Why filibuster?

[Ziggurat]

Given his evasiveness in answering questions, and the track record of the administration which nominated him, I wouldn't extend the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trust. It's too important a position to take it on faith that this time, it's going to be okay.

Due to the way the Senate operates now, candidates pretty much HAVE to be evasive. And the "track record of the administration" argument would apply to every single candidate they could possibly put forward. And it shouldn't take too much thinking to figure out that an argument which works against basically any candidate Bush might nominate simply isn't going to fly.

In terms of his track record on bias towards government, rather than believing special interest groups which can pick out and misrepresent specific cases quite easily, I prefer to rely upon his actual co-workers, namely other judges, lawyers who have presented before him, and clerks who have worked for him. And those have pretty much been unanimously positive, including from democrats.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Look, I answered what I think. I'm not telling you what you should think. You want to trust him? Go right ahead. Maybe you don't have to worry about the things he might do. Some of us have to, and do.

 

[Bob Klase]

It's interesting to see what's happening politically around the world. I believe there is a sort of pendulum effect and it seems to cover most countries at pretty much the same time. America has made a giant lurch to the right and, unfortunately, religious fundamentalism seems to be on the increase.

In Oz we lurched to the right about 10 years ago and they're still in favour although I think I've detected some hopeful signs that the swing could be on the way back. Fortunately religious fundamentalism, although it exists, is not such a problem here.

Canada seems to have just recently marched that way as well.

I think that, in some years to come, I don't know when exactly, things will swing the other way and left leaning governements will, once again, get the upper hand.

[Obligatory Disclaimer: The above are opinions only, not statements of fact.]

I think you're right. When one side/party holds the power they start moving further and further to the extreme. At some point they move far enough that average people, many who never vote (because "both sides are equally bad") realize that both sides are not equally bad anymore and start voting. Then it starts moving back to the center and eventually the other side gets power. Before long they're moving further and further to the other extreme.

I see it as a natural check and balance (althought one that doesn't always work).

 

[Jocko]

I am always amused at how outraged Republicans get if the Democrats even try to resist them.

That's not outrage, that's hysterical laughter at what democrats call "resistance." I, for one, can't wait for Kerry and Kennedy to throw themselves under the bus. Viva resistance! Although, as far as those two clowns go, I'd rate them at about half an ohm combined.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

What worries some is his track record: he seems to side with the government rather too often.

Do you have any specific decisions in mind? I didn't get a chance to review much at the time of the hearings.

 

[Ed]

The thing that swung me to Alito was the panel of current and retired appelete judges that came out for him. There was one black dude that characterized himself as a liberal activist and said that if he had the slightest doubt about Alito he would not be there. Said it a couple of times, much to the chagrin of that drunken, murdering oaf Kennedy.

I have no problem with a justice that strictly interprets the Constitution. Maybe our legislators ought to take a course in constitutional law before they start writing laws.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Do you have any specific decisions in mind? I didn't get a chance to review much at the time of the hearings.

Interesting reading.

http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file130_23216.pdf

However, since it's from the ACLU, at least half the people reading this post will reject it automatically, with the majority of those not even clicking on the link to do so.

 

[Ed]

Interesting reading.

http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file130_23216.pdf

However, since it's from the ACLU, at least half the people reading this post will reject it automatically, with the majority of those not even clicking on the link to do so.

Interesting. I find that the notification rule was discussed at some length during his hearings. If I recall correctly there was a change in the SCOTUS rulings between his decision and the eventual overturn by them. The strip search thing is a lot more complicated than a bullet point lets on. They fail to mention the 3 or 4 other abortion cases where he ruled for the plaintiff.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Some of the immigration decisions seem a bit odd. False tax returns are a deportable offense, but vehicular homicide while DUI isn't? The Iranian woman he admits will be persecuted if deported to Iran and pursues her belief in equality for women, but asylum was denied on the basis that she can simply avoid persecution by complying with oppressive Iranian law. And what's the deal with the decision about that Chinese couple? Marriage is so special that the guy gets treated differently than he would have been had he been married.

The constant assumption of "good faith" in the matter of warrants, prison officials, and government agencies is fairly alarming. And the jury selection and job discrimination cases...what's with this attitude that if the defendant can come up with a nondiscriminatory explanation for an action, evidence to that explanation's being a pretext is overruled?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Interesting reading.

http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file130_23216.pdf

However, since it's from the ACLU, at least half the people reading this post will reject it automatically, with the majority of those not even clicking on the link to do so.

Thanks -- bookmarked it - read the summary and will have to look at the rest off the clock (still at work). I tlooks like he went for the ACLU's position is some cases, and against it in others. Primarily, their complaint is with his abortion positions (as his record on free speech and exercise of religion is noted as positive). I will look at the cases, but am afamilair with the "strip search" case and their initial summary at least is a bit misleading regarding the actual issue and position.

Thanks for the link; I'll try to leave something substantive by tomorrow evening.

 

[Cylinder]

The cloture motion for the Alito nomination just passed 75-25. I suppose at least some of the D's are winners, since those who voted against cloture satisfied their base without the national exposure of filibustering a nominee with a good favorable rating.

And yes, Feinstein was bullied.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

And the jury selection and job discrimination cases...what's with this attitude that if the defendant can come up with a nondiscriminatory explanation for an action, evidence to that explanation's being a pretext is overruled?

I can shed some light on that. From memory, there was a fairly significant expansion on the evidence allowed in these cases (for employees) in the early to mid 90's. Older case law set rigid limits on the evidence allowed, and that position was simply the law. Cases started eroding that bright line rule during the period where you see alito's dissent in Glass, for example. so here I would initally guess -- subject to me actually reading the case, which could be helpful -- that his opinion in those cases simply followed what had been the established precedent.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I spent a while last night looking at a fraction of the opinions. I was only able to look over a few cases and some related authority cited in them - I focused on the abortion question, since a lot of the concern is expressed there, especially about Casey, I am sure.

A brief review of the first few cases -- along with a review of Glass to make sure my memory on the employment law question was correct -- makes me think this: I'll admit to only a superficial go through, but it seems to me that in both areas, Alito's decisions are extremely concerned with following SC precedent, as opposed to expanding on earlier decisions. In fact, his reliance on precedent and the strict adherence to it means, IMO, that the decisions being looked at actually tell us very little about his actual ideology.

Perhaps I am engaging in too much pattern-seeking here (but then again, perhaps the ACLU is doing the same). I don't see anything that causes me to think that we are on the verge of "returning to the 19th Century" (to paraphrase Senator Kennedy) or rolling back civil rights -- especially given what I view as expansive decisions on personal expression.

The ACLU was on the opposite side on several of the decision that they cite, but disagreement with the ACLU does not automatically make me suspicious. In 1976, it would have, but not in the last 10-15 years.

I'll try and look more over the next couple of days.

 

[Lurker]

Even granting they put Alito out he would just nominate somebody else just as bad or worse.

See, that is why I was supporting Meirs 100%. I figured it was the best we liberals could hope for from Bush and I was right. Alito is worse (IMO) than Meirs. I wished the Dems had tried to rush her confirmation.

Lurker

 

[TragicMonkey]

See, that is why I was supporting Meirs 100%. I figured it was the best we liberals could hope for from Bush and I was right. Alito is worse (IMO) than Meirs. I wished the Dems had tried to rush her confirmation.

Do buy into the theory that she was never a serious nominee, but was meant to draw the fire? That her lack of qualifications was meant to make Alito's qualifications look even better? I thought that sounded awfully conspiracy-ey at first, but now, I'm not so sure. It does seem decidedly odd that Bush would bother with Meirs when he could have just nominated Alito to start with.

(PS: Is that how she spells her name? She's faded from the news so quickly that I've forgotten! It looks wrong to me for some reason.)

 

[Mark]

Time for a brief history lesson, I think:

With respect to judicial nominations, the most effective tactic in opposition has been to bottle them up in committee. In the later years of the Clinton presidency, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was controlled by Republicans, did not hold hearings for as many as 60 of his nominees, according to Democrats. They argue that this refusal to even consider President Clinton's nominees was just as effective in blocking them as a filibuster

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4575047

My, how Republicans' opinions change when their guy is in office.

 

[Cecil]

There hasn'r been a good old-fashioned filibuster like that in many years. Now they just declare a filibuster and nothing else can happen until they get their 60 votes.

That's so boring. There was a really fun filibuster in Ontario about 10 years ago, though. The Conservative government wanted to amalgamate the suburbs of Toronto with the city to create a "mega-city"; the other two parties (NDP and liberals) were strongly opposed to this. They hatched a plot to add over 11,000 amendments to the bill - they proposed that for every street in the Greater Toronto Area, the residents of that street should have a community meeting on the issue.

Each and every one of the 11,000 amendments had to be read aloud and voted on. That session of the legislature lasted 10 days, the members sleeping in shifts.

The transcripts are online , stretching from section L176B to L176AE. Makes for some interesting reading, oddly enough.

*Smacks thread back on topic again*

 

[Art Vandelay]

I am always amused at how outraged Republicans get if the Democrats even try to resist them.

How they can be the party in control of all 3 branches of government and still feel picked on is amazing.

Except that they're not. And you still haven't answered that question you promised to answer.

My suspicion is that he wants to drive the Senate to change the rules to show just how naked the power grab by the Republicans is.

What power grab?

Thing is, it won't do any good until people see through the Repugnican dishonesty and vote their concience instead of their terror, and I see, based on what we see here where mostly well-informed people post, no hope of that in the near future.

What dishonesty? And aren't you a hypocrite, accusing someone else of dishonesty, after your repeated lies?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Interesting reading.

http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file130_23216.pdf

However, since it's from the ACLU, at least half the people reading this post will reject it automatically, with the majority of those not even clicking on the link to do so.

I clicked on it, but I guess my computer rejected it, because all I see is a blank page.

 

[BPSCG]

What worries some is his track record: he seems to side with the government rather too often.

Alito Sides With Missouri Inmate on Death Row

WASHINGTON -- New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservatives Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.

...Taylor's appeal ... argued that Missouri's death penalty system is racist. Taylor is black and his victim was white. He filed the appeal on Tuesday, the day that Alito was confirmed by the Senate.

Walked right into that one, didn't you...?