I think there are two arguments woven into this thread - strategic and tactical.
Taking the tactical point first, I could be convinced to ramp the fight up to another level if I had some real momentum coming into it. Sorry, it isn't there. This particular battle was lost when Joe Biden spent half an hour talking about himself and he and his colleagues failed to make a clear case for opposition. At this point - following all the fluff about Princeton societies - we haven't got a unified opposition and a middle of the country leaning in our direction. Sometimes you do pay for the mistakes already made.
On the strategic side, we have a Senate and House majority to win in November, and the only way to do this (in my judgement) is to make a positive case to change. Part of that message is corruption, part incompetence, part President-as-King, but also - how are we going to govern better based on values that will capture a majority.
Patrick, if you want to talk bravery, fair enough. Deciding that your pugnaciousness is more important than thinking things through, to me, is one defining feature of this Administration and its leader. I really don't want us to take that model on.
j h woodyat - you wrote
I say we look less bad losing when we go down swinging. If progressive Senators stand up and make passionate floor speeches about all the reasons we know Alito is an unacceptable nomination to the Supreme Court, and rank and file Democrats make a point of flooding the top-down media with demands that their points be covered widely and fairly...
Absolutely - have at it. Let's find our strongest point - this nomination is part of a pattern of reckless overreach of Presidential authority - and use it to build a case for a national election in 2006. By all means weave the Alito nomination into the thread of domestic spying, executive winking at torture, rampant cronyism, the capitulation of a weak Congress.
But the chance of a successful filibuster rested on a) a powerful hook which resonated with that part of the voting public paying attention before the hearings and b)a very strong showing by the Democratic senators in the Judiciary Committee. I just don't see either.
To use a poker metaphor, we started with an 8-4 offsuit, and haven't picked up anything all the way to the river. Every so often you go all in on a bluff, but this is just a sure way to lose a big stack.
With many of the key issues right now, we're in a much stronger position to make the case for change. A vicious battle over filibustering Alito is unlikely to prevail in the short term (I don't think we have the votes); I can't see it making us stronger in the medium term (Senate snarl and/or someone much nastier two months down the pike).
And in the long term, are we really willing to make the argument that you need 60 senators for any judicial nominee? I'd like to see a Democratic President and Senate in 2008, and I'd like to see some good judges appointed. If you think what happened to Clinton's judges in the 1990s was bad, wait until the Right has a filibustered Alito's bloody shirt to wave.
I typically agree with about 90% of the political discussions I read at this site. This thread falls into the 10% category - I just can't see how a filibuster at this stage helps the good guys.
If the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee had done a decent job of framing the objection to Alito around a vital issue of principle - that the Constitution empowers a President, not a King - then possibly.
You'd likely have to carry 10 of the "Gang of 14" to have a decent shot - which I just don't see happening.
And say you could some how get 41/42 senators on board - what then? Priscilla Owen? Do we filibuster Bush 43 appointees for the next 3 years (because the next one after Alito is not going to be Lawrence Tribe)?
Or say the Gang of 14 fragments, nuclear option - which is cheating, you got it, but try telling that to Kyra Phillips or Katie Couric - a Senate snarl that poisons the Congressional well for years to come?
This is a target-rich time for the good guys - Abramoff drip-drip-drip, incompetence across the board, Medicare drug plan idiocy - so why try to play the poorest card in the hand?
Yes, none of us would have tapped Alito. Hell, GWB didn't first time around - and on balance, I'm not sure I'd have preferred Justice Miers. But not only do the Republicans have 55 senators, the Democratic senators just have not made a compelling enough case against him to make it stick. I don't like it, but then I didn't like the 2000, 2002 and 2004 election results. To stop the next Alito, we have to win in 2006, and win big. I just don't see that we get closer to doing so by going down this path.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 1 |
| 2006 | 3 |
Total: 4 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Andrew:
Show all comments by Andrew.