Do the Democrats really need Senators Collins & Snowe to filibuster?

[papau]

The ABC Note implies a filibuster will not happen and that Alito can not be stopped unless the Mainw Senators oppose because of their pro-choice convictions. Http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238 "And some segments of the press just can't bear to demystify the process for their editors by acknowledging that unless Snowe and Collins commit apostasy, it is only a matter of time before Alito joins the High Court."

And the note quotes Senator Dianne Feinstein as if she will oppose a fillibuster "I would hope that people on both sides would hold their fire, allow the Judiciary Committee to do its work, and not take a position until that work is completed."

Yet we know the fellow disregards the law and goes for a results based decision since he already did that in "Farmer". And we know he lies and has ethics problems since we have an example of such in the 2002 Vanguard case, where he promised to recuse himself but then did not do so, forcing Anthony Joseph Scirica, the chief administrative judge for the 3rd Circuit where Alito worked, to withdraw Alito's ruling on the basis that Alito's participation was 'unlawful' under judicial ethics rules.

The LA Times implies http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-gang1nov01,1,6331762.story?coll=la-headlines-politics that the gang of 14 have 7 GOPers telling 7 Dems "don't you dare filibuster" with a blind quote added "Privately, senior Democratic staff members doubted that the seven moderate Democrats in the Gang of 14 would consider Alito's strongly conservative record — or the fact that his ascension to the court could tip its balance — as the sort of extraordinary circumstances that would allow them to support a filibuster. 'I don't think Democrats are going to say filibuster unless they are sure they want to filibuster and they have the votes,' said a senior Senate Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the issue."

We have 2 ABORTION/CHOICE cases already found unconstitutional coming up on appeal and Bush does not want O'Connor on the Court for those cases. The New Hampshire abortion law — which requires parental notification — and a second appeal involving a federal abortion statute. Alito did not see an "undue burden" in Casey and will not see one in these cases, thereby allowing the further restriction of Choice rights. Scalia who believes the undue burden standard is hopelessly unworkable will have a buddy on the Court. New Hampshire is before the Court on Nov. 30, while the partial birth 2003 law appeal was filed by Bush just this fall.

Does anyone really think, given the aging court, that just because post Alito five of the eight other justices will have endorsed a woman's right to the procedure, that Bush will not get a chance to over turn Roe v. Wade via one more Roe supporter steping down in next 3 years?

BTW, I am told there are 3 abortion and one right to die likely to be decided this Supreme Court Term - does anyone know what the 3rd abortion case is?

[tx_dem41]

1. I don't see how the Feinstein quote leads you to believe she would..

not support a filibuster. Her quote seems reasonable for someone who sits on the Judiciary Committee and has a job to do.

[papau]

2. I actually agree w/U - but if you read the ABCNote, they - the note - are

implying that Diane is hesitant.

[Daylin Byak]

3. Why be hesitant

This guy has been proven to be a real loon and someone who should not be a justice on the Supreme Court,espically because of his views on his aboution and racial-descrimation.

This man must be filibustered!

[wakfs]

4. I hate to break it to you folks...

...but Alito will get confirmed.

That's not to say I don't think we should fight his nomination tooth and nail; we should. But let's face facts - he's as good as in when a Joe Biden says "up or down vote" and nobody in the MSM punditfest is talking about the good judge's Vanguard holdings.

But this habit that the Democratic Party has of picking and choosing fights with obvious caution does NOT play well among the masses of voters whose opinions are, shall we say, fluid. Makes us look weak, and weak equals lost elections, like it or not. These voters must be convinced to vote Democratic in the next several elections - THIS is where we should be fighting. I'm really tired of hearing that same old criticism, the Democrats have no plan. Well, let's get a damned plan already.

Believe me, I DO think control of the Supreme Court is important, but not because of these idiotic and time-wasting "social issues." It's all about corporate power and influence. And folks, we've already lost that battle. So let's move on to winning elections.

By the way, my criticism doesn't mean that I believe in the Iraq war or support Hillary or any of those other cowards who voted for the IRW. On the contrary, the Democratic Party "Plan" must begin with Item Number One - REMOVE ALL TROOPS FROM IRAQ.