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.

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?

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?)

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?

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.

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!

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams