According to a man who put Lib Dem into his user name. 
Just an observation. It’s a wee bit difficult to take your observations seriously when it comes to these instant fillibuster requests.
I was skeptical at first, but I’m beginning to think Harriet Meirs was a feint strategy all along. Aleto is clearly a judicial choice of the type who’d be expected, and Roberts was also solid. The notion that an unusual candidate like Meirs is the result of pure cluelessness or cronyism doesn’t seem to me to mesh with the evidence that he’s so on the ball with the others.
Good point.
This doesn’t make sense to me. What would have been the point?
Do you have a link to his dissent in Casey?
I might be misunderstanding the strategies in play.
Won’t a filibuster trigger the nuclear option and allow the right to more or less slam dunk someone in place?
I don’t think it was a feint, either, but if it was then the best explanation would be to give the Republicans a chance to show that they could be tough on their own, or the Democrats a chance to exhaust their ammo going after her.
Problem is that the first makes the President look bad, in the sense that he’s losing control. And the second didn’t happen. So if it was a feint, it was a poor one.
Perhaps so, but then what was the point with Meirs?
Bush exposed the weaknesses in his own base, and made himself less popular all-around.
He did not force the Democrats to waste any “ammunition”, so to speak.
He also proved himself capable of making a bad choice in regards to judicial nominations. Which makes it easier to suggest that he did so twice.
On first blush, I don’t see any real weaknesses on this guy. He seems more experienced than even Miers, and while he’s undeniably conservative, he seems well within “sane” levels. Unless there’s some skeletons in his closet or some bit of real ideological craziness is revealed later, he’ll be confirmed. I doubt the Dems will try to fillibuster after it becomes clear that they won’t get help from the moderate Republicans. Look for an exact repeat of the Roberts vote.
But that’s just first impressions. Maybe more scrutiny will reveal something that makes him harder to stomach for moderates, and the Democrats and certain moderate Republicans will capitalize on Bush’s recent political weakness.
I meant to say Roberts here. Sorry.
The Bush administration angered it’s base, spun their wheels for weeks wasting political capital all the way, and just generally looked like a bunch of incompetant schmucks. Clearly this was all a deliberate and ingenious political move. :rolleyes:
Unless some moderate Republicans vote against the president’s nominee, they have the power to slam dunk anyone they want, filibuster or not.
This is what I’m concerned about. Unlike both Roberts and Meirs, this guy actually has a record. He’s been a judge and has made decisions. This should be a good thing, but unfortunately in our partisan political climate it is not. It’s a weakness.
People are going to go through every decision he’s ever made and look for mistakes or decisions that are outside the “mainstream”, however you want to try and define that.
Whatis the difference between the “acceptable mainstream” and the “mainstream”?
Is Scalia outside either of those? If so, why?
Is it “political thought” that we need to look at or “judicial philosophy”?
Except that it would take some Democrats to break the filibuster.
I think the chances of the “nuclear option” have decreased remarkably in the past few months. Senate Republicans have to be wondering about the mid-terms next year.
On point: I have no opinion about Alito yet, except the obvious “He’s too conservative for my tastes.” If he turns out to be another Roberts, I suppose I’ll have no choice but to grudgingly accept him. We’ll see.
His dissent in Casey (I haven’t been able to read it yet) seems to show that he is staunchly against the right to privacy and would overturn Roe. If Roberts sided against Roe Alito would tip the balance towards overturning it. That is simply an unaccecptable outcome to the Democrats and they will fight it for all they are worth. Choosing someone with such a clear anti-Roe (again, the papers make it out I haven’t been able to read his opinion) standing was a mistake by Bush and it will lead to an ugly confirmation battle. Losing another nominee would be a devestating blow to Bush and losing Roe would be devestating to the Democrats (until the next election rolled around). Both sides seem to be in a situation that they can not back down from.
I don’t think the Dems will catch hell from the mainstream for opposing Scalito. They can say, “We did not oppose Roberts. We did not oppose Mier. We are not obstructionists, but we will not be steamrollered by a right-wing whack job like Alito.” I suspect a fight will do their image good.
How would it be devestating to the dems? Roe being overturned would be the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic party. Conservatives would be running for the hills. We’d see Democrats come to control the white house and both houses of congress if this were to happen, IMO. This could happen even if the Dems continue to have the problems they fact with finding a message and a vision for the country’s future.
Hence my “until the next election”
Like This Year’s, I don’ t think they’ve got the juice anymore. The nuclear option was a legit threat months ago when the GOP was united, but Bush has lost so much political support now, it’s a much higher hill to climb to get over the political cost, which was always going to be significant. Plus, Frist is on the defensive now because of his stock dealings, so he’s not in a position to push it. And because of Miers, the lack of filibuster is legitimately scary now to people who didn’t care before – if the nuclear option were tried, Democrats would say that if it weren’t for the threat of filibuster, Miers would have gotten confirmed and we’d have someone woefully unqualified on the Court. That’s perhaps an exaggeration of the truth, but not much of one, I don’t think.
–Cliffy