What Ever Happened To Saving The Filibuster For The SCOTUS?

[DistressedAmerican]

When Rice and Gonzalez came up for confirmation I was calling for opposition. Everyone told me we had to save the filibuster for the SCOTUS nomination.

When they threatened us with the so called "Nuclear option" over Federal court nominees I called for opposition. Again I was met with cries of we have to save the filibuster.

Well, here is the SCOTUS and I hear the cries ringing in my ears again. "We have to save our ammo." "We can't win this so we shouldn't fight it."

Do you all realize we have held fire through all of this so we'd have an intact filibuster to stop the SCOTUS nomination? Now, I am actually reading posts saying we need to save the filibuster for the NEXT SCOTUS nominee! WTF???

Has everyone around here already been beaten?

More importantly when are you going to demand that this party take a principled stand even if we do not win the vote in question?

All of you that advocate not acting unless we have a lock on the votes are selling this entire country down the river. Just like we saw with Ashcroft, Rice, Gonzalez, The Iraq War Resolution and The Patriot Act.

What does Bushco have to do before our leadership gets a spine? How many times do we have to get screwed by not fighting them before you realize we will never win this war by rolling over and hoping the repugs scratch your belly rather than boot you in the head?

The freeps are loving it though. They always love when we act like the spineless losers they paint us as.

Don't you understand this is the big one? My baby daughter will have kids of her own before this guy is off the court. I have a reason to fight.

NOW IS THE TIME!

No more holding the fire for some theoretical future fight. I have heard that over and over. Get ready to fight or get out of the way of those of us that will.

[Cocoa]

1. your entire argument does not mention what's wrong with Roberts

It doesn't even mention him except once in passing.

The dems are expressing caution right now, and reserving judgement until the hearings. They know very little about Roberts, and so this is the right position to take now.

We know even less, so we should wait too.

[DistressedAmerican]

2. I Have Spent All Day On That. That Not What This Arguement

is predicated on.

If you want to know my specific objections, feel free to look for my other threads. The specifics of my rejection of the guy are elsewhere. I feel no need to relist it all on this thread.

On Edit: And they are not expressing caution. They are lining up to praise him. Read Harry Reid And Feinstein's comments today. They are fully on board before hearings start.

[Cocoa]

7. I'm going to tell you why I'm not going to bother with your other threads

and the reason ties in with exactly what I'm saying.

Based on what I read in your post, I don't believe your objections would be serious, I would think you're just knee-jerk against him, and that any arguments you come up with are just to fit in with your pre-judgements.

The American people would react in a similar way as I did, if their initial reaction was as you are suggesting.

[DistressedAmerican]

8. "We Continue To Believe Roe v. Wade Was Decided Incorrectly..."

Do you need a letter of intend from the guy?

You have no knowledge of me or my understanding of the situation. I have detailed it at length elsewhere. You can reject me out of hand if you want. That is up to you. But, it is intellectually lazy of you.

Done with ya. If you can't be bothered, neither can I.

Have a good one.

[Cocoa]

12. that will be central in the hearings

no doubt about it, his stand on Roe v. Wade will be examined at length.

[Cloister]

3. "Know Little?"

If they know little about him, that speaks extroidinarily poorly of them. Just 2 years ago he was unaminously approved for his current position on the appeals court. Of course, they could claim they didn't bother to review his record at the time of his appeals court appointment, but then they'll have to admit they weren't doing their job.

Overall, it seems to me that this will make it rather difficult to reasonably claim his SC appointment is an "extroidinary circumstance".

[cornermouse]

11. Yep. That's exactly the argument that the repubs will be making.

BTW. That's extraordinary.

And you're welcome.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi Cloister!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Johonny]

5. I imagine they know a lot

But the American people don't. They need to do some digging in the hearings to get at him before America is going to accept an extreme action against him. There is nothing on the surface that says this man must not at all cost get into the court. Given all that's been written today it would seem more than enough info on him to be a very lively hearing.

[Cocoa]

6. yes, we're at the starting point

if the dems were to declare him unacceptable before the hearings, they would, and SHOULD, lose all credibility when it comes time for any vote.

The RW weeks ago launched an ad campaign saying, falsely, that the dems would reflexively reject any Bush nominee, just because he's a Bush nominee. I'm glad they're not proving that smear right.

[mmonk]

4. We need to use it

and have to at least once, either this vacancy or the next.

[cornermouse]

9. You might find this pertinent if you have the time.

He specifically comments on the filibuster/nuclear option "win".

[DistressedAmerican]

10. A Little More Please. I'm Not Sure What You Are Telling Me.

I want to understand. Fill me in a bit.

[cornermouse]

13. They had a real interesting interview on Fresh Air today, for once.

"Cass Sunstein, the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School, comments on Tuesday night's Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts. Early in his career, Sunstein clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

He has also been a visiting professor of law at Columbia and Harvard universities."

I believe they said he's written a book "Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America".

Among other things, he stated the filibuster deal was like a husband telling a wife that they should split something 50/50 and the wife telling him that she has a better idea that she thought she should have 3/4 of it. He followed that up with the statement that he thought the repubs had actually walked away with more like 80% of the deal.

[DistressedAmerican]

14. That Is What So Called " Compromise" Buys Us. I'll Have To See

If I can get that interview online. Thanks for the info!

[cornermouse]

17. It was a really good interview,

the man knew what he was talking about. Unfortunately, I was driving home and had to split my attention between him and fighting traffic which led to some real gaps.

[DistressedAmerican]

15. Kick!

[sendero]

16. I think..

.... that we cannot stop this confirmation.

That does not mean I don't think we should filibuster, I think we should. I think we should force them to take the nuclear option, and then tell the country "this administration is so bent on taking away the rights of women and others that they are willing to abandon a century old tradition to get their way".

Or course, we'll be touting that against their message of "obstructionist Dems don't do anything but block".

I don't know which message is more effective, but I believe ours could be if done correctly.