Yeah, cuz leaving such decisions to the people involved, i.e., pregnant women, is scary and wrong. :rolleyes:
I think you’re wrong. The smart move is for the Dems to filibuster Alito, forcing the Pubs to withdraw or go nuclear, because all the evidence is that Alito will work in concert with Scalia and Thomas to overturn/gut Roe v. Wade. When that happens, the Dems can say, “We did all we could, now let’s throw those Pubbie bastards out!” and use the backlash resulting from any successful overturning/gutting of Roe v. Wade to regain control of Congress and the Presidency.
Are you abandoning the Gang of 14’s agreement or do you consider confirming someone that may be similar to 3 existing members (I’m throwing Roberts into the mix) to be “extraordinary”?
It’s extraordinary because there are already 3 similar members. Balance of votes, you know?
Sorry sir… With so much whooplah surrounding the judgeship stuff, there are at least 700 unsubstantiated claims out there. I have not been able to find any reputable claims.
Looking at the semi-reputable wikipedia", there is certainly no mention of it.
Ultimately, I cannot completely substantiate the claim of Opus Dei involvement, so I will back off until I find such a reputable source.
Do you believe that that is what the Gang of 14 meant by “extraordinary circumstances?” I haven’t seen any explanation of what they meant, but I don’t think that history would support a claim that appointing a justice who is philosophically similar to three others is extraordinary.
So you would be opposed to replacing O’Connor with someone more liberal than her?
The term “extraordinary circumstances” is quite flexible. I think they made it that way on purpose. Certainly, allowing Bush to push the court way to the right would be such an act of total bend-over-and-take-itdom on the part of the Dems that it could reasonably be described as abrogation of their duty to serve the interests of the citizens who elected them, hence an “extraordinary circumstance.”
Liberal? Who appointed O’Connor again? Ted Kennedy, was it?
What would happen if Bush jumped to the Moon? That is no less impossible than accepting a resignation that has not been offered.
That doesn’t seem reasonable to me.
Those same citizens that elected those senators also had a chance to weigh in on a presidential election, and had to know that a Republican president would nominate conservative judges and justices.
They voted in that way, and it would be an abrogation of the interests of the citizens who elected him not to take that into account, wouldn’t you think?
That’s an interesting definition of extraordinary-- one that is entirely partisan. In that case, I see no reason that the Republicans should not act in am equally partisan manner and pull whatever stunt they need to get Alito confirmed.
But regardless of how much I talk in this thread about what the Pubs should do in the event of a filibuster, I’d put the odds of their actually being a filibuster at next to nothing.
The legitimacy of the election is up for debate, but it’s also irrelevant. Many of the Senators come from states who did not vote for Bush, so they would not be going against the desires of their constuents (and we are talking about desires not interests. Theyre not the same thing. People often desire things which are against their own interests. Sometimes elected officials do have to go against their constutuents’ desires in order to serve their best interests. Like voting against ill-advised wars in the face of public hysteria, for instance).
I don’t know where you’re going with that argument. Bush won quite a few more states than Kerry, so if that’s the deciding factor, Alito is home free. You can’t make it a deciding factor for Senators from “Kerry states” but ignore it for Senators from “Bush states”.
You’re conflating your electorates. The citizens who elected the Respected Senator from the Great State of Vermont is not the same citizenry that elected Dubya. Each Senator and Representative must serve the interests of those who elected HIM, not Dubya. And their interests may well be served by opposing Alito in a filibuster.
That’s a nice dodge but the fact that Reagan appointed O’Connor isn’t relevant to the issue of keeping this beloved balance of votes. The only way to preserve it is to appoint an O’Connor clone. So I presume that appointing someone more liberal than O’Connor would be “extraordinary” and widely criticized by liberals. No?
You’re missing the point, John. The issue isn’t whether or not Alito gets confirmed, the Dems win in a filibuster either way. They can say, “We went to the mat against Alito, we filibustered and got nuked, but the bastard still got in. Those Republicans are the author of your woes, and we MUST vote them out!”
Filibuster or not, any Dem who votes for Alito is going to be very vulnerable is Alito acts as conservatives seem very sure that he will act, and as his past record clearly indicates he will act. Alito is also on record as being bigoted against women and minorities. He’s pure poison for Dems, they have a duty to fight his nomination.
EC, can you explain, please, how conservatives think Alito is going to act, and perhaps provide a link to Alito’s record of bigotry against women and minorities? Thanks.
You say that like it’s something new. Isn’t that, by definition, the rallying cry of the opposition party?
Well, sure. I’m sure Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer would vote to sustain a filibuster, if one came up. But I don’t think you’re going to Democratic unanimity on the filibuster. Take my state, Washington. Voted for Kerry, has two Demcratic senators, Patty Murry and Maria Cantwell. But we’ve also elected plenty of Republican senators. Both Murry and Cantwell go out of their way to portray themselves as “moderate” goo-goo types, not liberals, no matter how much the state Republican party likes to call them liberals.
I think it’s a mistake to believe that anyone who would vote against confirmation would also vote to sustain a filibuster. I can easiliy imagine one of my Senators voting against confirmation, but thinking that a filibuster is unwarranted.
I also don’t understand the argument that Bush is obligated to nominate someone at least as liberal as O’Connor, to preserve “balance”. Bush is a conservative, right? Therefore, he’s going to appoint people to the Supreme Court that broadly reflect his values, right? Would President Kerry have been obligated to nominate a conservative to replace Rehnquist, to preserve the balance on the court?
BrainGlutton, you aren’t concerned about “balance”, and it’s disingenous for you to pretend it is. You just want more justices on the court that you agree with, and fewer that you disagree with. Nothing wrong with that, but if there’s nothing wrong with that, surely there’s nothing wrong with someone else wanting justices THEY agree with? Of course, you’re right, and they’re wrong, so therefore we have to use any means neccesary? But what if THEY think they’re right? Ah, but what if THEY started it first? And on it goes.
Do you expect that we’ll never have another Democratic president, never have another Democratic majority in the Senate? Is preventing the Alito confirmation the hill you want to die on?