I have been trying to raise some interest in the idea that President Bush should not be allowed to place another candidate on the Supreme Court until questions about his alleged impeachable offenses have been investigated, and he is either impeached or he is not. Representative Conyers has introduced three resolutions, one of which (HR 635) is to convene a special committee to investigate whether articles of impeachment should be drawn up on the issues of (1) lying to the people about the Iraqi War and (2) spying on Americans under some overarching 'war powers' authority. While this all works out, the President should not be allowed to do something so incalculably consequential as putting Judge Alito on the Supreme Court. Especially now that we've seen how Justice Roberts votes. We can function with Justice O'Connor as long as she'll stay and then with 8 justices if necessary. Let's block the nomination by whatever means are available, including filibuster.

Good idea Meredith!

For the love of Christ, please filibuster! We need an opposition party. We need leaders that fight at every step. We have the wind at our backs, but our elected leaders do nothing. No, they would rather tear down a men (like Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and Al Gore) that take the fight to the republicans.

No Senator wanted to appear like a religious bigot, so they ignored the fact that we will have a majority of Catholic men deciding whether woman can have an abortion.

Think the Oregon dissent, no right to die, as the law of the land, which we will be one vote away from reality

Check out my blog alrodbell.blogspot.com

for articles on the subject.

Dems have the power BOTH to use the filibuster as a negotiating tool to accomplish some good objective [choose one, there are so many!!] AND to OWN the definition of the filibuster rationale before it is hijacked, by aggressively advertising that rationale --and I do mean that SPENDING AD MONEY, not merely sending talking heads on Sundays who get zero play in the media.

Why ignore power when it is unquestionably ours?

Here is the equation:

1) Bush wants Alito.

2) An interminable filibuster is a fantasy. There are not enough Dems to support a three-year filibuster. period.

Therefore

3) Bush will get Alito.

Delay for the sake of delay is so pointless, when there are so many deserving objectives within reach; not to mention the horrendous publicity of obstructionism that Dems will have handed to those running against Dems in November.

Leaving the only viable question to be whether Bush gets Alito the same way he got the presidency, or whether he gives up something in return. A “symbolic” vote has no tangible gain, and is particularly pointless when Bush’s win could be a strategic method to gain something of value for the American body politic. Nothing fuzzy here – something real, something that the fence-sitters would believe has more than a snowball’s chance in Hell of forcing from Bush.

Despite his incredible stubbornness, Bush is NOT the one in power so long as Dems have what he wants: that up/down vote. Thus, the Dems power to negotiate an exchange should not be underestimated. And so long as the goal is pure [think Col. Wilkerson whose payment all goes to scholarships, or McCain’s end-of-torture demand] any hijacking of Dems purported motives will never be swallowed by the American public.

Delay for the sake only of delay seen in this light is worse than pointless; it is bad publicity for nothing, while many deserving objectives slikde through Dems’ collective fingers. No wonder that simple delay seems such a bad bargain to those who are already weakened. Ergo, it seems beyond elementary to USE the power of a filibuster to accomplish some clearly-defined objective that is addition is seen as done for the good of America.

I do NOT think that a hold predicated on resolution of Specter’s investigation meets that definition. I have no faith that any Republican-led investigation will ever result in forcing Bush to back down, and the time frame for resolution through litigation is so lengthy that a “resolution” will cledarly fail in garnering support of the squeamish Senators who are after all the first and the critical hurdle to sustaining a filibuster. I understand the arguments that Abe Fortas was held nearly indefinitely – but times are different now and Dems must face the unholy triumvirate of rabid right-wing pundits, whose stories are fed into [at minimum] a complacent media, and then coopted as gospel by unscrupulous deep pocketed challengers in locales where Dems face the toughest fights. The historical success Republs may have had with Fortas is inapt, given these newly treacherous times.

So what goals are poss targets to convince 41 Senators and maybe even John McCain?

Howz about protecting whistleblowers? Or in this case, protecting those who would

protect whistleblowers. The problem is certainly urgent enough:

You probably know the story -- that slimy head of OSC –which is the group of in-house lawyers charged with protecting whistleblowers -- seems to have decided to appoint 12 new crony lawyers, and in order to make room for them he booted 12 career lawyers, who were given 10 days to choose whether to relocate in two months’ time to a faraway galaxy [oops, satellite office --sell the home, quick!] or get the boot [sell the home, quick!]

Note that Congress had already allocate additional funds explicitly for new hires, so as to get rid of the backlog of administration whistleblowers piling up at the OSC. [Hmmmm. Smell corruption, anyone?]

These staffing funds however are instead being used to set up a another satellite office. Neat. Those exiled appear to be senior lawyers questioning some decisions. In addition, OSC now says that the backlog has disappeared. Where? Into the circular file? Enquiring minds want to know, and since those career lawyers are under a gag rule, this quagmire of covered up cronyism and repressed whistleblowers would best be addressed by a demand from Congress that must be met before, say, Alito gets his up/down vote…. And the good news is that Dems would be making this demand on behalf of those who protect employees exposing corruption. Dems would be well advised here to quote Bush Sr’s praise for whistleblowers – over and over and over.

OR --- here is an alternative goal with clear parameters: No vote until the admin agrees to place an immediate [if temporary] hold on the NSA vacuuming project and said hold remains in place until BOTH a briefing as set forth by the CRS has occurred, AND a suitable period has passed for responsive questions by Congress. Such questions must be answered in full or risk expanding said period; and said advisement and administrative answers do NOT constitute consent, merely the right to (1) get that Alito vote and (2) resume [illegal] spying. What remains is a full understanding that the knowledge gleaned by Congress may result in impeachment proceedings and will not preclude the risk of defeat via private litigation.

[ SEE? It’s fun – put forward your own plan.]

How do the Dems manage to prevent the gold of a stated and obtainable end-goal from turning into the mud of a Republican publicity smear? OWN the story by loudly publicizing said objective over and over and over and over. And if the goal I pointed to, it must be clear that it is Bush Sr.'s message used on behalf of the filibuster - protecting whistleblowers who are America's truest public servants. The time to force Bush's hand in allowing exposure of corruption is BEFORE Alito gets on the bench and BEFORE the November election.