The other Alito thread is where people are weighing in as to whether or not they support his nomination. I want this thread to focus on a much narrower question. As we all remember, the so-called Gang of 14 decided to team up and make sure the nuclear option* doesn’t come into play as long as the candidate was not an “extremist”.
Judge Alito looks well qualified (in terms of credentials) to sit on the Supreme Court, and I don’t think enough Republicans will vote against him to defeat his nomination even if all the Democrats vote against him. For the purpose of this thread, let’s assume that is the case. If the Dems want to oppose him, then, it looks like they’ll have to fillibuster.
Can a reasonable case by made that Judge Alito is an “extremist”, which I would assume is someone well outside the judicial mainstream? I don’t see it. He doesn’t have a history of making controversial speeches (like Janice Rogers Brown), and so we’re pretty much left with his legal opinions. Do those opinions add up to an “extreme” judicial position? If so, why?
Further, if the Democrats (or you) think he is an extremist, can they (or you) convince McCain et al that he is? Or, can they convince McCain et al that Alito is not worth changing the Senate rules over?
*change the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster for judicial appointees.
The fourteen’s need for existence may be done anyway, GOP solidarity no longer being a given, not at all, not nearly. This will be the test of that, though.
Yep, it will be fun, for those of us who enjoy politics as theater.
I think anyone who won’t publicly commit to upholding Roe v. Wade is going to be considered an extremist by the pro-abortion side. And Bush is considered to have been weakened by the Miers nomination, as well as other events of the recent past.
Will this be enough so the Dems filibuster? If the Democrats figure they can score enough points by forcing the “nuclear option”, they will.
To some extent, it depends on how Alito comes across in the hearings. Roberts struck everybody (except the fringe elements like PFAW) as moderate and reasonable. Miers never made it that far. This guy probably will. I suspect if he survived his years on the Third Circuit court without blowing up, the bloviating of Ted Kennedy’s ten-minute-monologue-with-a-question-mark-at-the-end isn’t going to be all that different. If Alito keeps it in mind that no Senator is actually listening to a word he says, and keeps to the script, it will eliminate the hearings as a factor. Then it reverts to a straight power struggle between Democrats and Republicans.
That was part of Bork’s problem - he was too used to dealing with people who were listening. So he actually put forth his positions. Other factors as well, but that was a lot of it.
Nope, not an extremist to my left-wing brain. Alito seems like a pretty conservative, pro-business type, of a recognizable kind. But hardly a “clinic bomber,” as someone in another thread insisted the religious right was demanding. His confirmation is inevitable, barring any dramatic revelations, and will not be the end of life as we know it. Or even Roe v. Wade, I would think.
I remember “extreme”, but in either case, does Alito fit the bill?
Did Graham vote against Roberts? Is that what you mean? I don’t think that counts as breaking with them, since they never tested the fillibuster option. Would Graham have voted for cloture if the Democrats tried to fillibuster? That’s the test, and I don’t think we know that.
That’s not really what I’m getting at. Roberts didn’t commit publicly to uphold Roe, but the Dems didn’t try to fillibuster his confirmation. I’m really only using “extreme” in the sense that it was meant when the Gang of 14 made their pact. I know they didn’t define it, but clearly Roberts didn’t fit that bill.
Well, that’s the question. Will they figure they can score enough points? I honestly can’t figure that out yet.
Bork had a number of unique problems, not the least of which is that he came off as cold and unlikeable. Then there’s the mug-- one that only a mother could love, if even that! He didn’t cut a sympathetic figure…
Kenney voted against him, didn’t he? I got the feeling that Kennedy was simply reading the “questions” his staff had prepared, and that his mind was made up ahead of any hearings.
The question is not whether the Dems will oppose, but how seriously and with what effect. There will never be a 96-3 confirmation vote for a Bush nominee, in other words, as there was for Ginsberg.
So what? Kennedy was not part of the gang of 14 so his opinion doesn’t matter in terms of this debate.
And as for Ginsberg I don’t remember the senate minority leader specifically saying not to nominate her. Bush was well aware of the Democrats objections to him and if he wanted someone to pass 96-3 he should have picked a consensus canidate.
He does not necessarily have to fit the bill. Remember its extraordinary circumstances not extremists nominees. When a mainstream judge like O’Connor is being replaced that alone makes it an extraordinary circumstance. This judge will have the power to tip the balance on a lot of important social issues in the near future. While Alito might be an ordinary conservative judge that doesn’t mean that this is an ordinary nomination nor does it necessarily mean he should be confirmed.
I doubt very seriously the Mr. McCain would agree with that. Remember, you have to convince him not to “drop the bomb”. Do you seriously think he’ll agree that anyone to the right of O’Conner on Roe would constitute “extraordinary circumstances”?
That’s not what I’m asking in this thread. I don’t mean to be snarky, but that’s what the other thread is for.
I never said anyone to the right of O’Conner. I said that if you are replacing a moderate with a conservative that could potentially change the balance of the Supreme Court makes it an extraordinary circumstance. McCain may or may not see that as justification enough to stop the nuclear option but I am pretty sure democrats see it as enough reason to consider a filibuster.
No that is very relevent to this thread. You are talkinng about a nomination that could shape the court for the next 5-10 years. That in itself is an extraordinary circumstance.
Of course we’re talking about a potentially different court for 10 years (or more). But if that’s all the 7 Dems meant by “extraordinary circumstances” than that term has no discriminating meaning. What’s the point of agreeing to conditions if those conditions are met by the very nature of the action?
The Democrats are going to have to demonstrate to themselves that Alito is so far to the right that he is out of the mainstream, or the filibuster will never hold. I agree that just because he’s conservative, it’s not extraordinary.
I can’t be the only one trying to type Alioto every time, can I?
Indeed I think that is a very good possible ending of this road.
Why is all of the blame on the democrats? Bush nominated a judge that he knew was going to be opposed. If you remember that was part of the original agreement, more bipartisan decision making about nominations. Either way this agreement was about minor judges and appointed officials. By no means did the Democrats ever agree to let the Supreme Court nominees pass without a fight.
I’m not blaming anyone… yet. If the Dems try to fillibuster, and the Gang of 7 agree, then I think they’re word doesn’t mean shite. This is guy idoes not seem to be out of the judicial mainstream.
