Advertise here: Contact FM.

Media Blacklists Net-based Filibuster Push
January 30, 2006 7:07 AM Subscribe

Media outraced by Bloggers, Kerry appeal to netroots galvanizes suprise drive against AlitoOn Google News, you'll read how US Democratic Senators Obama and Biden are against a filibuster. Old news. They've agreed to support it. Encouraged by direct appeals by Senators. Kerry and Kennedy to internet activists, a blizzard of calls, emails, and faxes, organized via the Daily Kos and other blogs - with tactical direction from Kennedy - have helped flip the positions of several Democratic senators, and as of Saturday some claimed the push was already within 2 votes of forcing continued Senate debate on the Alito nomination. In fact, the pro-filibuster bloc might have started with 37 votes Meanwhile, today, Morning Edition, which declined to run the filibuster push as a top story and failed to mention the internet effort, asked Senator Kennedy on Senator Hillary Clinton's opposition to the filibuster: actually, she joined the effort last Friday [ see main link ] : D'oh !
posted by troutfishing (236 comments total)

Well, at least they're doing something.
posted by wakko at 7:12 AM on January 30, 2006

Fuck Kerry.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:12 AM on January 30, 2006

Sweet.. so we're not just on the Internet complaining anymore? We're actually doing something abuot it? I hope it catches on.. also for all the other issues we support
posted by pez_LPhiE at 7:12 AM on January 30, 2006

Let's start an Internet lynch mob now.
posted by wakko at 7:13 AM on January 30, 2006

You can take action at the ACLU site. If you can type, it only takes a minute.
posted by Mr_Zero at 7:16 AM on January 30, 2006

Fuck Kerry.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:12 AM PST on January 30 [!]

Just wondering, but why??

Thanks for the link, Zero
posted by pez_LPhiE at 7:17 AM on January 30, 2006

I heard of Kennedy's announcement on Thursday. Next I looked, on Saturday, the pro-filibuster drive had 14 Senators who had publicly committed to a filibuster, and the group steadily gained new supporters over the weekend [ prior to the Judicial Committee vote, Senator Dick Durbin has said he already had 37 pro filibuster votes ] .

But, you won't find - so far - much more than a whisper on the Mainstream Media on this, a net-powered come from behind effort which has gained unpredicted momentum and threatens to derail the Alito nomination.

Even if it fails to succeed the media has already been caught flat-footed : this embarassing developing was widely predicted to be impossible - the Democrats couldn't possibly mount a credible challenge. That was the received wisdom.

Is the US mainstream media biased ? Incompetent ? Lazy ? Ossified ? Cowed ? All of the above ?
posted by troutfishing at 7:18 AM on January 30, 2006

Is the US mainstream media biased ? Incompetent ? Lazy ? Ossified ? Cowed ? All of the above ?

Owned
posted by Mr_Zero at 7:20 AM on January 30, 2006

Watch out for the Internet-- it could be a real force in business and politics one of these days.

Seriously, I think that the left is starting to get organized and influence real life and reporting (especially the Deborah Howell misstatement on Jack Abramoff incident) in a way that the right has been doing for decades, via radio talk shows and other forms.
posted by ibmcginty at 7:20 AM on January 30, 2006

Here's a groovily simple to use "send emails, letters, and faxes" site.

Recommended. Especially the faxes.
posted by troutfishing at 7:21 AM on January 30, 2006

Mr_Zero - Good catch. I forgot the best one.
posted by troutfishing at 7:22 AM on January 30, 2006

A glimmer of hope maybe? Lets hope so.
posted by stilgar at 7:23 AM on January 30, 2006

If this was to succeed, it'd be a MAJOR awakening for all net surfers/bloggers.. We'd suddenly realize we have this power to do something about it.. but you know a million corporate blog sites would crop up claiming to be grassroots.. but in any case I'm all for this.. not just the cause but for what it can do.. The media can hide it if the filibuster happens.
posted by pez_LPhiE at 7:24 AM on January 30, 2006

This is really sad.

There is no chance of a filibuster being successful. This is all just politics by Senators playing directly to the denizens of places like Kos. So when elections come around, the Senators hope they can rely on the Kossacks to help them. It's pure politics.

And the part that is sad is that Alito is an eminently qualified jurist who deserves a place on the Supreme Court as much as anyone else. And yet this game is being played, thereby politicizing the Court even further. The Democratic Left has destroyed the moral authority of the Court with these games. After the Bork and Thomas disgraces of trying to tarnish good men, they are now trying to destroy this man.

It is despicable politics. There is absolutely no substance to the opposition. Ginsburg was unanimously approved despite being a liberal jurist. But Alito, who has sterling credentials and impeccable character testimony, is having to mess with this crass partisan games.

Leaves a bad taste in my mouth, as it should of anyone who cares about the Supreme Court and the moral authority of the law.
posted by dios at 7:28 AM on January 30, 2006

troutfishing...... Is the US Democratic party ~~biased ?~~ Incompetent ? Lazy ? Ossified ? Cowed ? All of the above ?

As Barak Obama said this weekend...

"We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that, if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake," Obama said. "And frankly, I'm not sure that we've successfully done that."
posted by VulcanMike at 7:29 AM on January 30, 2006

Right on time...
posted by you just lost the game at 7:30 AM on January 30, 2006

After the Bork and Thomas disgraces of trying to tarnish good men, they are now trying to destroy this man.

Dios, I'm a better jurist than the wildly partisan, inconsistent, know-nothing Bork. And that's just sad.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:33 AM on January 30, 2006

And the part that is sad is that Alito is an eminently qualified jurist who deserves a place on the Supreme Court as much as anyone else.

...except that there's a lot of people who don't want him on the court, because they disagree with the decisions he will likely make. This seems very clear. We've been over this.
posted by rxrfrx at 7:33 AM on January 30, 2006

And it was Obama's job (and Biden's, etc) to use their airtime to do just that. I'm disgusted with them--Alito should have been clearly Borked, and wasn't.

This from Sisyphus Shrugged says it all--... Oh, Senator.

I have to agree that the filibuster is probably the most problematic way to handle this situation. It would have been far better if Democrats had persuaded the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake.

Possibly one way to do this would have been for Democrats in the Senate to point out to the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake. Because, you see, Senator, the American people have over and over again polled that they're roughly split on Mr. Alito when they don't know anything about him, but they've also over and over again polled that if he holds the positions he does in fact hold they don't want him.

That's why your job (let's accept your framing that you speak for Democrats in the Senate) was to let them know what positions he holds, and what the real-world implications of those positions are.

You didn't do that, Senator.
...
posted by amberglow at 7:34 AM on January 30, 2006

Ginsburg was unanimously approved despite being a liberal jurist. But Alito, who has sterling credentials and impeccable character testimony, is having to mess with this crass partisan games.

A false comparison. Ginsburg was a pick made at the suggestion of the rival minority party. Alito's pick was a "screw you" to the rival minority party. So the rival minority party is fighting back, if it can. Alito may well be qualified intellectually, but he needs confirmation by a political process. It is not illegitimate to deny him confirmation on the basis that his vote on the Court will change the law of the land for the worse.
posted by ibmcginty at 7:34 AM on January 30, 2006

Oh no, NPR isn't acting like a Democratic mouthpiece. Whatever shall we do.
posted by smackfu at 7:37 AM on January 30, 2006

REMINDER - If you are not for Alito, you better have taken action before continuing to argue with people at Mefi.
posted by Mr_Zero at 7:40 AM on January 30, 2006

It is despicable politics

Worse than the day to day politicking that goes on, however, is that Alito is an activist judge who will work hard to dismantle the Constitution and eliminate the important checks and balances provided by the separation of powers written into law.

That fact is even more despicable, sad and long-term than any ultra-right versus right-of-center politicking that would otherwise happen anyway.
posted by Rothko at 7:41 AM on January 30, 2006

Alito may be very competent in a technical sense, but he holds opinions that the majority of Americans don't seem to support.

Those who whine about a filibuster as being "unfair" ( or whatever ) seem to be arguing that politics should not be - umm - politics.

The GOP has exploited its Congressional and Senate majorities for what many see as unfair advantage ( example - redistricting ).

So Democrats should - in response - be what ? Civil ? Docile ?

___________

"As Barak Obama said this weekend...

"We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that, if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake," Obama said. "And frankly, I'm not sure that we've successfully done that. " " - As others have said, I haven't noticed Obama doing much of that although kudos tpo him for seeing the light and joining the filibuster.

As Josh Marshall noted - Obama sets up a false dichotomy.
posted by troutfishing at 7:41 AM on January 30, 2006

And yet this game is being played, thereby politicizing the Court even further. The Democratic Left has destroyed the moral authority of the Court with these games.

Oh, please. The court has been politicized since Maybury v. Madison and you know it. The Democrats aren't destroying the court's moral authority any more than they are defeating the US's Moral Majority.
posted by The White Hat at 7:42 AM on January 30, 2006

"Oh no, NPR isn't acting like a Democratic mouthpiece. Whatever shall we do." - Misreporting facts is acting as a "mouthpiece" ?
posted by troutfishing at 7:43 AM on January 30, 2006

I have nothing to say about this that my brother didn't already say better:

"Of Things Almost Despaired of":

Ideology is, in fact, at the very heart of whether a person is qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

If something is worth doing, it's worth doing regardless of what your chances of victory are.
posted by jefgodesky at 7:44 AM on January 30, 2006

I was working on a similar post. If you don't want to use the automatic "contact senators" sites, here is a list (with links) to senators that are estimated to be undecided or those that might be convinced to support a filibuster with enough pressure:

Salazar, Ken (D-CO), Inouye, Daniel (D-HI), Menendez, Bob (D-NJ), Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR), Pryor, Mark (D-AR), Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT), Carper, Thomas (D-DE), Nelson, Bill (D-FL), Akaka, Daniel (D-HI)[e-mail], Harkin, Thomas (D-IA), Landrieu, Mary (D-LA), Snowe, Olympia (R-ME), Levin, Carl (D-MI), Baucus, Max (D-MT), Conrad, Kent (D-ND), Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)[e-mail], Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ), Bingaman, Jeff (D-NM)[e-mail], Chafee, Lincoln (R-RI), Johnson, Tim (D-SD), Jeffords, James (IND-VT), Murray, Patty (D-WA), Cantwell, Maria (D-WA), Kohl, Herbert (D-WI), Byrd, Robert (D-WV), Rockefeller, John (D-WV)

You have until 4:30 today. Information about why you should contact these people and encourage them to filibuster can be found here.
posted by ND¢ at 7:44 AM on January 30, 2006

Great links! Thanks ND¢
posted by Mr_Zero at 7:47 AM on January 30, 2006

The Dorgan, Byron (D-ND) link is broken.
posted by Mr_Zero at 7:49 AM on January 30, 2006

The allegations that he "will change the law" are nothing more than conclusory ignorance. It is a conclusory allegations because no one here has displayed any understanding of the judge's opinions or his judicial process and ignorance because it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Alito's record and the judicial process.

Crass partisanship is fine when you are dealing with your grassroots run for the House of Representatives, but it is a disgrace when you are dealing with the Supreme Court which is intended to be independent. But these simplistic partisans are ruining the judiciary because of their petty partisan goals. And that is deleterious to the judiciary and a disgrace.

For those who act as it if is self-evident that Alito will change the law, how do you explain the testimony of Judge Ruggero Alidsert, Chief Judge Edward Becker, Chief Judge Anthony Scirica, Judge Maryanne Barry, Judge Leonard Garth, Judge Tom Gibbons, and Judge Timothy Lewis. They all got up there and told you that what you are accusing Alito is patently wrong. On what grounds do you refute that testimony? On what basis do you presume to know more about what Alito will do than they?
posted by dios at 7:49 AM on January 30, 2006

Ginsburg was unanimously approved despite being a liberal jurist
Ginsburg was suggested by a Republican, IIRC. That is true bi-partisanship in action.

sterling credentials
Like membership in CAP

and impeccable character testimony
Which failed to convince me that the Vanguard issue alone wasn't enough to reject him.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:49 AM on January 30, 2006

Leaves a bad taste in my mouth, as it should of anyone who cares about the Supreme Court and the moral authority of the law.

As a justice, Alito would grant more power to an executive branch that has already overstepped its bounds, with majority support of the legislature. There are bigger issues at stake than the professional embarassment of Alito.
posted by eddydamascene at 7:51 AM on January 30, 2006

Sorry about the Dorgan link. Try this.
posted by ND¢ at 7:52 AM on January 30, 2006

This is a bit of a derail, but after having read extensively about Chavez over the past few days, I find it ironic that many Alito (and Bush) supporters oppose him on the basis of their belief that he will (for example) "work hard to dismantle the Constitution and eliminate the important checks and balances provided by the separation of powers written into law", but have no problem with Chavez eliminating Venezuela's senate, *really* stacking the supreme court with 12 extra loyal justices, lowering the number of votes needed in the lower house to a simple majority instead of 2/3s, creating a paramilitary reserve army loyal to him, and introducing "anti-disrespect" laws for government officials.

I respect honest opposition to Alito on the grounds that his appointment has the potential to upset checks and balances and give more power to the executive, but if one feels that way, it has to go double (or triple, or more) for Chavez's "reforms".
posted by loquax at 7:55 AM on January 30, 2006

It's pure politics.

I would've sworn that politics had something to do with government. Silly me.
posted by Remy at 7:57 AM on January 30, 2006

The allegations that he "will change the law" are nothing more than conclusory ignorance.

In Alito, G.O.P. Reaps Harvest Planted in '82-- ...Judge Alito's confirmation is also the culmination of a disciplined campaign begun by the Reagan administration to seed the lower federal judiciary with like-minded jurists who could reorient the federal courts toward a view of the Constitution much closer to its 18th-century authors' intent, including a much less expansive view of its application to individual rights and federal power. It was a philosophy promulgated by Edwin Meese III, attorney general in the Reagan administration, that became the gospel of the Federalist Society and the nascent conservative legal movement.
...
posted by amberglow at 7:58 AM on January 30, 2006

Crass partisanship is fine when you are dealing with your grassroots run for the House of Representatives, but it is a disgrace when you are dealing with the Supreme Court which is intended to be independent. But these simplistic partisans are ruining the judiciary because of their petty partisan goals. And that is deleterious to the judiciary and a disgrace.

And from the AEI. Wow!
posted by jperkins at 8:00 AM on January 30, 2006

I defy anyone here to present the case---here in their own words--against Samuel Alito based on his record by explaining the problems with his judicial decision-making. I defy anyone here to point to the canon of judicial ethics that he broke with this "Vanguard" nonsense.

I defy anyone to make the case based on his record to show why he is not qualified to be a Supreme Court judge.

I defy anyone to refute the testimony of Judges Aldisert, Becker, Lewis, Barry, Sicirra, Garth, Gibbons, and Barry.

My bet is that no one here can. This is crass partisanship. That is all it is. People feed off the talking points of their ideological crowd. And these uninformed talking points are giving rise to a serious political fiasco which jeopardizes the moral authority of the Supreme Court.
posted by dios at 8:00 AM on January 30, 2006

*deep breath*

dios, I was pissed about your comment that anyone who disagreed with you was demonstrating "conclusory ignorance."

But you make a fair point that it's worth talking about why Alito's record demonstrates that he will change the court. Here is a start.
posted by ibmcginty at 8:01 AM on January 30, 2006

a serious political fiasco which jeopardizes the moral authority of the Supreme Court.
Sorry--that already happened with Bush v. Gore. You're way way too late, and it was your crowd that eliminated any moral authority you think they possess--something that's not part of their jobs, by the way.

Moral authority does not mean what you think it does.
posted by amberglow at 8:02 AM on January 30, 2006

"As a justice, Alito would grant more power to an executive branch that has already overstepped its bounds" - Indeed. "Unitary Executive" ? I'm sure Alito's ideas on this are closely thought out and internally consistent but I doubt they have much relation to the last two centuries of American jurisprudence.
posted by troutfishing at 8:03 AM on January 30, 2006

After the Bork and Thomas disgraces of trying to tarnish good men, they are now trying to destroy this man.

I don't have an account at the TNR, but instead of relying on a professor with a particular point of view and motive, how about you make the case in your words showing your understanding of Alito's record.
posted by dios at 8:03 AM on January 30, 2006

Dios I am fully capable of making my own opinion over who i want to be in the government. You know the one that is supposed to WORK FOR ME. Maybe you have forgotten how our system works. Its like this. We elect people, who are supposed to do what we want them to do. That is how it is supposed to work, and I don't want Alito to be on the supreme court, and damn it, i am going to make sure my representatives know it. Of course its politics, we have an adversarial system, without partisan politics the whole systems would break down. And if my representatives don't vote the way i want them to, i will help to vote them out of office to elect someone who will do what i want. Pretty simple.
posted by stilgar at 8:04 AM on January 30, 2006

I respect honest opposition to Alito on the grounds that his appointment has the potential to upset checks and balances and give more power to the executive, but if one feels that way, it has to go double (or triple, or more) for Chavez's "reforms".

What does Chavez have to do with Alito dismantling US law? I mean, this is really a stretch, loquax. Let's stay on topic, yeah?
posted by Rothko at 8:05 AM on January 30, 2006

Google News has caught up. "Obama Joins Filibuster Bid against Alito"
posted by smackfu at 8:05 AM on January 30, 2006

ibmcginty: maybe you wouldn't have to worry about getting your judge reversed by Alito's court if you spent more time on research and bench memos and less time bickering on the internet.
posted by esquire at 8:05 AM on January 30, 2006

Shorter dios: Waaaaaaah!

And these uninformed talking points are giving rise to a serious political fiasco which jeopardizes the moral authority of the Supreme Court.

Sometimes you're just really *out there* man. If Alito is filibustered, the Supreme Court will roll on. Settle down, chicken little.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 8:07 AM on January 30, 2006

how about you make the case in your words showing your understanding of Alito's record.

Yeah, I'll just stop working for the next few hours and write a law review article and post it here.

That's the usual predicate for entering into discussion on the Internet. I'm glad you're here to uphold standards.

/sarcasm
Seriously, his record demonstrates a willingness to defer to the decisions of official institutions and organziations at the expense of individual rights.

And when people in high places are making a serious argument that Article II swallows up the rest of the Constitution when the president says it should, that's really bad news.
posted by ibmcginty at 8:09 AM on January 30, 2006

...which jeopardizes the moral authority of the Supreme Court.
Oh, cut the crocodile tears. The wingnuts have been denigrating every other decision the court has handed down for decades now. "Judicial activism" anyone?
posted by Thorzdad at 8:10 AM on January 30, 2006

I mean, this is really a stretch, loquax. Let's stay on topic, yeah?

I know it's a stretch, but it speaks to consistency. Chavez is doing (and has already done) what some here suspect that Alito and Bush might want to do, yet Chavez is defended and lauded, and Alito and Bush are vilified. I don't understand the disconnect. Concentrating power in only one branch of government concerns me too (it's worse in Canada), not only when I'm ideologically opposed to those making the attempt, but all the time. Not sure it's the same for everyone around here, and I think that's very relevant to this thread. (and I didn't mean to single you out, Rothko, you just had the best quote).
posted by loquax at 8:11 AM on January 30, 2006

Loquax, I'm not defending or lauding Chavez, and you are quoting me as if I am. Please use your own words, in the future, if you want to derail a thread. Thank you.
posted by Rothko at 8:13 AM on January 30, 2006

Just out of curiosity, dios, how does blocking someone's nomination equal an attempt to 'destroy' them? I mean, it's not like they've spent millions of taxpayer dollars trying to dig up the dirt on his blowjobs or something.
posted by verb at 10:03 AM CST on January 30

Trying to make him out as a racist and sexist person because of membership in this group CAP. Trying to say he is an unethical lout because of the "Vanguard" thing---which incidentally is completely ethical under the rules of ethics. Trying to say he isn't a jurist who takes his job seriously and accusing him of being an ideologue.

All of those things are an attempt to tarnish the man and destroy any moral authority he has on the Supreme Court.

How are people suppose to have faith in their Supreme Court if they view all of its members are simple partisan agents of their ruling partisan lords? That isn't how the Court works. But people who don't understand the judicial process and who can't even bothered to read judicial opinions, just assume that it is simple political calculations that animate judges. So you have people, such as the people here, who assume that Alito doesn't make any reasoned decision... that he is a slave to some conservative mastermind and will stop at nothing to seek its goals. Because of the politicization of the Court, people believe that. They can't conceive that these are well-intentioned people who are really trying to do their job as best as they can to uphold the Constitution. That is the disastrous effect of this kind of crap. People don't respect the Court's moral authority and question its decisions and that emasculates the Court.
posted by dios at 8:15 AM on January 30, 2006

Is the US mainstream media biased ? Incompetent ? Lazy ? Ossified ? Cowed ? All of the above ?

Which of course, is why about 80% of the current Daily Kos FPP contains content snipped from MSM. This is great activism, but adding political commentary to a press release or the same newsfeeds is not going to radically transform the way we get our news.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:15 AM on January 30, 2006

I don't have an account at the TNR, but instead of relying on a professor with a particular point of view and motive, how about you make the case in your words showing your understanding of Alito's record.

Since when does anyone whose opposes Alito have to answer to *dios*? Is he on the judiciary committee or something?

He's already insulted those who disagree with him, and he's acting like an arrogant little know-it-all prick today.

Don't waste time arguing on the internets, call your Senator instead!
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 8:15 AM on January 30, 2006

I got off the phone to Obama's office an hour ago, and he will filibuster. This does not mean that more calls aren't needed.
posted by cookie-k at 8:15 AM on January 30, 2006

Thank god the dems arn't just bending over. For god sakes put up a fucking fight once in a while.

Fuck Kerry.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:12 AM PST on January 30 [!]

While Kerry is annoying, he seems to be on the ball here... what's your beef?
posted by delmoi at 8:16 AM on January 30, 2006

How are people suppose to have faith in their Supreme Court if they view all of its members are simple partisan agents of their ruling partisan lords? That isn't how the Court works.

Tell that to Harriet Meirs.

You know Dios, if anyone has undermined the moral authority of the supreme court by appointing partisan ~~hacks~~ "agents", it's your overlord Bush.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 8:18 AM on January 30, 2006

Harriet Miers. Damn, typo.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 8:18 AM on January 30, 2006

appointing = nominating. I need coffee.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 8:19 AM on January 30, 2006

And the part that is sad is that Alito is an eminently qualified jurist who deserves a place on the Supreme Court as much as anyone else.

That's just the thing. "Anyone" doesn't deserve a place on the Supreme Court. I don't. You don't. Harriet Myers certainly doesn't. And neither does a man determined to exalt the executive above the other two co-equal branches of our federal government.
posted by EarBucket at 8:22 AM on January 30, 2006

Mr.c you are right, the Dios' of the world didn't seem to have a problem when Miers was shot down by right wingers who didn't like her views on things, before she even got a hearing. of course she was an unqualified crony of bush's... but more than once i have heard this "up or down vote" business and she didn't get it due to right wingers actions. (On a personal note, i would have loved to see that hearing, it would have been like shooting fish in a barrel)
posted by stilgar at 8:24 AM on January 30, 2006

Again, can anyone refute the testimony of the judges who have worked for them?

Judge Johnny Lewis, a liberal Democrat and civil rights activist, who is a strong candidate for the Supreme Court himself if a Democrat gets the White House, says that Alito has never been anything but open-minded and never shown to prejudge any case. Also says he has been a strong defender of civil rights.

Judge Aldisert, a Democratic appointee who wrote the book:

Says Alito is exceptionally brilliant and fair-minded and that all the allegations made about him by the Democratic Senators are false.

Judge Barry, put on the Court by Clinton, a female, said he has impeccable character and ethics and is strong on women's issues.

Judge Gibbons, an old liberal warhorse who argued against Bush in the Supreme Court on the Gitmo detainee issue and a Dealth Penalty Activist, told us that he is an exceptional judge who always respect precedent and always approaches cases with an open mind.

Judge Becker, chief judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals who has say on over 1,000 cases with Alito says he never saw him prejudge a case or let his personal views influence his vote.

The testimony of these judges are exactly the opposite of the characterization given to us by Kennedy, regurgitated on blogs like Kos and here. Now I ask you, which of these two accounts is more likely to be accurate? The Kennedy account or Judge Lewis? Kos or Becker? Kerry or Aldisert? etc.

How do you account for this testimony?
posted by dios at 8:24 AM on January 30, 2006

The point has been made already in this thread, but it bears repeating:

...people who don't understand the judicial process and who can't even bothered to read judicial opinions, just assume that it is simple political calculations that animate judges...
posted by ND¢ at 8:26 AM on January 30, 2006

loquax where are you getting that anyone here, let alone some vast majority, hold that Chavez's actions are a good thign? Are you assuming that not wanting to see Chavez assassinated is the same as thinking he's G-d's gift to good government?
posted by Space Coyote at 8:28 AM on January 30, 2006

ND¢, you're wasting your time.
posted by Rothko at 8:29 AM on January 30, 2006

See heat-seeking question.
posted by EarBucket at 8:30 AM on January 30, 2006

ibmcginty: the judicial record of every federal judge on the country can fairly be characterized as deferring to institutions and organizations at the expense of individual rights. That concept is baked into the standard of review in every type of case that appellate courts consider (with the possible exception of the standard that applies in a very narrow category of 1st Amendment cases). That's why that particular line of criticism of Alito is so unfair.
posted by esquire at 10:17 AM CST on January 30

Exactly. That is why I was asking people to explain in their own words. Because what it will show is so many of these people have no substance to their beliefs about Alito. They have their talking points, and they accept them whole-heartedly.

Talking point: Alito rules more frequently for the government than the individual.

Reality: All judges do because that is how they system is set up. The vast majority of meritorious cases are settled before even going to trial. The overwhelming majority settle if they have any merit to them. The cases that go to trial tend to be the questionable and unmeritorious ones. At the resolution of trial, there is another filtering done: the appeal is done by the losing the party. The government is more likely to win at the trial court because the case would have settled if it was meritorious. And if the government loses, the government is less likely to appeal than the individual. Thus, most appeals that are the government vs the individual are weak cases where the individual lost at the trial court.

But on appeal, the issue of the standard of review becomes important. Is the judge reviewing the case for an abuse of discretion? Or is the judge sitting de novo? That effects the likelihood of reversal.

The net effect is that any judge is likely going to be ruling on behalf of the government because of the stance of appeal and the merit of the underlying case.
posted by dios at 8:33 AM on January 30, 2006

It's too bad those judges dios names don't get to confirm Supreme Court nominees. It's the Senate who does.

Maybe if Bush had worked with the minority party (who does get to vote on confirmation) to choose an acceptable candidate this "politicization" of the court could have been avoided. Bush didn't.

"When People don't respect the Court's moral authority and question its decisions and that emasculates the Court." Too bad Bush didn't care about this.
posted by Staggering Jack at 8:33 AM on January 30, 2006

See heat-seeking question.

As well as: "appeal to authority".
posted by Rothko at 8:34 AM on January 30, 2006

dios, while you're making demands here, please answer this point from ibmcginty:

dios, do you acknowledge the point that Bush's failure to consult with Democrats, as opposed to Clinton's approach with Ginsburg, is part of the reason for what you see as "a serious political fiasco which jeopardizes the moral authority of the Supreme Court"?
posted by mediareport at 8:34 AM on January 30, 2006

ND¢, you're wasting your time.
posted by Rothko at 11:29 AM EST on January 30

Rothko, I have already contacted all the senators from my earlier comment, so I have time to waste now. I would suggest that anyone reading, or posting, or doing anything else, should do the same before they continue. You have until 4:30est.
posted by ND¢ at 8:36 AM on January 30, 2006

THIS JUST IN :

GOP SENATOR LINCOLN CHAFEE JOINS FILIBUSTER !
posted by troutfishing at 8:39 AM on January 30, 2006

Unfortunately, ND¢, my senators in Pennsylvania are crusty reactionaries who'd be happy to throw folks like me into ovens.
posted by Rothko at 8:40 AM on January 30, 2006

While Kerry is annoying, he seems to be on the ball here... what's your beef?
posted by delmoi at 8:16 AM PST on January 30

He's a wishy-washy, rightward-moving, give-up-at-the-first-sign-of-trouble opportunist who managed to lose the Presidency to the dumbest, most unqualified motherfucker to ever hold the office. Everything he touches is tainted by failure and he should retire before he fucks us again.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:40 AM on January 30, 2006

How are people suppose to have faith in their Supreme Court if they view all of its members are simple partisan agents of their ruling partisan lords?

I don't know, dios. Considering the fact that the people supporting Alito have screamed for years that the Supreme Court was a vile abomination, a morally bankrupt political whorehouse, and that it was a grave threat to liberty, I can't help chuckling at that line of reasoning.
posted by verb at 8:42 AM on January 30, 2006

dios, do you acknowledge the point that Bush's failure to consult with Democrats, as opposed to Clinton's approach with Ginsburg, is part of the reason for what you see as "a serious political fiasco which jeopardizes the moral authority of the Supreme Court"?
posted by mediareport at 10:34 AM CST on January 30

The Constitution establishes the process:

The President selects and nominates the judges. The Senate advises and consents.

When Clinton nominated a very liberal jurist--which is what she was despite whether Hatch may have mentioned her name (he has denied doing so)--, she was voted for by every single Republican because, despite being a liberal jurist, she was qualified for the Court. When Bush nominates a strict constructionist, he is getting filibustered by Democrats despite being equally qualified. If you can't see a difference there, then you are being willfully blind.

Now if you have unanmiously approved Ginsburg and filibustered Alito, which of those two seems more "independent" and having more moral authority? Ginsburg, despite the fact that Alito is equally qualified and equally deserving of respect as a jurist.

And that is sad.
posted by dios at 8:42 AM on January 30, 2006

GOP SENATOR LINCOLN CHAFEE JOINS FILIBUSTER !

Actually, in the coverage I've read, Chafee said he would vote against Alito, but wuld also vote against the filibuster.

...despite whether Hatch may have mentioned her name (he has denied doing so)...

What? Where did he deny doing so? He wrote about it in his autobiography.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:47 AM on January 30, 2006

Unfortunately, ND¢, my senators in Pennsylvania are crusty reactionaries who'd be happy to throw folks like me into ovens.
posted by Rothko at 11:40 AM EST on January 30 [!]

I live in South Carolina of all places. You think my senators are going to help out? I have contacted all of the fence-sitters, regardless of what state they represent. I did this for the same reason that I worked for the Kerry-Edwards legal team in Florida in 2004. Even if we lose, this fight is too important for me to be able to live with myself afterwards if I don't do anything that I can to try to win it.
posted by ND¢ at 8:47 AM on January 30, 2006

He's a wishy-washy, rightward-moving, give-up-at-the-first-sign-of-trouble opportunist who managed to lose the Presidency to the dumbest, most unqualified motherfucker to ever hold the office.

Yeah, talk about a poor spokesperson for a tough fight. The real problem with this filibuster isn't that it damages the moral fibre of the SCOTUS, it's that the Dem's haven't put much thought into doing it properly.
posted by Rothko at 8:50 AM on January 30, 2006

I should note one further thing: it is not just that people are voting no. That is one thing. Senators have the right to vote yes or no.

But these Senators aren't just voting "no." They are using a procedural tactic to try to stop a vote on the nominee. So apparently it is not enough to vote no on the judge for political reasons, but it must be further politicized by using this ridiculous process.

Judges are to be confirmed by simple majority. There is no constitutional requirement that a judge have 60 votes. But these senators are using a procedural rule to overturn the simple majority requirement in the Constitution. They are politicizing this and requiring a super majority. That even adds to how destructive this is.

Did someone say "one person, one vote?"
posted by dios at 8:50 AM on January 30, 2006

Did someone say "one person, one vote?"

Just stop. We've had this discussion before, and it's clear that the one person, one vote principle has no application to the filibuster.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:53 AM on January 30, 2006

What? Where did he deny doing so? He wrote about it in his autobiography.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:47 AM CST on January 30

Well, I looked it up after the two suggestions of it. I didn't recall that fact from it actually happened. I don't follow political blogs where this little nugget must have been making rounds. So I looked it up. On the wikipedia page, it says the following:

Democrats also pointed out that Republican senator Orrin Hatch had recommended Ginsburg to then-President Clinton, which suggested Clinton worked in a bipartisan manner. Hatch rebuts saying that that he had not "recommended" her but suggested to Clinton she might be a candidate that would not receive great opposition.

Perhaps the wikipedia is wrong. I don't know. I don't think it matters, though, because even assuming he mentioned the name, that still doesn't show that she was a "bi-partisan nominee." She is a liberal jurist. That is why Clinton nominated her. And she was unanimously confirmed in spite of that.
posted by dios at 8:54 AM on January 30, 2006

dios, I'd just like to butt in here and say that, while you're obviously a smart guy, it's hard to take you seriously when you use terms like "strict constructionist." That is all. Good day.
posted by brundlefly at 8:54 AM on January 30, 2006

But these Senators aren't just voting "no." They are using a procedural tactic to try to stop a vote on the nominee. So apparently it is not enough to vote no on the judge for political reasons, but it must be further politicized by using this ridiculous process.

Hey Dios, go back and read the article that I linked to on the AEI website for a refresher on the use of the filibuster as a partison tactic to block supreme court nominees. Then cry me a fucking river.
posted by jperkins at 8:54 AM on January 30, 2006

Dios: Should Ms. Miers have had an up-or-down vote?

Also, as someone who's allegedly a constitutional expert, using "one person, one vote" to describe the Senate is pretty baffling. Better be careful. You're edging from underhanded debating tactics into all-out trolling.
posted by EarBucket at 8:56 AM on January 30, 2006

But these senators are using a procedural rule to overturn the simple majority requirement in the Constitution. They are politicizing this and requiring a super majority.

But I bet you'd have no trouble supporting the "Nuclear Option" , do you?
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 8:56 AM on January 30, 2006

But Alito, who has sterling credentials and impeccable character testimony

Except from himself. His own testimony is that he lies or exaggerates in order to obtain jobs.

But people who don't understand the judicial process and who can't even bothered to read judicial opinions, just assume that it is simple political calculations that animate judges.

That's not quite true. It should read:

People with multiple advanced degrees in the subject and decades of study of the Court, who read nearly every opinion of any importance that comes along and who have devoted their careers to analyzing the votes of Supreme Court Justices, have discovered that it is strategic political calculations that almost exclusively animate Supreme Court Justices.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:57 AM on January 30, 2006

Hey Dios, go back and read the article that I linked to on the AEI website for a refresher on the use of the filibuster as a partison tactic to block supreme court nominees. Then cry me a fucking river.
posted by jperkins at 10:54 AM CST on January 30

It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. Were you under some impression that I supported the filibuster of Abe Fortas? From where did you get this impression? Not from anything I wrote. I think it was wrong then and wrong now, so what exactly is your point?
posted by dios at 8:57 AM on January 30, 2006

do you = would you?

/I reeeeally need that fucking coffee. Time out.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 8:57 AM on January 30, 2006

Dios if listing names of people, and stuff they say does it for you here goes.

stilgar, liberal blogger and good looking guy says "Alito is a piece of crap and shouldn't be on the court."

now i would like you to state in your own words why we shouldn't listen to him, i mean he is liberal, and good looking? in your own words Dios, now!
posted by stilgar at 9:00 AM on January 30, 2006

I think it was wrong then and wrong now, so what exactly is your point?

The point is one of quid pro quo. Don't like it? Then take it up with your party. Because right now, it is a technique used by the minority party to block supremen court nominations that aren't palatable. That's life.
posted by jperkins at 9:00 AM on January 30, 2006

Did someone say "one person, one vote?"

I don't know, but I know someone will soon let us know he needs to "head off to do some work" or "get lunch" or otherwise avoid answering some serious questions.
posted by Rothko at 9:02 AM on January 30, 2006

Bills are to be passed by simple majority. There is no constitutional requirement that a bill have 60 votes. But these senators are using a procedural rule to overturn the simple majority requirement in the Constitution. They are politicizing this and requiring a super majority. That even adds to how destructive this is.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:02 AM on January 30, 2006

People with multiple advanced degrees in the subject and decades of study of the Court, who read nearly every opinion of any importance that comes along and who have devoted their careers to analyzing the votes of Supreme Court Justices, have discovered that it is strategic political calculations that almost exclusively animate Supreme Court Justices.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:57 AM CST on January 30

I vehemently disagree with that ROU and I question the validity of such a conclusion. Who "discovered" this? Large forests have been lost to the amount of ink and paper spent on the topic of judicial interpretation that show clearly that is an intellectual process that is applied to the function of appellate judging. There are countless books and law review debating the proper process of interpretation. It never comes down to a simple political calculation of "what result do I want." It is completely wrong to suggest that judges decide any case on an ends view from a political perspective. That is just plain wrong.
posted by dios at 9:03 AM on January 30, 2006

Because right now, it is a technique used by the minority party to block supremen court nominations that aren't palatable.

Should read: Because right now, it's a technique that Republicans, while the minority party, first used as a technique to block supreme court nominees that they didn't find palatable.
posted by jperkins at 9:03 AM on January 30, 2006

Also, as someone who's allegedly a constitutional expert, using "one person, one vote" to describe the Senate is pretty baffling.
posted by EarBucket at 10:56 AM CST on January 30

First off, I never said I was a "constitutional expert." Second off, I can make the argument that "one person, one vote" is violated by super-majorities and filibustering, but I think monju is right: we have already had that discussion, and I don't think it adds anything to have it again here. You can search and find it if you want.
posted by dios at 9:05 AM on January 30, 2006

Perhaps if the right wing wished to avoid a minority filibuster on the grounds that it is an unfair tactic, they should have considered this while they were doing off-year redistricting, making recess appointments, ensuring selective intelligence gathering, making fraudulent budgetary projection reporting, using revenge tactics against perceived political enemies, accepting bribes from political favor-seekers, employing illegal wiretaps, suing to stop vote recounts, and other techniques of that nature.

It makes crying about how a filibuster distorts the political process seem a little ... disingenuous.
posted by kyrademon at 9:06 AM on January 30, 2006

Senators have the right to vote yes or no.

It's true that the Constitution dictates that every Senator has one vote.

The Constitution also says that each chamber makes up its own rules of proceeding.

But these Senators aren't just voting "no." They are using a procedural tactic to try to stop a vote on the nominee.

A procedural tactic that the Senate has agreed to by approving the rules of the Senate.

Judges are to be confirmed by simple majority. There is no constitutional requirement that a judge have 60 votes.

The Constitution does not say that judges are to be confirmed by a simple majority. It simply states that judges are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, and places no restrictions or requirements on how the Senate grants that consent.

In any case, either chamber is free to establish rules that require supermajorities or allow sub-majorities for anything they feel like unless there is a specific provision in the Constitution to the contrary. In the House, you need a 2/3 majority to pass a bill under suspension of the rules, because this is what the House has agreed to. In the Senate, you need 60 votes to invoke cloture and force a vote, because this is what the Senate has agreed to.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:07 AM on January 30, 2006

Can anyone point me to an NPR link where Kennedy corrects the interviewer about Clinton's support for the filibuster? I don't see it at the NPR site.
posted by mediareport at 9:09 AM on January 30, 2006

This just in :

CNN declines to cover filibuster. Instead, we get :

"
• ABC journalists suffered 'very significant injuries' |

• Rescue rooms save Canadian miners |

• EU facing tough questions on Hamas |

• Police: Dead children laid side by side |

• So sorry! Shoelace trip in museum has shattering result

• Watch: Skid Row kid records squalor in his life

• Don't drink to this latest cancer finding

• Watch: Doggy decadence: $30,000 crystal house

• 'Baby Jessica,' now 19, reportedly marries

• Watch: Jail-yard talk from accused child rapist | Read

• 'Brokeback' can't catch a break at SAG | Gallery | "
posted by troutfishing at 9:14 AM on January 30, 2006

Oh lord - this thread seems to have become completely hijacked. Regardless, I'm throwing my support behind Dios' comments here today. After listening to testimony and reading as much as I could, the Dems came away looking like a bunch of whiny kids trying to scare people into voting against Alito.

The contrast is that I found all of the 3rd party commentary as well as Alito's comments to be well reasoned and justified. The man seems qualified to sit on the bench and I feel secure that he will rule on the *law* being argued, regardless his personal opinions about the topic at hand.

What I hear out of the Dems is just a bunch of scare tactics right now and an attempt to shore up the base ahead of the 2006 congressional elections.

As an aside, I've noticed quite a few people comment that maybe there wouldn't be so much negative reaction had Bush & Company been a bit more forthcoming, had approached the minority party and worked with them, etc. You all may very well be correct in that assumption. I tend to agree that you catch more flies with honey (just ask Bill Clinton - one of the secrets of his success). However, that's not the point here in this discussion of Alito. What it boils down to for me is: will he rule on the legal matter at hand and its constituionality in an impartial way, or in an activist/partisan way? I don't think he will be particularly activist from what I've heard. His credentials are strong.
posted by tgrundke at 9:15 AM on January 30, 2006

mediareport :

I heard it good'n clear. It was a striking moment. But, NPR only have a partial audio transcript so far. I'm not positive but I think they archive the full versions somewhere the next day.
posted by troutfishing at 9:17 AM on January 30, 2006

I vehemently disagree with that ROU and I question the validity of such a conclusion.

Okay. Go read the relevant pieces and knock 'em down.

Who "discovered" this?

Criminy. Let's see. Jeff Segal, Harold Spaeth, Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, Dave Rohde, Larry Baum, Kevin Quinn, Andrew Martin, Forrest Maltzman (I think)... I think Don Songer and Stephanie Lindquist have done work on this... I don't work in this area and may have mistakenly put someone I shouldn't have in that list, but I don't think so.

There are countless books and law review debating the proper process of interpretation.

Sure. And the Supreme Court, to all appearances, does not pay much attention to them.

This isn't an argument about what judges in general do, only the Supreme Court.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:18 AM on January 30, 2006

*sigh*

This could have been a thread about the power of internet activism. Instead, we've let dios call the shots again.

No one at MetaFilter is going to change their mind about Alito, but, as we've seen, some senators might change their mind about the filibuster. If you're opposed to the Unitary Executive, if you believe in personal privacy, and if you don't believe Alito will represent you as a citizen in this democracy, please, please, please...contact your senator and share your views.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:18 AM on January 30, 2006

What I hear out of the Dems is just a bunch of scare tactics right now and an attempt to shore up the base ahead of the 2006 congressional elections.

The filibuster will probably hurt the Dems in November among the majority of middle-of-road voters.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:21 AM on January 30, 2006

dios: Judges are to be confirmed by simple majority. There is no constitutional requirement that a judge have 60 votes. But these senators are using a procedural rule to overturn the simple majority requirement in the Constitution. They are politicizing this and requiring a super majority. That even adds to how destructive this is.

The Constitution of the US doesn't specify any requirement beyond advice and consent. Furthermore, the Constitution does give both houses the power to define how those decisions are made: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

Originally, the rules allowed for unlimited debate. Over time, both houses have adopted changes to permit limits on debate. But it's pretty hard to argue that the filibuster is not constitutional when the power to create rules allowing it was delegated to congress.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:22 AM on January 30, 2006

This happens all of the time in Washington. When it's clear something is or isn't going to happen, people stake out meaningless positions in opposition to the inevitable hoping to excite simple-minded partisans.
posted by probablysteve at 9:23 AM on January 30, 2006

"When it's clear something is or isn't going to happen, people stake out meaningless positions in opposition to the inevitable hoping to excite simple-minded partisans" - Thus spake the voice of lofty, disinterested wisdom.
posted by troutfishing at 9:28 AM on January 30, 2006

I care nothing of the court except as how it effects the lives of human beings either American or otherwise. I find nothing wrong with wanting a court appointee that will, in my opinion, harm people. Credentials are a good thing, but they are subordinate to ideology as far as I, and the president, are concerned. I see no probablem with behaving in a manor consistant with reality.
posted by I Foody at 9:29 AM on January 30, 2006

IIHAA, you're right. I'll ignore Dios from here on out.

So - both of my senators are reactionary trolls. What should I do?
posted by kyrademon at 9:29 AM on January 30, 2006

I'll second both of kyrademon's comments.
posted by EarBucket at 9:31 AM on January 30, 2006

"moral authority". after Bush v Gore.
*chuckle*

glad to see that molesting ten-year-old girls (and belonging to racist organizations, and then lie about it) is A-OK for our Alito "lawyer"-cheerleaders.

Thomas and Bork "good men"? really? weak, weak troll, dios. even you can do better than that.

bring it on, is what I say, quoting dios' favorite philosopher -- let Alito in, and let them kill Roe vs Wade. then, when the first American woman who had a risky backroom abortion get indicted for murder in the first degree by a dios-loving (heh) Christian DA, you guys will need a fuckload of Diebold machines to win another Presidential election, for a long time. and remember to run candidates whose brothers are Florida governors, too, because you'll need that, too.

you've been having a hardon for overturning Rose since the early Eighties. now do it, children -- and enjoy the blowback.

Leaves a bad taste in my mouth

it happens, after fellatio. don't worry.
posted by matteo at 9:38 AM on January 30, 2006

Dear Mr. Specter:



I realize you have likely made up your mind about the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. However, I am still writing with hopes that this letter gets past your handlers.



As a recently naturalized citizen of the United States, I believe strongly in the values of separation of powers, personal privacy, and democratic representation that are embodied in the Constitution of this great country.



Looking past the bitter demagoguery of the nomination process, I have read much about Mr. Alito's past case work, and I honestly do not believe he shares those same core values. 



Samuel Alito would work towards giving the executive branch a greater scope of power that it already abuses, as evidenced by illegal wiretapping revelations. Further, Mr. Alito has also made questionable rulings on the sanctity of individual privacy and environmental rights, deferring instead to large corporations and the federal government. He has also shown himself unable and unwilling to recuse himself in cases where there has been an obvious financial conflict of interest.



I respectfully ask you to consider the weight of importance of your vote in this process. If made a justice, Mr. Alito's rulings would have far-reaching — and I believe, negative — effects on these and many other Constitutional issues.



With respect,

posted by Rothko at 9:41 AM on January 30, 2006

dios: Did someone say "one person, one vote?"

Did someone say electoral college?
posted by terrapin at 9:45 AM on January 30, 2006

So - both of my senators are reactionary trolls. What should I do?
posted by kyrademon at 12:29 PM EST on January 30 [!]

You don't just have to ask your senators to support a filibuster. These are all of our representatives. You can contact them and tell them how you feel by following the links in my earlier comment, or you can call the senators on NOW's updated list of undecided senators.
posted by ND¢ at 9:48 AM on January 30, 2006

dios: Did someone say "one person, one vote?"

Did someone say judiciary committee "blue slips" that kept hundreds and hundreds of federal judiciary candidates from even being considered?
posted by nofundy at 9:49 AM on January 30, 2006

Sorry: my earlier comment.
posted by ND¢ at 9:50 AM on January 30, 2006

pez_LPhiE, I agree with O_C, Fuck Kerry, he had the war chest to contest the 2004 election (which, upon initial and then further inspection was undoubtedly rigged) and did not. He laid down like a little bitch and now wants to pretend he's standing up to the GOP.

And, after reading alot of comments, I thought this post was about Alito's confirmation and the filibuster, not about dios. Can we get a diosfilter tag? Because I really dislike starting my day with yet another condescending lecture from him and the clamoring refuters.
posted by fenriq at 9:58 AM on January 30, 2006

They can't conceive that these are well-intentioned people who are really trying to do their job as best as they can to uphold the Constitution. That is the disastrous effect of this kind of crap. People don't respect the Court's moral authority and question its decisions and that emasculates the Court.

What an utter load of dishonest partisan sophistry, Dios.

I'm sure if Gore had won the election (...) and this were a liberal judge from a Democratic president, you would be leading the charge to defend the nominee as a "well intentioned person really doing his job as best he could to uphold the Constitution..."

My Aunt Fanny.
posted by stenseng at 9:58 AM on January 30, 2006

Power of Congress is at stake in vote on Alito
posted by homunculus at 9:58 AM on January 30, 2006

President Bush said when he nominated Harriet Miers, "I picked the best person I could find." Bush had two Supreme Court vacancies to fill (Renquist and O'Connor), and he didn't nominate Judge Alito to either one. Did he consider and reject Judge Alito during the searches to fill those two vacancies, or did he choose too quickly when he nominated Alito four days after the best person he could find withdrew her nomination?
posted by kirkaracha at 9:59 AM on January 30, 2006

Good article, amberglow.
posted by homunculus at 10:00 AM on January 30, 2006

Dios: Should Ms. Miers have had an up-or-down vote?

I'll answer that. I think Ms. Miers, Mr. Alito, Mr. Bolton, et. al., should have their up and down votes.....the moment that the dozens of Clinton administration nominations, blocked by backroom proceeding that were made unavailable to the Democratic Senators as a minority once Bush won, get their up-and-down votes.

Since that will not happen, not only do I think blocking these nominees is fair, I figure that the Democrats have at least one hundred more nominiations to block before they even begin to match the GOP.
posted by eriko at 10:03 AM on January 30, 2006

And the part that is sad is that Alito is an eminently qualified jurist who deserves a place on the Supreme Court as much as anyone else.

That's just the thing. "Anyone" doesn't deserve a place on the Supreme Court. I don't. You don't. Harriet Myers certainly doesn't. And neither does a man determined to exalt the executive above the other two co-equal branches of our federal government.
posted by EarBucket at 11:22 AM EST on January 30 [!]

Exactly!
posted by destro at 10:05 AM on January 30, 2006

I should add: the government is more likely to win at trial because the laws are set up in such a way that an individual usually has a high burden of proof in cases against the state due to sovereignty issues.
posted by dios at 10:35 AM CST on January 30 [!]

Exactly. Which is why we need to make sure that our representatives of government, the people and institutions we rely upon, are as above reproach as possible, and are looking out for our, the American peoples', best interests. If I doubt for one minute that a Supreme Court nominee is looking out for my interests, but is instead a mouthpiece for an adminsitration I did not vote for and do not support, do I not have a right to speak out against him, to look for as much information as I can find to make an informed opinion, to urge my representatives to do everything in their power to either find out what he's really about or block him as an inappropriate choice? Don't I have the right to do it without being called crass and despicable?

I'm suprised that this little nugget of dios commentary was passed over - it makes the counter-argument to his or her many talking points better than I could do it myself. The government already has the advantage; we need all the help we can get.
posted by jennaratrix at 10:06 AM on January 30, 2006

While I almost always disagree with dios's positions, I usually defend him as an honest debater. I hope he will continue to answer those points others raise against him.

1) Filibusters of judicial nominations ain't new. As others have linked, Abe Fortas was a Johnson era nomination that was filibustered. It now seems Dios has conceded this point.

2) I must join with mediareport in asking about ibmcginty's question: Is this whole rigamarole in any way attributable to Bush's lack of consultation?

3) As I and others wrote before, "Filibusters are not contradictory to the ideal of 'One Person, One Vote', because you can't filibuster an election." I think you lost that debate before, Dios.

To return this debate to Whence It Came...

This is not sad, this is participatory republican government, an emerging phenomenon everyone should be glad to see in this otherwise apathetic mainstream American culture.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a congressman to write. I'll check back when I'm done.
posted by Richard Daly at 10:07 AM on January 30, 2006

Just out of morbid curiousity. . .could the President make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court?
posted by EarBucket at 10:09 AM on January 30, 2006

Feh, I'll get some calls out this afternoon. But I'm wondering how many of the Kossian net activists who called for a class and cultural civil war against me and mine two years ago are going to do squat in what looks to be a rather tight and nasty race in my "red-state" district.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:09 AM on January 30, 2006

1) How much do you get paid to post GOP talking points?

Oh, for the love of fuck, get over yourself. Do you really think that Karl Rove is in his Fortress of Evil saying, "They're snarking online again! Get me dios! Damn... And we would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those damn Mefites!"
posted by Cyrano at 10:10 AM on January 30, 2006

cyrano, while thats a bit over the top, if companies will pay people to go into chat rooms and say shit like "ain't mountain dew Xtreme!!!11" I wouldn't put it past rove, not that i think Dios is one of these people, but they do it with radio, TV, and news print, why not start with the Internet as well.
posted by stilgar at 10:14 AM on January 30, 2006

Crass covering of your friends' asses is a disgrace when you are dealing with the U.S. Judiciary which is intended to be independent.
posted by Likable Lefty at 10:16 AM on January 30, 2006

fenriq, I also feel Kerry was OBLIGATED to do more to fight that election. I don't know if it was pressure from the Republicans, or cause he's yellow, or cause they were College Buddies, but it wasn't right for him to just wave the white flag so fast...

but, this is a different issue and we gotta move forward. If the cause is right, we ought to fight for it. And it's their job to fight our battles.. even if chances are slim, you gotta try.. it's worth it.
posted by pez_LPhiE at 10:18 AM on January 30, 2006

i would love to see dios' response to kirkaracha's excellent comment above.

that said, If I Had an Anus' comment

This could have been a thread about the power of internet activism. Instead, we've let dios call the shots again.

is spot on.
posted by lord_wolf at 10:26 AM on January 30, 2006

Oh Awesome, statists vs. statists voting for and against a judicial statist, to see who is first to rape liberty.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 10:28 AM on January 30, 2006

People for the American Way's Filibuster Alito site. Three hours till the cloture vote.
posted by ND¢ at 10:33 AM on January 30, 2006

pez_LPhie, yeah, I get you. That was then, this is now, different battle. But it still pisses me off no end how quietly he gave up then.

I'm curious as to how all this heavy-handing by Bill Frist is going to effect his candidacy. He's been very hands-on in the last year or so and has done little but harm his credibility. I think he'd be pretty easy to beat. Especially in a one-on-one debate, dude's not quick on his feet and looks incredibly stupid while he thinks. But that didn't harm Bush, did it? Though Fristy is nowhere near as smarmy-charming as Bush (smarming?).

I expect the Democrats to fight this confirmation and I hope they are able to bring enough heat to make Alito squirm and give up his agenda. I doubt it but I'd like to see it happen
posted by fenriq at 10:40 AM on January 30, 2006

I wouldn't put it past rove, not that i think Dios is one of these people, but they do it with radio, TV, and news print, why not start with the Internet as well.

Oh, I agree. I'm sure there are paid hacks online, but I doubt it's here.

This could have been a thread about the power of internet activism. Instead, we've let dios call the shots again.

dios isn't calling the shots. He's just the poster everyone reacts to. And if he wasn't here, some of us would have to invent him.
posted by Cyrano at 10:48 AM on January 30, 2006

. . .could the President make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court?

Thankfully, no.

I expect the Democrats to fight this confirmation and I hope they are able to bring enough heat to make Alito squirm and give up his agenda. I doubt it...

Once you're on the Supreme Court, you're on the Supreme Court. Nothing stops you from doing anything you want (ethically), a good example of this is Scalia.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 10:53 AM on January 30, 2006

"And if he wasn't here, some of us would have to invent him."

Oh please.

Yeah, like I'd invent a hemmrhoid.
posted by stenseng at 10:54 AM on January 30, 2006

If I was going to invent one, I'd take Smedleyman's demeanor and bias, Amberglow's fervor, Loquacious' humor, and just a twinkle of Paris in the eyes.
posted by Balisong at 10:55 AM on January 30, 2006

Oh, wait. We already have a quonsar.
posted by Balisong at 10:57 AM on January 30, 2006

Eeek. Apparently, he can. I imagine it'd be a shaky move politically, but presumably most of the people capable of being convinced he's a bad president already think so.

Out of curiousity--would anyone here supporting Alito's nomination be okay with a recess appointment, if it came to that?
posted by EarBucket at 10:57 AM on January 30, 2006

Cyrano,

Are you unaware that many of the GOP media machines, otherwise known as "think tanks," do pay to have their talking points advocated in every possible forum?
Have you not noticed that every right wing defender has been a "lawyer" by profession here on Mefi?
You don't think it strange that they keep a normal work day schedule as though punching a clock?
Whatever.
(FEMA Brownie was a "lawyer" too and bought his law degree at the same place many other wingers did since they couldn't be bothered to earn them)
posted by nofundy at 10:58 AM on January 30, 2006

Mijo Bijo, by give up his agenda, I didn't mean he'd abandon it, I meant that he would spill the beans on his obvious intentions to overturn Roe and to give more power to the Executive (which should rightly scare everyone on both sides of the debate really).
posted by fenriq at 10:58 AM on January 30, 2006

fenriq, the odds of that ever happening (especially in the next 24 hours) seem to be somewhere between never and and god no, never.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 11:05 AM on January 30, 2006

Mijo Bijo, yep. Part of the problem really.
posted by fenriq at 11:10 AM on January 30, 2006

(FEMA Brownie was a "lawyer" too and bought his law degree at the same place many other wingers did since they couldn't be bothered to earn them)
posted by nofundy at 10:58 AM PST on January 30

MeFi poster esquire is a "lawyer" as well as Michael "Can I Go Home Now Please" Brownie's biggest fan and defender. Hmm.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:10 AM on January 30, 2006

Are you unaware that many of the GOP media machines, otherwise known as "think tanks," do pay to have their talking points advocated in every possible forum?

So does the DNC and other liberal activist organizations. How can I be sure most of the people here aren't just DNC astroturfers?
posted by gyc at 11:11 AM on January 30, 2006

Let's suppose that Alito does get confirmed. Then let's assume that several red states pass laws outlawing abortion which will immediately be challenged in court. (execution for murder?) The Scalito court then strikes down Rov Wade.

Would the unholy alliance of fundies and corporate interests we currently call the GOP be in dire straits?
The fundies are mostly single issue voters (the most dangerous kind) and when abortion is off the table and there's no federal law calling for executions of "teh gay" will GOP power go away?
Will corporations lose share politically to the best interests of the common people as a result?
Would over-reaching eventually have some severe repercussions?
Naaaa! Too many dittohead stupid sheep!
posted by nofundy at 11:16 AM on January 30, 2006

So does the DNC and other liberal activist organizations. How can I be sure most of the people here aren't just DNC astroturfers?
posted by gyc
Ever try herding cats?
The right is well versed in lock step/goose stepping.
The left doesn't disseminate talking points from the top down every day (we bow to Norquist and Rove for evil genuis.)
Good question though.
posted by nofundy at 11:20 AM on January 30, 2006

Would over-reaching eventually have some severe repercussions?

Yes. If and when the power ever swings back around.
This administration has been conducting a smash-and-grab campaign against America. Grabbing as much power and wealth as they can, no looking back, and no looking ahead.
They make decisions like there will never be any successors.
I have a distinct feeling that the same cheerleaders for policy now will be in an uproar later when someone they don't like is wielding the torch.
But by then, it will be too late to change it. er-will take longer/cost more to change it than can have any influence on the outrage at the time.

I really don't like the power grab, and know that I wouldn't like it if Hillary, Gore or Kerry did it either. Especially the tactics and blatant refusal to follow the law.

It'll all come back to bite all of us in the ass.
posted by Balisong at 11:28 AM on January 30, 2006

If the DNC wanted to pay me to say what I'd likely say anyway my email address is in my profile. Haven't heard from them yet, though
posted by Space Coyote at 11:36 AM on January 30, 2006

The DNC would never pay me to speak for them. I'm way too liberal for their tastes.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:39 AM on January 30, 2006

(FEMA Brownie was a "lawyer" too and bought his law degree at the same place many other wingers did since they couldn't be bothered to earn them)

For those, like me, who were more than a little curious about this, a link.
posted by malaprohibita at 11:39 AM on January 30, 2006

Yet, isn't it inevitable that Alito will get elected by the majority Republicans? I voted for Kerry, but I feel like this stunt is just excessively partisan, excessively "I want to be in the news," and ultimately, a waste of time and energy.

I have to agree, I think it's too little, too late. Typically, the Dems didn't get their shit together and focus. It's amazing how unorganized they are.

Alito may be very competent in a technical sense, but he holds opinions that the majority of Americans don't seem to support.

So what, we all know that has, literally, no bearing. You could say the same about the popular vote in the presidential election, except for the 'competent in a technical sense' part. ;>

While Kerry is annoying, he seems to be on the ball here... what's your beef?
posted by delmoi at 8:16 AM PST on January 30

He's a wishy-washy, rightward-moving, give-up-at-the-first-sign-of-trouble opportunist who managed to lose the Presidency to the dumbest, most unqualified motherfucker to ever hold the office. Everything he touches is tainted by failure and he should retire before he fucks us again.

Yep. His timing is incredibly bad, as well. This might, and still may, do some damage to the Dems if some of the big guns hadn't started to get involved and really get the bandwagon rolling. As it is, I wonder if it won't just backfire on them, now. Why couldn't they have put up a strong fight at the beginning? Why do they wait until it is almost futile?

/off-topic

Who the hell am I going to vote for in '08?
posted by codeofconduct at 11:44 AM on January 30, 2006

"Let's suppose that Alito does get confirmed. Then let's assume that several red states pass laws outlawing abortion which will immediately be challenged in court. (execution for murder?) The Scalito court then strikes down Rov Wade" - If I were GOP/Christian right strategist I'd have a whole procession of lawsuits lined up and ready to go......

Immediately following the 2006 election.
posted by troutfishing at 11:48 AM on January 30, 2006

Are you unaware that many of the GOP media machines, otherwise known as "think tanks," do pay to have their talking points advocated in every possible forum?

Yes I am "aware" of think tanks. I just doubt they would consider us a good use of their funds.

Have you not noticed that every right wing defender has been a "lawyer" by profession here on Mefi?

I've also noticed that a lot of the biggest administration critics around here are gay. I'm not willing to concede that Mefi has been infiltrated by paid operatives of the nefarious Gay Cabal, though.

You don't think it strange that they keep a normal work day schedule as though punching a clock?

Not in the slightest. I'm sure there are many people who have posting histories that are heaviest during work hours. It's pretty much a no-brainer as to why.
posted by Cyrano at 11:53 AM on January 30, 2006

In regards to a media conspiracy (aka blacklisting). I suspect that this isn't going to be considered news until the fillibuster does or does not happen. The media has a long history of ignoring grass roots lobbying efforts until they bear fruit.

In regards to the power of intenet activism. I'm skeptical. It has worked for some cool and popular battles. But the most vocal of the internet activists here and elsewhere spent December 2004-May 2005 taking a big collective dump on areas where they need to win contested races in November 2006. They don't have the luxury of pouring money into a few states in play this time around.

It's no good thowing all of the money and hate at DeLay, and leave behind a dozen of his cronies. What really scares the shit out of me is how most internet phenomena follows something like Pareto's law in which 10% of the population gets 90% of the resouces. In this election, a Pareto's law scenario could mean that net activists spend money unseating infamous figureheads like DeLay and Santorum that could have gotten 2 or 3 seats elsewhere.

Taking back congress, or even just getting a strong minority presence in congress, will mean working some unsexy campaigns. It will mean working outside of the massive urban strongholds and woking rural, small urban and suburban districts. It would mean working in "red state" districts.

Perhaps most critically, I think liberal network activists need to talk about the white elephant in their bedroom. The net is by no means egalitarian, but biased in term of gender, class, culture, region and race.

The left doesn't disseminate talking points from the top down every day (we bow to Norquist and Rove for evil genuis.)

Actually, much internet activism advocates doing just that, and Kos certainly acts as a vehicle for talking points from dem politicians and staff in the form of press releases and "inside information."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:54 AM on January 30, 2006

Who the hell am I going to vote for in '08?

am i evil for wanting very badly to see rice vs. clinton in '08? heads would be asplodin' all over the frickin' country.
posted by lord_wolf at 11:56 AM on January 30, 2006

Are you unaware that many of the GOP media machines, otherwise known as "think tanks," do pay to have their talking points advocated in every possible forum? Have you not noticed that every right wing defender has been a "lawyer" by profession here on Mefi?
You don't think it strange that they keep a normal work day schedule as though punching a clock?

nofundy

Now THAT would make an interesting thread topic . . .
posted by Eyebeams at 12:04 PM on January 30, 2006

Thanks for that link, malaprohibita. I'm amazed that I can still be amazed at just how amazing Mike Brown's mediocrity can be. I'd missed the fact that he wasn't really even a lawyer when he became general counsel at a major federal agency. Holy crap.
posted by mediareport at 12:12 PM on January 30, 2006

New management.
posted by homunculus at 12:30 PM on January 30, 2006

I'm not willing to concede that Mefi has been infiltrated by paid operatives of the nefarious Gay Cabal, though.

Sweetie darling, haven't you heard? There is no Cabal.
posted by Rothko at 12:41 PM on January 30, 2006

And the part that is sad is that Alito is an eminently qualified jurist who deserves a place on the Supreme Court as much as anyone else.

Nobody "deserves" a place on the Supreme Court.

Let me make this perfectly clear.

NOBODY DESERVES A PLACE ON THE SUPREME COURT. Nominations are made by the President. The appointment comes only with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.

There's nothing in the Constitution about your boot-licking "qualified = deserving" equation. Really, dios, you're the one who's calling for reasoned dissertations on the law, and this is the best you can do? Hypocrisy of the highest order, because you're using it to stifle democratic debate.
posted by dhartung at 12:47 PM on January 30, 2006

nefarious Gay Cabal

Missing some letters there, it should read "nefarious Gay Caballeros", right?

Becuase those gay cowboys are getting into everything these days, I hear they even have a movie out.
posted by fenriq at 12:59 PM on January 30, 2006

Sweetie darling, haven't you heard? There is no Cabal.

So I've been exfoliating for nothing?!?
posted by Cyrano at 12:59 PM on January 30, 2006

Cindy Sheehan to Dianne Feinstein: Fillibuster Alito or I’ll Challenge Your Senate Seat
posted by spock at 1:06 PM on January 30, 2006

You can listen to the cloture vote here. Kerry is speaking now.
posted by ND¢ at 1:07 PM on January 30, 2006

So I've been exfoliating for nothing?!?

You still look marvelous.
posted by Rothko at 1:07 PM on January 30, 2006

Fillibuster Alito or I’ll Challenge Your Senate Seat

Fuckin' A!
posted by If I Had An Anus at 1:08 PM on January 30, 2006

"People feed off the talking points of their ideological crowd."
the GOP, feeding you like family! Seconds anyone? It's cool, you can always puke it back up!
posted by los pijamas del gato at 1:14 PM on January 30, 2006

You can listen to the cloture vote here. Kerry is speaking now.

Why are they now taking listener's calls? I need cloture.
posted by eddydamascene at 1:18 PM on January 30, 2006

That sucked. It is back to the floor now.
posted by ND¢ at 1:26 PM on January 30, 2006

Indictations remain, however, that activists will be unable to round up enough votes to block the nominee. But that hasn't tempered bloggers' sails.

What means this "tempering of sails"? Is this a common turn of speech I just haven't heard before?
posted by freebird at 1:29 PM on January 30, 2006

I'd like ot thank you all for speedy the complete destruction od the Democratic Party.

The sooner we have a real opposition party, the better.
posted by Mick at 1:35 PM on January 30, 2006

Cindy Sheehan to Dianne Feinstein: Fillibuster Alito or I’ll Challenge Your Senate Seat

Senator Sheehan, that won't help any either
posted by Mick at 1:43 PM on January 30, 2006

Bush is at 42% methinks, probably up to 44% for a few weeks after another rah-rah stay the course SOTU that says absolutely nothing, then back down again.
posted by bardic at 2:08 PM on January 30, 2006

Hell, Bush's approval rating is above 50% since Kerry started talking filibuster.

Not true.
posted by smackfu at 2:09 PM on January 30, 2006

Let me clarify, mainstream voters will not like a filibuster and the Dems will be further marginalized.

Hell, Bush's approval rating is above 50% since Kerry started talking filibuster. How bad do you have to be fucking up to have people approve of Bush?

Jesus, my frustration level is sky-fucking-high. I can't wait for the day when I can feel good about being either a Republican or a Democrat.

Here is the thing, there is nothing overtly wrong with Alito (don't get me wrong, here, I don't agree with his views but I can see that he is able and intelligent, as can anyone else who is paying attention) which is why the public doesn't/won't support a filibuster. Again, the public may have been behind a fight had it started much earlier than this and had it been lead by anyone other than Kerry. As it is, precious energy is now being wasted on the inevitable and the public recognizes that. I will be happy to be wrong about this.
posted by codeofconduct at 2:10 PM on January 30, 2006

What kirkjobsluder said
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:18 PM on January 30, 2006

Cloture agreed to.
posted by MrMoonPie at 2:29 PM on January 30, 2006

barf.
posted by madamjujujive at 2:32 PM on January 30, 2006

75 to 25. It wasn't even close.
posted by ND¢ at 2:36 PM on January 30, 2006

(sorry, just noticed that the Senate roll call votes page hasn't been updated yet--I was listening to the live feed)
posted by MrMoonPie at 2:38 PM on January 30, 2006

Looks like Dios won that argument, 75-25.
posted by esquire at 2:39 PM on January 30, 2006

Looks like Dios won that argument, 75-25.

*Golf clap*
posted by Rothko at 2:42 PM on January 30, 2006

I'd like ot thank you all for speedy the complete destruction od the Democratic Party.

that's a lot for gloating after stealing a lost election, after winning another 51-49 with Diebold on your side, after Iraq and Enron and Katrina and the NSA and Abramoff. a lot of gloating.

sore winners are an interesting phenomenon -- at least back in the 90's when Clinton cleaned your clock twice (and he was ready to do it a third time, cum stains notwithstanding -- damn 22nd amendment) you showed a little more restraint. enjoy the triumphal policies of the GOP -- just stay away from Iraq, or Louisiana.
posted by matteo at 2:43 PM on January 30, 2006

damn 22nd amendment

Second that.
posted by codeofconduct at 2:46 PM on January 30, 2006

disgusting wimpy Senators
posted by amberglow at 3:00 PM on January 30, 2006

Yeah, the politicians bailed out on America once again. Cowards.
posted by Rothko at 3:07 PM on January 30, 2006

Now (to bring things back to the FPP) we can at least say the MSM was right to ignore this non-story. Nothing here to see, folks, comics on page C13.
posted by jfuller at 3:35 PM on January 30, 2006

...but bloggers told me it was going to happen!!!
posted by horsemuth at 3:37 PM on January 30, 2006

The 19 Democrats who voted against the filibuster were: Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), Max Baucus (Mont), Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), Robert Byrd (W. Va.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Thomas Carper (Del.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), John D. Rockefeller (W. Va.) and Ken Salazar (Colo.).
posted by bukvich at 3:48 PM on January 30, 2006

So does this mean Cindy Sheehan is running against Feinstein?
posted by bukvich at 3:48 PM on January 30, 2006

The 19 Democrats who voted against the filibuster were...

And I thank them, because a closer vote would just have gotten more headlines as a Democratic loss, and Alito would still end up as a justice.
posted by smackfu at 3:57 PM on January 30, 2006

netroots is a totally fucking stupid construct. stick it up your blogosphere and blow it out your folksonomy.
posted by quonsar at 3:58 PM on January 30, 2006

at least back in the 90's when Clinton cleaned your clock twice

Well, only one clock-cleaning really (and even in '96 he had less than 50% of the votes). If it hadn't been for Ross Perot, he would never have been president in the first place.
posted by loquax at 4:01 PM on January 30, 2006

netroots is a totally fucking stupid construct. stick it up your blogosphere and blow it out your folksonomy.

*snork*
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:05 PM on January 30, 2006

The 19 spineless, gutless democrats who voted against this should be expelled from the party. They made the dems look even more weak and ineffectual than usual. America is well on it's way to tyranny, thanks to "Unitary Executive? Oh hell yes!" Alito.

Assuming that there's ever another free and fair election in the USA, what's the bet that this 'time of war' will come to a rapid end about five minutes after it looks likely that the Dems will seize the White House? Heck, only Republican presidents deserve unlimited power, after all.
posted by kaemaril at 4:21 PM on January 30, 2006

there won't be, kaemaril--they've ensured that with diebold and the others. and even if there was, they now have the Court, which they used so effectively in 2000--they're not at all afraid to use it again--in fact, i bet they're counting on it to get them out of trouble very soon.

where's Wakko when you need him?
posted by amberglow at 4:49 PM on January 30, 2006

tristero at digby, on Molly Ivins: ...you're assuming that sooner or later there actually will be a Democratic president. Republicans assume that will never, ever happen again. And they're doing everything possible - controlling voting machines, gerrymandering, fraud, blackmail, buying the media - to make sure it doesn't.

So why bother worrying the "other party" will abuse the power Bush now has? It's like worrying about a large asteroid colliding with Earth. Sure, it's theoretically possible, but...

Wouldn't it be nice if they were wrong? And Republicans no longer were in a position to wreak the havoc they've inflicted on our country over the past 5 plus years? And the laws were again obeyed?

Me, I'd be perfectly happy if none of the scoundrels currently destroying our country's way of life and government were never prosecuted if we could just keep them out of power. Well, not happy exactly, but I'd settle for it. ...
posted by amberglow at 4:54 PM on January 30, 2006

you don't have to warn me, kae--i know that's in their bag of tricks too.
posted by amberglow at 5:26 PM on January 30, 2006

Why bother cancelling the election when you can just fix it?
posted by elwoodwiles at 5:27 PM on January 30, 2006

If Bush cancelled the next election, he has appointed enough people to argue a case through the supreme court to say that it's legal to do for a war president. It'll all be legal. We're at war, and electing a new leader just makes the terrorists win.
As long as we are at a state of war with terror, we will have this president, or his appointees.

Sweet.

Hitler had done it all legal by the books in Germany, too.
posted by Balisong at 5:31 PM on January 30, 2006

elwoodwiles : saves money. Republicans like to be very frugal ... apart from when it comes to dishing out the loot to their buddies, of course.
posted by kaemaril at 5:35 PM on January 30, 2006

So isn't anyone going to threaten to move to Canada? What's got into you all?
posted by jfuller at 5:58 PM on January 30, 2006

If there hadn't been Bush I, there would've been no Perot.
posted by bardic at 6:02 PM on January 30, 2006

amberglow : Actually, with his unitary super powers, what's to stop Bush cancelling the next election? Maybe a "strong indication" of an Al-Qaeda attack the day of the election might cause Bush to regretfully "postpone until voter's safety can be guaranteed"? Conspiracy theory land?

See, it's crap like that that hurts the left. If the left could knock off the 10 percent of the nuts they have on their side (including the obvious couple in this thread), they'd be much better off. What I don't get is why the sane members on the left don't challenge the idiotic rhetoric spewed by their nuttier members.
posted by justgary at 6:27 PM on January 30, 2006

justgary, i wouldn't go calling other people idiotic or nutty if i were you. Newsweek: ..."the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Soaries, a Bush appointee who two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to make such a call. Homeland officials say that as drastic as such proposals sound, they are taking them seriously—along with other possible contingency plans in the event of an election-eve or Election Day attack. "We are reviewing the issue to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election," says Brian Roehrkasse, a Homeland spokesman. ...
posted by amberglow at 6:31 PM on January 30, 2006

What I don't get is why the sane members on the left don't challenge the idiotic rhetoric spewed by their nuttier members.

Times are tough and there is lots of frustration. Besides, this is like talk around the family table.
posted by stirfry at 6:39 PM on January 30, 2006

justgary: I'm not a democrat. I just think that with all that Bush has done, why on Earth would you think Bush wouldn't stoop to such a thing if he thought he could get away with it? It's not like he's got any great respect for democracy, congress, the senate, the courts, the constitution ...
posted by kaemaril at 6:41 PM on January 30, 2006

See, it's crap like that that hurts the left. If the left could knock off the 10 percent of the nuts they have on their side (including the obvious couple in this thread), they'd be much better off.

Indeed. Crap is crap, and it hurts everyone. It is unfortunate that the right can seemingly get away with it. Ann, Rush, Bill, Bush, Cheney, etc. Embarrasing all by any reasonable measurement.

And why is what would have been a clearly parodic statement just a few years ago automatically assumed to be from the left? What does left or right have to do with good government and human rights in the Americas? I fail, entirely, to understand how concern for issues like these is partisan.
posted by juiceCake at 6:43 PM on January 30, 2006

See, it's crap like that that hurts the left.

Well, what is to stop it, justgary? The Republican majority in Congress have made it a point of pride that they rubber stamp King George's proclimations. And now the Court has been stacked with apologists.

A few years ago, you probably would have declared it was a nutty notion that the President would brazenly spy on American citizens, or throw them in jail without charges. Or proclaim Torture is Freedom™

So, I'm serious. What would stop it? I know it's supposedly self-evident, but help a simple-mided partisan brother out.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:00 PM on January 30, 2006

We don't torture. Because it's illegal. And now we've just passed a bill (I won't mention threatening to veto it) which has made it even more illegal. Oh, but I get to make a signing statement, explaining that the executive branch needn't worry about the law I've just signed. Anyone got a problem with that? Anyone? Anyone? Other than the democrats obviously, who don't count 'cos they're wusses who refuse to stand up and fight for what they believe in. Anyone? Anyone at all? Put that hand down, Justice Alito, we all know you're only kidding. There, that's better.
posted by kaemaril at 7:07 PM on January 30, 2006

but we're only torturing brown people, so that's ok to Bush supporters.
posted by amberglow at 7:14 PM on January 30, 2006

congress = hot air, grandstanding and melodrama ... i certainly didn't expect anything different

to paraphrase raymond chandler ... the democrats don't want to save the country ... they just want to look like they're saving the country
posted by pyramid termite at 12:45 AM on January 31, 2006

1. Very interesting link (Newsweek) from amberglow.

2. I've noticed that the only time the term "brown people" is used is when a liberal is trying to sarcastically describe a conservative's race problems. A minor point, I know, but . . .
posted by Eyebeams at 6:17 AM on January 31, 2006

"brown people" is plain English, not a code word.
you usually rely code words, like "States Rights" instead of "segregation", and all that. it's all about code words.
posted by matteo at 6:35 AM on January 31, 2006

the code word for "brown people" being, of course, the all-encompassing "terrorists"
posted by matteo at 6:37 AM on January 31, 2006

It's plain English, but I assume that amberglow wouldn't use the term non-sarcastically (e.g., arriving at a party, "Wow! There's a lot of brown people here") - and I find it curious that this word always crops up in the same way: "Of course [Insert conservative] doesn't care , because only brown people will be affected/kiled/hurt."

Like I said, a minor point. But if the term is really offensive, it's a bit dishonest to, in effect, attribute it to people who don't themselves use it.
posted by Eyebeams at 6:59 AM on January 31, 2006

* killed
posted by Eyebeams at 7:00 AM on January 31, 2006

Eyebeams, it's not dishonest at all--i merely picked up the phrase that many rightwingers themself use--one of many, and not at all the worst one.

The study i linked to actually shows that racists vote GOP (which is not a surprise, you know), and it's related, believe me.
posted by amberglow at 7:14 AM on January 31, 2006

I've never seen or heard a rightwinger actually use that term - only leftwingers trying to describe rightwingers.

In any case, the article about contingency plans to cancel elections was interesting.
posted by Eyebeams at 7:21 AM on January 31, 2006

The study i linked to actually shows that racists vote GOP (which is not a surprise, you know), and it's related, believe me.

It actually shows that more "racists" self-identify as supporters of Bush and "conservatives". Plenty of "liberals" are just as "racist" as conservatives, there just appear to be more conservatives that have trouble associating positive concepts with black faces on that test.

The analysis found that substantial majorities of Americans, liberals and conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with positive concepts than white faces -- evidence of implicit bias. But districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically produced more votes for Bush.

Whether or not it's fair to use the word "racist" in this context is another story. As the authors of the study stress, the existence of a bias does not equate to the presence of prejudicial action, and it's dangerous to start extrapolating that it does from this kind of test. If you do, we're really getting into thought police territory. If one is biased against black people, yet never does a thing in their life to act on that bias, are they a racist?
posted by loquax at 7:27 AM on January 31, 2006

proud of your self-restraint, huh?
posted by matteo at 9:20 AM on January 31, 2006

Actually, personally, I only show a bias for Hungarians and against Latvians, so these survey results don't mean much to me.

(Way to not address the fact that posters here were totally misrepresenting that study for partisan purposes though! So the thought police is just dandy as long as they're on your side, eh?)
posted by loquax at 10:09 AM on January 31, 2006

« Older The Ultimate Mash-up: 153 songs in 5 minutes... | SupersizedMeals.com - Foodstuf... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Media Blacklists Net-based Filibuster Push January 30, 2006 7:07 AM Subscribe

Media Blacklists Net-based Filibuster Push
January 30, 2006 7:07 AM Subscribe