Why to Fight on Alito
| By MattSinger - Jan 9th, 2006 at 1:34 pm EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
This shouldn't even be a close question. Sammy Alito opposes Roe, opposes worker's rights, opposes fundamentals like "one man, one vote." This stuff is all clearly part of the public record. But on top of his clearly outside-the-mainstream thinking, he lies about it. He says these aren't legal opinions. That's a load of hooey and he's smart enough to know it or he ain't smart enough to be a justice.
If that isn't enough, he's lied to the Senate a couple times already to get a job. Finally, he was a member of an openly bigoted organization at Princeton.
So why the hell are liberal pundits encouraging rolling over?
Oh, yeah, because we're all scared of our own shadows and while doing the right thing and protecting and defending the Constitution is real nice in la la liberal land, sober adults need to realize that running like simpering kittens from President Bush is the right way to win power.
There's a problem with this line of thinking, too.
The swing voter, the median voter, whatever you want to call this mythical beast who moves from right to left or left to right and decides elections knows nothing about Alito and can be convinced in virtually either direction.
This nomination matters to the base.
Now, ask yourself, is the conservative machine going to stop slinging mud simply because you vote for cloture?
No. They'll still accuse you of slaughtering kittens as part of your pagan plot to destroy Christmas.
But voting for cloture will just piss off your base. We're heading into mid-term elections. Give your base a reason to care. Prepare a media narrative to convince the swingers that they should like you.
But don't pretend that ducking-and-running is the same as winning. That strategy hasn't exactly worked for France.
If that isn't enough, he's lied to the Senate a couple times already to get a job. Finally, he was a member of an openly bigoted organization at Princeton.
So why the hell are liberal pundits encouraging rolling over?
Oh, yeah, because we're all scared of our own shadows and while doing the right thing and protecting and defending the Constitution is real nice in la la liberal land, sober adults need to realize that running like simpering kittens from President Bush is the right way to win power.
There's a problem with this line of thinking, too.
The swing voter, the median voter, whatever you want to call this mythical beast who moves from right to left or left to right and decides elections knows nothing about Alito and can be convinced in virtually either direction.
This nomination matters to the base.
Now, ask yourself, is the conservative machine going to stop slinging mud simply because you vote for cloture?
No. They'll still accuse you of slaughtering kittens as part of your pagan plot to destroy Christmas.
But voting for cloture will just piss off your base. We're heading into mid-term elections. Give your base a reason to care. Prepare a media narrative to convince the swingers that they should like you.
But don't pretend that ducking-and-running is the same as winning. That strategy hasn't exactly worked for France.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Link
I forgot.
The TV diagnostician who kills kittens. I know who I want for my primary care provider.
This is the only shot we're going to get, and this is the one that matters. Now is when the stakes are highest, and the only chance to stop Alito is probably going to be a filibuster. We need to have this fight sooner or later, and if there's go tto be a fight over something that will protect the court then now is certainly the time to have it. If we lose, then Alito is confirmed anyway. If we win, we can force a more moderate choice (or at least consultation with Senate Democrats).
Your logic isn't bad, per se, but I don't think it works this way in practice. Until the point that "the shit really hits the fan", which we have not reached yet, Americans tend to segment their opinions of political parties and sectors of government. For instance, I don't think the Abramoff scandal makes the American public more likely to support a filibuster.
This really isn't the best chance we're going to get. The best chance is some hypothetical future nominee that's well to Alito's right. Also, that implies that we've got to filibuster something, and it's just a matter of when.
For instance, Alito opposes the judicial logic used in Roe v. Wade. I'm a pro-choice liberal, and so do I.
This is news? That's supposed to be filibuster-worthy? I ain't seein' it.
And the problem I have with the current setting is that we've already hit the point where 51 votes is all that's needed for a SCOTUS confirmation, because we seem so damn cowed by the threat of the nuclear option.
The idea that W will be able to rally national support for eliminating yet another realm of Congressional oversight is only slightly short of laughable at this stage. He doesn't have the personal support he did when this fight first came up with Estrada et al. He won't be able to carry this water.
It gives us a chance to be an opposition party.
It gives us a chance to flex some procedural muscle. (Does anyone really doubt that Harry Reid already has a list of tactics ready to go if the nuclear option works?)
And, since most analyses seem to agree that Alito is as far right or farther right than Scalia, I think this is exactly the time to raise the issue. It's unlikely Bush gets another SCOTUS pick, so I'm worrying about the hand we've got now, not what might possibly come later this term. Plus, it's looking more and more likely that we'll take the Senate this November, and it wouldn't hurt our chances in ten months to fight now.
So, I say again, we'll never have another opportunity like this.
Flexing procedural muscle! That's exactly what Middle America wants to see from its congressmen! That'll win us some seats in '06! ;p
Seriously, if it comes down to a battle of our parliamentary procedures versus theirs, the voters tend to just walk away in disgust, which is a loss for us because on merit they should be warming to us. It's not drilling our plan for leadership into the minds of the American people.
Also, if you want to settle the issue of how many votes it takes to get on SCOTUS?
Take a few years in the majority, then spearhead an amendment to the constitution requiring 60 votes for a Supreme Court nominee. Assuming we're in the majority at the time, and such a move would be protecting the rights of the minority party, it wouldn't be too hard to get the Republicans to agree.
Until then, the fight over the filibuster is not one of principle, but one where if the D's and R's reversed, each side would easily take the other's positions and make the exact opposite arguments.
Just like the argument over how forthcoming Alito should be in testimony.
You think the voters will give two shits about a party that's unwilling to make a stand when confronted with unacceptable circumstances?
And while we're at it, let's ratify the First Amendment again just to make sure the point gets across. Jesus, Joe, why the hell should we have to amend the Constitution to reaffirm the Constitution? What pisses me off most about your position is the utter contempt you seem to show for the public in assuming that they won't understand which side is breaking the rules to get their way and which side is standing for fair play and civility. Give the public some credit--it's not a tough case to make.
No, that's bullshit, because the Democratic Senate caucus has shown no interest in setting aside over 200 years of tradition and the recommendations of the Senate Parliamentarian in order to prop up the Executive even further. Drop the cynic act for just a few minutes and let the rest of us take a breather.
And, just in case you missed this point, the entire nuclear option debate IS A BATTLE OF OUR PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES VERSUS THEIRS, so odds are those voters that are going to walk off in disgust have already stopped paying attention.
But the main point I was making is still right: we have nothing to gain by not fighting this battle, and the only way we can really lose is by not accepting the challenge. Status quo means 51 votes, regardless of what the rules actually require. You might be comfortable with the tyranny of the majority, but I'm not. Go read some Mill and get back to me.
How is it ducking and running? Conservative presidents are supposed to produce conservative justices, just as we got Ginsburg from Clinton.
There's some stuff in his record that I don't like, but I don't see how any of it constitutes a "deal-breaker", a-la Bork.
Also, you need to be a lot more specific when you talk about "Worker's rights", as if it's some clearly defined entity.
Worker's rights, human rights, and social justice are three phrases that are tossed around broadly to mask a lot of really contentious positions -- none of them are conducive to real, productive debate.
On balance, Samuel Alito appears qualified to be a conservative Supreme Court justice, which is the job he's auditioning for. So was Roberts. Miers was not.
So was Bork, but when a nominee is so far outside the mainstream as to threaten our conceptualizations of the very nature of America, it's the duty of a responsible Senate to stop the nomination. They weren't allowed to advise, so why should they be required to consent?
I don't have a problem with judicial conservatism. I have a problem with extreme judicial philosophies masked with lies all tied up with ethical issues.