Letters to the Editor
-
Why are the Dems so weak?
It seems Alito's paper trail is more than broad enough to hang him- on abortion, on the constitution, on minorities, on women....
So, why are the Democrats like a herd of hippos on rohypnol? Once the rabid right have their Supreme Court majority, then all checks and balances are gone. Don't the Dems care? Do they actually *want* a rabid-right Supreme Court?
Maybe the Democratic Party is gambling that if they give the Bushies everything they ask for, they'll hang themselves. Possibly true, as far as the administration and congress are concerned, but not for the Supremes, because we can't vote them out. And once the Supremes start validating King George's pronouncememts, will we ever have a democracy again?
So what in the name of all the stony hells does the Democratic Party think they're doing
-
What the Democrats think they're doing...........
......to answer Marc's question: I think they imagine they're being "responsible," that they're doing what "public servants" should do. In the old days there were TWO major parties that both by and large sought to be responsible and public-spirited. They disagreed, but there were non-party-loyalists on both sides, so neither side was fatally disadvantaged by this -- a Democratic Senator could mull and deliberate and be cautious and maybe decide to defer to a president of the other party, even on something as big as filling a Supreme Court vacancy, because when things were reversed there were Republicans who would do the same.
But those rules all changed under Clinton, and particularly since 1995. Republicans now move essentially in lockstep, and they make a point of opposing Democrats on anything and everything, even when they secretly agree. Republicans got up every day during the '90s thinking about how to make Bill Clinton's life miserable. If he moved to stop the Kosovo genocide, suddenly Republicans were antiwar. They tied up the Congress for months over impeachment even after it was clear that they were on the wrong side of public opinion. The point was just to hurt Democrats in any way possible and, especially, to de-legitimize the whole notion of a Democratic presidency so there'd never be another one. And it worked: What should have been an easy Democratic victory in 2000 turned into a photo-finish that the Bush campaign could then steal.
What we're seeing in the hearings is further evidence that the Democrats haven't caught on yet -- they're still playing by the old, gentleman's-club rules. On the few occasions when they've pushed back against Bush or the Republican leadership, it's been clear that the GOP machine is far less formidable than it looks; it's a shaky coalition uneasily yoked to a feckless, prickly president who "loses it" as soon as he's seriously criticized. But Democrats just seem unable to let this lesson sink in.
If things were reversed, and a Democratic president sent a Democratic Congress the liberal equivalent of a Samuel Alito, the Republicans wouldn't be worrying about responsbility or what's best for the country. They would have worked out their plan of attack within ten minutes of hearing the nomination announced. They wouldn't depend on the hearings; they'd filibuster the nomination regardless. The filibuster might succeed or it might fail, but even in failure it would divide and damage the Democrats, rally the Republican base and thus lay the groundwork for future victories. In short, Republicans would assume that their public duty isn't to weigh individual policies or appointments "responsibly," it's to do whatever they can to advance their party and destroy the other one. Because that, in their view, IS the same thing as serving America.
-
Thanks Jeff
Ok, yes, I understand that's what they *think* they're doing. Or at least it's the rationale they're projecting, whether they believe it or not. What I don't get is how experienced and presumably intelligent people can be making such a patently obvious error. How can you be biparisan with a partisan partner?
Yes the whole Clinton thing was a sordid display of partisanship vs the welfare of the country. But to allow that as a reason for waving through Alito, who is so obviously a right-wing extremist, is simple lunacy. It means that the anti-democratic GOP strategy works twice as well: they paint any moderate proposal of the Democrats as extreme, and the Democrats refuse to oppose any truly extreme proposal from the GOP.
It's not rocket science. A two-party system already uncomfortably restricts democracy. One-party ain't no democracy at all.
-
Democrats Act Weak Because They Are
Essentially, the Democrats have just one card to play here, and that's a filibuster, which is a really weak hand.
Assume they really go after Alito, then the footage looks like them foaming at the mouth at this quiet, subdued guy in a blue (or red) tie.
Then assume they all vote, en masse, against him. He still gets out of committee. Then, the Dems filibuster, or try to. At that point, the Republicans rail about "up or down vote" etc. Given that Alito hasn't (thus far) said "I want to grind up inmates and feed them to mothers who have been blocked from having abortions," there's nothing sound-bite-like to use to justify the filibuster. Either five Dem senators waver, or the Republicans go nuclear. Either way, the Democrats get painted as obstructionist, attention is drawn away from issues (DeLay, Abramoff) that they could actually _use_ in November, and Alito's on the Court anyway.
-
It's their job to filibuster
That the Democrats will be painted "obstructionists" by the GOP, if they filibuster, is true.
But what would Democrats save by avoiding that label?
If Democrats don't do their job - represent the more than 50 percent of America that still thinks checks and balances matter - then they are an empty shell. And an empty shell, capable only of avoiding the labels of a corrupt oligarchy, is useless to me and my nation.
And before someone points out that the Repubs will then end the filibuster with the "nuclear option," making the filibuster futile, I say: 1) the GOP doesn't have the votes (there are moderate GOP who will be happy not to have to vote on Alito; and 2) even if the GOP does succeed at the nuclear option, the action violates Senate rules; no one should avoid doing the right thing because their adversary plans to do the wrong thing.