Remember those pundits saying that being on the Supreme Court would "moderate" Roberts and Alito?

[marmar]

:wtf:

So far they've endorsed segregation, theocracy, the administration's "right" to torture, limits on a woman's right to choose and unchecked corporatism. A real pair of moderates if I've ever seen them....
This court is turning out to be the nightmare we all predicted. ....And these appointees aren't going anywhere soon. Dios Mio!
:scared: :hurts:

[rusty charly]

1. don't forget gutting the 1st amendment

for non-corporate entities.

[rpannier]

2. They're moderates

In 1930's Germany

[Swamp Rat]

8. Exactly!

[ClassWarfare2008]

3. Aren't they the same pundits who insisted Chimpy was a "moderate"?

Compared to Hitler and Stalin, perhaps. But not by any reasonable standards in THIS country.

[kirby]

4. Balls and Strikes.... n/t

[StClone]

5. We knew it: a smoke job

Many DUers here predicted this. It wasn't prescience it was practical interpretation of the COn job we've all seen from The Gang before.

[blm]

6. And remember how Dem leaders downplayed filibuster's importance and didn't

want to make a fight with Bush on this so they could keep their powder dry?

So instead of attacking Bush and Alito they joined the RW attack on Kerry and smeared him to the press.

Thanks Schumer and Associates.

[marmar]

9. "Thanks Schumer and Associates."

Yup, I'd prefer that the Gang of 14, or whatever the hell they call themselves, stop doing America any more favors.

[blm]

10. Schumer and other more well-known senators USED the gang of 14 to hide behind

while they pulled the strings backstage to assure the filibuster lost - some of those like Schumer who voted for filibuster only did so for show after they bitched about it to the press, smeared Kerry and Kennedy and then made sure the votes weren't there.

Clever senators - all show for the vote but would rather fight against other Democrats than fight against Bush and Alito.

anuary 28th, 2006 5:44 am

By Glenn Thrush / Newsday

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday announced she'll join potential 2008 presidential rival John Kerry in voting to filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, just as top Democratic leaders predicted the effort is likely doomed.

With three Democratic senators pledging support for Alito, the New Jersey conservative seems virtually assured of being confirmed by the full Senate Monday or Tuesday, party leaders predicted Friday. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters in Washington that "everyone knows" Senate Democrats couldn't muster the 40 votes needed to support a last-ditch filibuster.

"History will show that Judge Alito's nomination is the tipping point against constitutionally-based freedoms and protections we cherish as individuals and as a nation," Clinton wrote in a statement during a fundraising stop in Seattle.

Several senators had urged their colleagues to filibuster this week, but Clinton wasn't among them, Capitol Hill aides said.

Her move seems to put her at odds with New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, who spent last week privately arguing that a filibuster would damage Democrats' chances of taking back the Senate this year, according to party sources.

>>>
Analysts said Clinton had little choice but to back the filibuster, given Kerry's Thursday announcement that he was reviving the stop-Alito movement. For all the talk of Clinton's shift to the center on abortion, she can ill-afford to let a possible adversary outflank her on the left among liberals who favor abortion rights, according to Jennifer Duffy, who monitors the Senate for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

"It's an empty gesture," Duffy said of Clinton's announcement. "What Democratic primary voter is going to vote for her if she didn't do everything to oppose Alito? ... She had to join John Kerry."
Liberal and abortion rights groups have been bombarding senators' offices, infuriated that Democrats haven't done more to block Alito's confirmation.

Several other Democrats, including Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Kent Conrad (D- N.D.), agree with Schumer that a filibuster could alienate middle-of-the-road Democrats in this year's midterm elections.
>>>>>>

[KittyWampus]

7. Remember those "Democrats" or Lefties who said there's no difference between GOP

and Democrats?

Hell, there are a lot of DU'ers saying the same thing now.

[Frances]

12. You mean the Naderites who wouldn't support Gore

because there was no difference between Gore and Bush?

And now those same people want to blame Democrats for the mess they created! Because no way would Alito or Roberts or Harriet or anyone of that ilk be on the Supreme Court if Gore were president. All of this whining about Schumer etc. is just a refusal to accept responsibility for their own actions.

[blm]

13. To an extent - but filibuster would have succeeded if Dem leaders were behind it in a united way.

The fact remains that they were not and Schumer and others actually helped sabotage the filibuster and undermined the Democrats who were leading on it.

[ashling]

11. And don't forget their respect and admiration for

stare decisis :puke: