The media bashers are going to have a field day with this one:
Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation’s basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.
It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public’s attention to the import of this nomination.
***Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster — particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito’s supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote.
A filibuster is a radical tool. It’s easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.
When the NY Times reads like MoveOn, the media bashers may have a point.
neil
Or possibly, MoveOn may have a point.
Paddy O'Shea
Once again Cole comes down firmly on the side of the extreme right.
Can we say P-H-O-N-Y?
neil
I’m sorry, I should’ve left it at that, but this cheeses me off. That little snark at the end of your post is unbelievably misguided. Think about it: We award a point to the media-bashers when the media sounds the same note as political partisans. And what sort of situation does this lead to? It punishes political partisans who have objectively good ideas. It rewards media-bashers who are combating objectively good ideas. And it promotes the idea that facts are partisan things.
This is, in short, the sort of mentality that is most harmful when there’s a large and active group of media-bashers who have a vested interest in keeping the public uninformed. And I wish you wouldn’t help.
John Cole
Paddy- I am not firmly on the side of the extreme right. I don’t very much care for Alito, but I don’t think a filibuster is right. I would have no issue with every Democrat voting against Alito, and I really have no issue with the NY Times calling for a filibuster- they can call for whatever they want.
My point was that they would never call for a filibuster of a liberal candidate- ever- and that themedia bashers will sieze upon this. Rightly.
Although we all understand that every post I make is merely a platform for you to launch more attacks on me. I don’t know how I came to be blessed with such losers like you.
farmgirl
John — I’m having a hard time imagining a situation where a “liberal” nominee would pose as large a danger to the republic as Alito threatens to do at this time.
Maybe your imagination is better than mine — care to share a scenario?
neil
I don’t think that’s a very well-supported counterfactual, John. I think it’s entirely possible that if a radical liberal president were appointing a radical liberal judge who would radically expand the president’s ability to do things that the American people did not elect him to do, they would advise that the opposition pull out all the stops to stop him. At any rate, you can hardly prove that they _wouldn’t_, and to assume they wouldn’t is to give away the game to the media bashers.
Rob
WOW! this just in, John – a mind reader, and can see the future!
You don’t know anything of the sort. If there was an equally bad judge on the left they just might. The difference is the left doesn’t nominate people so far out of the main stream.
neil
Farmgirl: Maybe if President Kucinich found a promising young lawyer who wrote that in his view, the Constitution gave the President the authority to lead the nation towards socialism, and that income redistribution is not prohibited by the 4th Amendment.
What do you think, John? Would the NYTimes be behind him all the way?
Paddy O'Shea
Cole: You are about as phony as they come. You wail with righteous indignation about the small shit, but when things get tough you’re right there at the side of the reactionary neanderthals just like you always were.
Your pose of somehow having become enlightened because the events of the last few years have sadly disappointed you is nothing more than a charade that you somehow believe separates you with the cruder sorts of reactionary garbage on your sister rightwing sites.
Alito will help grant Bush powers that’ll make the domestic spying flap look like a high school prom. That you can on the one hand claim to be concerned about the expansion of executive powers to the Constitution crushing extreme Bush has taken them to while at the same time getting a love rush for Alito is not exactly politically, or even logically, tenable.
Take off the tutu, dancing boy. You’re not fooling anyone.
John Cole
Neil- All I am telling you is that the people who make their living bashing the media are going to use this as proof that the media is biased. And they may have a point- you can tell me they may react the same way if an extremely radical liberal appoints an extremely radical liberal- but I don’t see Alito as extremely radical.
Is he conservative? Yes. Is he too conservative for me? Yes. Do I like his take on the rights of the accused? No. Do I like his take on executive power? Not at all. But I don’t see him as a threat to the Republic, and he is clearly qualified.
In short, I probably would not vote for him, but I would not filibuster him- in other words, the position of most Democrats, which, as we note here, is to the RIGHT of MoveOn and the Ny Times, who is calling them ‘spineless.’
John Cole
Paddy- Clearly, by now, you should be aware that I don;t give two hoots in hell what you think about me.
I still can’t figure out if you are a DougJ parody, or merely another alias for Slide, or something that crawled over from Think Progress, since you started appearing around the time we had a back and forth about WP.
Steve
It’s the fucking editorial board, for Christ’s sake. Of course they have an opinion. It’s not a “bias,” because no serious person expects the editorial page to be unbiased.
If you haven’t noticed, there are lots and lots of conservative opinions in the media too. Should I act shocked when the Wall Street Journal publishes a conservative editorial, which they do every day?
neil
Steve: Well, it proves that the Socialist International may have a point.
Bob In Pacifica
The right-wing bile is spurting out of the balloon today. It’s either the diet or the withdrawal from those boxes of wine.
Steve
Here’s some excerpts from the WSJ’s editorial on Alito:
Oooh, oooh, the media bashers will have a field day! Except they won’t, because the media critics on the left understand what an editorial page is.
LITBMueller
Media bashers on both sides of the aisle bash the media when they say something they don’t agree with. Pure and simple, whether its the right bashing this editorial, or the left bashing Chris Matthews.
“Media bashing” is just a shortcut around around having to think and rebut an argument. Why take the time to defend Alito, when you can just declare the Big Bad Media biased?
John Cole
Gawd, Steve. It is like you aren’t even aware that the right has paved the road to bash the media for the last fifteen years, and that this call for a filibuster is playing right into their hands.
Instead of recognizing the reality of the situation, you simply lash out at me, pretending I don’t know what an OPINION-EDITORIAL page piece is…
It is cute, really.
Rob
You reference Matthews. There has been no end to the thoughtful rebutal. The bottom line is he either a liar, or didn’t bother to do his homework.
yet another jeff
Does this mean that it’s important for Move On, unlike a stopped clock, to be wrong all the time? I really don’t like Alito’s take on executive power, I think it could be the beginnings of a threat to the Republic.
Davebo
And if their point is anything other than the fact that the NY Times employees editorial writers that offer opinions then I’d say their only point is on their heads.
Anyway, this was interesting.
Here’s where I have a problem. It would seem John agrees with the Times view of Alito, or at least is sympathetic to it. And you have no problem with the Times calling for a filibuster.
But this is all playing into the hands of the wingnuts.
What you fail to understand John, is that EVERYTHING plays right into their hands. They will NEVER be satisified with the media no matter what angle they take. They complained about the Washington Times when they alone broke the “Bush lied about the IAEA report for christ sakes!
Let them whine, they are going to anyway. Everyone tuned into Michael Savage Weiner is going to complain about whatever the Times prints.
neil
It is like you aren’t even aware that the right has paved the road to bash the media for the last fifteen years, and that this call for a filibuster is playing right into their hands.
It’s like I said: For fifteen years, the right has been waging a war on the media in order to keep the public from being informed. It has now gotten so bad that the media, according to John, _must lie_ to keep itself out of the line of fire.
This is exactly why they have been waging the war. Stop supporting it, John.
Andrew
When the issue of a standard legislative procedure, the fillibuster, seems to cause more indignation and flying spittle than a fairly clear case of the executive branch violating the law and then crowing about it, we’ve descended into an even deeper layer of the Twilight Zone.
Frist and Cole, you two best of ideological friends, heavens forbid we use a legislative procedure with two hundred years of history! ‘Twill destroy the Republic!
Davebo
Right on Andrew!
And might I add, the act of exercising that 200 year old parlimentary procedure is DESTROYING MARRIAGE AS WE KNOW IT!
How the hell am I supposed to explain this to the children???
Davebo
I’m waiting for the right’s outrage at the NY Times sitting on it’s NSA story for a year.
Or their outrage that the Bush administration new they were sitting on the story for a year, yet never launched an investigation into who leaked to the Times till after the story broke.
Does the administration only care about TREASON when it’s publicized casting them into a bad light?
Davebo
On another note.
The US is really right to support Israel, but by doing so we are playing right into the hand of the radical muslims.
It’s indeed a sad day when a large chunk of the US electorate is just as bat shit crazyf as the Iranian Mullahs.
Blue Neponset
There is really no point to a filibuster at this point. The Repubs are almost certain to invoke the nuclear option and the average non-political junkie doesn’t know or care what a filibuster is, so this won’t resonate with the public.
The only upside I can see is that a filibuster might sour people on Congress as a whole and that might hurt incumbants in Nov. 2006. Since the Repubs are in power they would be hurt more by anti-incumbant sentiment.
DougJ
When John Cole sounds like Michelle Malkin, Paddy O’Shea may have a point.
Come on, why do you write stuff like that?
Slide
John Cole’s selective outrage is a joy to behold isn’t it? Democrats should filibuster Alito. Even if it means them losing. Even if it means the nuclear option. What americans want in their politicians are fighters. Fight for your position if you belive it is right. Fight and not be afraid of the consequences. That is leadership that will bring people to your side. Kerry didn’t understand this. He gets Swift Boated with outrageous lies said about his heroic military service by a group supporting the pampered little chicken hawks of the GOP and he says nothing. NOTHING. So what do I take from that. Hey, if you are not willing to fight for your own honor how the hell can I expect you to fight for me. Or the United States.
The GOP uses every weapon at their disposal. They shut out Democrats out of conference sessions (never been done before) They hold open votes for HOURS (i.e. the wonderful Medicare legislation) NEVER done before (beyond 15 minutes). The completely disregard the will of the Dems in committee hearings regarding issuing of subpoens etc. They are in the majority. They can, and do all of those things. But god forbid the Dems should use one of the few tools that the minority has, the filibuster, and John Cole has a shit coniption. The double standard is simply amazing.
Note to Democrtic Senators: Have some backbone. Stand behind your beliefs. Do WHATEVER it takes to keep Alito off of the Supreme Court… JUST LIKE the right wing kept Harriet off of the Supreme Court. No comdemnation of that move? Why not Cole? Up and down vote. right? ahhh.. nah.. That only applies the Dems swallowing candidates that are unaccpetable to them.
Steve
I have no idea whether you understand the difference between news coverage and editorials, John. But from the fact that you said “the media bashers may have a point,” it sure seems like you don’t. How could there possibly be any meaning in an accusation of “bias” against the editorial page?
To the extent the “media bashers” focus on editorials rather than news coverage, they merely destroy their own credibility. A decade from now, conservatives screeching about “media bias” are going to be taken about as seriously as Ted Kennedy is taken when he complains about judges, because they consistently overplay their hand.
Slide
OH… and John, I don’t post under any other names than Slide. And since you have our IP addresses you KNOW that. So stop suggesting that I am doing so. Trust me John, there are more than a few of us that think you are full of donkey puke more often than not.
John Cole
Below the belt, Doug. And the reason I write it is because I think filibustering Alito is extreme and a hysterical response.
DougJ is quite capable of using numerous IP addresses, and I know that there are people who are aware how to use ip spoofers, so I do not KNOW who any of you are for sure.
Mark
I disagree with having a field day about the Times calling for a filibuster, John. The Times opposed the Robert’s nomination, and almost immediately after the Alito nomination indicated they were against this one also.
It is not so shocking that they would call for a filibuster. What is shocking to me is they didn’t call for one against Roberts.
Of course, writing the editorial now – after Alito has the votes to win and it is clear there will be no filibuster – reads like nothing more than sour grapes.
Slide
Some of think that Alito represents an extreme and hysterical justice. See.. thats what makes the world go round.
We have a President that is fundamentally challenging the way our Democracy has worked for the last two hundred years. He believes he is not subject to laws enacted by Congress. He believes that by making a signing statement he can leave open the door to do whatever he wishes. Spy on amreican citizens. Torture prisoners. Hold “ememy combatants” indefinitly without judicial review. These are EXTREME positions. Alito agrees, it seems, with these EXTREME positions. The Democrats have every right in the world to use whatever legal tools they have to try and block this major anti-democratic shift that Bush/Alito represents.
neil
Heh. Indeed, DougJ.
It really rankles me that we’re living in an era when the substance of one’s position is totally irrelevant, and the semiotics are the only thing. The New York Times calls for a filibuster of Alito. Therefore, the New York Times is equivalent to anyone who has ever called for a filibuster of Alito. Never mind if they have good arguments — arguments are irrelevant. If they want to be relevant, they have to have the right opinion. Even for the wrong reasons. (Should I dig out some of the old pro-Iraq war editorials? No, I don’t think I need to.)
Clever
Too wide a net…which ones, for what reasons? One might consider MoveOn to be a “media basher”…and sometimes I think that they have a point. But thats not what you were going for here, right?
What is your argument against a filibuster, John? Other than “I don’t think its a good idea”. I can’t see it being “It’ll go bad for the Dems”, so what is it? The ‘waste of time’ argument?
BIRDZILLA
The only few good uses of the New York Times LINING A BIRDSCAGE,WRAPPING GARBAGE,WRAPPING A FISH IN IT this wretched left-wing paper just isnt worth reading
The Other Steve
Uhhh… IT’s the fucking editorial page. Of course it’s opinionated. If you think the media bashers have a point because the editorial page is opinionated, then you’re clearly out to lunch.
Does this now mean that the WSJ is a rag because it’s editorial page sounds like Michelle Malkin?
The Other Steve
Didn’t hurt the Republicans in ’68 when they filibustered Abe Fortas.
Seriously, you don’t understand politics. Having an extreme and hysterical response is what get’s you ahead in the game.
It’s when you cower in fear because John Cole says you’re a big meanie that you lose.
DougJ
You’ve giving me way too much credit. I don’t really even understand what IP addresses are.
Edmund Dantes
Unless I’m remembering wrong, Alito is the one that wrote the memo that laid out the ground work for using the Signing statements to show the President’s intent in signing the legislation. So it isn’t “it seems”, but rather he wholeheartedly agrees with it. He’s one of the people that advocated for it during the Reagan presidency. I won’t even get into the ridiculousness of Presidential (whose job is to execute the laws) intent versus Congressional (whose job it is to write the laws and pass theem) Intent.
Alito believes way too much in the idea of the executive power being almost absolute. There is no way I want a justice on the Supreme Court that thinks that way. Whether the justice is Liberal, Democratic, Republican, Conservative, People’s Front of Judea, or Judean People’s Front, etc.
John Cole
Look- I read the NY Times editorial page this morning, as I do every day, and all I saw was something that could have been written by Hugh Hewitt or Michelle Malkin, it will so effectively play into the hands of the media bashers.
You guys disagree. So be it. Now get off my ass, and quit acting like I am Rush Limbaugh.
I don’t really care for Alito, as I have stated several times, but he is clearly qualified academically and experience wise. And let’s be honest- this is about Roe. v. Wade, and little more. The Times might list some other concerns, but this is all about Roe.
neil
I don’t think we necessarily disagree that it will play into the hands of the media bashers. But I think this shows that the media bashers are corrupt and dishonest, and this is certainly not something that the New York Times should allow to influence their editorial decisions.
Paddy O'Shea
Anybody notice how the right wing persuasion and paranoia go together here?
Davebo
Well John, you can stamp your feet and dismiss it all you want, but this is just as much about Executive Priviledge as it is about Roe. Which is why the subject was covered in depth during the idiotic Senate Confirmation Hearings. As much so as Roe I’d argue but that’s just from memory.
And perhaps you haven’t noticed, but the idea of Executive Priviledge and it’s limits in and out of wartime, as well as what the word “war” really means, is a very hot topic these days.
As a matter of fact, that might be a good subject for a whole new post!
Wait, nevermind. Hugh and Michelle would just eat that up wouldn’t they.
Don’t want to get them slobbering now do we?
neil
To put it another way, if the New York Times allowed Hugh Hewitt’s reaction to dictate their editorial on Alito, then they will already have given in to the dishonest partisan media bashers. And it really does seem like you’re saying that this is what they _should have done_. This is what I disagree with and probably what everybody else does too.
Steve
I don’t understand what John would have the NYT do differently, nor why he would recommend it for the NYT and not the WSJ. Is the point that since right-wingers make frivolous attacks on liberal editorial pages for being “biased,” the right-wingers ought to be appeased somehow? Should liberals be starting a campaign to force the Wall Street Journal to have a less conservative editorial page?
John’s argument on the merits seems to be that he thinks the filibuster is an extreme position, which I would consider a much more interesting discussion. Why he framed this as an issue of “media bias” I have no idea. “Sure, the attacks are totally dishonest, but you’re still fools for playing into their hands!”
Slide
its not for me. As a matter of fact, if I were strictly interested in partisan politics I would WANT Roe V Wade to be overturned. That would be the BEST thing that every happened for Dems and liberals in general. The country may not be FOR abortion but they are not, as poll after poll shows, for outlawing abortion. It would mobilize the Dem base like nothing you have seen before. So.. for me this is NOT about Roe vs Wade.
Brian in Oakland
John, most of the time I get a reasonable response to the days events from you, but this is just scooting on the rug. Explain how MoveOn is more radical than the RNC. Do they want to overthrow the government(nsa wire tapping), re educate the population(intelligent design), smear veterans(Murtha,Kerry,McCain,purple bandaids on the floor of the convention.) I don’t mind a well performed conservative trick, but no scooting on the rug. Bad
John Bad!
Slide
Oh, isn’t that precious. You say the Times says something that could be written by MoveOn.com and therefore jump down their back but we can’t jump down your back when you say something that could have been said by Rush Limbaugh. Lol…. you dont’ even see how contradictory your post is. Lol.. Amazing
Steve
Seriously? There is a pro-choice majority in the Senate, you know.
fwiffo
Paddy, you’re a douchebag.
I disagree with John about this, and many other things. In fact, on this, I think he’s off his nut. But he’s one of very, very few honest, sane conservative bloggers out there, and he’s not a hack. You, on the other hand, are a douchebag.
And if you’re trying to be DougJ’s counterpart, please, don’t quit your day job. DougJ is actually FUNNY.
Par R
“When one lies down with fleas, one tends to awake with fleas on their person.” Overheard comment from B. J. Franklin to John Cole.
Andrew
I believe that there are computer classes at the University of Malmo that teach such things.
Jill
Are the media basher going to go crazy over Couric’s interview with Dean where she keeps insisting that Abramoff gave money to Democrats?
jg
Nice spin John. Now instead of discussing his nomination or the filibuster we’re discussing media bias. Rove would be proud. We used to get into issue here. Now we dance around the outside calling each other names. More noise, less substance and the repubs dance thier way to a continued majority. Keep the issue on the side my man, good job.
Paddy O'Shea
Twitto: Who is trying to be funny?
jg
That HAS to be a misquote. Who lies down with fleas?
Mike S
My issue is more Alito’s belief on almost absolute executive power. An issue I am sure the right will have when a Democrat is elected President
I wonder how many of the people who are backing Bush in everything he does will be honest when they then claim that Hillary shouldn’t have the same power.
tb
Right- crraaazy MoveOn, the left-wing extremists. Check out these tit-bits from the frothing-at-the-mouth left:
Al Gore gave a speech about President Bush’s wiretapping of American citizens without the warrants required by law. We’ve launched a petition asking Attorney General Gonzales to appoint a special prosecutor to find out the facts and asking Congress to hold an investigation into what happened.
At a time when our right to privacy is under attack, can you believe anyone can buy your phone records online? It’s true.
To hide his extreme views, Samuel Alito has repeatedly deceived Congress and the nation. Encourage Democrats to filibuster.
OK, so they’re not exactly frothing. Aaand they’re not exactly socialists, apparently. Maybe they’re positioned slightly to Mr. Cole’s left. Come on, John. If I want to read barfed-up undigested right wing spin I’ll go to frigging Townhall.
Pooh
So John, are you claiming you misquoted yourself? What you actually said was “The media bashers are going to have a field day with this”, but what was reported was “The New York Times sounds like OBL today.” How does it feel to be Chris Matthews?
(Wow, that was WAY snarkier than I intended)
But seriously, if you actually meant to say that O’Reilly and Gibson will pitch a nutty over this article, that’s fine. But you make it sound like they should. If they NYT thinks he will be a bad, bad justice (which many agree with) and that no GOPer will vote against (as they’ve shown an inability to vote against bad, bad things before), the filibuster is the only option. I’m not sure I agree that they should filibuster, but it should be on the table.
Kimmitt
I actually disagree — I know Roberts would vote to overturn Roe, and I still did not think that a filibuster was appropriate. I thought that Dems should vote against — because of the Roe issue — but that since Roberts seemed to be a thoroughly competent person with at least a vague moral sense, I was on board with making our statement and losing.
Alito, not so much. He’s already demonstrated that he will do or say anything to get a job he wants, and his jurisprudence is, frankly, scary. Alito doesn’t view the Courts as having a role in restraining the Executive, and I am profoundly in opposition to that view.
More snarkily, who wants to have the second choice after Harriet Meiers on the Court?
Mike
Well John, it looks like it is about time to shut off the comments here…..since you appear to be in full knee-jerk right-wing reaction mode and are not listening to or explaining your contradictory stances which have been pointed out.
Stormy70
John’s a republican, a squishy one, but still. Why are you guys shocked when he comes down against the left’s nattering nabobs in the media? Filibuster a highly qualified judge because you disagree with Bush is the height of silliness. Plus, nothing gets the right as excited as judges, which translates to the base heading to the polls in November. Well played, Democrats.
John Cole
Why would I shut the comments off, and what particularly would you like me to address?
Stormy70
Every commenter must agree with everyone else. Make it happen, John. ;)
Steve
I, for one, am glad to see the majority of the Democrats are not cowering in fear of Stormy and her largely mythical base getting all fired up over the issue of judges. I understand why she thinks it would be good strategy for the Democrats to just surrender, but really, that’s not a recipe for electoral success either.
Anyway, Stormy completely missed the point, which is that we are not upset with John for believing Alito should not be filibustered, we are upset with John because he thinks the right wing has some kind of point when they accuse an editorial page of having a partisan opinion.
Stormy70
Well, some Democrats are not paying attention to the liberal editorial page of the NYTs anyway.
They must be paying attention to the “mythical” base in their red states.
Sock Puppet
Douchebag! Wow, that is so New Jersey!
Coolest thing I’ve read here all day!
Steve
I really doubt Sen. Byrd feels he needs to pander to the Republican base to win reelection against his invisible opponent. It will be charming, though, to see all the right-wing commentors who usually deride him as a sheet-wearing racist suddenly recognize him as a pillar of wisdom and independent thought.
Stormy70
Fact his he had to go right, not left to keep his seat. Also, Tim Johnson is confirming Alito.
tb
“Whatever works right this second” seems to be their motto. Say anything.
Mike
John, you can shut of the comments or not as you see fit. I was not suggesting that you address any particular item posted so far. I was snarkily referring to the WaPo debacle from the other week and the fact that you appear to be offended that someone would point out your apparently contradictory stances.
I have also noticed after reading this blog for some time that you DO tend to have knee-jerk reactions when the Republemmming position is criticized by Democrats. You seem to be fine when the Republemming position is criticized but ONLY by other Republemmings. Honest and factually valid criticism from the other side does not seem to be okay with you generally.
Don
C’mon John, why are you buying into party line about a filibuster being a “extreme and a hysterical response?” A filibuster is neither hysterical nor exterme. It is certainly a tool of last resort, not because of the stigma that the currently dominant party has attached to it, but because it’s not without cost to either side. Stopping all forward motion has a cost for everyone and that’s obvious with a moment’s consideration. During a filibuster NOBODY’S projects move forward.
MattM
Actually, I’d bet that’s a belief that Alito will cease to have once a Democrat is elected President.
Carpbasman
When the NY Times reads like MoveOn, the media bashers may have a point.
Although I’m sure someone’s quipped this already, It might just mean “Move On” has a point about Alito.
And Alito’s apparent views on the expansive power of the presidency are certainly troublesome.
Sock Puppet
I’m starting to think that Rove has some sort of Pavlovian (Rovelovian?) command he issues to his minions when they are needed. No matter how they might stray, or entertain troublesome ideas that are not quite Bush admin approved dogma, as soon as that little bell tinkles all is forgotten. They line up with a glaze in their eyes and talking points foaming from their mouths.
The Other Steve
Well obviously as a former member of the KKK, Senator Byrd was not at all concerned about Scalito’s involvement in the bigoted group CAP.
:-)
Yeah, Republicans are funny whenever they talk about Byrd.
The Disenfranchised Voter
John, please do yourself a favor and read Eric Alterman’s, “What Liberal Media”.
I think you will find his analysis fair, and the book thoroughly researched.
With that said, the NY Times is calling for a filibuster because that is the only way to stop this radical nominee (and yes he is radical). What they are saying is that Alito should not serve on the Supreme Court, and you know you agree with them. The problem is you want to stick to that old “up or down vote” schtick even though you already threw it out the window with Miers.
The only way to stop Alito is to filibuster. You know he shouldn’t be a Supreme Court Justice. So the only way to stop him is the filibuster.
The Disenfranchised Voter
You don’t honestly believe that do you?
Birkel
I read a lot of you critics talking about Alito’s views on executive power but have yet to hear one cogent argument that references Alito’s judicial views on the matter.
And I believe no such argument exists because the executive power argument is a straw man constructed to divert attention away from the true nexus of the fight: Roe v. Wade.
But good luck convincing a majority of Americans of the point!
jg
Are you calling americans stupid? You don’t think they can figure it out, they can just be swayed one way or another?
You’d have to believe the republicans have any intention of overturning their favorite and most succesful wedge issue in order to believe this is actually about Roe. Bush chose Alito for the same reaosn he chose Miers, beleif in executive power that they say is included in the constitution.
The Disenfranchised Voter
From that liberal bastion, the WSJ, no less:
Brian
Mmmm.. *smack*.. sorry john.. I’m just working my way through a half slab of ribs and some pan seared shrimp.. Mmm-MMM sorry, where were we?
Oh yeah.. Alito.. Look, he’s far right, yeah? He’s anti abortion right? He’s for the expanded power of executive power yes? So.. damn these ribs are good.. Why wouldn’t the dems filibuster? What do they have to lose? Nothing. The repubs will moan and wail and tear their hair and cry croc tears like Alitos wife, but so what? They’re gonna do that anyway. The do it when dems sneeze. So the filibuster is really about giving the dems a little red meat to chew on, and I say more power to them. It’s about time they acted like they had a pair.
Ok, I gotta order desert. Till next time.
Burp!
Stormy70
Kerry’s call to filibuster from Davos, no less, is one big gift wrapped package to Repubicans. It brings a glaze to my eye, it does.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Wow, for once Stromy is right.
Kerry leading the filibuster was a really stupid move. Then again, Kerry would be stupid enough not to realize that.
Sojourner
This is complete and total bullshit. The bottom line is that Orrin Hatch decided, on his own, that as chair of the judiciary committee, he did not have to follow the rules of the committee. The very same rules he used to his advantage during the Clinton administration. Those rules allowed the minority party to reject a nominee who they believed was too extreme. The Repubs were quite happy to use those rules but now refuse to allow the Dems to do exactly the same thing.
John, STFU until you’ve done your homework. I have a lot of respect for you but when you start mouthing off on SC nominees without a fucking clue as to what your beloved party has done to undermine the fairness of the process, you embarass yourself.
Pooh
Let me make sure I’m understanding your point accurately, the fact that no cogent defense has been put forth means the initial charge is baseless?
Par R
The American people have already made up their mind on Judge Alito’s fitness to serve on the Supreme Court, and by a very wide margin, they feel he should be confirmed. The Democratic leaders know this even if the whack jobs from Massachusetts don’t; mny on the Republican side of the aisle regret that the Dems won’t actually try to mount a filibuster as they see such an effort as a tremendous boon looking to the November elections.
Par R
And speaking of the whack jobs from Massachusetts, NZB had a great line on them today: “Kerry has become the Paris Hilton to Al Gore’s Nicole Ritchie on the stage of American politics: creatures whose fame has become self-sustaining; and who remain in the public eye not because of any achievement or accumen, but who are simply famous for being famous.”
Sojourner
Whoops. Not even a majority. Note: A majority is more than half the total.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182915,00.html
The Disenfranchised Voter
Oh well, there goes Pat R’s talking point.
The Other Steve
If the Dems filibuster Alito, will Mrs. Alito cry?
I want to see her cry some more. That was fun.
Pooh
Strangely, he’ll keep talking in 5…4…3…
demimondian
Oh, be nice, Pooh. Par R is doing a kind of “new math”, in which he experiments with combinatorics to come up with new code words for the Republican talking points.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Heh.
Lumpy
The fillibuster will be good for the Dems. They need to be on the record as doing everything possible to oppose Alito, if he is truly as dangerous to our consititutional freedoms as they said he was, in the Senate hearings. If Allito does take the SC in a far right direction and Dems did not fight it in every possible way, it will cause long-term damage to the party by alienating the base. They will be punished at the polls by the base not showing up, even years from now.
Also, if Dems believe Alito is bad for the SC then it is their duty to fight it, even if it is a losing fight. Fighting for your beliefs, how could that possibly be bad… it’s all too rare on the Dem side nowadays, and it should be mandatory for office holders. There’s a word for people who will only join into a battle they know they will win… COWARD.
mike
When did conservatives and libertarians become so offended by the idea of a filibuster. It certainly wasn’t much longer than 2-3 years ago. All a filibuster does is raise the minimum vote requirement from 50% to 60%. That doesn’t seem unreasonable for a lifetime appointment and is a pretty good way to keep ideologues off the bench, which is what everyone claims to want. Democrats might not filibuster a liberal candidate, but conservatives certainly would (even Harriet Miers couldn’t get past them). On the other hand, conservative candidates like Roberts sailed through without a problem. If you really want to keep extremists and partisans off the bench I’d think you’d be all for the right to filibuster.
Jcricket
IMHO, People have made a number of good points on this thread. Despite John not being a rabid-partisan Republican he too falls into the trap that since the Republicans will make a big political deal out of something, Dems should shy away.
Since when have Republicans followed that advice? Never. And how are they doing? Pretty well (at least electorally).
Dems should stop doing as Republicans say, and start doing (at least a little) as they do.
Amanda Marcotte
I wasn’t aware you gave up fucking women, John. Was it by force or a general fear they had giant cocks/minds of their own under the bed that scared you off?
Blue Shark
…Why the love-fest here with Sam Alito?
…these are your folks’ freedoms too that are in danger of eminent demise. And by all means lets enable King George the Lesser to fuck-up this country to an ever greater extent.
…why should the entire country choke on the pick of a 38%er?
…Oh riiiiight…up or down vote…just like Miers!
Stormy70
Stupid Constitution. Why does the elected President get to nominate judges. Whaaaa! The Republicans stole our bippy!
Dem motto for 2006.
Sine.Qua.Non
I must disagree with John on this one. If not now? When?
A filibuster is an important tool and the balance of our form of government have been at stake since Jan. 2001. With the Unitary Executive theory supported by Bush-Cheney and an activist judge such as Alito who supports this stance – I vote yeah on a filibuster. Now. And, you can sign a petition to support such a move at John Kerry’s site now. They vote Monday, so go for it.
PS-Yes Alito is qualified, but it isn’t the only reason to appoint someone to a lifetime position. This guy scares me and always has.
Sojourner
Yet another dumb ass comment from ole Stormy – we should call her Old Faithful for her reliably stupid comments.
Note the word: nominate. Yes, the president gets to nominate. There’s nothing in there that says anything about having them confirmed.
Have another drink, Stormy. That way you won’t notice how stupid your comments are.
Paddy O'Shea
Stormy can rant all she wants, but it doesn’t matter. Pre Sate of the Union polls out today show Bush is fading fast.
Gallup, Rasmussen, Zogby, CBS/NYT,LA Times, all show him losing air fast.
The matters that she seems to place so much stock in are very minor compared to the shit Bush is under.
Bruce Moomaw
The one reason I have for opposing filibustering Alito is that I think that, by himself, he won’t swing the Court toward approving Bush’s idea of President as Emperor — and that, if the Dems wait until Bush’s NEXT nomination to replace John Paul Stevens (which WOULD very likely make such a difference), they’ll get a hell of a lot more political bang out of using it, regardless of whether the GOP drops the Nuclear Option on them to get the guy rammed through or not. If the GOP is going to make sure in any case that the next time the Dems use the filibuster is the last time they’re ever able to use it, let’s use it where it will do the most good.
And one connected issue is that — according to Gallup — the public has somewhow convinced themselves by 44-34 that Alito will NOT vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade; but if they thought he would do so, they’d suddenly tilt to opposing his confirmation by a surprising 56-34 landslide. So: if Alito gets on the Court — and, by the time Bush puts up his next and more important nominee, has indeed voted (along with Roberts) to overturn it, as of course they will — the Dems will be in a perfect position to yell to the public, “Told you so! You know damn well this new nominee will, too!”
As for whether Alito and Roberts should have been kept off the Court, though: damn right they should, and not because of Roe — because of their genuinely dangerous attitude toward presidential power.
The one thing that could change this is the possibility that, by the time of Bush’s next nominee, the Dems will have regained control of the Senate by a big enough margin that they’d be able to block the nominee without a filibuster — but the chances of that are ridiculously small. From my observations of how the 2006 Senate races are going, the chances are something like 1 in 1000 that the Dems will regain the Senate at all in 2006 — they have to have every single one of about 10 close races fall their way.