Eleanor Clift: Don't Filibuster Alito

[liberalpragmatist]

Personally, I disagree with this article. But I think it is interesting to consider and I encourage you all to read it, particularly because her main thrust seems to be don't filibuster Alito because we don't have to votes to stop him and we should save our ammunition for impeachment.

Indeed, the stuff in this piece on impeachment is pretty interesting.

Anyway, here you go:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9927371/site/newsweek/page/2/

Alito is not a wild-eyed originalist who channels the Founding Fathers, but he is very conservative and will vote with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. This court has had a high percentage of 5-to-4 rulings, with the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor typically the fifth and deciding vote on reproductive rights, affirmative action and other hot-button social issues. The loss of O’Connor coupled with the ascension of Alito will plunge the court deeper into the embrace of the religious right.

Democrats should mount a tough fight and expose Alito and his conservative cheerleaders so the voters know what they’re getting. Highlight the ruling where Alito said Congress has no power to regulate machine guns under the commerce clause of the Constitution. Play the abortion card--but stop short of a filibuster. With President George W. Bush’s approval rating at 35 percent in the latest CBS poll, Democrats have finally sprung to life. That’s a good thing, but a bruising battle over cultural issues is better for Bush than for the Democrats. Rather than risk the filibuster in an unwinnable fight over Alito, Democrats should save it for when and if that awful day arrives when the most liberal member of the court, John Paul Stevens, 85, steps down while Bush is still president.

<snip>

Impeachment seems a bridge too far, but when the question was posed to a former senior member of the law-enforcement community, he didn’t dismiss it out of hand. “Not at this stage,” he told NEWSWEEK, “but there are three more years left to this administration, and I can see it unraveling.”

<snip>

The more we learn about the secretive White House Iraq Group (WHIG) and the role of Vice President Dick Cheney in pressing his dark views on the country, the likelier it is that the administration will be found culpable for exaggerating the threat Saddam Hussein posed in its zeal to go to war. If the Democrats win back the House in the ’06 election, Michigan Democrat John Conyers will chair the House Judiciary committee. On the day the Scooter Libby indictments were handed down, Conyers invoked the language of Watergate: “What did the president and the vice president know, and when did they know it?” If the political tables turn, impeachment may not be so far-fetched after all.

[still_one]

1. no, I disagree, those are two unrelated events

we must fight this

[jim3775]

2. Alito's reign of terror will last for the next 20+ years

Bush's will only last for 3 more years. Alito is important enough to blow off some of the powder that the dems have kept dry.

[depakid]

3. The usual toothless mush

It's very difficult to have any respect for this women. She's the typical purveyor of CW and enabler of far right policies.

That's why she has her gigs on TV, and this piece is yet another attempt to protect her little fiefdom, IMHO.

If she has any priciples at all, it's sure been difficult to see them over the last 5 years.

[ChiciB1]

4. Impeachment Of Bush WILL NOT Get Any Of Us Out

of this Deep Pit he's dug for America!!

Sure, I want him gone but he's really screwed us over "big time" and it's going to be "hard work" trying to fix ALL that needs fixin!

My animus for "these people" knows NO bounds!!!!

[iamjoy]

5. We Shouldn't Filibuster Alito

we should just spend a nice long time exposing what he really is, what the Republicans really are.

And all along Democrats should say, "we're not going to filibuster the nominee, however, we do have a lot of grave concerns and want our questions answered." They should pick apart every sentence of every ruling Alito made, trying to understand the nuance.

If you don't think Congress can restrict the sale of machine guns, what about rocket propelled grenade launchers?

Do you think there is a Constitituional Right to Privacy? Does that apply to married people? Referencing his decision in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, do you mean a person cannot reasonably expect privacy in regard to his/her spouse?

Do you believe there are situations where the Fourth Amendment does not apply? (Doe vs. Groody)

[Warren Stupidity]

10. So why not fillibuster?

If he is as bad as you say, and I agree that he is, then why not block his appointment?

[iamjoy]

13. You Miss My Point

Or maybe I misunderstand a filibuster. To me, a filibuster would involve getting the floor and talking until so many Senators go home, there is no quorum. Some of this talking could involve unrelated matters.

Most people have a negative view on a filibuster. Also, many moderates do not feel political ideology is a good reason to block an otherwise qualified judicial nominee (I would argue that extreme ideology - liberal or conservative is intrinsically disqualifying). Anyway, what would a filibuster accomplish? The Republicans would go nuclear and the Democrats would be made to look like spoiled petulant children. I think they should just have a long, long debate and really focus on Alito's viewpoints. If Democrats keep the debate relevant all the while denying they are blocking or filibustering the nomination, they have a better chance to bring Alito's views to light. Moderates who may claim not to think ideology should be a disqualifier will doubtless be horrified. This could cause Alito to withdraw his name and Dubya to come back with a decent nominee.

But I disagree with the reasoning in the article of saving a filibuster for impeachment. With impeachment, we would just get some one equally vile as Dubya and Cheney. Without impeachment, Dubya is out of there in three and a half years. A Supreme Court Justice is for life.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. You are having Jimmy Stewart fantasies.

It ain't Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

The mechanics are quite simple. The Democrats indicate that they do not intend to allow the legislation to come to a vote, the Republicans attempt to invoke cloture. If they succeed (60 votes) then the filibuster is over. If they fail, they can try again as often as they want, but until they succeed the legislation ( in this case a confirmation vote on the asshole) is blocked. No Jimmy Stewart reading from the phone book required, although there will be ceremonial speechifying for old times sake.

The Democratic Party has not figured out how to be an effective opposition party in the almost 12 years it has been out power in congress. It felt some of its power, and put its finger on the surging anger of its voter base, when Harry Reid shut down the senate last week. It needs to stand up and fight for us, and when it starts doing that consistently we will return to power.

[BillZBubb]

6. A strategy of weakness, Eleanor (I think you're swellinor!)

We need to go after Alito with every tool available including filibuster even though it will fail. That will help show voters why they need to dump their Repug senators and elect some more Democrats.

[KharmaTrain]

7. Careful With That "I" Word

While I'd love to see all these crooks put on trial on television and then watch them as squirm as they are confronted with their crimes, but I know I'm a minority still in this country.

While people hate booooosh or just don't care for the asshat, the memories of the pains of the Clinton inquisition are still too fresh. Many think its Clinton's inquisition that got this country into the mess that led to booosh...and why would we want to repeat that.

Also, by the time Conyers could ramp up hearing, we're well into 2007 and the 2008 election would make the need for an impeachement moot. If anything, using the concept of Impeachment as a means to campaign is a very bad strategy. It didn't work for the Repugnicans in '98 and it'd be disaster for Democrats.

There's enough dung and rope out there for the Repugnicans to continue to hang themselves over and over again. If anything, their hubris and ignorance will lead to even greater over-reaches and scandals. Democrats will do best when we show an alternative that shines on our principals and common interests...not in trying to get a pound of booosh's flesh.

[kurth]

8. Fight EVERY good fight

Democrats have nothing to lose. They've held back - and lost - time and time again.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Always the next fight, never this one.

Excuse number 37 for why we should bend over yet again.

I like the theory that we shouldn't press this fight because they are already weakened over WHIG lying us into war. Military strategists pay close attention: when the enemy is wounded hold off on new attacks until you see if the current wound is fatal.

Fuck that and with all due respect, fuck ms. clift. Attack and attack often. Fillibuster this asshole and if they nuke the fillibuster shut the fucking senate down.

Meanwhile keep pressing the round 2 Iraqi Intelligence Failure investigation and keep the pressure on there. If they won't meet neither will the Senate.

And keep hammering the culture of corruption meme until everybody sees Mr. Moneybags from Monopoly everytime one of the vile shitheads show up to defend their criminal record.

Fight them everywhere and always.

I'll let you know when I am sick of all the fighting.

[yankeedem]

22. You said what I'm thinking

What does filibustering Alito have to do with impeachment? We can do both. Does Ms. Clift somehow believe that if we don't filibuster Alito, "moderate" Repugs (which are as real as the Easter Bunny) will go to our side in the impeachment? Uhhhh, No.

America wants an opposition party right now.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

11. Winning back the House in the '06 election depends greatly

on how much the votes are manipulated. And since this administration has so much riding on the outcome (indictments, prison terms, impeachment), I'm willing to bet that they will once again call on their good friends at Diebolt to help them out.

[Gloria]

12. Impeachment just leaves the Presidency still in the hands of the GOP...

Right now, it's more impt to stop Alito. Polls seem to indicate that if Dems really paint this guy for what he is, the public will may really swing against him.....and the GOP moderates may go our way. The people who voted against the bill that screws the poor yesterday (I think) are the ones we need...Snowe, Collins, Chafee....throw in Spector, and keep our Dems in line, for Pete's sake and we have a chance of stopping this awful, awful nominee!

We can't keep moving our line of resistance backwards any longer!! There is no where else to go!!

[iamjoy]

14. But That's Not A Filibuster

A filibuster means the Senate would never vote to confirm or reject Alito. Getting reasonable Republicans to vote against him and holding the Democrats in line isn't the same thing. With the latter, we are giving Alito a straight up or down vote - down in this case. But the Senate would vote.

Anyway, even with those four and all Democrats, they would still have the majority. But, Specter is on the Judiciary. If a bi-partisan group keeps him from even going to the Senate...

[Gloria]

16. Oh, I meant you started with those 4 I named......but you have to get

more.
And....I should have finished my thought....I'd go for the filibuster for sure to if it came down to that.

Because Democrats also have a base they have to make happy...and if this creep is allowed in with a HUGE fight, including a filibuster, this female Dem voter may just give up for once and for all.

It's bad enough if the Repugs are screwing you, but when the party you've given the benefit of the doubt to OVER AND OVER, not to mention time and money, decides we aren't worth fighting for....well, that's it.

[ruggerson]

15. Strategically, She's Dead On, 100% Correct

Which is what I wrote here last night.

If we gain more Senate seats in 06, as seems likely, or God willing, even take the Senate back, we WANT TO HAVE THE FILIBUSTER RULE intact and in place, in case Bush gets to appoint more Justices (God forbid) between 06 and 08.

If we filibuster now, they have the votes for the "nuclear option", which will CHANGE SENATE RULES and disallow future filibusters on Judges.

If they don't change the rules now (which will happen if we don't provoke a filibuster now), WE WILL HAVE THE VOTES after 06 to stop the nuclear option entirely, even if we don't have a majority of the Senate.

Our position is much stronger in 06 and beyond (assuming we win a few seats) and thus we will be able to filibuster ANY judge we wish to at that point.

Why shoot ourselves in the foot now only to regret it in a year?

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. I agree.

It doesn't score any points with the US electorate to pick a fight and lose - even if it's a good fight.

Best case scenario, Scalito becomes a poster child of why Republicans should become a third party.

[depakid]

20. That's right- just punt- AGAIN

This is the same kind of tired argument that's come up every time the Dems have rolled over and/or sold us all out.

It's why the Dems keep losing- not just battles after battle, but election after election after election.

In every case- whether it's Porter Goss at the CIA (that one sure worked out great) or Kerry's "high road" campaign (that one worked out even better- or any of the hundreds of rationalizations or excuses masquerading as "strategy:" we've heard over the past 5 years as to why the Dems shouldn't stand up for their priniples.

They all end up just the same way- we get some unqualified or ideologue on the federal bench or in the cabinet- or we get some unconscionable law put in place.

And the Dems come out looking weak and cowardly. Talk about a lose/lose proposition.

Ever wonder why the Republicans control every branch of government as well as the media- and why the Dems have become utterly irrelevant in national politics? Look no further than "arguments" like Clift's.

[yankeedem]

23. If we take the Senate back

We won't need the filibuster rule in tact.

[sandnsea]

25. We'll have lost the Supreme Court

What the hell good is the filibuster after that? And if we win control of the Senate, we just change the rules back or use the rules against them. The only reason to not filibuster is if we don't get public support.

[Algorem]

17. She was great on the McGlaughlin Group today;her and Clarence Page

and even John McGlaughlin against two decomposing bootlickers,Pat Buchanan and Mort Zuckerman.

[Eric J in MN]

18. If Democrats take the Hosue, we can cross that bridge when

we come to it.

We can't assume Democrats will take back the House in 2006.

Filibuster Alito.

[Justice Is Comin]

21. I think there is a lot that will happen before Jan 20th.

Phase 2 is smoking uranium. Let's see how much we've exposed of the plot that brings this country to an outrage. Then determine what level of damage we need to roll out to be the most effective for the big win.

This judge may be a footnote in the news by that time.

[sandnsea]

24. No, we should fight

Because if we don't fight for this, nobody will think we will fight for impeachment anyway. If his stance on machine guns and notifying husbands gets strong reaction, and the Vanguard case, then filibuster is the thing to do.

[xchrom]

27. i think what she says makes SOME sense

however i think a case can be made that controlling the judiciary may have been a prime motivator for stealing the election in 00.

so ultimately how does ''enabling'' the selection of any right wing judge to the supremes help the cause of the democratic party{liberalism in general}.

that seems a highly dangerous game just now with court scales nearly tipped for the foreseeable future?

we have conservative judges sitting the benches sinse reagan.