Here's a thought about Senator Byrd

[Marnieworld]

Earlier today I felt so confused and betrayed by his intention to vote for Alito but then I calmed down and had a hopeful thought. What if this is all by design? If they are planning a filibuster then it is challenging the GOP to pull out the "nuclear option" (changing the rules of the Senate to need a majority of 51 votes to end debate rather than the current 60). Changing the rules of the Senate is a very big deal. Senator Byrd has always defended the tradition of that body of Congress and the Constitution. What if he comes out for Alito but then screams bloody murder over the nuclear option? He'd be a helluva lot more credible and hard to dismiss having come out in favor of Alito. I'm probably wrong but just maybe...

I am such a freakin' optimist. Keep hope alive everybody. NGU!
:patriot:

[fooj]

1. I wish I could agree with you. I really do.

I just don't see it that way!

Peace.

[mac56]

2. That's a possibility I never even thought of.

Byrd believes in the institution, in the process. He may have such a trick up his sleeve.

[Emit]

3. Let's just hope they have some sort of game plan

I just can't think of any other reason (other than the Byrd liking the pork) that Byrd would go along with Alito. I read his book "Losing America"--He knows what's up with this corrupt regime--I just hope they're working in unison here, like what you're alluding to or something equally as (potentially) effective.

[Hissyspit]

4. That would make sense, because it sure as hell doesn't make a lot

of sense right now.

I hope you are right, but I'm skeptical.

[pat_k]

5. He's the one to dismantle the fascist fantasy that "Byrd did it first". .

Byrd is an amazing Parliamentarian, and as such, has taken advantage of loopholes in existing rules. He has never (and I don't think he would ever) violated the rules.

The instance they frequently cite in their false accusations that "he did it first" was not a standard cloture situation, it was a "post-cloture filibuster." At the time, a loophole existed which allowed Byrd to end the post-cloture filibuster with a simple majority. His actions were in accordance with the rules (and I think he led the effort to close the loophole).

Byrd has never been a fan of filibusters, so I don't find it surprising that he took the morally consistent position of opposing the filibuster and supporting Alito in the floor vote (unlike others who think they can somehow reconcile opposing the filibuster (paving Alito's way to the court), and then vote against confirmation on the floor.

The fascists in the Senate are conspiring to violate the rules to change them, then to make use of the change they made in violation of the rules to change whatever rules they feel like. Sounds awful? Well, it is. It's like Alice in Wonderland -- fascism through the looking glass.

Just as Bush says he doesn't need a warrant because he says he doesn't, they claim to have the power to unilaterally declare the 3/4 majority required to change the rules null and void. By unilateral edict, they will only require a simple majority. Once they have violated the "rule changing rule" to "change the rule changing rule" they will merrily apply the rule they made in violation of the rules to change the rules governing cloture.

I say, let them go for it. It’s just another violation of our constitutional democracy to add to the ever expanding list.

I look forward to seeing Byrd take them apart.

[Marnieworld]

6. "I look forward to seeing Byrd take them apart"

So you understand my point. That thought is what makes his intention to vote for Alito make more sense to me. I can almost hear him now.

NGU

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Read his statement. He sold out.

And, used poor Mrs. Scalito and the downtrodden Christians as a lame excuse.

[Charlie Brown]

8. All week I've heard nothing but contempt for Nelson, Landrieu, etc.

Suddenly, St. Byrd announces he will also support Alito, and everyone here is offering apologies for his decision and giving him a free pass.

How is Byrd any better than the other Dems who are backing Alito?

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Because Landrieu and Nelson are Repuke lite and often vote

against the Dems. VERY OFTEN. Byrd doesn't.

[Charlie Brown]

11. Landrieu is "repuke lite?"

She's pro-choice and voted against the marriage amendment, whereas Byrd is pro-life and was one of three Dems to support the marriage amendment (along w/Nelson and Zell Miller).

I always thought of her as left of center (especially compared to other Dems from red states, including Byrd).

Since Byrd used the rational of the persecuted Christians to justify his vote for Alito, you would think more people here would be denouncing him as a turncoat, as much as the other Dems who have broken rank.

[hijinx87]

13. from all appearances . . .

Landrieu appears to want this whole thing to go away as
quickly as possible so the congress can get back to rebuilding
new orleans.

[pat_k]

14. We can set her straight

It is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile:

Paving Alito's Way to the Court by opposing the Filibuster
and then
Making an Empty and hypocritical gesture of "opposition" by voting Nay on the floor

We CAN set her straight (and Tim Johnsot Too!!). Sample "Reconsider" Letter

I understand that you have announced your intention to pave Alito's way to the court by opposing a Filibuster, and then make an empty and hypocritical show of "opposition" by voting against him on the floor. Your position is surprising because it is impossible to reconcile. If you oppose Alito, you have a moral obligation to support the Filibuster.

Please consider the following points.

Judge Alito demonstrated how radical his views are when he offered his standard response -- that he couldn't offer an opinion; that he'd figure it out if it came to the Supreme Court -- to the hypothetical case Sen. Biden posed. (If We the People, through our representatives in the Senate and House, passed a resolution prohibiting the President from ordering any sort of attack on Iran, could the President ignore our will and order Bombs to be dropped on Iran?)

Citizens do not need a law degree (or even a high school degree) to know that it's lunacy to think the constitution gives (or even might give) the President the power to flagrantly violate the collective will of the people codified in the acts and resolutions passed by our Congress.

Alito endangers the most fundamental tenets of our constitutional democracy. If you or your colleagues believe your support for a filibuster will risk your re-election as a single member of the Senate, take a moment to compare that risk to the damage we know Alito will do in the course of his lifetime appointment.

We expect the men and women of our armed services to risk life and limb to fulfill their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

You have taken the same oath. Why should we expect less of you? Particularly when standing on principle, whatever the outcome, always inures to the benefit of the leader who does so?

I urge you to reconsider your position. Voting NO on the floor won't stop Alito. The only vote that matters is the Cloture Vote.

Alternative bits for Tim Johnson

<Alternate intro>
I understand that you have announced your intention to vote to confirm Judge Alito because you "cannot accept an argument that his views are so radical that the Senate is justified in denying his confirmation."

Your conclusion is surprising. Alito told us everything. . .

<Instead of "Alito endangers. . . ">
Judge Alito's refusal to acknowledge ANY limits on executive power endangers the most fundamental tenets of our constitutional democracy. As Geoffrey R. Stone, a former Dean of the University of Chicago Law School pointed out:

". . . Whatever else Judge Alito may or may not have made clear about his views on such issues as abortion, federalism, and religious freedom, he has certainly made clear that he has no interest in restraining the acts of this commander-in-chief. That, in my judgment, poses a serious threat to the nation, and is a more than adequate reason for the Senate -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- to deny his confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States."

I urge you to reconsider your position and join with other members of the Democratic Caucus in a filibuster.

[pat_k]

15. Another message for Sen. Landrieu -- not too harsh I hope

A bit sarcastic, but perhaps a wake up call.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/1/26/102317/694/145#145

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. That could be part of the game plan and

I AM hoping we have HUGE, HUGE, HUGE behind the scene deals going down. I am HOPING the Dems are just playing with the repukes. I'm hoping they have thought this whole thing out. Nelson, Landrieu and Johnson will be "out of town" on Monday at 4:30 and the repukes won't get their freakin' 60 votes.

I honestly don't think Kerry would have called for a filibuster if he, Kennedy and Reid didn't think they could pull it off. What would be the point of that? WHY would they get our hopes up when they know they don't have a chance in hell of a supported filibuster?

HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL!

Maybe we should start a "Hopelessly Hopeful Club?" :)

[leftofthedial]

12. yeah! and then we could all make S'Mores

and sing Kumbayah!