As predicted, it is all Kerry's fault.

[Mass]

He somehow has to do single-handedly the job the Senate Democratic leadership does not do, or may be they think it is still "Mr Smith goes to Washington"'s time,

Some people clearly do not care at all about Alito, filibuster, ...

For them, it is all games about intra-party fights. I sometimes wonder how we can beat the GOP with people like that. :smoke: :wtf:

[Vektor]

1. Oooooh!

:popcorn:

Seriously though, how could it be Kerry's fault? He can't just get up, grab a microphone and start filibustering Alito, and have everyone be like "Oh, ok, no Alito then."

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Vektor]

5. He's been given the ol'

accordion in the ass cheeks adage...

:rofl:

[Blaukraut]

9. Vek, you had me crying

from laughter. I had to read your whole post to hubby, too. Thank you for making us laugh :-)

[ProSense]

15. OMG! Complete the script

Kerry Dundee, coming to theaters in June.

:rofl: :rofl:

[Mass]

18. What was the missing message?

[ProSense]

3. Yeah.

While everyone else is calling and emailing Democrats and Republicans alike, they're posting ultimatums to one Democrat: Kerry. And if you point out that he can't do it by himself, I'll bet the next post will read: Kerry and the Democrats better...

Here's one of my response:

It's all about Kerry.

You know he's the entire Democratic Party.<sarcasm>

Expect this from the detractors every time: Save me Kerry, save me; otherwise I'll keep talking about you (untrue it will go on forever).


These people are not Democrats. The fact that they don't care more about attacking Kerry than stopping Alito makes me wonder if they're even on the left.

[whometense]

4. I put this up earlier in a different thread,

but it got kind of lost:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=66177&mesg_id=66215

A certain irony is to be noted in the fact that the people who are screaming at Kerry that he needs to "show leadership" on the filibuster are the same ones who were screaming "Foul!" when he showed leadership on Iraq and scheduled his own news conference on the same day as Reid sent Reed to speak for the party.

Can't have it both ways, buckos.

Memo to JK: Please show spine/leadership/male-genital-epithet-of-choice when I think it's appropriate. What you think is not of interest. :sarcasm: (just in case anyone thought I was serious)

[Mass]

6. Well obviously there is only one man who can do the job in the

US Senate. All the other ones are wimps. They all clearly love Kerry. :sarcasm:

[Island Blue]

10. Give the man a cape!

We need Super Kerry to swoop down onto the Senate floor and hold a one man filibuster!

I agree though, the rants of some of these idiots prove that they either A) don't really give a shit about blocking Alito as long as they can find an opening to bash John Kerry, or B) they have a very loose grasp on how the Senate actually works. (Or is supposed to work.) :crazy:

[_dynamicdems]

16. I agree! They also have a loose grasp on how life works, IMO. n/t

[emulatorloo]

7. There would be no Alito if DU had stood behind Kerry in 2004

and told all their friends and family to vote for Kerry rather than spewing tepid and divisive BS

instead it was:

"I don't know if I can vote for Kerry, he isn't X enough for me"

"If I vote for him I will hold my nose"

"Kerry is too vague and won't stop talking about Vietnam"

etc etc etc

[blm]

11. no kidding....... between that crap and the machines... AAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!

.

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. THAT needs its own post in GD

I wouldn't be brave enough to do it though :scared:

But that's an excellent point you make, and so infuriatingly true.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

27. Do you think,

that are DU folks who did not vote for Kerry in the general election??

[emulatorloo]

50. yes, and/or influenced others to stay home or vote 3rd party

People may not have set out to deliberately influence others to stay home/vote third party, but I think the negativity took its toll.

JMHO

[Blaukraut]

8. people are deliberately obtuse

The filibuster rules have been posted more than once, yet they still demand Saint Kerry stand up and make it alright. Well, isn't that kind of admitting that they don't have faith in any other Senator except John Kerry?
Seriously, though - what about 41 votes do they not get???

[ProSense]

12. Funny

When Kerry made other speeches, these same people were saying it's too late, Kerry should STFU. Now it's, Kerry should speak up and lead.

[emulatorloo]

20. I noticed that too -- no "Why Won't Kerry Just GO AWAY" today. . .

I always suspect some of being disingenuous in GD and GD-P, but try to tell my self that maybe I am being paranoid.

However maybe I'm not so paranoid.

[MH1]

13. Did you notice a certain *cough* duplication in GD-P?

By the *cough* same poster?

Although an attempt was made to disguise. Someone is really out to smear Kerry out there, huh. (No, really? :sarcasm:)

Just wondered if anyone else saw this too...

[Mass]

14. I noticed and answered.

A couple of other people did as well.

[Mass]

17. Careful in answering on GD.

Kerry never said he would filibuster by himself. If there is a vote for cloture, he will vote NO, but there IS NOT automatically a vote for cloture. It seems this is what people are playing with. Some people are being disingenuous with that, but some other ones just do not understand how it works.

[Dr Ron]

21. Past statements

"I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman's right to choose or the constitutional right to privacy, on civil rights and individual liberties and on the laws protecting workers and the environment," Kerry said in remarks via satellite at a meeting of Democratic party officials in St. Paul, Minn.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/06/20/national1340EDT0606.DTL

The important consideration is the nuclear option. If not for the nuclear option, it might make sense to filibuster Alito. The down side now is that a filibuster will not succeed, but could trigger the nuclear option which would prevent future filibusters.

This is important if we look ahead to the likely Senate make up in 2007-8. Most likey the Republicans will still control the Senate (although there is hope for the Democrats to take control) but by a very narrow margin. There is an excellent chance that in 2007-8 Democrats will have enough votes to filibuster, and if one or two Republicans don't go along they will also be unable to go ahead with the nuclear option. On the other hand, if the nuclear option goes thru, then Republicans can get Bush nominees through with a very narrow lead in the Senate.

As much as we don't want Alito, we cannot afford to have yet a third right wing nominee chosen and must look towards keeping open the chances of stopping nominees in the final two years of Bush's term.

Ironically, if the Democrats do filibuster they are better off if they have less than 40 votes and Republicans can stop it without needing the nuclear option. (That's unless things change suddenly and the Democrats can actually block Alito, which now looks very unlikely).

[ProSense]

22. Excellent points

As I hear the arguments for and against, I'm not sure what should happen. I do know that Justice Stevens is 86 year old this year and the next appointment could be devastating.

[Mass]

23. Sadly it will be in any case.

If they dont force a vote for cloture, the Democrats will have de facto renounced to the right to filibuster a judicial appointment except in the case of a convicted felon or something like that. At this point, if Bork was nominated, the Republicans would tell us we should not filibuster.

I know some people do not agree with me, but I really think somebody needs to call for a vote (even if they dont have the vote) and I would hope ONE Democrat will do it. IMHO, some people are better placed than Kerry to do so (people on the Judiciary Committee for example if Reid does not want to do it), but if it is not done, it certainly will do a lot in my belief that the Senate Democrats will not fight, just talk. It is like the Senate shutdown. Nothing happened after that, but Reid did not continue to ask for a report.

[ProSense]

26. I want a filibuster, and

I want all of this to work out in the Democrats favor.

[Dr Ron]

29. That's what we all want

Unfortunately it is not realistic. The Democrats should do everything possible in the debates to try to increas opposition to Alito, but it is very doubtful they will change the fact that he will be confirmed.

Considering all the pressure for a filibuster the best course might be to start one and let it be shut down short of the nuclear option unless they can somehow get enough GOP defectors to vote agaisnt the nuclear option.

[Mass]

30. They should call for a vote on cloture

Whether they have the 41 votes or not. If by filibustering, you mean "get 41 votes or more one against cloture", I dont think they can, but they still should not accept to end debate without a formal vote. That is all we can ask for, but we should ask for it and they should do it.

[ProSense]

31. Your second point is what

I was alluding to by stating that I hope it works out in the Democrats favor. The pressure is so strong, even the NYT printed an editorial stating that the Democrats should filibuster. Of course, it didn't present the other side of the argument. I wonder how far the Republicans are willing to go with the nuclear option? There is a strong chance they could lose control of Congress this year. Wouldn't that option in the Democrats' hands render them completely powerless?

[Mass]

32. Let them go as far as they want- We should welcome the fight.

Let the so-called moderate Republicans state clearly where they stand.

The NYTimes makes it clear that they do not believe there are 41 votes to stop Alito, but the point is that this is not what important. Standing for your principles should be important as well. Call for a vote on cloture - Refuse the UC.

[karynnj]

34. Can any senator call for the vote on cloture?

[Mass]

35. Yes, "all" they have to do is to oppose the UC.

[whometense]

37. Does anyone know yet which way

Chafee, Snowe, and Collins are voting? They hadn't announced as of yesterday, as far as I know. There are a bunch of moderate dems still unannounced, too - Lincoln, etc.

[Inuca]

52. These are the names....

... I keep watching as I see that the # of "yes" votes has gone up another notch. As of ~ 5 minutes ago, their names were still "empty".

[ProSense]

39. The other side of the argument isn't

that they don't have the votes to stop Alito, it's the nuclear option factor, which I'm not convinced the Republicans will use. If they use it, it could come back to haunt them. If they use it and the Democrats don't pick off six Republican Senate seats, it could come back to haunt the Democrats---Bush will likely get to appoint another justice (Stevens is 86 years old).

A filibuster looks like the Democrats best option because without it they'll be alienating a lot of supporters at a time when they need to pick up seats, and that will go further in countering another Bush appointment. In fact, when the Democrats take control, they can impeach Bush.

This is really about the Democrats who say they'll vote no, but will not support a filibuster. Just do it: filibuster.

JMO

[Mass]

41. For that they need ONE Senator to refuse the UC on cloture.

Please can some Senator say he will do it, that way we will know who is on our side or not.

As long as it is not clear that there will be a vote on cloture, the rest is just cheap talk.

The nuclear option is just BS. It is just a threat to force the Democrats to do what the Republicans want. Do you really expect the next nominee to be worst than Alito if they use the nuclear option this time?

So, please, have a senator say he will oppose the UC on cloture and let's see how the chips fall.

Note: I am not sure if we agree or not because different people mean different things when they use the word filibuster. Some people mean opposing an UC on cloture, other people mean getting 41 votes against cloture. Not sure what you mean.

[Dr Ron]

44. You miss the point on the nuclear option

"Do you really expect the next nominee to be worst than Alito if they use the nuclear option this time?"

That's not the point. We expect the next nominee to be comparable to Alito and Roberts. The difference is that the next nominee will likely come in 2007 or 2008 when we have an excellent chance that the Republcians will no longer have enough votes for the nuclear option. Then a filibuster will work. If the nuclear option is passed this year, then we lose hte ability to filibuster in 2007 or 2008 when there is hope it will work.

A filibuster is fine if they can prevent the nuclear option from going thru, but it is important that they don't allow this to happen. A filibuster is also fine if it could actually stop Alito, but at the moment this doesn't look possible. What needs to be avoided is a filibuster which ends up with both Alito confirmed and the Senate rules being changed to prevent filibusters in 2007-8.

[Mass]

47. I dont miss the point - I disagree with you on that.

I fundemmentally disagreed with the compromise and was more than happy that Kerry voted against cloture on all the judicial nomination votes where there was a vote on cloture.

I hope there will be another vote on cloture for this nomination and will really be very disappointed if this does not happen, whether they have the 41 votes or not.

[karynnj]

33. I am surprised that there are no real Conservative Republicans

fighting this nomination. You would think that they would be concerned by this major shift in the powers of the branches of government. They have to know that if Alito was rejected, Bush would nominate another conservative, pro-life judge - so what is the downside in standing up for the constitution. Are the conservatives in favor of the imperial Presidency?

You wonder how hard seeing these things has to be for Kerry.

[whometense]

38. I wonder the same thing.

It boggles my mind that they apparently are still willing to march in lockstep.

Hearing Kerry yesterday broke my heart - he sounded so discouraged to me. :-(

[wisteria]

42. This whole nomination has been played out like it was just all

about Abortion. It actually is much broader than that, but this has been down played because, for their base, it is all about abortion and church. When the conservatives and even other Democrats finally realize the consequences of nominating this guy, it will be to late and then they will wonder why no one tried to stop this.

[ProSense]

45. Agree.

The bigger issue, and inclusive of choice, is civil rights.

[Dr Ron]

36. Difficult Questions

How far the Republicans will go with the nuclear option is a big question. My point is that the NY Times article is overly simplistic when it says that the Democrats are not filibustering because of being afraid of the radical option. It comes down not to being afraid to be radical but to all these other considerations which the editorial ignores. In considering the filibuster they need to consider issues such as the liklihood of the nuclear option and its impact in the next Congress.

The nuclear option in the Democrats hands would not render the Republicans powerless if they stil control the White House and possibly the House.

The advantage of the filibuster is that it prevents one party from exercising too much control--and that should hold for either party. This is a long term issue which shouldn't be looked at in terms of which party controls the Senate which year. Requiring the support of 60 Senators for major changes is a useful constraint to limit the government, especially in situations where one party controls both the White House and Congress.

[wisteria]

40. Normally I would agree with you on the filibuster,

however, in this situation I think it is important to consider just how dangerous a nominee Alito actually is. How bad does a candidate have to be before we will consider this option? IMO, they don't come much worse than Alito. Abortions rights are just a small matter when you consider how much his appointment could change the dynamics of our country. I sense that Alito is an ill wind and when the public discovers it has been fooled by a lot of rhetoric they are going to start asking why nothing was done to stop this nomination. Why our leaders stepped back and let it all happen because of public opinion polls and future elections. Did you catch the NYT editorial from yesterday? For me, it confirmed my fears and totally convinced me we need to stand up and be heard on our opposition to this nominee. True leadership is taking stands on issues and principals even if they may not be the popular thing to do at that time.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001918870

[Dr Ron]

43. Still can't be stopped

No matter how bad Alito is, he still can't be stopped. (Obvioulsy if the debate changes these counts then it will be a different matter).

Per my other comments, the problem with the NY Times article is that it ignores the political realities. A filibuster on Alito could increase the chances of a third nominee being confirmed if this means the nuclear option is used.

Depending upon how the votes will look, we could be in a position where a filibuster is counterproductive. Saving the use of the filibuster for 2007-8, when Democrats have a much better chance of actually getting a filibuster to block a nominee and the Republicans might no longer be able to use the nuclear option, is more important to prevent the court from going even further to the right.

This comes down to a complex analysis of the number of Democrats who will support a filibuster, the number of Republicans who will support the nuclear option, and the likely mame up of the next Congress when there is the danger of someone like Stevens being replaced. Articles such as the NY Times (and, even worse the editorials at Buzz Flash) which look at this purely based upon the problems with Alito are overly simplistic.

The best strategy might come down to starting a filibuster to draw more attention to the importance of the court in the 2006 elections while letting it ultimately be shut down short of the nuclear option (assuming that the Republicans still have 50 votes for the nuclear option).

[Mass]

46. I have to respectuously disagree with you

Whether the Democrats refuse the UC on cloture or not, whether the Democrats get 41 votes against cloture or not, and whether the Republicans activate the nuclear option or not, Bush will name who his friends want as the next Supreme Court Nominee and it will pass. This is a losing proposition that simply will show people that no Democrat Senator is ready to stand for his principles.

I have to agree with NYTimes on that. BuzzFlash is another issue as it is not about Alito, it is a Kerry-Kerry bashing piece, the filibuster issue being only a pretext).

[Dr Ron]

49. Might be able to stop Bush in 2006-7

"and whether the Republicans activate the nuclear option or not, Bush will name who his friends want as the next Supreme Court Nominee and it will pass."

Not necessarily true. If the Democrats pick up enough seats in the Senate they can block the next nominee if teh nuclear option doesn't go through.

[kerrygoddess]

53. There is no guarantee

there will be more SCOTUS nominations next year. Although the possibility is there, it may not happen.

[Dr Ron]

57. Definately no guarantee--but high risk

Looking at the ages of the justices there is a good chance there will be more nominations in 2007-8.

Unless things change and there is a real chance to stop Alito, at this point I would concentrate on maximizing chances of stopping further nominess in 2007-8 and in getting as much political value as possible out of this to give reason for people to vote for Democrats in 2006.

[wisteria]

48. Agree, it appears we can not stop it, but we can stand on

principal and have it on record that we did all we could to nix this nomination. Your last paragraph pertaining to starting a filibuster is a strategy I like.

[Dr Ron]

55. It is really too early to determine definite strategy

There are still many ifs in my strategy thoughts. I mainly want to bring out that the filibuster question is far more complex than whether or not you want Alito as a counter to the inevitable Democrat bashing if (when?) the Democrats fail to block Alito.

The biggest question might turn out to be whether enough Republicans can be disuaded from going for the nuclear option, and there won't be public talk on this. Maybe the Democrats can get enough public support to stop enough Republicans for voting for it, but there won't be public talk on this. Democrats aren't going to talk publically about the nuclear option until the Republicans bring up the threat, and Republicans won't threaten until they both are facing a filibuster and believe they have the 50 votes to pass it.

The most important thing, which they can achieve, is to get out the message as to the dangers of Bush continuing to pick nominees and to make this an issue which helps pick up seats in the Senate this year. (While indirect, this could also extend to the general idea of increasing checks and balances and also help pick up House seats even though the House isn't involved in court picks).

[whometense]

24. Salazar won't filibuster,

and I heard on the radio that Landrieu won't either.

Salazar story here: http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/government/article/0,2777,DRMN_23906_4414916,00.html

Colorado Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar said today he won't be part of any possible Democratic filibuster to stop a vote on the confirmation of Samuel Alito as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I do not intend to join in any filibuster against a vote on Judge Alito," Salazar said in a telephone news conference.

In his view, Alito's nomination is "not filibusterable" due to his stellar academic record and support of his colleagues on the appeals court.

Still, Salazar has said he would vote against Alito, especially due to his history of decisions favoring a strong executive branch.

Asked about prospects of a filibuster attempt by other Democrats, Salazar said, "I don't know whether that will happen. That's not in my hands."

[Mass]

25. I certainly have to disagree with Salazar on this

While I dont think they have the 41 votes, I would hope that somebody would stand on principles and oppose the UC for cloture so that we can have a vote on the record. I know it is mainly symbolic, but ...



From the NY Times editorial thru the democraticdaily.com

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1753

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

...

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

And I will certainly second Pamela's comments from the same thread.

I know I personally can not sit back and watch this happening with out making a stand. I hope our readers will agree. There’s a Senate Phone List here, with numbers to all the Democratic Senators and the key moderate Republicans. There are also two toll free numbers - 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641 or you can fax your Senators here. Word is that there are 8 fence-sitters on the filibuster. Give them all a nudge!

[whometense]

28. I disagree with him too.

Just trying to keep track of who the obstructors are, not that it will turn out to be any great surprise in the end...

[kerrygoddess]

51. I don't know what will play out

But I hope that they go for the symbolic effort. Although 44 votes against Alito is a protest vote the real protest is the attempt to filibuster. DiFi just entered into Congressional record more letters and emails.

[Inuca]

54. Just heard...

... on CSPAN that Johnson (SD) will vote yes, 2nd with Ben Nelson.

[jillan]

56. What is going on with the other dems? Why are their votes

still blank?

We are screwed.
It's over. Alito needed 51 votes, just look.
I know they are not 'official votes', but c'mon,
why would someone say they are going to vote one way, and
then vote the other.

I don't know if I should scream or cry.

[Mass]

58. Byrd to vote for Alito - Lieberman against him - blogosphere in revolution

http://realvalues.blogspot.com/2006/01/lieberman-to-oppose-byrd-to-support.html

These people cant see Byrd for who he is. Each time he votes in this direction, they are surprised.

[whometense]

59. They can be so damned simpleminded.

They've labeled him "antiwar" and so that must mean he agrees with them on everything else.

:banghead: