Filibuster: Even if we lose. If we don't ever use it, we gave it away....

[bettyellen]

and gave it away quietly. In practice, that's as good as never having it in the first place.
What is the point in retaining the judicial filibuster if you wouldn't ever advocate using it?
Why would we give away the opportunity to hammer home some issues while the people are actually listening?

i am fed up with any Democrat that gives their reps permission NOT to fight for our us. i'm not sure we can win a majority in Nov with candidates that show no spine, with a supreme court in place that supports corporations and the executive branch at the expense of us citizens. i don't see how laying down for this, keeping quiet, gets us a better informed or more interested electorate.
i am sick and tired of hearing the fight isn't worth it if it's not winnable. that's not strategy, that's ego. You may feel weakened by the loss personally, but it ain't all about feeling good about a "win" at the water cooler when you chat with your repug coworkers. It's about the next 30 years of supreme court decisions, it's about going backward as a society.

Enough of this (do nothing) strategy crap, enough enabling spineless behavior or making excuses that we should focus on your pet whatever. This is where we are, and nothing else on the table matters nearly as much right now. We need to support the good fight, even if it's not going to be the slam dunk you fantasize about.

i will be grateful and remember just who stood up and fought to preserve my rights. and only they will get my support for the midterms.
It's about standing for something, and reinstating the rights of the individual in this society.

[havocmom]

1. Are the sig lines on?

Hope DEMS in Senate read mine.

[bettyellen]

3. yes, i can read your sig line, and i love it havoc mom.

they show up very pale on my monitor, so i cut and pasted it here:


"If Frist THREATENS to get rid of the filibuster at every mention of one, isn't that basically already banning the filibuster? Call his bluff. Make him STFU about it or go on record as taking that step toward tyranny! Hold bullies accountable! Letting them win by default is no strategy."


i especially like the part about allowing them to win by default, so true. is it a havocmom original?

[havocmom]

8. dat is a havocmom original

and I allow anyone to use it! Post it in body of comments when the sig lines are off due to traffic. That is when we need to show it most ;)

[bettyellen]

9. and the time to say it is NOW.

call and email your senators people, find them here:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[havocmom]

10. Yep. Make the calls folks! If you don't know what to say

use my little script to get you started!

[bettyellen]

11. and if you need more info/ ammo go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x25890

[Speed8098]

45. And if you can't call or e-mail, Fax .

http://longship.net/senatefax.shtml

I just sent one to Mrs. Clinton.

[Wordie]

47. Excellent!!!! Call their bluff! What good is preserving the filibuster,

if now, the time when we need it most, we are afraid to use it? All good points you raised, havocmom! For what are we preserving it? If the RW takes near-total control of the country due to our fear of losing the filibuster, what good will it do us then to have preserved it? Some things are worth risking when the stakes are so high.

The thing is, the Republicans don't want to lose it either. They will be the ones responsible if it goes as far as their "nuclear option" (so happy that they named it that - it will make them seem so unreasonable if they ever were to use it). And we shouldn't forget, Dems shot down the Patriot Act at the last minute (at least temporarily), so the fight's not over 'til it's over. And since there are so many Bush negatives right now, and the Abramoff scandal, the situation is much different than when the "nuclear option" was first threatened. The Republicans aren't nearly as strong as they were when they made the threat. They don't want "destroyed the filibuster" added to the list of Republican negatives come the fall elections.

To be honest, I'm still hoping Harry will pull a rabbit out of his hat. He's done it before.

[uppityperson]

4. You got it.

If you filibuster, we'll take your ability to filibuster away. This means you can't filibuster because we already have taken it away.

[FlemingsGhost]

2. Yup ... remember when they "compromised" and gave it away?

Remember all the fools and DLC monkeys on this board tauting it as a "victory"?

[Lerkfish]

5. yup. and I remember claiming you cannot compromise with evil.

and I'm still right.

[bettyellen]

6. and w/ Roberts they said, Wait, he's not bad enough to use it on....

i'm sick of hearing the country has to be completely in the toilet before doing anything.
Or, we already have to have won a majority before we begin the fight. It's anger and just plain ego talking.. because it sure as hell isn't good strategy. i blame theses a-holes for quietly letting them chip away at my rights. enough already.

[Solly Mack]

7. I well recall that moment

A Vermilion Outhouse - covering it in gold won't stop the smell of shit.

[Tsiyu]

12. Sometimes I feel like I am trapped in a world overrun by Zombies

calmly smoking cigars and laconically musing about poker and strategy and people who are "over the top."

Oh, how I would love to be one of those for whom these issues did not take on an urgency that precludes the flat affect and the bemused game analysis.

This nation's very essence is at stake. The house is burning down and if you grab a pail of water and rush to drench a flame here or there they tell you the drip in the ceiling ought to eventually put out the blaze.

"Come. Have a cigar, play a few hands of cards. Those pesky flames won't burn much."

I'm glad I'll never have to endure a crisis with some of these people.

[bettyellen]

13. these are the "strategists" who have fucked over our party....

and i blame them for convincing people "doing nothing" is a strategy.
i call bullshit.

[Tsiyu]

14. I'll stand next to you and hold the sign

Look at what happened in Abu Ghraib. Do these lame folks not realize that the people who say the torture in our military prisons is acceptable are the very same ones who LOVE Alito?

Do they not see that the people who declared Martial Law over New Orleans - who basically refused to help people while imprisoning them - who refused to let people in to tend to their dead - are the ones just salivating over Alito?

No, they just swallow a few more pills or have another drink and hope it all works out, I guess.

Why worry yourself with politics at all, if all you're going to do is say "Do nothing and wait?"

[Vincardog]

18. Yes. Filibuster if you have to but stop the Police State NOW

If the thugs "go Nuklir" SHUT IT DOWN. You can not compromise with EVIL

[bettyellen]

22. they count on us compromising, and all this equivocating bullshit

well, that joke is on us.
Playing "nice" or "playing it smart" does not work.
Wasting a golden opportunity to educate people, and giving up without trying is much weaker than putting up a fight.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

15. So the question becomes: Is this the Hill you are willing to die on?

Is filibustering Alito worth giving up the filibuster option?

What if we use our last ever filibuster on Alito, and then have another SC justice die or retire (which is quite the possibility)....only then to see a super extremist nominated without the tools to fight him.

Im not answering those questions mind you. Just wondering out loud.

I sure hope the Dems in congress make the right decision.

[Tsiyu]

16. We act with courage

If my child is drowning, I jump in the water to save my child.

I do not stand on shore and wonder "what if a boat runs me over?"

[Freedom_Aflaim]

26. well put n/t

[bettyellen]

21. Never standing up for what is right= Might as well be dead.

last ever fillibuster? not if we take back congress. and, btw, when was the last time 3 SC justices were replaced in one term.
if we can't effectively muster the strength to oppose someone with an awful record, when can we? when he nominates someone with no record again?
another wimpy "what if" excuse not to do anything, this is what got us where we are today. this is why people do not respect their representatives.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

24. I don't know

"when was the last time 3 SC justices were replaced in one term." Its proably been a long time. However having this old is unprecedented.

You also have all good questions and the answer of course is that we should stand up for whats right.

[bettyellen]

23. Fair- weather Democrat, are you? A few of you may "die" of embarrassment

if we don't win this one, but you'll get over it.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

25. Am I? Are you? Are they?

Personally Im not concerned about embarrasment. Im concerned with bringing us back on course. My rhetorical questions are regarding whether or not we are picking the right battles course. I think that Alito is the right battle.

Its curious that I asked a few rhetorical questions and all the responses presumed my answers negatively.

[bettyellen]

28. well, the assumption that not winning= death

is a sort of alarmist attitude, no? i didn't get a clear idea where you were at, but that part made me think of the whole "not worth fighting unless we can win" thing. which i just don't get. how does it get equated with dying?

[Freedom_Aflaim]

29. Its an old saying

It means are you willing to risk all on this issue.

The poker derived saying of "ALL-IN!" might be appropriate to, although I wouldnt use it since it has bluff connotations to.

Somethings are certainly worth risking all on.

[bettyellen]

30. gotcha, but i don't see the stakes as all that high....

the chance we are getting another SC appointment in the next 3 years is slim- and one with such a dubious record, very slim.
if the * has another chance, it'll be someone with no experience again- nothing to crtissze, and we are back to having nothing to say at all, like roberts. hey, it worked with roberts didn't it?

[gkhouston]

34. some more "wondering out loud"...

Considering how obviously bad a choice this guy is, if they don't do anything this time, what would be the rationale for doing something next time, even if we had the tools to fight? Should the Dems wait for that "perfect storm" of an awful candidate, letting bad choice after bad choice slide by unchallenged, until their arms are too weak to wield the weapon they've been so carefully hoarding against the day of ultimate need?

[Freedom_Aflaim]

36. good point

Oh wait, since you were only "wondering out loud", I suppose I should have said "Good Point" right?

Ok, putting aside silly strange sarcasms...

Personally, I'm not ruling out a filibuster yet. Especially if the leadership hears our concerns loud and clear.

[DefenseLawyer]

38. Alito is a super extremist

I don't say that lightly. He is as bad as they can put forth with a straight face. Anyone more batshit crazy than him and they would lose the middle, even from their own party. Read his opinions. The man is a crank. If this isn't it there isn't one. Personally I don't think Bill Frist has the muscle anymore to pull off his reckless nuclear option anyway. Stand up. Make THEM go on record in an election year as being for an extremist and being for changing the rules in the middle of the game when they don't get their way (and for Jack Abramoff, and the war and for Brownie doin' a heckuva job)

[stellanoir]

17. coerced wimps

they are behaving as such and I have had it.

[smiley_glad_hands]

19. Yes, Show the American People that you stand for something.

The R's are calling us out. Stand for something dammit.

[robbedvoter]

20. Yup. Is SCOTUS important enough for it, or maybe Megascotus

shall need us to keep our powder dry...:sarcasm:

[tinfoilinfor2005]

27. You are so right, bettyellen...

I've been hearing from the right all day, "Game Over, Lay Down." Well guess what? The PEOPLE own this country, not the spinmeisters or wingnuts or the msm. It is time to take a stand and let the people who represent us understand that we expect no less from them.


:hi:

[hootinholler]

31. K&R

:hi:

-Hoot

[OnionPatch]

32. You are totally right!

I agree, 100%.

There's a reason why Democrats are polling better than Republicans now. It's because people are catching on to what the extreme right is all about and starting to get a clue that they've got too much power. The Dems need to capitalize on this politically but aside from that, it's their DUTY to oppose this appointment with all their might. Let the GOP nuke the filibuster. I think it will be a bad move for them (GOP) politically and at least the Dems will have done all they could do. If they don't nuke it, then what do you know!....we don't have another extreme whacko added to the supreme court.

[cantstandbush]

33. I agree 1000%!!! Use it or lose it anyway!

All most Dems want to have some Congresspeople with guts to vote for.

[raysr]

35. If not now, when?

[bettyellen]

37. if not this liar and bigot, then who?

[Festivito]

39. Look past filb, shut down all but troops, voting, and media concerns.

We have to be ready to take this to the people.
We could skip the filibuster and move directly to slowing gov to a halt.

Not allow a piss break until soldier armor is sent, then hold more until received.
Pound the HAVA out.
Make statements so media cannot hide from it.

[Festivito]

40. Hmmm. DU: Bug report id number: 597324, self-delete dup post.

[derby378]

41. Cueing Marilyn Manson's FIGHT SONG right now...

God bless you, little iPod!

[lonestarnot]

42. f-i-l-i-b-u-s-t-e-r

[lonestarnot]

43. f-i-l-i-b-u-s-t-e-r

[KitSileya]

44. I agree with you 100%

All this about 'what if there's a worse candidate waiting in the wings and if we expend the filibuster opinion on Alito we won't be able to stop the next on' is bull. If you spare your ammo in this attack just in case there'll be another attack, there won't be another attack. You'll have lost, they'll have won and they won't need to attack again. But there is a chance that if you defeat this attack, they won't be able to mount another. And you'll know you're not a yellow-bellied coward because you fought this attack to the end.

I keep teaching my students about the branches of government, and the system of checks and balances, and that the Founding Fathers set it up like that to minimize the chances that the US would have another tyrant King George. If the Dems lay down and play dead, I guess the laugh's on me.

[Blue Velvet]

46. Use it or lose it! I'm with ya! n/t

[Wordie]

48. Lest we forget...what Bush court packing could hold for our country:

The Year of Living Dangerously
War, Trials, Leakers, Investigations, Packed Courts, and a Constitutional Crisis
by Tom Engelhardt

January 12, 2006

...Court-packing: As Noah Feldman pointed out recently in the New York Times Magazine, the rise of the imperial presidency has a history that goes back to Thomas Jefferson's decision to conclude the Louisiana Purchase, while the presidency's outsized "war powers" go back at least to Abraham Lincoln. The President has long had powers unimagined by the founding fathers, but the Bush administration still represents a new stage in the obliteration of a checks-and-balances system of government. Last week, in an important, if somewhat overlooked, front-page piece in the Wall Street Journal ("Judge Alito's View of the Presidency: Expansive Powers"), Jess Bravin reported on a speech Sam Alito gave to the right-wing Federalist Society in 2000 in which he subscribed to the "unitary executive theory" of the presidency ("gospel," he called it) which puts its money on the supposedly unfettered powers of the President as commander-in-chief. This theory has been pushed by administration figures ranging from the Vice President and his Chief of Staff David Addington to former assistant attorney general and torture-memo writer John Yoo. As Alito put the matter in his speech: " makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that. The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing." And Yoo put it even more bluntly while debating the unitary executive theory recently. In answering the question, "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?" he responded, "No treaty."

Evidently, John Roberts subscribes to the same view of presidential powers (as Harriet Meirs certainly did, at least when it came to George Bush). In other words, the administration is trying to pack the Supreme Court with judges who are, above all, guaranteed to come down on the side of the President in any ultimate face-off with Congress or the courts. This is surely the real significance of the Alito nomination, should it go through. In any Constitutional crisis-to-come the "commander-in-chief" is trying to predetermine how things will fall out if his own power is at stake.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=9515

How can Dems NOT fillibuster?

[suffragette]

49. Kickin it up

to do the right thing.