Senate holds have become cheap currency.

So if we're gonna do this one, we have to do it RIGHT - and there is simply no way the Democratic old guard in the Senate is capable of that.

One message, summed up in a sentence.

.

Yes...indeed ...cal for Bush's impeachment
& filibuster Alito!!!!

One of my favorite handles of a conservative blogger over at RedState is "emprace the meltdown"

Iy's suddenly become very precient.

Then you'll see Republican pick-ups in Florida, as well as Maryland, Minnesota, and New Jersey.
West Virginia could well be in play, as well.Please filibuster. Nothing would please Rove & Co. more.
Posted by: GOP

Hardly. Abramoff, DeLay, Ney and others will be going on trail this Spring and Summer, and we may yet see additional indictments from Fitzgerald. While you may not see a shift to a Democractic majority in either house, the Republicans will have narrow majorities at best in both houses.

Do you ever get the feeling Dems are kinda like curtains in a home? They help stop the light from entering and keep outsiders from seeing the mess everyone inside is either too lazy or too apathetic to clean up.

Jo-Jo/GOP, we can't keep up with your sock-puppet personae.

Fitz, don't call people prescient when you can't spell the damn world. Sober up, take 3rd-grade English over again, and come back to us.

Agree this is worth fighting over; we won't win, but for cryin' out loud, we should be shouting from the rooftops about the attempted expansion of executive privilege and Alito's love of presidential fiat.

The C-Span tally has Alito a 53 declared vs 23 against.

Bo-ho (for me & GOP) No fillubuster that we can see.

The Dems should filibuster.

The Republicans won't be in the majority forever, especially with their current culture of corruption and incompetence.

If the Dems filibuster and the Repubs accept the loss of Alito, then one self-serving, unethical, lying-under-oath individual is not seated in the Supreme Court.

If the Dems filibuster and the Repubs pass the nuclear option, then judical filibusters are off the table when the Repubs are the minority party.

If the Dems filibuster and enough Repubs vote against the nuclear option, then Bush's maladministration is further weakened.

Seriously - what's the down side?

Alito has the highest possible rating from the ABA. He enjoys high support and esteem from his colleagues, both Democratic and Republican. His views are clearly within the mainstream of conservative jurisprudence.

A fillibuster of this man would be a disaster for the Dems politically. But even worse, it would damage the judiciary.

Downside

Dems filibuster - Repubs go nuclear, we maintain our majority, Dems look hystarical, Alito gets on court, another SC slot opens up.. Dems cant filibuster, we win again.

Downside

anyone who thinks a filibuster over alito will help republicans in west virginia and florida -- two states i'm quite familiar with -- doesn't know what he's talking about. i don't think the mood in west virginia is too sympathetic to the gop after the events of the past month. by all means filibuster. the dems have far more to gain than lose by doing so.

CNN says: Dems Won't Block Alito

--

Repubs go nuclear, we maintain our majority, Dems look hystarical

yeah, the Dems will look "hystarical". there's a reason it's called the "nuclear" option, ya know.

Americans are ambivalent about Alito and most people don't even know his name. At worst a filibuster will show that Democrats have spine, connect Alito to the current executive power controversy, and increase his name recognition by 3%.

Fighting a president with a strongly held low approval rating will probably even push the Dems up a few percent.

I didn't think we had 41 votes, but God bless Reid if we do. I'd love to see them try the nuclear option in today's context of GOP power abuse.

If we don't have 41 it still shows a willingness to fight. Not all bad.

Today, The Oregonian ran an editorial on this issue. In their comment, they quoted Eleanor Clift who spoke recently at a Portland gathering for the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Clift remarked, "Democrats are so afraid to lose the right to filibuster that they don't realize they've already lost it."

The editorial concluded with:
"Unfortunately, Senate Democrats as a group appear unwilling to turn their unhappy predictions into effective opposition. They have the votes to filibuster, but not the willingness to do so. They know if they try, Senate Republican leaders will change the rules and end the jucicial filibuster alogether.
In other words, the right to filibuster is a fig leaf. That's bad news for the Democrats, but it's worse news for Americans, who would prefer their Senate to be guided by rules and respect --not by dominance and fear."

A fillibuster of this man would be a disaster for the Dems politically.

tell me, soothsayer, what model of crystal ball do you use ?

But even worse, it would damage the judiciary.

prove it

Ok - filibuster (come on you spineless wimps) filibuster..
light up the phone banks, challenge anyone who dosent filibuster in the primaries!

filibuster, filibuster, filibuster...
(please)

The NY(untimely) Times could not have chosen a later date for this editorial except AFTER THE VOTE.

lol - Fitz - so if the Dems give in this time, and another SC slot opens up, what has changed? Your logic is faulty, bub.

The current crop of Repubs in Washington are incompetent and corrupt. They don't have the moral character to clean up their act. The Repubs will not maintain the majority forever.

rejecting as judge someone who thinks the government should be able to force women to carry babies to term, and who thinks that the president should be elevated to the role of authoritiarian commander-in-chief of all america (not just the armed forces during times of declared war), should be rejected as the banal flunky he is.

tactical and strategic reasons for fighting alito aside, the implications for our republic are so dire that filibustering him is a matter of national survival. letting him be confirmed is letting julius cross the rubicon.

I say filibuster,and I say do it over Senate prerogative. Alito didn't give clear and direct answers to questions that Rehnquist or even Roberts did. The whole "stonewall" thing has got to end. We deserve to know the answers. And by the way, the right thinks they know his answers, too.

I would dearly love for my senator, Diane Feinstein to say "I will oppose any vote on this nomination until we receive the documents we subpoenaed, and until we get answers to the questions we asked while the canditate was under oath."

It is her due, and her right. Do you think Senators will want to go on record as saying Senate subpoena's don't have to be obeyed, and questions asked by Senators.

What I wish she had done was ask him if he, like Roberts, thought Roe was "settled law", like she did. And then when he "filibustered", I wish she had followed up with, "I'll take that as a no, then, you don't think Roe is settled law. Do you think that's a fair characterization?" And watch him sputter.

Of course, this is hindsight, and Monday-morning quarterbacking. So instead, I'll look forward to filibustering. I would love Senator Feinstein to take the podium in the Senate and state that the refusal to release documents, and the refusal to answer questions are part of an adminstration effort to make itself not answerable to any authority. She needs to remind the country that she was elected senator by the citizens of California, and they (including me) would really like to know these things about Alito.

Wapit

Once the repubs go nuclear (to seat Alito) then no judicial filibusters are possible and majority vote wins (all judicial nominesss go to the floor)
Get it... bub

Democrats need to stop trying to figure out whether filibustering Alito would hurt them at the polls. To let him take O'Connor's seat on the Court would hurt the Court. It'd help Bush - he's already got lines in the SOTU about how he got Alito on the Court with bipartisan support of pro-life and unlimited executive power positions. It'd feed the "Democrats are weak" meme. It'd deprive them of credibility on the "We'll stop Bush from overreaching" meme. It'd deprive them of the central argument of any political campaign, which is, "We'll stick up for ourselves, so you can trust us to stick up for you."

It's the right thing to do. They can do it. They should. That's all they need to think and do. Anything else is distraction. Fight because you can; lose because you won't. Repeat as necessary.

But in politics, if you only fight when you're sure of victory, you're never going to fight at all.

But why fight a fight you can only lose?

1. The Democrats don't have the party discipline to make the filibuster work, so how is it different than just voting no? Do they have the votes to maintain a filibuster? I doubt it. So Alito gets in.

2. If the Democrats did have sufficient votes to sustain a filibuster, the Repubs go nuclear and Alito gets in anyway.

3. If the Democrats maintain the filibuster and the Repubs don't go nuclear, then Bush in the spirit of harmony nominates a center of the road Republican to replace Alito? C'mon, you know what we'll get. And the Republican noise machine will drown out news about Abramoff, Delay and all the rest.

Fight when you have a chance to win.

Democrats need to stop trying to figure out whether filibustering Alito would hurt them at the polls. To let him take O'Connor's seat on the Court would hurt the Court. It'd help Bush - he's already got lines in the SOTU about how he got Alito on the Court with bipartisan support of pro-life and unlimited executive power positions. It'd feed the "Democrats are weak" meme. It'd deprive them of credibility on the "We'll stop Bush from overreaching" meme. It'd deprive them of the central argument of any political campaign, which is, "We'll stick up for ourselves, so you can trust us to stick up for you."

It's the right thing to do. They can do it. They should. That's all they need to think and do. Anything else is distraction. Fight because you can; lose because you won't. Repeat as necessary.

ha, DSL bugged out for the dugout while I was trying to 'fess up to my own shameful hubris: "spell the damn world." Ugh. The confession was for all the literate posters. Fitz, I'm sure, never even noticed.

By the way, I'd like to thank GOP for all the great advice on political strategy he gives to us on this blog. And it's free, too!

A simple no vote is basically a Clinton/Leiberman triangulation. A yes with a "but I don't like it" tacked on. Leiberman of all people should know that it doesn't work anymore.

This is not going to be an issue in elections almost a year from now. It just isn't, people don't vote based on the Supreme Court, and the few who do are partisans whose votes won't change one way or the other.

The wingnut morons here who are cheering for it should tell you all you need to know.
I would just filibuster long enough to prevent Alito from appearing at the SOTU speech, because it's always fun to watch president monkeyboy throw a hissyfit.

filibuster - do it

(i dont think you kids understand ...lawyers and judges are waching...what do you think they will think...?)

(sorry about the double post above)

One more reason to filibuster - even if it means a nuclear confrontation - even if it means losing it - is that for Bush/Frist to go nuclear over Alito would illuminate the Democratic argument about abuse of power and unlimited authority in the President in a way that we have not successfully made, ourselves, yet (would the peanut gallery please hold it down for a moment? thank you).

This is the political equivalent of the episode "Who Shot Mr. Burns" with Homer holding a gun on Mr. Burns, demanding, "Say I didn't shoot you!" - except it's Bush/Frist/Alito threatening to break the rules of the Senate to show that their power-grab (anti-filibuster, unitary executive, NSA spying, etc.) is legitimate. We could not get a more serendipitous set of circumstances if we *TRIED*. The story doesn't just write itself, it reinforces itself. I don't insist that the Senate Democrats get the reference, or the logic; just that they recognize an opportunity when it appears. Is that so hard to do?

Once the repubs go nuclear (to seat Alito) then no judicial filibusters are possible and majority vote wins (all judicial nominesss go to the floor)
Get it... bub

yep, and then the Dems block and slow down every bit of Senate business after that(a good thing)...Repubs whine and cry and try to blame Dems, even though they're in the majority. Voters hold Republicans responsible because they're in charge and no one likes a whiner, they also vote on local issues. I guarantee Senator Man-on-Dog Santorum loses either way.
get it...bitch.

If they do filibuster and allow their arguments to decay into nothing more than character assassination, they will only hurt themselves.

Wasting everyone's time with meaningless filler wont achieve anything either.

This would be a good time to throw down the gauntlet by cataloging the incompetence, irresponsibilty, callousness, hypocracy, and economic treason of the right.

The Democratic Party could use this as an opportunity to decide what they believe. They should pull no punches with their allies or the Republicans. It would be great theater and might even capture the imagination of the American people. The image of people actually debating controversial(even within their own party) issues in a civilized rational manner in a non-contrived forum would almost be a first in American history.

It would be beneficial to our democracy, regardless of the consequences for the Democratic Party. The only rule would be 'no caning.'

Chris
Nice Simpsons strategy- implement that immediately?

I'm scared. Somebody may say something unkind. Voters may think we're not just Republicans in wimps clothing.

"It'd feed the "Democrats are weak" meme. It'd deprive them of credibility on the "We'll stop Bush from overreaching" meme"

Maybe. I'm starting to think that the smart move for the Dems this year is to use the line Ronald Reagan used in the Bronx in 1980:

"I can't do a damn thing for you unless I'm elected".

What's wrong with a meme of "The GOP Congress gives Bush whatever he wants, they never disagree, he has never vetoed a bill. If you approve, vote GOP. If you want to hold Bush back, you have to give the Dems a Congressional majority".

Or, the short version:

"Together, we can stop Bush".

Had your boys done anything close to a credible job during the committee non-grilling, you might have a chance of filibustering and not looking like complete fools.

Since your boys did such a pathetic job during the hearing...

Has the idea of a comprehensive plan occurred to any of you? Or is piecemeal the way to go?

A filibuster is not really a loser. If the GOP uses the nuclear option, it just demonstrates an abuse of power--changing the rules to help them win.

No debate about Alito took place in the press. A filibuster would force that debate. Even if they can't sustain a filibuster indefinitely, Dems can say they just wanted to have a broader debate with the public since the hearings were so scripted. They can also tie this into the way the GOP likes to ram legislation down our throats without letting us debate. Even a "loss" can be turned into a winner if the Dems wanted it bad enough.

Is Canada the only country in the world where the pro-Bush politicians will actually gain ground this year?

His views are clearly within the mainstream of conservative jurisprudence.

I didn't realize that the concept of a Unitary Executive was "mainstream."

But then again, maybe the next Democratic president should have absolute control over the FCC so he could simply revoke Fox News' broadcast licenses for yellow journalism, or shut down Free Republic and RedState.org for undue criticism of the government and giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

But even worse, it would damage the judiciary.

Hmmm, I wonder how Abe Fortas and scores of Clinton judicial nominees feel about that? Why wasn't the judiciary damaged by their filibusters and secret holds?

Straws, Straws, Quick grab them! Grab them ALL!!!!

Can someone explain better to me how it could hurt the Dems to fil?

I disagree with Tomeck's argument. Dems should filibuster. They should be able to get 41 votes against cloture. It doesn't have to be a straight party-line vote, but they can't let more than a couple Dems vote for cloture. Ben Nelson, okay. Tim Johnson? He's not up in '06; twist his arm harder. Mary Landrieu? Don't sell us out for an empty promise about New Orleans; Bush'll screw you anyway. And then campaign against you in '08 like he did in '02, or did you forget that fight? They might lose, but they'd go down fighting. Maybe they'll learn something this time. Maybe they'll impress some voters with their spine. At least we'd have an issue - abuse of power, stacking the courts - in a way that we don't now. This is, however, a prerequisite for the second step, so it's *possible* we wouldn't get any further. That'd suck, but at least we'd've tried.

Next, Dems should be willing to go nuclear, even if it looks like they'd lose. This should be a party line vote. Period. Anyone who can't understand the right of a substantial minority should be kicked out of the party for short-sightedness and disloyalty. What's worse than replacing O'Connor with Alito? What are they saving the nuclear option for, a case when Lindsay Graham says it's okay? Some weapon *that* would be. Make Republicans defend not just Bush, but breaking the rules of the Senate, to increase presidential power. That should put lie to the "moderate" Republicans' reputations in their blue states. A vote for the nuclear option is a vote for Bush is a vote for criminalizing abortion and unlimited presidential power. It's as simple as that.

I don't expect Bush to nominate someone like O'Connor. But I trust Harry Reid to find someone who's not a total raving nutball. And Bush won't respect Democrats or their alleged power until we show him we know what we're doing.

Let him squeek through on all Republicans but Chafee and two Democrats. Having this royalist on the high court will greatly accelerate the adoption of a constitutional amendement on individual privacy.

PS: Chafee will loose the Republican primary to the Republican wing nut, guaranteeing the Democrats win that Senate seat.

PPS: The nuclear option requires formal rule changes according to the Senate Parliamentarian, and the Republicans don't have the votes to do it.

The Democrats absolutely need to filibuster Alito. I can't remember where I read it, but there's a Republican blog somewhere that says that Dems have nothing to lose and plenty to gain by doing it. For one thing, Chafee's seat in RI would get VERY hot...he's on the bubble now (being a "liberal" Republican in a Democratic state), and it would put him on the spot severely, probably give us a pickup in the Senate there.

And so what about the "nuclear option." If you don't use the filibuster because you're afraid they'll take it from you, then you really don't have the filibuster to begin with. Let them blow up the Senate like that if they want...I don't think they will, but if they do, they'll have to answer for it to the people. Plus, although I think overturning Roe v Wade would be a disaster for this country, if the Republicans use the nuclear option to install Alito and the Court does overturn Roe v. Wade, Republicans will pay for it at the polls for a very long time.

So, I don't see what there is to lose. It's not like acting like a bunch of wimps for the last few years has helped the Dems out very much anyway...try growing a pair and see what that does.

And the end result would probably be the spectacle of Bill Frist and Dick Cheney ramming through the "nuclear option" to force debate to a close and install Alito on the Supreme Court regardless.

And, what the heck, Supreme Court justices can also be impeached... after 2006, of course. Our own nucular option, if you will.

try growing a pair and see what that does

A pair of what?

It appears that there are already enough votes on record for cloture, but by all means, keep talking.

I vote for filibuster. Dems are getting boring again.

Just say we gave Alito a hearing what did you on the righ give Harriet,Nothing you ran her off without even a hearing.

I continue to read the following conventional wisdom:
"Would this end up hurting Democrats? It might."
--
How?
How would this hurt the Dems? By losing the two dozen moderate Republicans that didn't follow the issues and accidentally pulled the lever for a Democrat?

This is insanity. How many people are out there who won't vote because they are brainwashed into thinking "the Dems don't stand for anything".

Take a stand - damn it!!! The national Dem party is disgraceful. If they can't hold against this right wing nutter of a judge... why bother?

Dems should file for cloture on the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

That could be amusing.

The only noise out there is from that very small 36% who don't have a clue as to how bad this President really is.

We can't stop this nomination, but we can do harm to Bush. Reid is in a tough spot because he can hardly afford to make the caucus even smaller. But our party--and I mean the big tent party--is getting the crap kicked out of it north and south, east and west. This is not about abortion. This is about tangling assholes with the GOP and hurting them every way possible.

True a filibuster could 'hurt' the Dems, but it's not like we're sitting on a sack of gold. I wish we DID have more to lose, but we don't.

the thirdpaul:
"Democrats are so afraid to lose the right to filibuster that they don't realize they've already lost it."
--

I also read this in the Oregonian. Good read. Filibuster - damn it!!! These all powerful Republicans are nothing but corrupt corporate shills. And this pReznut is the ultimate symbol of an ignorant, arrogant brain dead icon of what a rich family name backed by $$$ from those gaming the system.

As Molly Ivins just wrote... Enough already!

Dems are getting boring again.
Initially I wanted to go with "staying boring still", but then I remembered the hearing. Did you did catch Senator Chappaquick bloviating on Alito's morality? Did you catch Biden (D, Pluto) at all?

They've still got some laughs in them.

Alito already despises the left. What effect would a filibuster have on his judicial "blindness" compared with all the dems but one or two voting no? Probably not a great deal. Option 1 = screwed. Option 2 = screwed. Is there anyway to get out of the screwed box?

If we had a democracy anymore I would really be concerned about its future.

They should take the risk of losing the right to filibuster, because the Republicans are likely to be in the minority in the near future.

aggro,

I think (not 100% sure) it was one of the folks at polipundit suggesting a filibuster made sense because it would force Chaffee to take a hard vote and put him on the spot. However many others disagreed. Chaffee can easily support cloture saying this proud Italian-Amarican deserves an up or down vote. I believe RI has the largest percentage of Italians of any state. He can then still vote against Alito knowing Sam will still get the votes he needs easily.

Sen Tim Johnson of SD is the 2nd Dem to confirm he'll vote FOR. Frist can only 'allow' 6 GOP Senators to vote against and get Alito passed without using Cheney.

Polipundit is also reporting Frist has the votes to invoke cloture.

I can imagine what the left thinks it's accomplishing here. This is just stupid. If in fact Stevens is able to survive until a Democrat it elected they'll never be able to replace him wiht a liberal. There will never be another 96 - 0 vote for a justice, Now ideology is a disqualifying factor. Ruth Bader wouldn't make it out of committee today. This court will absolutely get more conservative because there won't be another liberal appointed.

The various Republican commentators on this thread (tbrosz, GOP, conspiracy nut, etc.) are warning that a filibuster would backfire on the Democrats and further erode their power. What power? The US currently is a one-party state, with only a token minority party. The Democrats have no power to change the course of events in government. The filibuster may fail, but if they don't at least try, what is the point of being an opposition party?

The conservative commentators here clearly relish the idea of a one-party state. Life is so much simpler if there is only one side to every issue.

Kevin: a filibuster fight would give them a second chance. They should take it.

The vote by the full Senate gives them a second chance to take a dive. They will take it.

“But in politics, if you only fight when you're sure of victory, you're never going to fight at all.”

So not true. LBJ, who politically could out maneuver anyone, never would get into battles that were impossible to win. A filibuster would be a waste of breath, not to mention effort, time, dignity, political capital, etc.

I don't think the present political landscape would tolerate the nuclear option. It's a bluff. Call it.

because the Republicans are likely to be in the minority in the near future.
Tradesports has the odds going up for the Repubs holding the Senate. Currently about 80%.

On Johnson though, odd that, a Dem Senator from SD not wanting to engage in obstructionism. Wonder why he decided that...

"Senate Dems blew the Judiciary Committee hearings as a chance to educate the country about Alito's radical views on presidential power, and a filibuster fight would give them a second chance. "

Nonsense. They blew it. Period. There are no second chances.

Some commentator above admitted his goal is 'to harm Bush."

That about sums up today's Democratic party. No ideas or solutions, nothing positive to offer, nothing but hatred of President Bush.

When your opponent has lied the nation into a war, has abused his power to illegally spy on American citizens, and has through indifference allowed thousands of Americans to be killed by terrorist action, a goal of merely harming his political standing is not just acceptable but is downright patriotic.

Fillibuster, Who the hell is going to remember this in 6 months when all these repugs will be going to trial.Just keep in mind Bush has only a 36% approval rating don't let the little noise machine get in your way,The american People are way smarter then the right gives them credit for.

Sorry GOPGregory--hatred and violence is the Right's forte. We are contemptuous of Bush. He may be a good guy for a beer and a dirty joke or two, but not to lead a world-historic nation.

rdw is exactly right: "I can imagine what the left thinks it's accomplishing here. This is just stupid. If in fact Stevens is able to survive until a Democrat it elected they'll never be able to replace him wiht a liberal. There will never be another 96 - 0 vote for a justice, Now ideology is a disqualifying factor. Ruth Bader wouldn't make it out of committee today. This court will absolutely get more conservative because there won't be another liberal appointed. "

That pretty much nails it, doesn't it. The Senate, you see, lefties, is composed of two Senators per state. Look at the map. There's a LOT more Rep states than Dem states, and would have been, even if Kerry (or Gore) had won. So, almost regardless of who has the WH, in the average year over the next couple of decades (probably) the Senate will be majority Republican. Under the brilliant leadership of Chuck (what? a camera? where???) Schumer, Dems have accomplished one thing and might soon accomplish another: making ideology a key litmus test for ALL future nominees (whether from a Rep or Dem president) and making the confirmation a simple majority process.

Now, with the senate being elected the way it is, who do you think gains from these changes?

Because a Clinton hater can spot a Bush hater from a mile away.

And let's not put too much money on Stevens surviving the next couple of years. What is he now, 95?

The Honorable Judge Stevens is 85

Born April 20, 1920 in Chicago, Illinois

I guess you folks don't envisage a Democratic president in the future who would make nominations to the Supreme Court. As Senator Kyl said the other day, you are setting the standard. Ideology counts. What goes around, comes around.

Next go around, instead of voting to confirm judicially qualified but ideologically unacceptable nominees, as Republicans did with President Clinton's nominees, Republicans may take your approach. They will vote against nominees on the basis of their ideology, and, if in the minority, filibuster.

Don't cry that it's unfair or unconstitutional, as you undoubtedly will. You set the standard. My own view is that the Republicans did the right thing with President Clinton's nominees. Judicial qualifications, not ideology should be the test whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican.

Democrats need to focus on winning elections with programs that answer real American concerns, then they can appoint Supreme Court justices they like.

If the Democrats filibuster, the Republicans will use the nuclear option. All of your arguments about how the Democrats need to put up a fight on Alito also apply two-fold on the Republicans not allowing a filibuster to succeed.

I am not saying that the Republicans won't pay a price for using the nuclear option, just that the price won't be as high as allowing the filibuster to succeed. The Republican base is adamant on this issue- "crush the filibuster or say goodbye to our votes- we would rather stay home."

One the one hand, aside from the whole nuclear scenario, is that the Repubs will just fillabuster the next Dem SC nominee, whenever that is. And I'd had to get into a game of tit-for-tat over SC justices. On the other hand, they'll probably try to fillabuster the next Dem nominee anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

I'm mighty certain that liberals can't count on the media to effectively communicate the ins-and-outs of this battle or the complex nature of the nuclear option scenario. And I don't think the Dems have proven they themselves can win the public over on an issue like this. So overall, I think its a bad idea.

The Dems do need to work very, very hard at finding a way to get their message across to John Q Public without the help of the punditry, because they're just gonna keep getting hammered until they do. Part of what they need to start doing is, of course, taking on the occasional battle, but the other part is finding a way to do it without looking like chickens running with their heads cut off.

Dems have accomplished one thing and might soon accomplish another: making ideology a key litmus test for ALL future nominees

This started at least as early as 1968 with the Republican filibuster of Abe Fortas for Chief Justice simply because he was considered a liberal judge.

Read more please.

You people think to much.

Abu El Banat: I guess you folks don't envisage a Democratic president in the future who would make nominations to the Supreme Court.

There aren't going to be any Democratic presidents in the future. The Republicans blatantly stole the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections and they will continue to do so.

And yes, I can't spell filibuster. :D

Look at the map. There's a LOT more Rep states than Dem states

you'll kindly link to the law that guarantees it stays that way.

Dems have accomplished one thing and might soon accomplish another: making ideology a key litmus test for ALL future nominees (whether from a Rep or Dem president) and making the confirmation a simple majority process.

ah yes, the GOP mantra: it's always someone else's fault.

what do we have to loose, we've already lost everything including our dignity. In the final equation, it won't matter, Alito's in, but at least, as Kevin suggests, we'll alert the country to what Alito is about and that might help fence sitters in the voting booth come November.

Of course, the GOP is licking its chops, hoping we F Alito. We will be cruxified as obstructionists and caring more about abortion then terrorists.

But we have to wake up the women out there about what is about to happen to their right choose, and wake up the nation about who is about to become a real King George.

“Democratic Sen. Johnson to Back Alito“

Yep.

Sen. Johnson might have to face Gov. Mike Rounds in ‘08. And Hillary won’t clear 40% in South Dakota.

Plus, Sen. Johnson no longer can rely on dead Sioux voting for him multiple times, in multiple precincts. That train already left the station.

Just ask Tom . . . Tom D . . . Tom Dash . . . Tom D . . .

This nomination cannot be stopped. The Democrats will again play obstructionists along with weak on security.

ceccce - pretty much nailed it.
Thems the cold hard facts.
And any filibuster makes it that more ugly for the dems.

This is just there last minute whippering.
They blew the wad with Bork, made further spectacles of themselves with Thomas.

If they filubustered Alito No-one would ever listen to them again.

This started at least as early as 1968 with the Republican filibuster of Abe Fortas for Chief Justice simply because he was considered a liberal judge.
You guys just make this shit up as you go, don't you?

When the Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course, Dirksen and others withdrew their support. [source]

At that time, 67 votes were needed to stop debate (it is now 60). The vote was 45-43, with 10 Republicans and 35 Democrats voting for cloture and 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats voting against cloture.

I am in favor of the nuclear trigger being pulled by Republcans.

The Democrats will again play obstructionists along with weak on security.

What's that? Can't hear you with all this culture of corruption amongst the Republican leadership, the K Street Project, and the very loud and desperate attempts by Republicans to deny they have anything to do with it.

We say throw the bums out. How's that SEC investigation going with Frist?
Drip..drip...drip....

these "Fitz" and "rdw" bots are pretty convincing. i wonder what language they're written in ? i wish i had a copy of the code, because i think with a greater number of canned phrases they just might be able to pass the Turing test.

You guys just make this shit up as you go, don't you?

Taken from the Senate website:

Anticipating Senate concerns about the prospective chief justice's liberal opinions, Johnson simultaneously declared his intention to fill the vacancy created by Fortas' elevation with Appeals Court Judge Homer Thornberry. The president believed that Thornberry, a Texan, would mollify skeptical southern senators.

A seasoned Senate vote-counter, Johnson concluded that despite filibuster warnings he just barely had the support to confirm Fortas. The president took encouragement from indications that his former Senate mentor, Richard Russell, and Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen would support Fortas, whose legal brilliance both men respected.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm

Clever of you not to include the opening paragraphs from the source you cited.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

Fillibuster, Who the hell is going to remember this in 6 months when all these repugs will be going to trial.

Not us. Throw the bums out.

Just keep in mind Bush has only a 36% approval rating don't let the little noise machine get in your way,The american People are way smarter then the right gives them credit for.

Yes, we always laugh when Bush is described as "popular".

Wait a minute, you're pointing out a passage that says that despite Fortas being liberal, LBJ had enough votes. And you think this supports your position that Fortas was filibustered for being liberal ... how?

Clown.

Did I read somewere the age of Justice Stevens?
How old is that guy anyway?

And how many more years does Bush have in his term?

How many more lower court vacancies are there to fill (including Alito's old seat)?

Can anyone answer these questions?
Im starving for solid fact here.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

see, i'd at least make the "spontaneous" canned phrases full sentences. having a bot spit out random sentence fragments gives it a Tourette's kind of feel. it will raise the suspicions of the human subject and likely cause the bot to fail the Test.

gotta get that source code.

Whoa, Windhorse, whoa. Abe Fortas was filibustered because of ethics concerns, not because of ideology. Check your records again.

By all means, filibuster Alito. The country only supports his nomination by about a 51%-30% margin. If you want to show how far away from the country's mainstream the Democratic "mainstream" has become...well, I usually can't watch people make fools of themselves, but in this case, I'd make an exception.

What the republicans are trying to say is the american public is stupid,Try getting Elected on that platform.

Can anyone answer these questions?
Im starving for solid fact here.

and I'm starving for oxygen.

c-nut,

I know your reading comprehension isn't much better than your thinking skills, but let's go slowly so your plaque-riddle neurons can grasp this:

LBJ was warned that Fortas might be filibustered by Republicans because of his general political leanings, including being pro-civil rights. So in order to appease them he promised to make his next appointment a more conservative judge.

He miscalculated his own party's support (conservative Democrats didn't like judges who supported African-Americans either) and his nominee was filibustered.

Lose some weight, your heart is forced to pump too much blood away from your brain to that fat ass of yours and it's blunting your comprehension.

Time to go home and wach C-Span..
See you kids at the state of the union.

(can no one answer my important questions?)

Windhorse, I'm still reading that, while the initial concern was that perhaps Fortas was "too liberal", the ethics concerns are what ultimately did him in. Is that right, or can my "plaque-riddled neurons" not grasp something?

Taking the stipend was the excuse to mount the filibuster that was promised from the beginning:

In 1965, Abe Fortas joined the Supreme Court as an associate justice on the Warren Court, participating in landmark decisions that expanded individual rights in criminal procedure, privacy and juvenile rights cases. When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced his retirement in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson nominated Fortas to fill the vacancy.

Although Fortas won approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican senators proved unwilling to confirm the nomination. President Johnson, who was in his final year of the presidency, had failed to consider the reaction of junior Republican senators and conservative Southern Democrats to the nomination of a known liberal for the court's top job.

Three months of partisan debate culminated in a filibuster blocking Fortas' nomination. Fortas asked that his name be removed from consideration after his supporters were defeated in a cloture motion to end debate.

Fortas' nomination as chief justice was filibustered largely for political reasons.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4732341

Am I The only one who can Google the term Abe Fortas?
This is from a non-partial reporting source (student legal aid)
The man resigned from the court- does that sound like some political witch hunt for ideolgical reasons.
He was on the Take: I remember my dad sayiny that and he has practiced law for forty years (im a lawyer myself)

http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/fortas.htm
In June 1968, at the end of the 1967 Term of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren had Fortas arrange an appointment at the White House, at which time Warren announced his retirement, effective upon the confirmation of his successor. On June 26, LBJ nominated Fortas as Chief Justice. To Fortas’s seat, LBJ nominated a friend from Texas, Homer Thornberry. In July, Fortas erred, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee despite the fact that no sitting Justice had ever done so. During those hearings, Fortas lied to the Committee, although he had not yet been caught in that lie. The Senate recessed without voting on the nomination. When Senator Robert Griffin learned in September that Fortas had accepted $15,000 to give some summer school lectures at American University’s law school, money that had been raised by Fortas’s former partners and clients, the nomination was in trouble. In early October, after a vote to end the filibuster on the nomination failed, Fortas asked that his nomination be withdrawn. By 1969, further revelations led Fortas to resign from the Court. A convicted financier named Louis Wolfson had agreed to pay Fortas $20,000 per year for the remainder of his life, an amount that continued until the death of his wife if Fortas died before she did. Fortas received the first check in January 1966, after joining the Court, and though he returned it in December, Fortas's actions were condemned as ethically improper.

After resigning from the Court in May 1969, Fortas was rebuffed in his attempt to rejoin the law firm he had helped create, although his wife remained a partner in the firm. In 1970, he started another law firm. He practiced law until his death in 1982.

He miscalculated his own party's support
Well Windhorse, I guess I can take your version of history, or I can believe the Senate site.

Hmmm, what to do, what to do...

Conspiracy of nuts
Its the first hit that comes up
http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/fortas.htm

Its all right there!
God liberals are retarded or something.
(I think they believe their own press/lies)

Robert Byrd has stated he will vote for Alito.

Whatever his faults and whatever flaws may rest in his reasoning, Byrd clearly is not a "spineless Dem." Nor do I believe, as DailyKoss suggests, that Bryd is responding to challenger Raese. Winston Churchill bankrolled by Bill Gates could not defeat Bryd in WV.

We need to study this - for without West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas the Democrats will remain forever a minority.

Alito's nomination comes up, opening statements, boring. Test vote on invoking cloture -- Democrats get 43 votes to continue debate. Frist moves to another issue -- immigration, say.

First day of Alito filibuster headlines: Dems block Supreme Nomination.

Second day. Dozens of Republican Senators - McCain, etc. -- demand Democrats give Alito an up or down vote. First offers Democrats an hour of debate, equally divided. Democrats refuse. Headlines: Doubts Democrats Can Prevent Vote.

It will become a simple narrative: how long can Dems hold out? with the subtext "and who cares?"

Third, fourth, fifth day -- it's a purely political fight, folks. There will be no issues here. Alito isn't gonna be borked. No one will know why Democrats are filibustering the guy -- and, believe me, Senators will cave rather than give away their precious right to talk.

There will be Senators off the floor at press conferences, and one will say it's over abortion, and another that it's over signing statements, and a third will say the Senate wants straight answers: it will all be background noise to a purely political story: Dems Block Justice.

Reid should offer Frist a four hour debate, and put an egg timer on every Democrat's desk.

FILIBUSTER ALITO!

The democratic senators are punking out one by one. First, the punk fencesitter from Nebraska, Ben Nelson. Next, the idiot from South Dakota, Tim Johnson. Third, the KKK flunky old fart from West Virginia, Robert Byrd. It's time to start a new party.

Yea...vote for Ralph Nader on the Green Ticket!

FILIBUSTER ALITO!

to what effect? does anybody here think Bush would nominate someone better if Alito failed to get through ? he can't, The Base would abandon the GOP.

I am in favor of the nuclear trigger being pulled by Republcans

There's no shot at a filibuster. Reid is in the worst of all positions. The best he can manage will be some parlimentary moved to delay confirmation until after the SOTU adress. That way he can appear both weak and petty at the same time.

Karl Rove is thrilled. Byrd, Nelson and Johnson all understand being obstructionists AND weak on national security is suicidal. Bill Nelson of Florida just gave Katherine Harris the best news she's had in months. Between posing with Michael Moore at the DC premiere of Farenheit and this he'll be easily framed as an uber-lib. You know Ms. Harris will be exceptionally well funded. Wouldn't that be a finger in Al Gore's eye?

Nice rdw

I had not been following the Florida thing..
Oh ya, he's in a spot...

Fitz wrote: Yea...vote for Ralph Nader on the Green Ticket!

Ralph Nader did not run on the Green ticket in 2004; he ran as an independent. The Green Party rejected Nader's bid for their "endorsement" (he did not seek their nomination) and nominated long-time Green Party activist and organizer David Cobb for president.

Ralph Nader is not and has never been a Green or a member of the Green Party, although he did run as the Green Party presidential nominee in 2000. It is extremely unlikely that Nader will ever again run for President on the Green ticket.

And Hillary won’t clear 40% in South Dakota.

Since when does South Dakota get a vote on New York's representation in the US Senate?

PPS: The nuclear option requires formal rule changes according to the Senate Parliamentarian, and the Republicans don't have the votes to do it.

Since the nuclear option explicitly involves breaking the rules (specifically, it involves a challenge to the ruling correctly applying the rules then being upheld by a majority), the fact that it takes a majority to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees within within the substantive content of the rules are largely irrelevant (but, its worth noting, that also means that the rule is not actually removed, just ignored.)

Kerry just called for a Filibuster
(he must want to be president someday)

Specter & Frist are trying to scheduale a vote for Monday

Bush hasn't earned the right to nominate anyone. Ask George Will. By nominating Harriet Miers Bush demonstrated for all to see that he lacks the intellectual heft required to pick a Supreme Court nominee. The fact that Alito stonewalled his confirmation hearings is just icing on the incompetence cake.

George's own words:

"the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution."

Kerry is calling for a filibuster! It's ON!

Yay! More fun!

Filibuster....!!! Go Go ...heat up dem phone lines
Lets see it happen.
Call Kos
Lets shake em up

Go. Go. Go.

I have to hand it to Fitz, rdw, conspiracy nut and the other Bush-bootlickers.

Since seizing power through a stolen election, the Cheney-Bush regime has been, and continues to be, quite successful in destroying Constitutional government in the USA and transforming America from a democratic republic into a third-world wreck of a once great nation, comprised of a population of increasingly impoverished and powerless peasants languishing under the boot of an authoritarian regime which serves a tiny, ultra-rich, hereditary, neo-fascist, corporate-feudalist aristocracy.

And the support of brain-dead, programmed, propaganda-regurgitating neo-brownshirt goons like yourselves has been a contributing factor to their success.

You guys have every right to gloat over your victory.