I have bad news for you regarding Alito

[mrgorth]

I have a good friend (hardcore dem) who works for the same Court that Alito is in. The scoop on Alito is that he is eminently qualified. He is very smart and sincere. He is conservative but not a raving corporatist like Brown or Owen. Also, we lost the election. Maybe we really won it but the fact of the matter is that we haven't done a good enough job convincing the american people and as a result the thugs occupy both the executive and legislative offices. This is a fight we can't win. Feel free to call your senators and tell them to filibuster if you want but I'm telling you now that guys like Schumer are going to bluster but in the end Alito will be confirmed. Alito is not a "rub their noses in it" pick. Alito is a "to the victor goes the spoils" pick. They won. They get to choose the judge and Alito is a good pick for them. Now go ahead and tell me I'm not a democrat or some other such nonsense.

[funflower]

1. If that's true, we can kiss Roe v Wade goodbye.

We'd better be getting together our campaigns for state legislature and governor.

[rkc3]

5. Roe v Wade will live forever - regardless of who is on the court.

Otherwise, the repubs will lose 80% of their funding.

[LincolnMcGrath]

24. I believe that as well.

Eliminate roe v wade tomorrow, and the GOP never picks up more than 10 - 15% of the votes.

[AndyTiedye]

53. Roe Would be Toast. So Would Lawrence v. Texas and Griswold v. Ct.

The fundies want it all and they own the voting machinez.

[kath]

86. They really are trying to do away with Griswold - and it scares the crap

out of me...

[Czolgosz]

99. If you think they would never reverse Roe v Wade, you're wrong. Here's why

The elected Republican politicians will never pass a constitutional amendment or law reversing Roe v Wade because they live off the money it generates (and because without Roe v Wade, much of the Republican house-of-cards coalition would fall apart).

But that is simply not how judges look at the issue. The value of an issue for fundraising or party unity is simply irrelevant to a judge (who has a lifetime appointment and probably never held an elected office).

If you have any doubt that they will restrict Roe v Wade to the point that they may as well have overruled it, just read Alito's dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991).

[mvd]

100. I have to agree

You saw how the fundy base defeated Miers. They are not going to be satisfied unless their goals make progress in Bush's second term. A lack of progress could result in fundies/RWers staying home in 2008.

I think we can filibuster based on Alito's reputation for being a right wing judge. I expect us to, in fact, or we will never fight.

[ticapnews]

119. If they eliminate Griswold, they don't even have to bother with Roe...

Without the privacy guarantee in Griswold there is no right to abortion. They also get rid of privacy in every other way, as well. No birth control. RFID chips. The goal is to have Justice Roberts pen the phrase, "There is no inherent right to privacy in the Constitution."

If they're going to screw us like this, they could at least give us some K-Y...oh wait, we probably can't buy that anymore either...

[Zynx]

140. If they eliminate Griswold, they will be a minority party for the next 50

years.

[BigYawn]

29. Absolutely, even Roberts said it is an established precedence

I don't think there is even a fight about abortion rights.
The only argument will be whether parents of a minor child
should be notified of the abortion, and even very late term
abortion will have some restrictions added, but I don't see
any restrictions on 1st and 2nd term abortions coming.

[Czolgosz]

91. Roberts and Alito are indistinguishable in terms of Roe v. Wade

They both will uphold the right with any restriction that any crazy-ass state legislature wishes to impose (a daughter could be required to obtain consent from her incestuous father, a woman could be required to notify her separated husband who is not the father, all abortions could be required to take place only at full-care hospitals - which generally do not perform abortions, etc.).

[Polemicist]

128. At one time slavery was an "established precedence"...

Don't be fooled by lower court judges towing the line regarding current Supreme Court precedence. What is precedence today, can be thrown in the trash tomorrow, when a new Supreme Court reverses itself. Lower court judges have no option but to concur with prior Supreme Court rulings on matters like privacy and personal rights.

Past rulings are only as good as the intent of the new SCOTUS to continue to rule in that matter. These statements by the rightie nominees that upheld SCOTUS rulings when they were in lower courts, mean absolutely nothing.

Their personal beliefs and personal ideology means everything. If we don't filibuster this nominee, we will for sure go back 50 plus years in the makeup of the Court. And you will watch progressive reforms be trashed one after another, as we go back to the dark ages, the gilded ages of great wealth and privilege of the elites and of great hardship for the masses.

[BigYawn]

137. What you say is entirely possible, on the other hand my guess is

abortion will be legal for as far as the eye can see.
As it should be.

[radwriter0555]

31. I agree completely.. and he's not the worst choice they could make..

we should just let them have this one easy so we can focus on ROVE.

[enough already]

92. Are you nuts?

Forget the Court to go after Rove???? First we were told to let Roberts go because the next one was the "real fight". Now you want to let this one go unchallenged too???? The Court is the whole freakin' ballgame at this point. What the hell is wrong with this party? This nazi has to be stopped.

[radwriter0555]

131. There comes a point when you have to choose your battles. Rove is

public enemy number one. Face it, NO one bush chooses will be any good at all.

BUT ROVE is the worst thing to ever happen to the USA, so use this time to rally the troops against him, and not some milque toast SC justice who will never change women's rights, since 50% of the people in America ARE voters and we vote more than men do.

ROVE.

Take rove out now while the belly is exposed. This may be your last chance.

[Czolgosz]

97. He is not the single worst, but he's tied for worst (no better nor worse

than Brown, Owen, Luttig, Garza, McConnell). Even Cornyn, Gonzalez, Jones, Clement would be a small step better than Alito.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

108. fuck focus.

oppose them in everything. EVERYTHING. That shouldn't be difficult to focus on, anyway. Anything they want, oppose.

[dogfacedboy]

39. I agree. The GOP uses this as candy to attract

hard core pro-life voters, the key word being voters. Anyone with a clue as to how the "mainstream" in this country feels on this matter knows that overturning Roe v. Wade will cause a revolution at the polls like this country has never seen. No more GOP, that's for sure. Which brings up another problem. If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, leading to the breakdown of the GOP, The Democratic Party would be flooded with un-desirable "refugees" from the GOP.

If the pro-lifers really want to put an end to legal abortion, the GOP is not their friend. They would have to form their own major party and gain majority status. That would take at least a century. It would probably take longer.

[Baconfoot]

110. Yup, They're doing the same thing in CA I think with Prop 73 right now.NT

[funflower]

47. I tend to think that's true.... But I'm not sure Scalia and friends do.

[rkc3]

57. Thanks for all the agreement - it will be interesting to see how the

ruling is changed over the next few years. I'm sure the right has several test cases ready to go once they have the court stacked in their favor.

Sometimes though, the party in power forgets there are dissenting views - even within their own party. This arrogance could be another nail in their coffins.

Scalia and friends might do themselves a big disfavor by thinking they are infallible and every single one of their supporters will back them on this issue.

[kevinbgoode]

103. for godsakes

Scalia and Thomas and any fundie-appointed justice would vote to criminalize masturbation!

[lawwolf]

145. Justices don't criminalize anything

Courts in general do not criminalize anything. They either up-hold or strike down laws created by elected officials. Take control of the elected branches and prevent bad laws from being written in the first place.

[ginnyinWI]

136. exactly

It's a great source of funding for them, and for many voters, it's the single reason that many Christians never consider voting for a Democrat. The GOP knows it needs Roe.

Imagine Roe overturned. Women continue to have abortions, but not as safely. The public outcry is huge. State legislators get busy with their own laws allowing abortion, or face losing their seats. The Dems have a huge advantage in all future elections, because they believe the government has no business poking into private lives like this. The new pro-choice federal law that eventually gets put in place is a lot stronger than Roe, and the GOP has lost one of its favorite wedge issues forever.

They are not that stupid.

[SharonAnn]

16. Perhaps that's what it will take for some Repubs to wake up.

Honestly, there are some Republican women I know who think that Roe v. Wade is safe for them, their daughters, and their granddaughters. They honestly believe that no one would dare overturn it and they think that this catering to the religious right is just a "wink, wink" to get their votes.

Maybe if they see the misogynistic evil of the religious right controlling the country, they will wake up.

Unfortunately many innocents will have to suffer in the meantime.

[leesa]

28. Even if Roe v Wade goes away, it will be back. 2/3 of the American

public want personal choice.

[AndyTiedye]

93. Not Enough for a Constitutional Amendment (Which is What We Would Need)

The wingnuts that Bush** is putting on the court they wouldn't stop at overturning Roe,
they'd more likely issue a nationwide ban from the bench. Yes, they can do that.

Then it would take a Constitutional amendment to restore reproductive freedom,
and the Bible belt could block that forever.

[anitar1]

118. The fundie agenda us to abolish Roe v Wade and then

press on to abolish ALL contraceptives. Believe it. I have read some of their aims. All put forward by such as Dobson ect.they do not make a secret of it.

[dogfacedboy]

138. Google the Comstock Laws. This is what they want a return to. nt

[bertha katzenengel]

2. not going to flame you - I think you're right

This is a fight we won't win. Our people on the Hill should channel their energy into other things.

[crispini]

3. It may be a fight we can't win, but I think it's a fight we have to have.

Edited to add: Yes, we may go down in flames, but we have to have this fight. The more I think about it, the more I think that the the Dems *must* have this fight, for the sake of their base.

[SteppingRazor]

12. Exactly. I don't think we can win either...

But I think we should fight like cornered junk-yard dogs. Filibuster till they nuke. Make them use ever cent of political capital they have to get this nominee on the bench. Make them look like reactionary asses by forcing them to change the rules of the Senate. Then, use that rule change against them when we take back the Senate in '06. (I Hope, I hope, I hope)

[The Magistrate]

20. Indeed, Sir

The time has come to fight....

"The art of war consists in a well-reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive, followed by audacious attack."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[crispini]

22. Yes. If we're going to fight, fight dirty, loud, and hard.

If a fight is necessary, it should be a nasty and bloody one.

[converted_democrat]

27. "We should fight like cornered junk-yard dogs."

Oh, how I like the sound of that. I like the sound of that alot!

[renie408]

55. Amen.

I just hope that our politicians can make this work FOR them in some small way. Yeah, we may have to eat Alito, but if we do, let's make them pay for it however we can.

[TahitiNut]

66. Yep. And force the Repukes to CHANGE ALL RULES.

Deny them any "unanimous consent" and force the reading of legislation three times, in full, before any debate. Force roll call votes on EVERY question. Monkey-wrenching is the power of EVERY minority! Use it! Fuck 'em!

[serryjw]

83. I don't think that is wise

I was anti Miers because she could not to be trusted to be her own person and would vote the way * wanted her to..I think Alito is a brilliant legal mind that just so happens is conservative. IF we filibuster this, Americans will perceive us as spoiled losers and it could hurt us in 2006/08. I trust he will do the right thing when confronted with tough Constitutional issues.
I am not worried over over turning Roe or Lawrence. It is settled law and it would make war with independents that thugs don't want.

[Straight Shooter]

I say stand and fight for what we believe in.

They call us "sore losers" anyway. What do we gain by capitulating? Nothing, except maybe a new label, "rollover doormats."

The GOP is counting on us not to fight this nomination. They are counting on us to say, "Well, no big deal, they'll never overturn Roe vs. Wade because they'll lose an election wedge."

Guess what? The GOP will never run out of wedges to divide us. Never. Divide and conquer. That's their motto and bush is their poster boy to prove it.

I ain't rolling over for nobody, least of all a Republican powermonger.

[serryjw]

94. Dems are fighting for the wrong thing

Look what they supported in the last 5 years...war & the Patriots Act. This does not make up for those votes...sorry, won't support a filibuster. It is grand-standing. Clinton signed DOMA. This is OUR base and we abandon them KNOWING it was NOT constitutional.

[Straight Shooter]

105. Republicans refuse to admit their errors and change their ways.

Democrats learn from their mistakes and change, in the hope that America will become better for it.

Whatever the Dems did before that was against the interest of Americans, I cannot apologize or excuse such actions, and I won't. But I don't see that as a reason to damn them now and throw in the towel. I just don't.

[RevCheesehead]

13. Well, there's something to be said for practice, I guess.

God knows they're horribly out of shape as it is. However, I tend to agree. I don't think we'll win this one.

But hey - that didn't stop the Packers from playing yesterday, either.

:hi:

[kentuck]

14. Let them go the nuclear option...

If we win back the House and Senate, that means the Repubs cannot filibuster a national healthcare program. Although they argue this is only about "judges", but they are about to set a precedent.

[Armstead]

15. Ditto

Even if he is a wonderful guy, he represents a judicial and political ideology that is lousy for democracy and for individual Americans.

The Democrats have to expose that philosophy at every opportunity, and show modrates, liberals and progressives that there is an opposition to that right-wing ideology.

[styersc]

51. I disagree in fighting Alito.

We have to realize that we are not going to get a moderate or lib from this president. We should use the hearings to expose any weaknesses, demonstrate our opposition, vote your consicience on an up or down vote and get on with the job of winning elections.

Winning elections will be the key to protecting true American values (ie progressive values). We should not let Limbaugh and Hannity blustering choose our battles or determine our candidates.

[renie408]

56. I am not sure I agree, or even understand.

Up to this point, the main complaint OUR base has had against our politicians is that they are weenies who won't fight. Just as Bush had to choose Alito to get back to his base, Democratic politicians need to come out like junkyard dogs on this to win approval in the eyes of THEIR base.

I don't think fighting Alito is allowing Hannity and Limbaugh to pick our battles. I am not sure I understand you there.

[crispini]

69. If the Dems don't fight they'll look weak the eyes of their base.

i.e. us, the rabid lefties -- look at some of the other posts on this board if you don't believe me, the ones saying, "If the Dems don't fight on this I'll never vote Dem again."

This fight is not about the swing voters. It's about the core. On both sides.

[ninkasi]

82. Yes, it is about the core

Even if we don't win, Democratic leaders need to show that they still remember HOW to fight. Fight this one with every ounce of strength we have.

[AnnInLa]

85. If this SCOTUS pick panders to bush's BASE,

then, by God, it's time our DEMS in Congress start pandering to their base, namely US. I think a fight would be a win/win for us...in the public eye. The citizens of this country love the underdog, and I think that a poll (around the time of the last issue of "nuclear Option") showed that they want the minority represented by being able to filibuster. We have to be willing to fight, even if we lose...will we be wimps forever?

[Zero Division]

116. Indeed. I'm not normally one who dwells on symbolic action,

but I'm convinced that the issue of a right wing dominated SCOTUS will become THE domestic issue for a very long time to come. Eventually we will almost certainly see immensely unpopular decisions come from this court, and the Democratic Party needs to look strong and defiant (if we did it with Social Security, surely it can be done on this issue). Forcing the Repubs to "go nuclear" will make it clear that the Republican Party is drunk with power, too.

[bunny planet]

132. Yup, what you said Crispi. Let's fight them tooth and nail and expose them

for the reactionary despots they really are.

[Deep13]

4. That's pretty much how it is.

[warrens]

6. They won, but they don't get to name a right-wing nut

And he might be slick, but he's a right-wing nut, way to the right of the country. He's not a slam-dunk, and a filibuster will take him down.

[endarkenment]

7. "a fight we can't win"

Ah yes. It seems it is always a fight we can't win, so we never fight. So guess what? Since we don't actually oppose anything that the nutcases do, why would people actually bother to go vote for our party?

[calmblueocean]

41. Exactly! That's the story of the Iraq war right there.

Let's start standing up for ourselves, for once.

[TahitiNut]

72. When you "can't win" then you "can't lose" either.

Unless the Democrats draw the line, they have no line. Period! They cease to exist! Surrender is NOT an option.

[bbgrunt]

73. TN--you are SO right (correct) and concise!

[vickie]

8. I think you're absolutely correct. And you're probably a great

Democrat.

[elehhhhna]

35. lol

[Teaser]

9. If I hear one more DUer pretending to have

inside information on this or that, I'm gonna puke.

Dear God, with all the purported insiders on this board, one wonders why were always complaining about being out of power.

[mrgorth]

25. Yeah, I must be pretending.

[Bridget Burke]

36. Perhaps your "friend" could supply some information....

That is available to the public.

Hearsay--especially from an anonymous source--doesn't work in a court of law. Why should it work here?

[patcox2]

50. There's nothing hearsay about "character evidence."

I practice law in the third circuit, I have for as long as he's been a judge (I believe he replaced Gibbons), know people in the US attorney's office where he worked, have appeared before his sister, also a judge. He is very conservative, but also a very good judge, highly respected by liberals and conservatives. He is not a groomed, fast-tracked, slick, movement conservative with a mission. Thats his reputation in the community. Thats admissible evidence.

[serryjw]

84. Thanks for the input

That is what I got from my readings. I am not in support of a filibuster. I would have been if s/he was a Corporate shrill. He is eminently qualified and believe he is the best we can hope for from *. If anyone thinks that filibustering is going to get us Cuomo( or any other liberal), they are in fantasy land

[cynatnite]

123. no matter how respected or liked he is...it doesn't mean a hell of a lot..

What matters is what's going to do with my reproductive rights? What's he going to do about guns, gays, and anything else that's going to have a major impact on this country?

There are a lot of RWer's people like, lawyers and judges, but it doesn't mean that once they get on the Supreme Court they're going to rule to protect Americans.

[kwassa]

61. My outside source, NPR, said basically what Mr. Gorth has said

They interviewed several people that worked with and knew him well. The way they characterzied Alito is the same as the OP. One of the people they interviewed was a liberal who liked and was friends with Alito.

[rinsd]

65. This isn't going to be a Miers...easy to smack down (nt)

[afdip]

10. the only real option is to take over the house and senate in '06.....

but you are right about our choices now; extremely limited and all we can hope for is someone who is capable of independent thought (unlike a clarence thomas). we need to accept it will be a conservative and move on with our plans for limiting the repuke hegemony in the house, senate and executive branches.

[Armstead]

34. A fight is necessary to make gains next year

The right wing is on the ropes, especially among moderates who are getting fed up with callous republicanism.

Democrats have to expose that, and show thay they really offer a "choice and not an echo" next year. That includes saying "This is the kind of right-wing ideologue you will continmue to get if you conmtinue to support Republicans."

But if democrats roll over and play dead now, they won;t be able to challenget that.

[afdip]

62. the right wing are not on the ropes. the busheviks are on the

ropes. the right wingnuts are alive and well and they are the 39% who still think dubya is doing a good job of running the country (in the ground). democrats often confuse the two, but this is a mistake. a huge uproar from democrats over scotus nominee will also serve to galvanize the fundies . . . while i agree the fight is necessary, often i wonder whether we keep the bastards wound up tight over something we cannot win (let's face it, we're going to get another conservative supreme court justice).

[Armstead]

79. The fundies are already galvanized. We must be too.

The rerpublican formula for success is simple.

Throw out enough reasonable-sounding bullshit to appeal to those in "the center," but not so much to give up the loyalty of the base of the population who will support you.

The only way the Democrats/liberal left will ever revive is to do the same from the otehr side. (Except we should appeal to the center with truth instead of bullshit.)

[expatriot]

11. We must fight it. America is looking to see what we can do.

America is looking for an opposition party with a backbone right now, they don't bush. 40% strongly disapprove of him, another 20% disapprove of him. They want a reason to go to the polls next November and vote in a Congress that will stop being Bush's rubber stamp.

America's ready to listen to what we have to say about the issues. They are hungry for some alternatives. We need to present the alternatives.

[Walt Starr]

17. If that's the case, I'm done with the Democratic Party

This is it. This far and no further. I understood Roberts. I will not understand Alito.

Plain and simple, this is the defining moment, either there is a filibuster, or I walk. There will be no sense whatsoever in voting for another Democrat ever again if they let this one slip by.

[Democrats_win]

18. Worst President Ever doesn't get to pick another SCOTUS judge!

Every DEM had DAMN well better fillibuster and make damn sure satan Scalito doesn't end up on the supreme joke.

[seabeyond]

19. reality. it stinks sometimes n/t

[BillZBubb]

21. Hoist up the white flag once again!

You post is baloney. This is a fight we can definitely win. We might not stop ScAlito, but the public will see the Repugs for the radical fanatic radical they are if we actually put up a major battle. That will help us a lot in 2006.

The major reason we ALWAYS LOSE THE MALE VOTE is because we always surrender before the fight is even engaged. Even if you are going to lose a battle, that is no excuse not to fight for what you believe in to the fullest extent possible. Make the bastards pay.

Your post, unfortunately, is a classic example of why we've become the minority party.

[bunkerbuster1]

30. And pass the Astroglide!

The news I've read just this morning about Alito's opinions / paper trail tells me that there is plenty of ammo for our opposition party to use if they choose to.

He may be the cleanest wingnut our Preznit could pick for this gig, but it doesn't mean we don't come out swinging and go on record as opposing his confirmation. If he is confirmed, we use this against those ratfuckers in the mid-terms, and appeal the the Libertarians out there who will surely recognize that the Reeps have absolutely nothing to offer them any more--not fiscal responsibility, and not a whit of concern for anyone's civil rights.

[calmblueocean]

42. Bingo!

I can't believe people can look at the Social Security, Katrina, Iraq, Miers, and Libby debacles and still think the Repubs are too strong to fight. Let's call 'em on the carpet!

[Arkansas Granny]

23. Sadly, this is pretty much my opinion, too. There was no way

that Bush was going to nominate someone that Democrats could really approve of. Even if the Democrats decide to fight, the Republicans will get what Bush wants.

[creeksneakers2]

26. I get angry with this "we won the election so shut up" stuff.

If you analyze them, almost every response the RW gives to anything is some form of "nobody is allowed to say that." This time, its since Bush was elected, we should just let him do whatever he wants. Don't question anything, or you'll be opposing the will of the people.

Our guys were elected too, and they should do the jobs they were elected to do. That includes oversight of the executive branch and making sure the nominees sent to the Senate are worthy of approval.

I don't know everything about Alito yet and its likely some good and bad things will turn up. What I do know is that the midterm elections are going to come down to two contrasting themes: Republicans who say Democrats are obstructionists who offer no positive solutions; vs ; Democrats who SHOULD respond that Republicans are power abusing extremists who need to be obstructed.

Right now Bush is painted into a corner where he either caves into extremists and loses the middle, or goes to the middle and loses everybody. That's exactly the case Democrats need to make. Bush is so weak that he is now controlled by extremists.

We need to make sure that any views Judge Alito holds that are out of the mainstream are communicated to the public.

[EndElectoral]

32. This is way beyond Roe v Wade....this guys record is appalling

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Tell me then

why bother voting? Lets must make the idiot boy king, and disolve the house and the senate and be done with it

[calmblueocean]

37. I'm so sick of whimpering defeatists and apologists.

I would never tell you you aren't a Democrat, because unfortunately the Democratic party seems to be filled with people just like yourself, people who are too "fair-minded" to take their own side in a fight. I put "fair-minded" in quotes because there's nothing fair about Alito, not in this or any other universe. He doesn't represent the mindset of the country, he represents the far right wing, and yet just when we need to show some spine, all you want to do is roll over.

The majority of Americans don't support Alito's hard core right wing views, and I don't care if he does "speak softly", you can still speak softly and be a crank who's not in step with mainstream America.

Bush is weak right now. WEAK! Let's fight with everything we've got! Call your Senator today, write a letter and mail it. Call in to your local talk radio station. Call your local TV news!

This is the Supreme Court, for f's sake!

Geez, what does it take to motivate people like you?

[okieinpain]

78. well we're going to find out if the american public supports him.

because all the Dem's can do filibuster and the re pugs will change the rules, you can bet on that.

I'm of the opinion that once bush (stole, won) reelection that we were going to get nut job re pugs on the bench. I mean that goes with the job, as long as they are not extremist. but I'm going to just sit back and watch this one, this will be a game of chess, and someone is going to make the wrong move.

[earthside]

38. Justice Robert Bork?

Everything written in the original post was said about Robert Bork.

And, frankly, to rebut another post -- this is about the worst Bush could do. Obviously he's not going to nominate a raving lunatic wing-nut. Bush was going to have to pick as extreme a Christofacist in sheep's clothing as he could find. THIS IS IT!

This is it -- if not now, when? We've heard this bit about keeping your powder dry for an important fight for over five years ... this is THE important fight. Win or lose, this is it.

If the Democrats in the U.S. Senate go soft on this one ... well, then their relevance as a political entity will be over.

[sleipnir]

40. I sadly agree, my guess is the vote will be 63-37.

Defections on both sides, but in the end, he'll be confirmed, albeit the lowest numbers in recent history.

[Walt Starr]

44. If that's the case, then it's time for the Democratic Party to die

Plain and simple, either they fight now, or they die now. There is no in between.

[BigYawn]

104. There are so many winning issues for democrats, abortion is NOT

one of them.

Social security, medicare, tax fairness, trade fairness,
environment, unnecessary war mongering, etc are the real vote getters if dems play
them right and yell from every roof top.

[readmoreoften]

106. abortion isn't a winning issue for democrats?

65% of Americans support choice. How is that not a winning issue?

[BigYawn]

117. Because there are not many sitting on the fence on this issue

The way to win the election is to capture the hearts of the
undecided. On issue of abortion do you really think there are
many undecided's?

[MissMarple]

43. Does your friend have any info about Alito and Opus Dei?

That may be hard to find information, but Santorum, Brownback, and Scalia belong, or so I have read.

[mrgorth]

52. I can ask

but I'm not sure he'd know something like that.

[MissMarple]

107. Thanks!

[Lexingtonian]

45. let's see the evidence first

I'm not too sure of that Republican "political capital" still being sufficient. Never mind the scandals, on the merits. They blew almost everything freely given them on Schiavo v Schiavo. There's been quite some shift in public support siding on Roe v Wade in the past year, to the point that overturning it in the way they can- on a states' rights doctrine- isn't going to achieve illegalization. It's splitting moderate Republicans.

Let's see what going over Alito's jurisprudential record turns up. He's going to be held to the standards, or lack of them, of the present and not of 1995. Whatever the outcome, the nomination is an opportunity for the liberal legal sorts to rip away at conservative jurisprudence's flaws. There's quite the mythology that conservative constitutional interpretation is intellectually and logically superior- independent of Alito, that's worth shooting into flames and putting into tailspin.

I'd watch Specter as the decisive player. I wouldn't be so sure he's an easy vote for Alito, which is your friend's essential calculation. At this point I suspect Alito won't make it past Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.

The USSCJ nominee game these days is three gauntlets, hardline Rs and moderate Rs and liberal Democrats. Roberts they let walk through. Hardline Rs narrowed their gauntlet on Miers, liberal Democrats have a fairly tight one. Moderate Rs were the easy gauntlet, but the pressure on them keeps on growing- one way from their Party, the other way from their constituents.

[senseandsensibility]

46. No, but I will tell you that I'm not giving up my opposition

to this nominee based on something your "hardcore" dem friend said. Why should I? You're not very convincing.

[mrgorth]

54. What am I supposed to be convincing you of?

I don't care if you believe me or not. I'm just trying to get you ready for what's coming. Go ahead and look into my past posts. I've been here for a long time.

[Tomee450]

58. I think the democrats

should give it a good fight. This judge appears to be awful. When the democrats act spineless, it only emboldens those on the right to even act more outrageous.

[nickshepDEM]

48. He will be confirmed. I gurantee that. Somewhere along the lines of...

62-70 votes. All of the Republicans including Chafee will vote for him. Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Pryor, Lincoln, and a few other Dem's will vote for him. Sorry to bring the bad news, but he will be confirmed.

[Tomee450]

60. Why is it that

the Republicans seem able to keep their people in line but the democrats can't? This is a very important nomination. Harry Reid should do everything possible to make sure that all democrats oppose this candidate. He should let it be known that those who vote for this nomination will face some kind of penalty. Two Scalias on the court would be disastrous.

[nickshepDEM]

63. Politicial ramifications.

Its a given that Nelson (NE) will vote to confirm. If he doesnt he will lose re-election, that is a given. Chafee is starving for $$$ in his re-election bid. If he votes 'no' the RNC will cut him off.

[kwassa]

64. He isn't really Scalia, he is closer to Roberts

from the early analysis.

[patcox2]

49. You are sadly correct.

People should understand that the minority only has ther power to prevent something like this in exceptional circumstances, and Alito is not exceptionally bad; he is hardly a fast-tracked, groomed movement conservative, he is a liflelong lawyer and long-term judge who happens to be very conservative.

You choose your battles.

Of course, the melodramatic will all "quit the party" if the democrats don't commit hara kiri over it.

[shance]

59. What is your definition of qualified?

Who are you to say they've won?

You know, I'd agree. You're a Dem - perhaps you're the kind of Dem who caves to the slightest hint of conflict.

Or perhaps you are a Dem who likes to promote the White privileged male society under the 'get over it - it's inevitable' justification.

Because of course that is exactly what this appointment in about. Just like every other appointment this Administration makes.

White wealthy privileged males and those as well who vehemently defend wealth and privilege staying in power and continuing to oppress and control everyone who does not agree with such people accruing more wealth and privilege.

Is that perhaps the reason you believe we should sit back and enjoy the inevitable rise of this man Alito?

[renie408]

67. I think the factors used to determine qualification for being a SCJ

have nothing to do with ideology. You may be ideologically opposed to Alito and his politics may repel you, but he is eminently qualified through work experience and education to be a SCJ nominee.

Acknowledging that does not make a person a white male supremacist and it doesn't mean they have to enjoy Alito's rise to the Supreme Court. It just means that they recognize that he more than adequately meets the criteria most often used to determine whether a person is qualified for the job or not. Miers didn't. Alito does. You can hate both of them and still see that.

[Dilligent]

75. I agree

I'm sick about this but you are right he does seem qualified. He's been confirmed before and that is going to be hard to fight. I'm beginning to wonder if i'm out of the "mainstream". Maybe we are out of the mainstream since "they" have won the last three elections with the people knowing the SCOTUS was going to be a factor. Evidently "we" don't speak for the majority of the people anymore.

[calmblueocean]

87. If you need conviction, I'll loan you some of mine

I've got more than enough for both of us.

Aside from all the accusations of fraud in Ohio, the reason it was even close is because there's a war on. Period. They voted for Bush out fear and out of a desire for vengeance for 9/11, and they voted for Bush because they felt that he should be given the chance to finish what he started. But even so, it was close, the closest election ever for an incumbent president.

When you look at the issues, the American people are liberal. They believe in protecting the environment; they believe in a woman's right to choose; they believe in having a social safety net. The right has spent the past 20 years building their media network with the sole purpose of attacking liberals, trying to redefine the word. They are brutal opponents because they are willing to lie and manipulate to nearly any degree to gain office.

But the young people growing up today see all this for what it is, and most of them will never vote Republican once they're old enough to vote. Kerry won the 25 and under vote handily, and the country is only getting more blue as time goes on. So hang in there, and stay strong. Someday people are going to look back at these days like we look at McCarthyism today, and they're going to shake their heads. You'll know that you were never fool enough to be taken in by it.

For what it's worth, I don't buy the notion that you are "qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court just because you've been a judge in a Federal court, or because the American Bar Association says so. There are plenty of extremists on both sides that fit that bill. The Supreme Court is our final arbiter of law, so it can't be packed with ideologues, on the left or on the right. The purpose of the Supreme Court is simply to make clear what Congress and the Constitution spell out is the law, and there's no room in that process for ideology. Ideology poisons justice.

The Republicans accuse us of "judicial activism", then turn around and nominate a judge they describe as a "hero" for his opposition to Roe v. Wade. There's no room on the Supreme Court for heroes. It's not meant to be a place for heroes. That's what disqualifies Alito.

[librechik]

68. as you must know, they did not "win"

they stole OH by fraud, the GAO agrees and yet the Pukkke criminals use their owned media TO bury the news. NO WAY should they be allowed a mandate.

Every time we appease, our Democracy moves further away.

I know we can't stop it, but we should at least oppose.

[nolabels]

74. A few more indictments, Iraq in a civil war, more bad weather from .......

the effects of global warming, inflation running rampant and on and on. Things are bad but they are bound to get worse.

These various crooks will get theirs in the end, one way or another

[Sandpiper]

70. Thanks for the defeatism

Can't win, don't try, roll over.


Thank you Mr. Bush, may I have another?

[Roland99]

71. And you call yourself a Democrat.

;)


I feel the same way. My biggest concern is not having another pro-corporate whore in the S.C. Roe v. Wade ain't going anywhere. That's a carrot too valuable to the right.

[lastliberalintexas]

76. So why the hell is advise and consent even in the Constitution?

What utter bullshit. The framers never intended a rubber stamp of any president's choice. Methinks some people on this board need to do a little reading about the history of judicial appointments, and a good start is Paul Simons' book called- wait for it- Advise and Consent.

[FreedomAngel82]

77. Go to Reid's blog and read a post on Alito

Doesn't sound like good news. http://giveemhellharry.com/blog/41/reid-statement-on-the-nomination-of-judge-samuel-alito

[jzodda]

80. I agree with you

but we have to fight anyway. This guys is qualified if you are looking at it from a resume standpoint, but thats not the point. This is about ideology and where we stand as a party. If we lose, so be it but its a fight we HAVE to have. That means trying to filibuster and tying up the Senate in knots if the Reps go nuclear. If we do not fight then whats the point of even having a party?

[second edition]

81. Qualified yes, extreme ideology, yes. Credentials should only

be part of it. This choice does not offer a balance but extreme tilt to the right, changing the court from a moderate one to a radical right wing one. Bush demonstrated today that all he cares about is appeasing his zealot base, not the majority of the American people. As the zealots rejected Meirs, we have no choice but to reject Alito. The President is entitled to a choice,but he must keep in mind the best interests of the country as a whole.

[calmblueocean]

90. Exactly.

Strong ideological stances disqualify any individual from the Supreme Court, because there's no room in their mission for heroes, right-wing or left-wing. Their job is to make clear what the Constitution and Congress desire law to be. Funny how the right accuses us of judicial activism, then goes and nominates an ideological activist judge.

[neverforget]

88. Maybe we should all just surrender and become Republicans...

:eyes: :sarcasm: If we don't risk anything, we don't gain anything.

[FuzzySlippers]

89. God help us. Pat Robertson called the nomination

"a grand slam home run."

[enough already]

95. Don't worry....be happy

We have to let this one go and fight "the next one".

[kwolf68]

101. Robertson is an idiot

By definition a "Grand Slam" is a homerun....MORAN

[ck4829]

96. They won?

Bush and the Republicans are scared of the Far Right.

It would be funny if they weren't in charge.

[Czolgosz]

98. Has your friend called the 2008 election yet? Keep us posted!

[fooj]

102. I just find it UNFRICKINGBELIEVABLE that this President

is ALLOWED, at this point, to make a lifetime appointment. He hasn't earned that privilege. His entire administration is under criminal investigation and a top advisor has been indicted on 5 counts!!! Makes sense to me.

Peace.

[PhilipShore]

109. Republican judges or liberal judges. Really no difference on Federal level

From my experience with the Federal court judges--though I am not a lawyer--is that Republican and liberal judges on the Federal level are all about the same on day to day non-political issues.

The liberal judge I had whom actually worked for RFK in the Kennedy administration said all kinds of nice things, but gave a balanced ruling that ruled in both I and my adversaries (Republican corporate thieves) favor.

Then when it went to the Federal Appeals circuit, I still got a balanced ruling, that ruled in both my and my adversaries ruling, and the Federal three court panel was the most conservative ones that are in that circuit.

My guess is the Lib lawyers and legislatures, will do the same thing the Republican lawyers and legislatures, have been doing, which is to simply just ignore unjust laws created by any state, Federal, or Supreme Court--just as the Republicans have simply ignored most if not all lib lawyer and judge laws, for around the last 30 or 40 years.

[PhilipShore]

112. So I won the appeal because of both their squabbles

The liberal judge gave a balanced ruling, so--when it went to the higher Republican Federal appeals court--I simply highlighted in a indirect way parts of the liberal opinion, but without making it my main point figuring that the rabid Republican bench would disagree with any liberal judges opinion, and, they swallowed my bait, and sent to the state courts. Frankly, I was going to file a motion in the lower court to move it to the state courts anyway, so the Appeals court just did me a favor.

Plus,it is now law. My adversary cannot dispute the facts because the appeals court established the facts, and basically used most of my points in my briefs that countered my adversaries, so, if I win in the state court, they cannot run to the Feds like they did in Gore, because, it has already been decided by the Federal Appeals court.

[LittleClarkie]

111. I'm sure you're a Dem, but I'm sick of the "election has consequences"

meme.

Well, democracy also has consequences. They were not elected king, for fuck's sake. There are still two parties. He may be emminently qualified, but if he advocated things like firing people with HIV even if there was no reasonable expectation of getting infected from them, then he may not be a raving corportist, but he maybe a raving something else.

Like Roberts, he probably figures that privacy is not in the Constitution. And both Repubs and Dems are going to have a problem with that later.

[mmonk]

113. Then I guess it's getting close for the time

for me to take my family and leave. I will live free or die.

[Warren DeMontague]

114. He believes that women's bodies don't belong to them.

Specifically that their husbands should have more control over their reproductive systems than they do. And we're supposed to roll over for this fifteenth century, theocratic pinhead because he's not a, quote, "raving corporatist"? FUCK THAT. If my party doesn't DO THEIR JOB and hold the god-damn line on this asshat, I will find a new one.

And don't give me this blather about "to the victor go the spoils". When the GOP doesn't "do a good enough job convincing the American people", they impeach. They steal. They recall. They rig. The call fucking Diebold. They lie. They make people wait eleven fucking hours to vote. What they DON'T do is bend over and go "Waaaaaah. I guess there's nothing we can do. Maybe if we PLAY NICE everyone will be happy."

This shithead believes that a woman's right to choose, if it exists at all, should be subordinate to her husband. His views on separation of church and state (or the nonexistence thereof) are as noxious as I've seen. Tell me, again, why this isn't a "rub their noses in it" pick? Whose nose? Yours? Because he's not the 'raving corporatist' that you, personally, feared? Sorry, chum, but for some of us Roe v. Wade is a dealbreaker. Griswold v. Connecticut is a dealbreaker. The Separation of Church and State is a MAJOR FUCKING DEAL BREAKER.

So Alito "isn't that bad"? Really. Do tell.

I say again, FUCK THAT. Keeping this kind of bullshit, turn back the clock, Talibornagain bullshit OFF THE SUPREME COURT is WHY I vote for Democrats.

[alcibiades_mystery]

115. I think you're a democrat

And a coward and a defeatist.

[IndianaGreen]

122. and someone that is ignorant of the Constitution

a document that was carefully drafted to prevent a dictatorship of a majority.

[nashville_brook]

120. is this necessary?

"Now go ahead and tell me I'm not a democrat or some other such nonsense."

with all the bluster and bad blood in the last few days/weeks/etc... do we really need this?

[IndianaGreen]

121. By your logic, let's ban abortion, kill queers, and stay in Iraq forever

Sorry bud, but we still have the remnants of a Constitution and it explicitly says under Article II, Section 2, that the President:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2

The entire purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in particular, was to prevent a dictatorship of the majority, such as the one you described.

You need to get back to civics class.

[Nothing Without Hope]

124. I disagree. Alito's stands on many basic civil rights issues are EXTREME

and against settled law. Some of them are discussed in the OP and replies of the thread I will link to in this post. It's not just that he would tip the court to destroy womens' reproductive rights, which he would, and our fight must be much broader than that. This guy would be an extreme right wing activist judge and his confirmation would be a disaster. Maybe he is smart and doesn't kick puppies, but if he's allowed to sit on the SCOTUS there are clear indications that he would destroy fundamental civil and even human rights. And feel really good and moral doing it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2206263
thread title (10/31): Not just Roe - Think Progress gives ALITO's awful civil rights positions:

And I can tell you that reading posts that say in effect "just give up on Alito, you can't win" does not please me.

[nashville_brook]

125. ''If you don't want to fight for the future and you can't figure out how..

...to beat these people then find something else to do.''

-- Bill Clinton on Saturday addressing the 10th annual Texas Book Festival


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Clinton-Book-Festival.html

[Hippo_Tron]

126. From the West Wing Episode "Let Bartlet Be Bartlet"

"Listen up. Our ground game isn't working. We're going to put the ball in the air. If we're going to walk into walls, I want us running into 'em full speed. We're going to lose some of these battles. We might even lose the White House. But we're not going to be threatened by issues. We're going to put them front and center. We're going to raise the level of public debate in this country. And let that be our legacy."

Leo McGarry

I think this explains exactly why the Democrats need to fight Alito.

[Nothing Without Hope]

127. We WOULD lose with a defeatist attitude about this important SCOTUS pick!

People who counsel Dems to "just give up on fighting the Alito confirmation" may well be sincere in their views and mean well, but I find these defeatist suggestions off-putting and disturbing. So far I have not seen any solid basis for claims that there is no hope of winning this fight, and I have seen PLENTY of evidence already that Alito would be a catastrophe on the SCOTUS. (For example, see my previous post in this thread.)

Defeatist comments are also inherently distracting and divisive. They tend to make a lot of heat, but little light. They distract from the important tasks of gathering information, organizing resistance, getting the word out, applying pressure.

If people have good things to say about Samuel Alito, things that would offset the overwhelming evidence that he would seriously undermine settled law on civil and even human rights if seated on the SCOTUS, I'd like to read and evaluate their documentation. But I don't think recommendations to "just give up" are helpful; indeed, they are disheartening without having good reasons (so far as I have seen) for being so.

It's true that if we don't fight hard, we will lose, and the loss would have grave consequences. Seems all the more reason to fight like hell, seems to me. I'd far rather do that than sit back and indulge in self-fulfilling prophesy after being told that I cannot win.

[MADem]

129. Who knows? Maybe the fundies will get irritated when they realize he will

give the Catholics a MAJORITY on the court. Five to Four, for the Pope!!! The Vatican will RULE AMERICA!!! Drag out the old JFK arguments!!!

Interesting article on this very subject: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1154AP_Alito_Catholic_Court.html

More than two centuries of Protestant domination on the Supreme Court will end if Samuel Alito is confirmed as its next justice. For the first time in the nation's history, five Roman Catholics - a majority - would be on the high court.

Yet news that the son of an Italian immigrant father, someone who grew up in a suburban New Jersey parish where he served as a lector and later married, doesn't carry quite the power it might have in the days when Kennedys ran for the White House.

Catholics have become part of the nation's political mainstream - far removed from the blatant anti-Catholic prejudice that once permeated American culture. They are as divided as other Americans on abortion and other social issues that will be a focus of Alito's confirmation hearings - making an outpouring of religious pride for the conservative jurist less likely.

"The Catholic community is not going out dancing in the streets of Boston tonight because of this nomination," said James Davidson, a Purdue University sociologist who researches religion and Supreme Court justices. "But it still represents a significant development ...
Protestants have been so dominant on the court that half of the justices have come from just three denominations: the Episcopal, Presbyterian and Congregational churches, he said

[Griffy]

130. NO ALito.. Filabuster.. shut it down if we must..

but there is no need for 9 justices... there is no set number, so I dont want any illegal appointmnets from an illegal president! With 911 lies and Iraq war lies and rigged elections you must be weak or foolish to do anything but dig in our heals and scream till we get America to listen! We should stall and buy time till we can take the house and impeach next year. You are all playing touch when they are playing tackle! They can call us whatever names they want, but mealymouthed and weak will not be in there! You gotta play hard to win, we got the goods on his war lies, we just dont have the ablility to launch an investigation... nor a MSM outlet (besides AAR) to get the facts to the people...so we gotta let Fitz run his course, in the mean time... there is NO reason to give ANY ground till Repug begin to include dems again. bush is weakening.. nows the time to increase the opposition!

[progressoid]

133. You're not a Democrat. Nya nya nya nya nya.

Yep - We can scream and gnash our teeth all we want, but unless some 'Bork' issue is found, he's in.

[npincus]

134. your post has a ring of truth

Miers was not competent, but may have been more moderate than we think. of course the MONKEY would nominate someone who would be reactionary, affter the Miers debacle.

Americans have let us down by voting for that Schmuck in sufficient numbers that even rigged voting machines would not impact. All of the dumb shits who voted for B*sh will get exactly what they asked for- and more.

I am not so sure Dems should raise holy Hell- yet. I think Alito should be torched in the hearings, and his true colors revealed.

I am not sure what we can do about this, if anything, But we are certainly playing into their hands: letting the Plamegate and all the scandals fall by the wayside to take up this battle. Americans have the shortest of memories- we have to keep Chimp's downward momentum going and keep beating him up on his incompetence, corruption and the bloody Iraq mess.

We must stay focused.

[jasmeel]

135. You know, we may not win but that doesnt mean we shouldn't fight!

The opposition party opposes. If we constantly roll over-we're irrelevent.

[cantstandbush]

139. Fight! Give them the Court but take back the House and Senate!

The Courts can't legislate, remember?

[bluestateguy]

141. Baby Bush is free to appoint whoever he wants

He wants to appoint Bart Simpson, then fine. But if he wants a guarantee of smooth sailing in the Senate he's going to have to get 60 Republicans elected to that body.

I want the Senate to be tied up in knots anyway. That way nothing gets done, and the whole Bush agenda stalls.

[wiley]

142. You're tired. Take a nap.

And get ready to fight like Hell against everything the Bush Criminal Cartel is doing to this great country. We should be able to nail the Senate with the AWR thing alone. It's pure hysterical pandering.



We can be doormats when we're dead.

[The Traveler]

143. Yours is a realistic view

but in times like these, realities change quickly. I am not without hope. Stay strong.

[zann725]

144. Thanks for the "bad news", Mr. Gorth...but I disagree on both

Alito filibuster, AND the American perception of 2004 Election Fraud. All of that IS changing as we speak.

The only "bad news," Mr. Gorth, is that the more we-the-people gain in visibility and power and knowledge of the Truth, the more people like ou tell us to "just move on" and "accept" the bad as good, or just acceptable.

No thanks. Thank you.