Alito could have been stopped.

[ProSense]

Alito Sworn In as Justice After Senate Gives Approval

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: February 1, 2006

Snip...

In this confirmation, 54 Republicans voted for Judge Alito, and just one, Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, voted against him. Only four Democrats — Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia — voted for confirmation, while the other 40 Democrats and the one independent voted against it.

The senators sat at their desks as the roll was called to reflect the solemnity of the occasion, and Mr. Byrd, 88, the oldest and longest-serving member of the Senate, made his way to his desk with canes in each hand to cast the last vote with a thumbs-up gesture.

Although only four Democrats crossed party lines, the vote reflected a deep divide within the party over how hard to fight Judge Alito's confirmation. An effort by a handful of Democrats to stage a filibuster over the objection of party leaders failed on Monday, when only 25 senators voted against closing debate.

The 42 senators who voted against confirmation would have been enough to block the nomination if they had voted against closing the debate. But many Democrats were unwilling to do so because it would have drawn charges of obstructionism from Republicans, who have threatened to change Senate rules to bar filibusters on judicial nominees.

Still, Democrats vowed to make an issue of Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts's decisions in elections this fall and beyond. "We will be watching our two newest justices," Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a speech before the vote.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/01/politics/politicsspecial1/01confirm.html?_r=2&oref=login&oref=slogin

I agree:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=280438&mesg_id=280438

[Burning Water]

1. I really think

that this will be a MAJOR issue this fall. That's all to the good. Especially after the American people see one or two of his rulings.

[ProSense]

3. The Repugs will go after the for cloture Democrats. In fact,

They will go after both groups using this issue.

[Burning Water]

5. From their point of view they should.

We know they're going to do it. We need to figure out how to turn it to our advantage.

[mattclearing]

11. The public won't get it though.

Ultimately, the vote against Alito will insulate them from any charges of hypocrisy. Not a terrible strategy, but still leaves us with a lifetime appointed nutcase.

[John Q. Citizen]

34. It will be harder to go after the consistent voters, but the split voters

will take a lot of heat from the Repos.

I doubt the Repos want to bring up the virtues of Judge Alito with No on cloture no on Alito Democrats, because that will allow a discussion of putting fascists on the high court.

The double yes vote Senators might be end ran by a Republican who disavows Alito, tapping into fears of big government intrusion.

[cantstandbush]

25. I really think that the Rethugs will change the rules anyway. n/t

[Burning Water]

26. They might, indeed,

but why bother? Unless, of course, the Dems try to filibuster another nomination. I do not think that they will allow that as long as they are in power.

[TahitiNut]

48. They already have. If there's no filibusters, the rule is MOOT.

:shrug: The Democrats are afraid - afraid of being called names, afraid of being attacked by other "Democrats" and afraid of losing a seat that they DON'T USE for the People!

[Mass]

2. Clearly Schumer does not get it - it is not about whether you

can win elections. It is about people's life. Playing politics with that is bad.

Still, Democrats vowed to make an issue of Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts's decisions in elections this fall and beyond. "We will be watching our two newest justices," Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a speech before the vote.

"Make no mistake, we will make sure the American people understand the implications of these votes today," Mr. Schumer said. "Elections may have consequences, Mr. President, but votes like these also have consequences for future elections."

[kath]

38. Well, Chuck, WATCHING "our two newest justices" is ALL you'll be able to

do. You won't be able to do anything else about the atrocious decisions they'll be a part of. And they may be on the court for 30 years.

[wakeme2008]

4. IMHO Roe will be history before this falls elections

the fundies will not accept any delays now they have the votes. :cry:

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. R v W isn't necessarily a done deal. Kennedy is still pro-R v W

albiet wobbly.

Roe v Wade was just a red-herring anyway. The real danger is the consolidation of executive power. On those issues, Kennedy is firmly in the conservative camp, as I understand it.

Unitary executive, perpetual war granting perpetual executive war powers. That's where the danger is.

[bettyellen]

35. if you were a woman, your take on "danger" might be more literal

as in your own life is in danger.
then perhaps it wouldn't be so easy to belittle the significance of roe.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. You misunderstand. I am solidly behind the right to choose.

I have three sisters and two daughters, and the thought of them losing those rights infuriates me.

But Alito is not the pivot vote on R v W. The next one up will be. Of course, Alito's being there puts the court within the 1 vote range, but that is, I think, just a bonus for them. The reason for Alito is the unitary executive - expanding the power of the executive while limiting the power of both the legislature and judiciary.

That's why I say it was a red herring - it kept everybody's focus on R v W while distracting them from the dangerous political philosophy the man espouses.

With him on the supreme court, the court will likely rule that everything that * has done is legal, undercutting any move to impeach. Alito is there to protect the president.

[Beelzebud]

17. I'm more worried about our constitution.

Without the safeguards in the constitution, roe vs. wade is a moot point.

I'm not one-issue minded. Alito is bad for the entire constitution. He is the type of guy that would enable a dictator in America.

[Lorien]

21. Yep, and worker and environmental safeguards may be completely undone

Alito favors protecting corporate profits over protecting workers rights, health and our crumbling environment.

[mom cat]

39. And lots of dem senators let it happen anyway. ... They kenw and

sold us down the river anyway.

[pstokely]

37. If they do that, how will they get out the Fundie wackos?

[bryant69]

6. OK

And when Frist triggered the nuclear option?

42 votes can't stop the nuclear option, as we all know.

So rather than getting confirmed yesterday he would be confirmed today.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Mass]

7. And the difference would be ?

The filibuster is as dead as it would be with the nuclear option. We are afraid of using it. And the Democrats who voted against Alito are going to be attacked by the GOP whether they voted for or against cloture.

[ProSense]

8. See this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=279471&mesg_id=279922

[bryant69]

10. Wishful thinking

First of all I'm glad that Kerry and Kennedy filibustered, and ashamed that more Democrats didn't join them. But it was always going to be a glorious defeat.

Secondly, several of the senators already said that they didn't think these meet the extrodinary circumstances clauses, and therefore would vote in favor othe nuclear option. So the fact that Democrats did a successful filibuster, would not have convinced them. Frankly i think quite the opposite.

Bryant

[ProSense]

13. Disagree.

I am not convinced they have the votes, but I am also not convinced not that the Republicans want to go there politically.

And I guess the NYT considered this, though you may want to write and ask them about their reasoning.

[bryant69]

28. This will hardly be the last time i disagree with the NYTimes

[confludemocrat]

14. Not a great post, defending Kerry's feeble, belated grandstanding n/t

[ProSense]

15. What are you talking about? n/t

[confludemocrat]

27. See your post above providing a link to a post which I commented on

what was so hard about that?

[blm]

30. You aren't here to promote accuracy are you?

.

[confludemocrat]

40. Offering my opinion brings that kind of jibe? I do think my opinion is on

the money though as long as your bringing "accuracy" up.

[blm]

41. Kerry didn't WANT to lead a filibuster, but no one would stand w/Kennedy

It should have been Judiciary Committee Dems leading on this. They stood down - so Kerry wasn't going to let Kennedy have to bear the brunt of the slings and arrows from media on his own. He had been battered the previous two weeks by the media over the hearings.

Kerry had a full schedule OUT OF THE COUNTRY, including Senate Business for his own committees and a major speech in Ireland.

He stood up with Kennedy because no one else would and it had to be done - dissent had to be registered - the media wasn't telling the public any truths about Alito's real record of fascism.

Try using FACTS to back up your claim he was only grandstanding. Because Kennedy will tell you a different story - hell, Kerry's cancelled schedule tells a different story.

Blame the Judiciary Dems who turned Kennedy down - your blaming Kerry is misplaced.

[confludemocrat]

42. Kerry shares blame, especially for putting this on the back burner

(in favor of hobknobbing in Davos with Bono and Angelina and Brad). Anyway the Daily Kos straw poll has him at about 8%. That percentage is OK if it's someone with POTENTIAL.

[blm]

44. That's a LIE spread by Scott McLellan - Kerry's Finance Committee duties

had him in Davos.

Why are you clinging to RNC media spin? And why are you blaming Kerry for what should have been a Judiciary Committee call to filibuster? Kerry stood UP because the Judiciary Committee members were FAILING To stand with Kennedy.

Do you have an explanation for why you blame a Senate Finance Committee member for being at an Economic forum yet you have no blame for a Judiciary Committee member refusing to lead a filibuster with Kennedy?

[confludemocrat]

46. He was in Davos, was he not? Desperate to link my critique to McClellan

but you Kerry people are as unbridled in your cheap little spittle-spewing outbursts as any RNC spokesbot

[blm]

49. He was in Davos for Senate BUSINESS. McLellan used it as if he was skiing

and so did you. YOU did not answer why Kerry is being blamed for being on senate business for HIS committee and being blamed for not being in town to filibuster when it should have been a judiciary member standing with Kennedy - and THAT is why Kerry's stand was later than preferred.

My guess is that you want to make this ALL about blaming Kerry while ignoring the role of the actual people who let down the filibuster when they failed to step forward.

That's why the Senate is divided into committees.

[ProSense]

51. Pathethic, ill-informed and just plain wrong.

Other attendees at World Economic Forum in Davos:

Senators Kerry, Biden, Chambliss, McCain, Smith, and Sununu.
House reps: Frank, Kolbe, Markey, Shays.

Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco
Bill Owens, the Republican governor of Colorado
Mark Warner — the Democrat who just got through being governor of Virginia.

Elaine Chao, the secretary of labor
Michael Chertoff, head of homeland security
Alberto Gonzales, attorney general
Robert Kimmitt, deputy secretary of the treasury
Michael Leavitt, secretary of health and human services
and Rob Portman, who started attending Davos as a House rep (Ohio) and is still attending, as U.S. trade rep.


http://www.nationalreview.com/impromptus/impromptus200601250837.asp

[confludemocrat]

12. If they were really gonna use it anyway, then make them use it in reality

And there would have been bad consequences for them in that case. There is no effective difference between losing the filibuster to block future Bush appointees and failing to use it because you were afraid we would lose it and therefor not use it! Anyway, what are you preserving if you have nothing left to lose? It matters much less now should we lose and rules change vote on the filibuster and Bush then get his way in appointing activist right wing ideologues to other fed judgeships, since SCOTUS is now gonna backstop every disastrous decision a lower fed court Bush appointee makes.

They would have had to actually use the "nuclear option" (violate every last remaining shred of decency to ram him through) and would have had to do that over a united, fighting (many not all Dems would have used the appropriately strong rhetoric the situation required, sadly), defiant Democratic opposition speaking with clarity about what a danger the appointee and the rules change represents.

edited for punctuation

[SoCalDem]

16. If 54 republicans voted for him, and all others had voted against,

how is it that he would not have won confirmation? Even if 4 republicans could have been peeled away, the big dick would have cast the 51st vote..

[ProSense]

18. The Republicans would have needed 60 votes

to stop the filibuster: 100 - 42 = 58. The only way to counter this was the nuclear option, which I believe is a bluff. If the Republicans opted not to use it, the filibuster could have been successful

These are all hypotheticals, but how it would have played out will never be known. The filibuster should have been supported by all Democrats.

[SoCalDem]

19. The democrats chose not to filibuster, so it didn't matter

This is why it's dangerous to have a split party.. The repubes, even though there are a few moderates, are always willing to coalesce when their "leader" tells them to.. Our party is fractured, and a few love face time on tv boasting about what they "might" do, or "could" do, but in the end, enough always peel off to make them look foolish, and provide the other side more to ridicule them about.

Surely there is some place in DC where they could get together and come up with a cohesive strategy and stick to it, once decided.. ior maybe not:(

[DainBramaged]

20. Our leadership has no balls

But many Democrats were unwilling to do so because it would have drawn charges of obstructionism from Republicans.

When did fear of the other party's reaction ever stop the Republicants from beating the shit out of us?

[Lorien]

22. Ah, so that's the plan. Wait for the new RW court to make hellish

rulings, then capitalize on the publics unhappiness with those ruling and get re-elected.Oy vey.

[senaca]

23. Question: Do all Supreme Court Justices usually atten the State of the

Union? I only saw four there last night. Is this usual and if not is this telling?

[Cronus Protagonist]

36. I believe I mentioned that last week - they didn't want to kick Alito out

...because of that very reason. If money's the mother's milk of politics, a hostile Supreme Court is the printing press for that money.

Bastards.

Educate a Freeper Today!
Buttons, Stickers and Fridge Magnets made in America for brainy people
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[SeattleRob]

24. God forbid they call us obstructionist!!!

:sarcasm:

[blm]

29. Now they say so AFTER media cries nonstop "Alito can't be filibustered"

for weeks.

[JPZenger]

31. They could have demanded a delay until more info provided

The Dems could have stood together and said that we will not filibuster forever, but we will not close debate until additional information and document and answers are provided. Then, hopefully, some of the documents could have provided enough ammunition to get some moderate Republicans to change their vote. I don't think a long-term filibuster was viable, though.

[samhsarah]

32. "Still Democrats vowed to make an issue of Justice Alito and Chief Justice

Roberts's decisions in elections this fall and beyond." If that's true, then the Dems LET him through so they could make an election issue out of it? Jesus, I hope that's not true.

[Leopolds Ghost]

50. Yes, read Schumer's statement. That is EXACTLY what Senate Dems want n/t

[PATRICK]

33. No, he couldn't have been stopped

and the article explains why. The Senate as a whole, all factions, are trapped in the same mindsets as when they confronted the Reagan revolution. There is no way they can deal with the current tyranny using those standards of judgment, even those TRYING to stop Alito. Those trying barely make the real case to their own colleagues behind closed doors.

Like trying to get the debating society to go out and defend the Alamo.

[FreedomAngel82]

43. Damn them

:mad:

[BlueManDude]

47. GOP wouldn't hesitate to "Go Nuke" yet Dems scared of fillibuster

Denying cloture has been a tactic used by both parties for decades of not 2 centuries yet Dems were afraid to do it. Meanwhile the GOp was willing to entirely change the rules of the senate to get their man.

Tells you alot about these two parties.