home

Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito

Update: Check out Daily Kos' Whip Count.

*******
Original Post

In a closed meeting of the Democratic caucus Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Patrick Leahy made the case for rejecting Judge Sam Alito.

As I reported yesterday, Sens. Leahy and Kennedy will be speaking publicly against Alito today.

Kevin Zeese, director of Democracy Rising and an Independent candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maryland, makes an excellent case for filibustering Alito. (received by e-mail.) While I don't think that's a realistic possibility, I hope any Democrats and moderate Republicans considering voting for Alito read his piece first. It just might change their minds.

The Supreme Court will once again have “four horses of the apocalypse” -- four partisan justices who favor executive power, corporate power, expansive law enforcement authority, co-mingling of religion and government, and minimal individual rights. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will provide the foundation for right wing extremism for decades to come.

In his testimony Alito has certainly given the Democrats enough ammunition to filibuster his nomination. He has, not very artfully, evaded and dodged questions about critical issues – not only Roe v. Wade, but President Bush's eavesdropping on telephone conversations where one participant is in the United States and on his statements saying he may not follow the new ban on torture when he signed the bill into law. His testimony combined with his writings as a judge and as a Reagan administration functionary provide ample ammunition to stop this nomination.

Democrats should not fall for the canard that if they stop Alito they are likely to get a worse nominee. Exactly the opposite will happen. If Alito is stopped it will draw a line that makes it clear what is unacceptable in Supreme Court nominees. Remember the history of successful nominees being blocked. When two of President Nixon's nominees were stopped it resulted in Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote the decision in Roe v. Wade. When Judge Bork was blocked it resulted in the selection of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a moderate-conservative. And, the right wing showed that by stopping Harriet Miers they got the nominee they wanted in Samuel Alito.

If the nomination of Alito is blocked there may only be time for one more nomination to be considered before the 2006 Congressional election. President Bush will realize that if he wants to get a conservative nominee through he will need to pick someone no less conservative that Justice O'Connor. The president will realize that if he misplays this next nominee there is a good chance he will have to deal with a more Democratic Senate when he puts forward his next choice.

The Democrats need to learn from their past failure to block Supreme Court nominees. Remember, Justice Antonin Scalia, the leader of the partisan conservative wing of the court was approved by a unanimous Senate controlled by the Democrats. And, Justice Clarence Thomas was approved by a Democratic Senate despite a lack luster record in the law and strong allegations of sexual harassment. These two nominations are the reason why the vote count was stopped in 2000 and President Bush was selected as president in a closely divided 5-4 decision.

Too often in recent years the Democrats have played their role of “loyal opposition” with too much loyalty and not enough opposition. Their approval of broad language for the use of force resolution has resulted in Condoleezza Rice testifying that no further Congressional mandate is needed to attack Syria or other countries. And, the approval of the Patriot Act, with near unanimous Democratic support, has broadened the powers of the president, police and prosecutors. The Democrats disdain Bush's 'imperial presidency' but they have helped created the new King George by ceding power to him and not taking responsibility themselves.

It is time for the Democrats to stand up and use their power. Stopping Alito is an opportunity to show that they believe in three equal branches of government that provide a check and balance on the actions of the others. Americans support the framework of the Constitution. It is a chance to show they represent the people against the powerful and want a court that reflects that reality.

And, the Democrats should continue their filibuster of the Patriot Act. The version under consideration, written by a conference committee controlled by conservative Republicans, is worse than the previous version. The old version was bad enough allowing for secret searches of private homes, and searches of our medical and business records as well as discovery of what books we are reading. But the new version contains provisions that will turn Red State Americans red with anger. The Democrats should highlight provisions that make it a crime to hold an “unauthorized sign” at the Democratic or Republican Convention, or at an event where the President or Vice President is speaking, or at an event where the Secret Service decides that unauthorized signs are illegal. What do these provisions have to do with preventing terrorism? How will veterans, who risked their lives to defend our freedoms, feel about such an affront to Freedom of Speech?

Of course these are challenges but it is out of challenges where we find our opportunities. And, the Alito nomination and the revised Patriot Act are excellent opportunities for Democrats to rise to the challenge and defend the noble purpose and moral vision of America. They are a chance for Democrats to show voters they stand for something.

[Graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL.]

< Second Report Says Bush Warrantless Surveillance Illegal | Bin Laden Speaks and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 09:17:48 AM EST
    Nice job, Democratic Party. Way to take the reins of this debate early. I'll say it again, the party should've proposed their own unofficial candidate, marketed that person heavily, and shown the country what a quailified democratic alternative looked like. The contrast with Alito would've been clear, and that contrast would've been an actual PERSON to consider as an alternative. It's called thinking outside of the box, being progressively imaginative, and not just reacting to Bush's offerings. Just depressing.

    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#2)
    by swingvote on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 09:31:21 AM EST
    Interesting proposal, Dadler. Rather than have the Democrats do their sworn duty as U.S. Senators, or even simply have them make an even remotely compelling case as to why Alito is not fit to be on the Supreme Court, you would have them assign to themselves the presidential power of nominating judges. Somehow I doubt yet one more power grab by the Senate minority would be received well by the people in this country, but it does have the merit of being innovative. Meanwhile, I suspect that the majority of the Democrats will in fact vote in favor of Alito because even Harry Reid is smart enough to have realized by now that defeating Alito on the grounds that he is a conservative and on how they think he might vote on future cases would establish a precedent by which no liberal nominee would ever be confirmed again.

    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#3)
    by Punchy on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:10:46 AM EST
    Meanwhile, I suspect that the majority of the Democrats will in fact vote in favor of Alito because even Harry Reid is smart enough to have realized by now that defeating Alito on the grounds that he is a conservative and on how they think he might vote on future cases would establish a precedent by which no liberal nominee would ever be confirmed again. You must be joking to think "a majority of Dems" will vote in favor. Every one save 1 or 2 will vote no. They're not voting against his conservative tag, they're voting against the level of extreme conservatism that he displays. Nobody denies that Bush gets to pick a conservative judge; this guy, however, is a monster. He's a train wreck about to happen.

    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:11:00 AM EST
    justpaul, Think harder, my friend, get outta that box. I'm not talking assigning themselcves the presidential power of nominating judges, you hysteric. Where is it written that, in addition to congress considering the president's official nominee, the opposition party cannot propose their own UNOFFICIAL candidate and market that person as an alternative choice? We think Alito too far to the right. So how hard is it to imagine the opposition hilighting that belief by USING ANOTHER PERSON as an example closer to the mainstream? I'm talking a PR campaign, at heart, selling an alternative in the form of an actual sentient being. If you think the public would find this ghastly, as opposed to the backroom bribery eating REALLY away at the system, well, I guess we disagree. So be it. Peace.

    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#5)
    by swingvote on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:25:01 AM EST
    Dadler, No, I'm not joking. More Democrats are going to vote for Alito than you want to believe. There is no way only 1 or 2 of them will vote for Alito because that would simply show that they could have sustained a filibuster and you and those like you have made it clear to them that this will result in unending tantrums. And as I said, every Senator who votes against Alito because he's a conservative (spin it however you like, Dadler, that's what they are doing and the American people are smart enough to see it for what it is) is going on record that nominees can and should be opposed on purely partisan grounds. And the end result of that is that the next President Clinton will not get a single liberal nominee through unless she can also manage to carry enough Democrats on her coattails to have a 61 vote majority in the Senate. They'll huff, and they'll puff, but in the end, the Democrats house will fall down. The rest of your proposal, while innovative, is just the Democrats wasting more time. But it's not surprising that you offer it. Liberals have shown time and again over the last 40 years that when they can't win under the standing rules, they'll change the rules or the game. And that, in the end, is what this is really all about. You and yours are scared to death that Alito and judges like him will oppose your efforts to push through the courts issues you cannot win at the ballot box. You claim to be so worried about extremism, but you embrace every extremist policy the loony left offers up without even thinking about it and then call yourself "mainstream". Right. If you were mainstream, you wouldn't have any trouble getting your proposals passed on the ballot.

    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    eating really away? nice dyslexic moment. ugly.

    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:26:27 AM EST
    Dadler - The Demos can do anything they want. But they can not nominate a some to be a SCJ. That is the job of the PRESIDENT. And that is why we have ELECTIONS. Which, BTW the Demos LOST. Try again in '08.

    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:29:06 AM EST
    They can't nominate, but it's a free country. They may as well say who they'd like to see nominated.

    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:52:04 AM EST
    justpaul, The first part of your reply is for punchy, not me. As for the second part, okey-dokey. i'm just a loon who does whatever the loons in charge say. wasting time with innovative ideas. That's me. But changing the rules/game? Are you saying it's illegal for the opposition, as part of their considering a nominee, to speak the name of another person they think a better person for the court? I'm not changing anything. I'm expanding the range of the opposition's argument. Because, as you so astutely point out (sarcrasm intended), we are concerned about the implications of a high court loaded with "Alito and judges like him". In the same way you'd be concerned about a "liberal's" nominee and judges like them. Kind of the whole thing here. We disagree on what kind of jurist we want in that position. I'd say that's it. You'll have to excuse me, I have my to go teach my crazy red parrot how to say "I love the party, I love the party, I love the party..."

    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#10)
    by ras on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:03:16 AM EST
    PPJ, Actually, Dadler's proposal is reasonable. It's about time, really, that the Dems did more than criticize and instead proposed alternatives. Their hiliting a different person as a way of providing contrast w/b fine by me, kinda like telling your date in detail how she compares to other women. Such constructive criticism always goes over well and leads to greater understanding. BigTex, The real q, as I keep saying, is whether the Dems will fb. You said on the prev thread that you don't think they will, cuz they can't win. Maybe, maybe not. As I noted, a Dem fb has never been defeated before, at least not that I can think of, so a defeat of one vs Alito w/b a historical first. The real q is still: do the D's believe their own rhetoric enough to make the effort? No guts, no glory. Justpaul, Interesting theory that a majority of D's will votes yes. I'm gonna disagree. I think they will assign a few votes that way (easy ones such as Nelson, running for reelection in a Red State), but only just enough to get Alito's total a little over 60. 60 to 63 yes votes oughtta do it. Just enough to keep their supporters from exploding that that couldda fb'd after all. Might fool a few of them, at least; anything to contain a very angry rebellion that's now brewing. In fact, I think an important reason for all the delays is that they want to use BUSH's SOTU to deflect attention away from Alito's confirmation and the Dem failure to put up a good fight. That's two in a row and their base knows it.

    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#11)
    by ras on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    Dadler, BTW, I really do think the Dems proposing an alternative w/b OK. One prob tho: does it not put the nominee and the alternative each in a position where, if the Dem senators were to use your approach, he/she would have to kinda cat-fight the other, the nominee in their own defence, and the alternative looking cheap, like they're openly politicking for a spot of their own? I mean, I like the idea of proposing alternatives in general, but this particular instance might not work in practice. Not sure, actually.

    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:10:21 PM EST
    In his inimitable way the Rude One puts it rather well. http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#13)
    by glanton on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:29:10 PM EST
    If the nomination of Alito is blocked there may only be time for one more nomination to be considered before the 2006 Congressional election. President Bush will realize that if he wants to get a conservative nominee through he will need to pick someone no less conservative that Justice O'Connor. The president will realize that if he misplays this next nominee there is a good chance he will have to deal with a more Democratic Senate when he puts forward his next choice.
    TL, that's a great point. I really hadn't thought about it that way. After reading your post I'm a lot less disposed to see a fillibuster of Alito as, tactically speaking, a collossal waste of time. Still, I'm pretty certain the Dems won't do it. Maybe it really is a cohones issue, as ras has been sugesting all along; after all, nobody ever said the Dems were a party of courage these days. Give the Rethugs credit: these people mean business (literally and figuratively).

    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#14)
    by BigTex on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 09:20:35 PM EST
    Ras - in general I would agree no guts no glory, but this is a set piece battle, and the GOP holds all the pieces. According to the latest count(s) the two important counts are Votes to confirm: 56 for several undecided. Votes to use nuclear option if FB is used: 50 for. Probablly more, but for sure 2 of the GOP 7 that made the deal on the last round have indicated they will vote for the nuclear option. So in this case, the best the dems could hope for is to FB, be nuked, and give O'Connor another week or so to cast votes. While on one hand, and I agree with you, this would show them as believing in their convictions, they would pay a political price for their FB... that's even if they could get 41 votes to sustain. Right now there's 56 votes to confirm. All it takes is 4 more D's to vote to confirm and then a FB is a no go. The D leadership has been going crazy about this, but the rank and file membership has not been as noisy. All it will take is 4 more members seeing the writing on the wall and acting prudently to save the party from their own devices. The worst that could happen to the dems is a FB and then not able to gather the 41 votes necessary.

    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#15)
    by glanton on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 09:28:50 PM EST
    "no guts no glory" You keyboard warriors are so tough with all your rough n' ready melee rhetoric. All these metaphors of violence, I hope, are appropriately subsequented by a nice manly grab of the crotch and a spit into the cup. Not to mention that twinkle in the eye that ignorant men so often use to affect wisdom. But in the real world this is a terrible unfolding of events. We are indeed on the verge of establishing a Supreme Court whose character and composition will exactly mirror the House of Representatives in terms of dishonesty, incivility, disregard for human rights and civil rights, love of corporate power and disdain for anything or anyone who dares to be different from the Middle Class hyper-consumerist iconography before which we all worship daily. So laugh it up, fellas. At least you're providing us with some entertainment as we keep on heepin' on. Again, 'tis not your rights or freedoms in question. If it were you'd be singing a different tune. But if it ever gets to that point, to paraphrase a great thinker, there will be nobody left to defend you. All hail the concrete jungle, stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Re: Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito (none / 0) (#16)
    by BigTex on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:52:45 PM EST
    We are indeed on the verge of establishing a Supreme Court
    Perhaps not glanton. If/when Alito is confirmed then you will see a 4-1-4 split in the Court, with Kennedy being the middle vote. He will keep the Court in check. The problem will be if one of the liberal 4 retires/dies while Bush is in power. Then likely there will be a 5-0-4 breakdown of the Court. That would not be good for the country. That would be as bad as the Warren Court when liberal instrumentalism was the order of the day. Be it Lochner Court or Warren Court, there is a problem when a majority of the Court holds the same philosophy. But up until that point, it is difficult to believe your sky is falling cry, because the moderates on the court will keep the Court in a middle ground. Now, that middle ground may vary to the right or left at times, but it will stay relativly middle. That will be the same with this Court if/once Alito is confirmed. On some areas, such as separation of Church and state, and perherpherial abortion rights, the court will drift, not lurch but drift, to the right. If there is another opening while Bush is President you will likely see a Court that is what you suggest. That will not be good for the country overall. But until then, no harm comes to the Court by shifting the balance of power to 4-1-4 form 3-2-4. Oh, and after doing some research I owe you an apology Glanton. The lastest aborton law (not this weeks, but the last partial birth abortion law) wasn't struck down on overbreadth grounds. My mistake.