- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It seems to me that it is important to look at this decision in terms of its longer-term strategic impact, beyond the immediate question of whether the Republicans will pull the nuclear trigger.
Assuming they do and Alito is confirmed, one possibility is that Roe v. Wade will be overturned or substantially limited by the 2008 Presidential election. In addition, it's possible that the Court will have handed down a decision upholding President Bush's authority to wiretap without warrant in time of war (meaning forever, since we will always be at war from now on). Those should be good issue for Democrats; the question is how much difference it will make if they will be able to point out that they fought Alito with everything they had, as opposed to meekly voting against him. We saw how Kerry's vote for the Iraq war was very difficult for him to overcome, notwithstanding the fact that it had become clear by the time of the election that the administration had misled/lied to the public in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
I think that there would be substantial value to the Democrats fighting, if for no other reason than to show that they know how to fight and they know that there are some things worth fighting for. I also think that Alito's views on executive authority, in the context of this administration, are frightening, and that this is the issue the Democrats should decide to filibuster on. The "extraordinary circumstances" are that we have a President who claims the right to decide which acts of Congress to obey and which to ignore, and we have a nominee who, it appears, will support that view. This is much more significant than the allegations that Alito is a bigot (I doubt he is) or even Roe, since it seems clear that abortion will continue to be available in those states in which it is widely available now.
