January 16, 2006


DiFi - the New Joementum?

I really thought Dianne Feinstein was smarter than this...can we get Barbara Boxer to go slap some sense into her colleague?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee member, said she hopes not to see a filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

Speaking on CBS` 'Face the Nation,' Feinstein said Sunday she intends to vote against Alito`s nomination, but saw no need for a Democratic filibuster.

'When it comes to filibustering a Supreme Court appointment, you really have to have something out there, whether it`s gross moral turpitude or something that comes to the surface,' she said. 'This is a man I might disagree with, (but) that doesn`t mean he shouldn`t be on the court.'

Gee, Dianne ... how about lying about the Vanguard Recusal? Or his CAP membership he was so proud of in 1985 and can't seem to recall now? How about the fact he'll say anything to get the job? DiFi has been in government so long that she seems to have forgotten that job applicants are responsible for their interview answers and resumes as presented at interview. Anything less than honesty is usually grounds for immediate dismissal in any company in America, except in the 1600 Crew where it's a ticket to promotion, fame and fortune.

Especially when facilitated by Democratic Quislings.

posted by Jo Fish on 01.16.06 at 08:58 AM





Comments:

Oh, please. You've been listening to Ted "What Bridge?" Kennedy too much. Alito did eventually recuse himself in the Vanguard case, and the NYT investigated the CAP thing to death and found nothing to it; no mention in the CAP records that Alito was even a member, which jibes with Alito's barely remembering being part of the group.

And get this, on a slightly different note: Ted Kennedy named his dog Splash! Does the man have no sense of irony?!

Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

posted by: bean on 01.16.06 at 02:29 PM [permalink]



Now, now, Sen Feinstein, is filibusterin' hard work when the Constitution of the United States is at stake? I can't filibuster, Senator, only you can, so if not you, who?

posted by: Nina on 01.16.06 at 03:28 PM [permalink]



I know that's just bean being bean, so in the interest of helping another bro' out, I'll give him an array of readings from scotus.blog so he can catch up with all the info he's missed out on! Nice try using Kennedy to divert us from focusing on Alito--so do some catching up and then we may be able to talk--:P (BTW, doesn't Alito's absolute devotion to the totalitarian state bother you just a bit, old bean?)

posted by: Nina on 01.16.06 at 06:59 PM [permalink]



Historically the filibuster and related efforts have been used to block progressive legislation. It is a blunt instrument and fundamentally anti-democratic and for that matter anti-Democratic. Republicans blocked all kinds of Clinton nominees using all kinds of techniques (blue slips etc) when all we were asking was an up or down vote. The fact that Dianne is going to register a 'No' vote when most Supreme Court nominees get in on a ninety to something vote is a statement in itself.

Democrats need to vote against Alito and then move on. We lost the last election, in large part because we chose to run a bunch of Bush-Lite Centrists in the South rather than standing up for the Party of FDR. That is what happens when you turn the keys to the Party car over to the DLC. But a filibuster of Alito buys us nothing but a sense of self-righteousness and wouldn't go anywhere anyway.

Check the math. Subtract the Gang of 14 and you are left with 38 Dems and 48 Reps in the Senate. To support a filibuster you need to gain the support of 3 out of 7 Dems. But in doing so you have to convince 6 out of 7 Repubs to not vote for the nuclear option. Because they only need two votes from the Gang to prevent filibusters on judges forever.

Nina are you really willing to give up this tool on this nomination? In the face of certain defeat in the end? If so why?

posted by: Bruce Webb on 01.17.06 at 02:59 AM [permalink]



Bruce,

I was crafting a response when I saw ReddHedd's take, so I'll just say: what Redd said. And check out the Harry Reid comment featured in Redd's post.

posted by: Nina on 01.17.06 at 10:32 AM [permalink]



Bruce, it may be true that the filibuster has been used by conservatives to squash progressive legislation. I personaly support giving the cons a taste of their own medicine. I say filibuster this nominee. If they opt for their 'nuclear' option it will be on the books for us to press more liberal judges in the future. Like spoiled children who threaten to take their toys home if you don't play their way, the threat to use the 'nuclear' option is already there, waiting to be brought out. Let's force them to do it, otherwise they'll later claim how civil they were about debate in the Senate over their nominees. Come our time, THEY WILL resort to their same old dirty tricks. They're forcing their candidates down our throats with NO prior negotiation. Let's force them to do what they threaten and use it against them big time in the future! With enough of a majority we can use their own medicine to move the government more left. And if we ever have a majority let us not bother asking in advance about whether or not they will support the candidate. I know that as liberals we tend to take the high road, but it's time to dig in and FIGHT!

posted by: Ray Robinson on 01.17.06 at 08:19 PM [permalink]






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?



















usdemvet -at- hotmail.com
or
usndemvet -at- usdemvet.com (coming soon)






All the original material © 2002-2003 Jo Fish
steal what you want, all I ask is an attribution of some sort
Thanks