January 26, 2006

Filibuster?

Kerry says he "will attempt a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court."

I just emailed Byrd and Rockefeller. Find your senator, and give 'em some feedback if you want them to join the effort.

Posted by binky at January 26, 2006 08:00 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Law and the Courts


Comments

Byrd is voting for Alito. The Democratic sheep in this state have been duped by one of their own.

Posted by: big country at January 26, 2006 09:28 PM | PERMALINK

I'll believe it when I see it, and where is Russ Feingold in this anyway? He seems a more likely candidate...filibuster-wise.

Posted by: Kvatch at January 26, 2006 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

The filibuster has no real chance of success (in the sense of stopping the Alito nomination), but might be worth it for the sake of actually being, you know, an opposition party.

Byrd is an idiot on this. I honestly can't tell you why he's voting this way (especially given Byrd's interest in Constitutional issues). If Byrd thinks he can vote Alito in, and skate through his re-election, he should think again.

Feingold is, I think, opposing Alito. I'm not sure about that, however.

Posted by: baltar at January 26, 2006 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

This is why I find it so weird for him to say he will support Alito. I expect a very articulate and well-reasoned statement out of Senator Byrd about this if he even hopes to get my vote for his re-election. I've not cast a single vote for a republican since I left the party, and I'm unlikely to start, but I wouldn't be immune to the idea of throwing away my vote on one of your Libertarian party nutters. Or some social democracy softies. What about the Mountain party? Are they running anyone?

Posted by: binky at January 27, 2006 01:12 AM | PERMALINK

I'm with Wonkette on this. They missed their chance, bigtime. I don't see a filibuster accomplishing anything at this point (other than marginalizing Kerry and Kennedy further.)

Posted by: jacflash at January 27, 2006 09:54 AM | PERMALINK

Senator Byrd's statement supporting Alito is here. The statement makes clear that Alito gave good answers to the important questions about executive power. What hearings did Senator Byrd see? I don't think they involved Alito. Maybe his senility is advancing quickly:

Judge Alito was also asked whether he would support an expansion of the scope of Presidential power. Specifically, he was asked if he thought that a President should have more power than he is expressly given by law. Judge Alito stated several times that he would not support that point of view, and he noted, again, that the “scope” of the power of the President has nothing to do with the unitary executive.

Uh, the question isn't "Should the President have more power than the law expressly gives him" (the obvious answer is "no"), the question is "Where are the limits to executive power?" Alito shows every sign of believing that anything the Executive does is, by definition, legal. Hence, his failure to expressly define the scope of legal versus illegal executive action is disappointing. Byrd should, of all the Senators, have recognized this - he's the one who's the constitutional scholar.

He's lost my vote.

Posted by: baltar at January 27, 2006 09:55 AM | PERMALINK

Jacflash you may be right that the chance is gone, and wonkette is certainly right that the Dems should have shown more backbone and torn into him.

I still don't want him on the Supreme Court.

I am more displeased with Byrd than ever. That what the nominess says in his visits is more important than what his record tells us is skewed.

Evidently Byrd didn't read Edward's post at ObWi.

Posted by: binky at January 27, 2006 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

I'm struggling to figure out the effect of even a day-long filibuster on the day of the President's State of the Union address. I suspect the prospect of it is forcing his speech writers to come up with alternative drafts, one that celebrates the confirmation of Alito, and another that berates Democrats for, you know, "advising" and withholding their "consent," and thus actually remembering what the Constitution and their oaths of office are all about.

Posted by: Moon at January 27, 2006 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

A "failed" filibuster is worth it if it can (A) raise awareness of Alito and the values he represents, (B) showcase the Democrats as a party out of power, but one that represents the values of a majority of Americans (and, hence, should get more votes), (C) energize the base, who are responsible for most of the activity for the midterm elections coming up, and (D) energize fundraisers, which gives the Democrats more chance in the mid term elections.

It is unclear that a filibuster would do any (much less all) of these things, and it is unclear how much damage a filibuster would do if it backfired.

Posted by: baltar at January 27, 2006 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

Baltar, I agree, but.

I'm guessing that C is likely, D is somewhat less likely but still probable to a certain extent, A is unlikely given present media dynamics (I don't think the message is likely to spread much beyond the people who are already on board with it), and B ain't gonna happen if it's Kerry and Kennedy (or Schumer) up there leading the charge.

The problem here is this: the mass-market storyline has already settled on "liberal special interest groups are pushing/paying their pet senators to bork this poor guy who doesn't seem to deserve it and they're so mean and jerky that they made his wife cry." A Kerry-and-Kennedy-led filibuster only plays into that -- at this point, it looks like nothing more than a stunt to pacify the aforementioned special interests. Not that I have any better ideas, but I don't see how this plays out to the D team's advantage beyond their base (much less how it actually stops the nominee). I agree they should try, but I hope they're smarter about it than they have been, and I hope that it doesn't make things any worse...

Posted by: jacflash at January 27, 2006 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

A note on comment moderation: Jacflash, I believe you are being moderated for your use of the ellipsis.

Some porn spammers use it in their links, so it gets hit. So, don't feel bad about getting moderated, beceause we don't have anything against you. It's just those three little dots.

Posted by: binky at January 27, 2006 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Duly noted. It's a sloppy writing habit anyway. I'm happy to have an excuse to work on breaking it. Thanks.

Posted by: jacflash at January 27, 2006 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

No problem. Just wanted you to know that we love you, sloppy or otherwise, but the software thinks you're a porn spammer.

Posted by: binky at January 27, 2006 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Jacflash,

I'd agree with that analysis. I wasn't really trying for probable reasons, just logical ones. Energize the base and fundraising are likely the best reasons for a filibuster, but even those are sketchy. It could backfire in too many ways. Doesn't mean they shouldn't try it (on moral grounds: I'm very, very, very nervous about Alito's positions on Executive power) or won't try it (they may evaluate the probabilities different from you and me), but I don't think it's likely.

I don't think there is anything that can stop Alito at this point: the larger question is how can the Ds turn the inevitable vote into any sort of benefit/gain to them. The answer may be that there is nothing of benefit to then in any action they might take.

I'm not real happy with the Ds (in an ideological sense), but at this point any sort of divided power sharing that puts any sort of check and/or balance on the White House will get my vote.

Posted by: baltar at January 27, 2006 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Baltar, I'm with you.

I suspect that Kerry's real goal is to revitalize his position as a leader (which may exist only in his head at this point, but that's another topic) to the hardcore base. Of course, in classic Kerry style, it's a damned clumsy stunt in a lot of ways, starting with his phoning it in from the slopes at Davos. (I mean, really, Karl Rove couldn't have set it up any better.) We'll see. It might be entertaining; I just wish the stakes weren't what they are.

Side note: one wonders how Alito's positions on executive power will "evolve" once there's a Democratic executive.

Posted by: jacflash at January 27, 2006 12:26 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?