home

Democrats Urge a 'No' Vote on Alito

Update: Check out Daily Kos' Whip Count.

*******
Original Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL.]

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


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

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

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