Compiled and Guest Blogged for The BRAD BLOG by Pokey Anderson, co-host of “The Monitor”, a weekly news and analysis show at KPFT Radio in Houston.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Too late to filibuster Alito? Not if what Senator Dick Durbin says is true.
As we have previously opined, Democrats will be making a huge mistake by voting “NO”, but failing to back up their “convictions” with a filibuster. Such an action would be both a political mistake, which their base will not likely forget, especially in the upcoming mid-terms, as well as a mistake for the good of the country, which will pay the price for such a lack of backbone for decades to come.
In her first BRAD BLOG Guest Blog, Pokey Anderson lends the Dems a hand, by helping them build their case…
ALITO’S EXTREME VIEWS ARE OUT OF STEP WITH AMERICANS
Samuel Alito, if confirmed, could serve on the US Supreme Court for the rest of your life. At age 55, his life expectancy from now is an additional 28 years or, in other words, the equivalent of 7 presidential terms. Instead of occupying a centrist position, like Sandra Day O’Connor, he would move the court far to the right.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor “provided the swing vote 77 percent of the time. If confirmed, Alito would tip the high court’s delicate balance radically to the right. Nearly always favoring the government, corporations and universities, Alito has ruled against individual rights in 84 percent of his dissents.”
— Marjorie Cohn, “Alito Sounds Death Knell for Individual Rights”, t r u t h o u t, January 10, 2006
With Judge Samuel Alito, the Senate Judiciary Committee faces its most consequential Supreme Court confirmation hearing in a generation. Not since Robert Bork has the Senate encountered a nominee whose long record and fully articulated views so consistently challenge decades of progress on privacy, civil rights and control of corporations. And never in memory has a single nomination so threatened to redirect the Court as Alito’s. [His] fifteen years of rulings … demonstrates that Alito is at odds with the interests of ordinary Americans.
— “The Case Against Alito”, The Nation, editorial | posted January 5, 2006
Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, in Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, places Alito to the right of Justice Roberts, and between Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
— New York Times, January 12, 2006
“After a careful study, University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein described Alito’s record of appeals court dissents as ‘stunning. Ninety-one percent of Alito’s dissents take positions more conservative than his colleagues…including colleagues appointed by Presidents Bush and Reagan.'”
— “The Case Against Alito” The Nation, editorial | posted January 5, 2006
“The debate over Judge Alito is generally presented as one between Republicans and Democrats. But his testimony should trouble moderate Republicans, especially those who favor abortion rights or are concerned about presidential excesses.”
— “Judge Alito, in His Own Words”, NY Times Lead Editorial: January 12, 2006
WHAT IF ALITO IS DEFEATED? WON’T THERE JUST BE A WORSE NOMINEE?
“The White House is banking on fear that if this second nominee goes down, Bush will nominate someone even worse. This argument ignores history: When in 1969-70 President Nixon nominated and lost both Clement Haynsworth and Harrold Carswell, the result was not “someone worse” but the pragmatic, humane Judge Harry Blackmun, who later wrote Roe v. Wade; when Bork was Borked, his replacement was Anthony Kennedy, who in 1992 joined fellow Reagan nominee O’Connor to reaffirm Roe. Alito defeatism also ignores today’s political climate: As the midterm elections draw closer, as the Iraq War scandals deepen, Senate Republicans are falling over one another to distance themselves from the Administration and the far right.”
— “The Case Against Alito” The Nation, editorial | posted January 5, 2006
ISN’T THIS NOMINATION A SHOE-IN? A DONE DEAL?
No. It’s not. Inside sources are telling me the situation is quite fluid…
One of the things that would help is you — calling your Senator, or visiting his or her district office. A public outcry in the next few days could strengthen the resolve of Democrats to filibuster. A few Republicans could even be encouraged to think twice about voting in support of Alito. The administration recently waged a fierce battle to gain even more powers under the Patriot Act — Congress staved that off. Some of the Alito issues are similar.
Alito is not just a garden variety conservative. Senators need to understand that by confirming Alito, they would shrink Congress’s Constitutional power — in effect, cutting their own throats.
WRECKING THE CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE OF POWER
Both newly appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and nominee Samuel Alito endorse an out-of-the-legal-mainstream theory dubbed the “unitary executive.” This theory would elevate the president’s powers at the expense of the Congress and judiciary branches, wreaking havoc with the balance of power. Given that President Bush is currently under fire for authorizing torture, and warrantless NSA wiretaps of American citizens (which is a felony), allowing him to appoint another justice who seems hand-picked to approve of that would be ill-advised, to say the least.
Alliance for Justice (AFJ) wrote that Alito’s “judicial record strongly suggests that he will … interpret the Constitution as giving the president greater authority to evade Congressional statutes and constitutional limitations whenever deemed essential to national security.” Indeed, in a memorandum he wrote as a lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department, Alito argued that the attorney general should receive absolute immunity from lawsuits when he illegally wiretaps Americans.
— Marjorie Cohn, “Alito Sounds Death Knell for Individual Rights”, t r u t h o u t, January 10, 2006
“Alito’s defense of Nixon-era officials implicated in illegal wiretaps makes clear–in light of today’s NSA wiretap scandal–that the Bush Administration’s motives in Alito’s nomination extend well beyond a token nod to social conservatives.”
— “The Case Against Alito”, The Nation, editorial | posted January 5, 2006
INDEPENDENCE OF AGENCIES LIKE SEC, EPA COULD BE THREATENED
In 2000, Alito told a Federalist Society meeting that he was a strong proponent of the “unitary executive,” which means that all federal executive power resides in the president. This theory would reject discretionary executive power of independent agencies Congress has created since the New Deal, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Reserve Board.
— Marjorie Cohn, “Alito Sounds Death Knell for Individual Rights”, t r u t h o u t, January 10, 2006
ADDITIONAL ATTEMPTS TO GRAB POWER FOR THE PRESIDENT: SIGNING STATEMENTS
Alito was one of those pushing to elevate the power of the presidency two decades ago, by advocating “that the president make a ‘signing statement’ indicating what he thinks the law means when he signs a bill. Even though the Constitution grants the lawmaking power only to Congress, and thus courts look to congressional intent to interpret statutes, Alito hoped that the president could divert the courts’ focus away from congressional intent in favor of what he called ‘the President’s intent.’ George W. Bush has issued at least 108 such “signing statements,” according to the Washington Post. Most recently, Bush qualified his concurrence with the McCain amendment that outlaws torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, implying that he would be free to torture if he felt it was necessary for national security.
— Marjorie Cohn, “Alito Sounds Death Knell for Individual Rights”, t r u t h o u t, January 10, 2006
Bush “issued a constitutionally ludicrous ‘signing statement’ on the McCain bill. The message: Whatever Congress intended the law to say, he intended to ignore it on the pretext the commander in chief is above the law. That twisted reasoning is what led to the legalized torture policies, not to mention the domestic spying program. … Both of the offensive theories at work here – that a president’s intent in signing a bill trumps the intent of Congress in writing it, and that a president can claim power without restriction or supervision by the courts or Congress – are pet theories of Judge Samuel Alito, the man Mr. Bush chose to tilt the Supreme Court to the right.”
— “The Imperial Presidency at Work”, New York Times | Editorial, Sunday 15 January 2006
MEMORY LOSS, ETHICS
“Judge Alito continues to claim memory loss when it comes to his involvement with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group hostile to the university’s admission of women and increased enrollment of minorities. Even less plausible is his testimony that he was not aware of the group’s well-known anti-woman and anti-minority positions when he touted his CAP membership on a job application in the Reagan Administration.”
— National Women’s Law Center
In addition, when it came to recusing himself in cases where he had a conflict of interest, Alito previously promised Congress that if there was a case involving something where he had investments, specifically Vanguard, he would recuse himself. Such a case did come before him and, despite his several hundred thousand dollars in investments in Vanguard, he did NOT recuse himself. He has yet to provide a satisfactory explanation.
SEX DISCRIMINATION
…“Judge Alito’s testimony about his record on the Third Circuit in employment discrimination cases does nothing to allay our concerns in this area, either. He has repeatedly taken positions that make it harder for victims of workplace discrimination to succeed in court or even to get to a jury. …Samuel Alito’s legal views would put women’s hard-won rights and liberties in grave danger.”
— National Women’s Law Center Co-President Marcia Greenberger, January 12, 2006
ROE v. WADE
As Prof. Laurence Tribe testified, with Alito on the court “the court will cut back on Roe v. Wade, step by step, not just to the point where, as the moderate American center has it, abortion is cautiously restricted, but to the point where the fundamental underlying right to liberty becomes a hollow shell.”
— New York Times, January 12, 2006
“While in the Solicitor General’s office, Alito urged the government to file an amicus brief in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a 17-page memorandum, he argued that the case offered an ‘opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects.’ His memo argued in favor of upholding even the most burdensome and dangerous barriers to abortion.”
— Alito and Women’s Issues – Fact Sheet [PDF], National Women’s Law Center
STATEMENT OF AL GORE re PRESIDENTIAL POWER
Speaking on Martin Luther King Day 2006, Al Gore said:
“The President’s judicial appointments are clearly designed to ensure that the courts will not serve as an effective check on executive power. As we have all learned, Judge Alito is a longtime supporter of a powerful executive – a supporter of the so-called unitary executive, which is more properly called the unilateral executive. Whether you support his confirmation or not – and I do not – we must all agree that he will not vote as an effective check on the expansion of executive power. …
If this President’s attempt to dramatically expand executive power goes unquestioned, our constitutional design of checks and balances will be lost. …
Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is “yes” then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? If the President has the inherent authority to eavesdrop, imprison citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can’t he do?
— Complete Text of Gore Speech
STATEMENTS OF THREE SENATORS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said, “It’s important to know whether [Alito] would serve with judicial independence or as a surrogate for the president nominating him.” — Marjorie Cohn, “Alito Sounds Death Knell for Individual Rights”, t r u t h o u t, January 10, 2006
Sen. Leahy also said, “The Supreme Court must be an institution where the Bill of Rights and human dignity are honored. At a time when the President is seeking unprecedented power, the Supreme Court needs to act as a check and to provide balance. Based on the hearing and his record, I have no confidence that Jude Alito would provide that check and balance. In good conscience, based on the record, I cannot support this nomination.”
— Nomination Watch
Sen. Edward Kennedy: “[H]is views on issues of particular concern to women should give every woman pause … Judge Alito’s testimony failed to resolve the very serious concerns that he’s itching to overturn Roe v. Wade. … His record just does not show a judge who is committed to equal justice under law.”
— Nomination Watch
Sen. Richard Durbin: “In the Bible, Solomon personified the virtue of wisdom, and when God offered him any gift, Solomon asked for a caring heart. In the record, the writings, the works, and the life of Samuel Alito, I searched for evidence of his caring heart – evidence that for the next two or three decade he would use his position on the Supreme Court to enlarge our freedom, protect our privacy, and respect the delicate balance of power and responsibility our Constitution creates. At the end of the day, at this historic moment, I cannot say with confidence that Samuel Alito meets that test. I will vote no on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.”
— Nomination Watch
Talk about Desperation. Its really fun watching you liberals squirm.
The direction of the court reflects the will of the people.
If Bush won at all it was by a tiny margin. In the Senate the Dems have nationally received about 1 million more votes than Repubs in each of the last 3 elections. This doesn’t equate with the tremendous shift of our government to the far right. Bush has gone so far right that he’s virtually off the scale.
It seems to me that as time passes the likelihood of a filibuster grows. I’m not quite sure what may be influencing the senators, but there is a distinct pressure and slow shifting to the anti-Alito position.
At the same time there is the slow glacier-like shifting away from electronic voting systems.
Maybe America is shifting as a whole toward the Left. Maybe.
Today I watched several political talk shows and I didn’t really see any Lefties. They had Lieberman, Obama, Carville and Begala. But, when Begala says Zell Miller was one of their mentors I have to wonder if he and Carville are really on the Left. They, and apparently their book, don’t look to do much to convince people that the Left can solve America’s problems. When Russert asked Obama about Abramoff’s gifts to Repubs and Dems he didn’t say Abramoff NEVER gave a nickel to Dems. He hemmed and hawed and spoke in riddles. Why does this seem so difficult to our Dem Senators?
It seems the press is hardly a place for a real Dem to make the case against Repubs. The courts and some public hearings seem to work better.
Over at FireDogLake.com blog there’s been a tussle with the Washington Post over their blogs and censorship. They’ve apparently asked one of the fdl ladies (Jane Hamsher) to participate in a forum to discuss blogging and journalism. I don’t know if anything good will come of it, but if the nation is turning left, then maybe WaPo will turn with it. We can only hope.
Alito will not be confirmed. Al Gore’s speech reflects the will of the people, all the people of America, since its inception.
Our Finest Hour
By Jon Gold
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."
Do you remember what it was like to be a kid, and having to say those words? For me, it always seemed like a chore. Having to get up every morning, put your hand over your heart, and say the Pledge. A kid has better things to do with their time, don’t they?
That being said, there were times when I felt proud to say those words.
For instance, do you remember when the United States’ hockey team beat the Soviets in Lake Placid during the 1980 Olympics? WOW. I was only 8 years old when that happened, but I watched A LOT of TV as a kid, so I remember the coverage from Philadelphia’s Action News. I remember saying the pledge in 2nd grade, after my teacher reiterated what I had seen the night before, and thinking how proud I was to be an American. It didn’t bother me to say the pledge that day.
That was then, and here we are today.
more…
I to watch obama today, and I thought he did a very bad job. If he is the best we have to send out there , we are in more trouble than I thought. He did hem and haw, he seemed to have left his cojones in the green room.
I’m way, way so, way so disappointed in Obama. He seems to be following in the footsteps of the WRONG senators. He is NOT living up to the promise in his convention speech. I sure hope he gets turned around before so much native talent cannot be exhumed from the shitloads of shitloads that bid him equivocate instead of lead. Major bummer.
bush a nostra
Patrick Leahy will vote no, here is his excellent statement:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200601/011906.html
Did I hear (P)Ricky say something, or did somebody fart?
If your Democratic Senator has not stated their confirmation decision, call them, e-mail them, repeatedly. Tell them if they vote yes you will campaign against them in their next election cycle.
A number of key Republicans — among them Iowa’s Sen. Charles Grassley, Maine’s Olympia Snowe, and Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chafee — have said they are still undecided. If you live in these states, call them, e-mail them. The Republic is not yet sunk.
Whatever is a filibuster meant for if not for this kind of nomination?
The majority of the nation is Pro-Choice.
The majority of the nation thinks there ought to be checks and balances, not unchecked presidential power.
The majority of the nation does not support the war — and certainly not torture.
The majority of the nation thinks warrentless wiretaps AGAINST AMERICANS are illegal
The majority of the nation holds our Constitution dear.
Yes, let’s CALL OUR SENATORS NOW and tell them to FILIBUSTER Alito. (888) 818-6641 or (888) 335-3588 and/or call their local offices.
AND, Booster, the MAJORITY of the people in the nation are represented by DEMOCRATIC Senators.
Here is an excerpt from the New Yorker Magazine that spells it out:
================
"…Well, if each of every state’s two senators is taken to represent half that state’s population, then the Senate’s fifty-five Republicans represent 131 million people, while its forty-four Democrats represent 161 million. Looked at another way, the present Senate is the product of three elections, those of 2000, 2002, and 2004. In those elections, the total vote for Democratic senatorial candidates, winning and losing, was 99.7 million; for Republicans it was 97.3 million. The forty-four-person Senate Democratic minority, therefore, represents a two-million-plus popular majority—a circumstance that, unless acres trump people, is at variance with common-sense notions of democracy. So Democrats, as democrats, need not feel too terribly guilty about engaging in a spot of filibustering from time to time…"
================
This is a portion of a longer, thorough Talk of the Town piece by Hendrik Hertzberg from last March. The column also explains what is meant by the "Nuclear Option" and how the logistics of it would work, and provides some historical perspective on the use of the filibuster as well. It’s very informative. Here’s the URL (or click above):
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/c...talk_hertzberg
P.S. If you live in ARKANSAS or the DAKOTAS, it would be especially helpful to contact your Senators — apparently they (the Democratic ones: Lincoln, Pryor, Conrad, Dorgan) are undecided and under heavy pressure from the White House to cave on a filibuster.
I think it’s a bit broad, presumptuous, and best of all, naively idealistic to say that the majority are represented by Democratic Senators, period–end of sentance, no matter what sentiments are offered in the next sentance. The Dems are a snaky bunch about whom I can think of no small number of examples where they have helped the GOP (or members thereof) in matters that they have spoken out against in front of the cameras specifically and in no uncertain terms. The Dems are but one half of the bipolar autocracy that has dominated American politics for over a century. Sure, they’ve fought against the GOP in many cases that were worthwhile and virtuous, but I can say the same of the GOP against the Democrats. They are both horribly, blatantly guilty of hedging out, marginalizing, and legislating specifically against 3rd party opposition in any form as a bid to remain in power as a dichotomy and have only one another to wrestle and snap at as they rip shreds from the carcass of any person, group, or otherwise entity composed of or representing directly Americans. Anyone of such who have been unlucky enough to happen to be situated between Mommy and Daddy Dearest and some trinket or prize to claim has found themselves in litigation for nothing illegal, stripped of financial resources, or any number of other things to either elbow them out of the way or make an example of them. (Martha Stewart, for a shallow, but apt example: ask any legal professional–Martha did NOTHING WRONG, legally speaking, yet served time to make it look like Washington was being tough on irresponsible, selfish or even predatory financial practices as they dealt with Enron, Worldcom, etc. All Martha did was trade stock which, obviously happens near countless times every day of every week the market is open. Yet, the jackals who HAD broken the law (and many, many, many innocent lives along with it), who had gone out of their way to take as big a share of things as they wanted, regardless of who they hurt, got probation, and other deferential sentences.)
Do yourself a favor and look into what is required on all levels, from your local precincts on up to the president, for any candidate of a "third party" (which is EVERYONE not dishonest enough to be one of the two ruling parties) to get into a race. I don’t know how many laws, regulations, requirements, etc. around the country specifically state that the two privy parties need not bother with signatures, etc, while anyone else has to gather sometimes ungodly amounts and pay extra fees, etc. etc. etc. JUST TO BE ON THE BALLOT…in America, with our supposedly for, of, by the people, open, multi-party system.
The dems represent no one but their own selfish, worthless asses. It just so happens that a large number of ALL Americans are on the short end of the same stick, and therefore it’s easy to make the cowards in the Democratic Party seem like saviors…Bullshit.
{ed note: Disinfo related to Jeff Fisher removed. Please alert me anytime you happen to see such garbage posted here about him. Disinformation will NOT be tolerated here. Thank you.}
Via Kos
. . . It is likely that Judge Alito was chosen for his extreme views on presidential power. The Supreme Court, with Justice O’Connor’s support, has played a key role in standing up to the Bush administration’s radical view of its power, notably that it can hold, indefinitely and without trial, anyone the president declares an "unlawful enemy combatant."
. . . There is every reason to believe, based on his long paper trail and the evasive answers he gave at his hearings, that Judge Alito would quickly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. So it is hard to see how Senators Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, all Republicans, could square support for Judge Alito with their commitment to abortion rights.
. . . The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around this nomination. But there is no reason to believe that Judge Alito is any more popular than the president who nominated him. Outside a small but vocal group of hard-core conservatives, America has greeted the nomination with a shrug – and counted on its senators to make the right decision.
The real risk for senators lies not in opposing Judge Alito, but in voting for him. If the far right takes over the Supreme Court, American law and life could change dramatically. If that happens, many senators who voted for Judge Alito will no doubt come to regret that they did not insist that Justice O’Connor’s seat be filled with someone who shared her cautious, centrist approach to the law. (Ny Times)
Geezzz!!! The left wing of my party (see everyone above) has got to get a grip. The country does not support your philosphy. Keep it up and the dems lose again. Obama, Lieberman and other centrists are the hope of the party. Alito is not evil incarnate, but his inquisitors — specifically Ted Kennedy come across as mental pinheads. Our party has much to object to (NAFTA etc), but most blue collars don’t buy the far left nonsense. Grit your teeth and accept the nomination, just like the repubs did with Ruth Ginsberg. Filibuster, and the party loses big time.
You come here to get justice, but here justice is likely to get you.
There’s been a lot of Jeff Fisher supporters around here lately, what’s up with that?
Chuck O’Connel, #14
You brought it up, so how is it ‘centrist’ to support a far-right judge that would put the number of ‘federalist society’ followers in the majority? When a majority of Democratic senators oppose Alito, does that signal to you that it is the moderate stance, while people like Lieberman and Nelson are out of the mainstream? Or, in your view, does anything that opposes right-wing values automatically make it "far left" (i.e. if Dick Cheney were to argue that biting the heads off babies is the only way to protect us from communists, anyone saying otherwise must be some fringe left wing kook).
I notice that you offer no real substance, just rhetoric and sly characterizations. "left wing … has got to get a grip", "does not support your philosophy", "dems lose again", "evil incarnate", "mental pinheads", "don’t buy the far left nonsense", "party loses big time". That’s not very nutritious for the brain.
What are your reasons for supporting Alito? What do you feel about his views on a unitary executive? Should the president act more like a king or an emperor? Are you okay with expanding corporate rights while restricting rights of the individual (incidentally, the one thing you say Dems should oppose, NAFTA, is one thing he would uphold in any way possible).
Since this is clearly a partisan issue to you rather than right vs. wrong, explain why a filibuster would hurt the Democratic party. Last year around this time the Democrats rightly put the kibosh on BushCheney’s social-fascist security plan. People like you thought it would hurt the party, it didn’t. They thought threatening to filibuster Judge Roberts would hurt the party, guess what: it didn’t. Explain to me how this would be different?
If partisan games are all that matter to you, then I’ll join in: the Republican party is already reeling in a way reminiscent of 1972. If a filibuster were to cripple the Democrats, it would give a chance for third parties to make gains. Therefore, I support a filibuster.
COC(K)
Without the people on the left, their would be no one to drag the Dem party back to the true center and out of the Fascist pit that they are spiraling towards now
The only reason you think that the center is somewhere to the right of McCarthy (Joe), is the corporate media has been brainbashing everyone since who knows when
to try and make good little soldiers out of us
WAKE UP !
My wife, when she went to apply for her present job,
one of the questions they asked her was "how corrupt do you think our current government is?"
What the fuck kind of question is that?
That speaks volumes about the situation we are in today
Oh, just go on and admit it, COC, you ain’t no democrat and you know it.
A filibuster would be the best thing the Dems could possibly do, for themselves and for the good of their country. Let the Bushbots have to take shameful step of changing the Senate rules to get their way, like the big cheating and lying crybabies they are. Let the ‘bots explain how that fits in with their self-proclaimed moral superiority.
Let them explain how such a conservative candidate is supposed to unite us in our common purpose. Let them explain how they didn’t particularly care for that Reaganesque choice of a moderate in O’Connor, a decision highly praised. Why is that so repulsive to them now? (or say, Orrin Hatch’s choice to consult on a consensus candidate….)
The Supreme Court is not some cheap trophy. We all lose when we treat it like a prize that goes to the winning team. It belongs to all of us. Bush would save his political and legacy bacon by bringing forward a moderate candidate who could achieve consensus in these bitterly fractious times, and for once be a uniter, not a divider.
Well, given that he (alito) thinks the Constitution says the President should be Emporer, I don’t think there needs to be discussion of fillibuster.. I think we need to ask the "right-wing" why they want to have a dictator instead of a government "of the people, by the people, for the people"..
It’s amazing to me how people bash on ECONOMIC models like Comunism and Socialism, but do it from the base that they "failed" or were "bad", not because the economic theory was flawed, but because the LEADERS were. That is, we’re seeing how bad Capitolism can be for ‘the masses’.. we’re seeing how corperations don’t mind killing people for profits.. and the "leaders" we have are INTIMATELY TIED to those corperations.. And now you want to make a King, an Emporer of someone from "that world"? Who -favors- letting corps do MORE to the masses and have LESS accountability??
People and their laziness and greed are the CAUSE of our current problems.. Their ignorance and lack of concerne because they want suped up SUVs that are never used for what they were designed for, disposable EVERYTHING so they don’t have to clean or pay attention to anything for more than a few minutes.. that mind-set (reinforced by corperate types to have ‘renewable income’) is exactly what has us here today.. fighting a wannabe King, supported by pandering whores trying to get a few more million in the bank or standing over the masses gloating about their "importance"..
Fillibuster shouldn’t even be on the radar, and neither should Alito.. The fact that we’re slipping this far down the shitter as a country -should- be a wake up call.. instead, it’s got the parasites like Ricky, Paul, and Medium Right giddy with anticipation about how many more people they can screw over for cash and toys..
When the DLC "New Democrats" "moderate Democrats" "Conservative Democrats" tell their Left Wing to ‘shut up and sit down’ the Left Wing tends to take that the same way they would if it were Karl Rove saying those words. It’s infuriating.
In this particular instance it also makes no sense whatsoever. The Republicans are sort of on the run and facing embarassments all over the place. Indictments, please of nolo contendre, convictions, public embarassments and such are preventing them from doing as much evil as they’d like. So, why should the Democrats cower in fear and ‘shut up and sit down’? We should stick together and fight the Republicans as one strong unit.
On the case of Alito: what merits do the ‘moderate’ Democrats find in him? If you don’t see him as particularly meritorious then why would you want to support him so strongly that you would tell your bretheren to ‘shut up and sit down’? Did you watch the hearings? Do you realize he avoided answering all questions on presidential power and ‘unitary executive’? Don’t you realize he devised the plan, beginning during the Reagan Administration, for Republicans to overturn Roe v. Wade? He’s a lot like Dubya — he doesn’t look dangerous, but their policies are amazingly destructive. Then, there’s also the case he ruled on as an appelate court judge, where he justified the shooting death of a young kid who was running from a police officer. The kid was unarmed and a danger to nobody. Is that the kind of empowered government you want? Would you worry they might ‘accidentally’ shoot all the Blacks or political enemies?
What possible case could a ‘moderate’ Dem make for supporting Alito?
bush supports – gop all can have the Steem from my Shit. I won’t waste Bits on them.
COC #14
Democrats like you are the reason the Republicans have been allowed to steal elections for the past 5 years. Please do us a favor and dissociate yourself from the Democrats and sign up with the Repugs where you belong. The Dems (and I am not one) are in need of some spinal reform and you are not helping them.
Hear, hear, Soul Rebel!
Alito will be confirmed because an unfortunately sufficient number of democratic senators have no courage nor conviction. I’m through with the democratic party.
DR RW,
Thats just like falling into the Pukes game plan,
divide and conquer
In a first past the post, winner take all system like we have, you pick the party that is closest to your values
and try and pull them your way, otherwise the bad guys win, IMO
Democrats – BALLS = Adolf bush + Benito alito
I am upset about Sen. Ben Nelson Neb. announcing he will back Alito nomination..
We as a Party have to at stand for at the minimum, the Constitution…civil rights.
Can anything be done?
The Dems and Jeffords can still stand up and vote to fillibuster.
Can we all call Nelsons office and bring pressure.?
The voters will know we are all a bunch of wimps.
considering a Replace Nelson website…
Angry in Denver.
Comments anyone??????
John Kennedy
Denver CO
Ps..I posted to the other Alito blog as well sorry for the duplication
CALL THEIR BLUFF: Given the current extent of disenchantment (shall we say) with the current administration & GOP-congressional corruption i think it likely that controll of the senate will swing to the Dems in the upcoming midterm elections. Maybe it seems so to some Republican senators too. They may fold their cards — back off their "nuclear option" — for fear of finding themselves in the minority after the midterms. In this case, the fillibuster succeeds: no Alito. In the other case, they invoke the nuclear opition, we’re stuck with Alito, but they find themselves the minority bereft of the fillibuster after the midterms. I hope! I don’t see the downside of fillibustering.
YES Larry # 28 But, That Takes Courage . . . . .
I am very interested this theme, with attention I will read following informations.