The Seattle Post Intelligencer:

Judge Samuel Alito will soon get his lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito's history of extreme views on abortion and executive powers makes that nothing more than a regrettable political reality.

With the politics favoring President Bush's nominee, the U.S. Senate must send Alito forward with a forceful, respectful and unforgettable set of reminders about his constitutional responsibilities. Senators can underline the message with as many votes as possible against confirmation.

...Learned, honorable and experienced, Alito is still so far out of the mainstream that a Senate filibuster would be fully justified. But the power-drunk Republican threat to set a procedural precedent eliminating such filibusters forever argues for caution.

I'm not afraid of Frist's nuclear option. There is going to be a Republican or two who believes in continuing the time-honored traditions of the Senate more than payback. I think it's worth the risk.

It only takes one courageous democrat to start a filibuster. Maybe we can count on Sen. Dick Durbin. Bloomberg tonight reports:

The Senate's 44 Democrats, after their weekly caucus in Washington, refused to rule out using the parliamentary tactic of a filibuster to block a Senate vote on Alito's confirmation. Such a tactic would only succeed if Democrats mustered 41 votes to defeat a Republican effort to end debate and proceed to a vote. While several Democratic lawmakers have said a filibuster is unlikely, some say the tactic would draw attention to the debate.

``There are many who feel Judge Alito is going to make a profound change on the Supreme Court,'' said Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. ``If the American people understood that they would pay closer attention to this debate, contact their senators and perhaps change the outcome.'' Durbin declined to say whether he supports a filibuster, saying only, ``it is in the realm of possibility.'' (my emphasis.)

Here's the basics:

``One senator objecting to a time agreement means the debate continues,'' Durbin said. ``At that point, or at any point'' Republican Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee could move to end debate.

Republicans control the Senate by a 55-44 margin, with one independent who usually votes with the Democrats. They would need 60 votes to end debate and cut off any attempt to filibuster the nomination. A pledge by seven Democrats last year not to use the filibuster to derail Bush's judicial nominees would make it difficult for Democrats to successfully use the strategy.

A number of Democrats, including Pryor, Conrad, California Senator Dianne Feinstein and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, have said they wouldn't support a filibuster. Nelson and Pryor were among the seven Democrats who signed the agreement not to support filibusters of judicial nominees except under ``extraordinary circumstances.'' In return for that pledge, seven Republicans agreed not to support Frist's proposal to change the rules to bar such filibusters.

There's that spineless gang of 14 again. But that's water under the bridge.

One thing is for certain. Unless there is a continuous push by constitutents to filibuster between now and the vote, the Dems won't do it. So far only Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska has jumped ship and said he will vote for Alito.

So, check out Code Pink which has all the contact information and updated info on the positions of the Senators.

[Graphic created exlcusively for TalkLeft by CL.)