I don’t see us ever going back. The genie is out of the bottle, for better or worse.
I don’t think so. Dems haven’t put SSM on their platform at all. They are only perceived as pro-SSM because the Reps are so vocally anti-SSM. But few if any have gone on record saying that gays are entitled to marriage.
If Roe is overturned, the public will likely see the Reps are the main cause of it because abortion is featured so heavily in their rhetoric, and thus the backlash will be mighty.
I just saw a clip of Senator Biden on CNN saying that (paraphrasing here) the hearings have become a waste of time, that the nominees of both parties refuse to be pinned down about the issues, and that he favors skipping the hearings and going straight to debate in the full Senate. All in favor?
I’m less concerned about Alito’s views on abortion than I am about his views on executive powers. Coupled with his long track record of siding against the little guy whenever possible, I shudder to think how many more rights we’ll lose with him on the bench.
Would you be happy if ruled similarly to Scalia on the limits of executive powers?
Maybe, but it depends on the details, since 9 times out of 10 I consider Scalia a crazy-ass bugfuck.
Start with his dissent in Hamdi.
Funny, I heard a tape this afternoon on my way home of Biden praising Ginsburg’s rights to not answer any questions during her confirmation hearing :rolleyes:
To the first question, the answer is yes. The point of the philibuster is to prevent the tryanny of a small majority of the people. To win control over the government, all you need is one more seat in the house, the senate and the presidency. Without checks and balances like the filibuster, the views of millions, tens of millions, of voters would be silenced. That is not democracy.
As for the 2nd. Yes, in the driver’s seat for nomination, NOT confirmation. That is the Senate.
Why did I use Ph… I don’t know. Sorry.
The filibuster is anti-democractic. That doesn’t mean it’s bad, but you’re mischaracterizing it to call it a democractic device. In fact, the Senate itself isn’t exactly a democratic institution, if you think a key element of democracy is one person one vote.
As You With the Face points out, the Dems are hardly identified with SSM the way that Reps are identified with opposing abortion. Dems can properly be called, overall, the party that is pro-choice while the Reps can be called the party that is pro-life. But when it come to SSM, the correct terminology would be, the Dems are the party that is least opposed to SSM, and the Pubs are the party that is most opposed to SSM. It’s not the same thing at all.
Also, it’s one whole hell of a lot more likely that the SC will overturn/gut Roe v. Wade than that it will legalize SSM, if Alito gets confirmed. One whole hell of a lot more likely.
True 'nuff. But the Pubs are also mischaracterizing what has been called the “nuclear option” – changing the Senate rules to make filibustering of judicial nominees impossible – when they try to rename it the “constitutional option.” Calling it “nuclear” means something, though whether it’s a fair name is debatable. But calling it “constitutional” is completely misleading and irrelevant. Of course it’s not unconstitutional – the right of unlimited debate is not in the Constitution, it’s in the rules the Senate wrote for itself.
I find it hard to be sympathetic towards the Pubs on the naming issue. Wasn’t it one of them who coined it in the first place? 
If “constitutional option” doesn’t work, maybe they’ll try the “patriotic option” next. 
Can I revise my predictions?
I’ll now say no Pubs will vote against and 10 Dems will vote for.
Let’s say for a minute that’s true. That would be 55-0 on the Republican side and 10-35 on the Democratic side. If it works out that way, the Republicans (who will have voted 100% on one side) will accuse the Democrats (who will have voted 77.8% on the other side) of partisanship.
I take issue with your view that the filibuster is anti-democratic. What it does is prevent the tyranny of the majority. At times the stampede of public opinion needs some razor tape thrown in front of it, and the filibuster is a nice tool to have in the box for such a purpose.
Right. Like when the stampede of public opinion was running strongly in favor of civil rights bills, and men like Senator Robert Byrd decided to “throw some razor tape in front”.
A nice tool, indeed. :dubious:
The historical view of the word “democracy” is “rule by the masses”, i.e. the unwashed mob. In that sense, it is undemocratic: as you note it impedes the “stampede of public opinion” and tyranny of the majority.