Letters to the Editor
-
When did our standards get so low?
I'm not sure what's worse, Republicans who claim that debate is somehow uncivilized and obstructionist or Democrats who don't want to get their clothes dirty in a fight. However you feel about Alito, and however you felt about Roberts, we're talking about not only one of the most powerful positions in our government, but a lifetime appointment. Both men could be on the bench for 30 years or more. This process cries out for thoughtfulness, due process, debate, and even a few fights.
Unfortunately, the saddest thing about the Roberts confirmation process was that, in all fairness, the only person who sounded remotely intelligent was John Roberts. Republicans must've needed a team of chiropracters for all of the bending over backwards they did, and Democrats sounded like they were reading from printouts of that morning's blogs. There was a total vacuum of reasoned, researched debate on both sides, and that was (and continues to be in the Alito nomination) a gross disservice to our democracy and the balance of power.
-
About Landrieu
The Democrats would be right to filibuster for all the reasons laid out in the excellent Times editorial. The bottom line is that there is nothing more important now that protecting our checks and balances - our very democracy. What about GOP nuclear threats you ask? As Paul Wellstone loved to say, you can't win a fight until you pick one.
Now as for Landrieu's opposition to the filibuster - essentially that Congress has too much to do to bother with blocking Alito - I have two questions:
- What is more important than preventing the slowest-changing
branch of government from falling into unbalanced ideological
hands?
- The way things are going (especially with Alito on the Court), exactly what power does Congress have to do anything, other than stand by, idly, while the President asserts the power to do as he pleases? It's not like Landrieu's avowed concern for New Orleans will do a damn bit of good if the Executive Branch refuses to lift a finger.
- What is more important than preventing the slowest-changing
branch of government from falling into unbalanced ideological
hands?
-
Sorry folks...
I disagree with the Times, Mr. Grieve and the letter writers thus far. A filibuster of Alito would serve only to score political points with the partisan left, and would simultaneously give additional legs to the 'obstructionist' meme. Judge Alito will be confirmed, there's nothing that can prevent it, and the American people aren't that interested in the court anyway (at present). They might if he is confirmed, and starts to work with Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts to issue very unpopular opinions; if the court starts to seriously erode our rights and expand the executive, then it becomes a real political issue. However, such an outcome is purely speculative at present, and I think a filibuster would be a pointless and possibly even destructive exercise.
-
Country in Need of a Vigorous Opposition
If not now, when *would* be a good time to use the fillibuster?
I'm not sure the Democrats have evern been an effective party of opposition, but if they ever were, man, we sure could use them now.
Gutless wonders.
On the other hand, getting Alito on the Supreme Court will make for a great campaign issue Democrats can milk for years to come.
"Ya *see* what happens when you don't elect Democrats?"
Still...gutless wonders.
-
Filibuster requires winning a tough message battle - why do we think the Dems are up to it?
Regardless of whether the filibuster actually works (i.e. the Repubs go nuclear or not), the Dems will have to defend it in the court of public opinion. Given this bunch's inability to counteract obviously false Swift Boat slurs or dispell the perception that Saddam was linked to 9/11, etc., what makes anyone think that they can win the public perception battle? If I were a betting man, I'd bet on, in the event of a filibuster, the view that the American people settle on isn't "noble Democrats, standing up to a terrible nominee to defend our rights," but rather "obstructionist whiners." Along the way, the public will have completely forgotten the names Plame and Abramoff.
Until the Dems improve their messaging operation, attempting to filibuster Alito would be both futile _and_ help the Republicans in November.
-
Mary Landrieu's Republican spine
I wouldn't be too worried about Mary Landrieu, her positions of tha past year have shamefully placed her squarely in the "Republican mascarading as a Democrat" category. Plenty of Democrats on the hill are agitating for a filibuster, and with pressure from constituents, it can happen.
A basic tenet of propaganda is getting the word out that something is true, or untrue, and will or will not happen. Public opinion listens and adjusts itself. In this case, I hope and pray it doesn't work...and I am outraged at this, the latest of Mary Landrieus abandonment of the principles of the Democratic party, and the heritage of American government and policy. Landrieu doesn't need a spine, she needs to register as a Republican.
Filibuster. Filibuster. Filibuster. And Landrieu's pressing issues be relegated to second place, where they belong.
-
Time for one of Jefferson's periodic revolutions, I guess
I'm no angsty teenager...I'm 38 years old, but thoroughly disillusioned with our democratic process. I won't vote for any Democrat who doesn't step up now and support a filibuster.
Someone wake me when voting isn't pointless anymore.
-
Talk of political calculations disturbing
I am troubled by Imjustsayin and others who suggest that the filibuster is a bad political move. First, Congress was not conceived by our founders to get reelected - members have a sworn duty to protect the Constitution as a co-equal branch of government. Second, sometimes doing the right thing - even if not supported by the majority - becomes a political victory. After all, the Republicans swept into power by rewarding their base relentlessly, not by ignoring it.
-
Who's obstructionist?
I'm also troubled by what Imjustsayin says about the idea that a filibuster would make the Dems look "obstructionist." Why should that tag be applied to them? Confirmation is a two-step process: The president nominates, the Congress consents. The nomination could be considered "obstructionist" too, if the nominee is so unpalatable to the opposition party that they are (or at least should be) provoked into taking a stand against that nominee.
-
Why Dems don't seem to have a spine
While we may think we have 2 "parties," we really have one big party, paid for by the American taxpayer. Unfortunately the American taxpayer doesn't realize that our representative democracy ended some time ago. (During the Reagan Administration?) Now we have a city, Washington, D.C., full of people with really good jobs who just want to keep them. How do they do that? Well, they pander to big busines for big bucks with which to buy votes. They pander to the voters with emotial rhetoric and pork barrel spending. This has been working great for them for a while. Until the 2000 election it seemed to work pretty well for the voters too. Unfortunately when your leadership is rotten to core and headed by an apparently a crazy drunk and those who find him useful, the "party" seems to get out of hand.
Now we look to the partiers to stop their usual practices and think carefully about the future of this country if we have a Supreme Court with a majority of radicals. They are are not up to the task. They can't see how Alito will affect either their ability to raise money, get emotional votes, or deliver pork barrel to their constituents. Lacking "the vision thing" they will probably not band together to save our nation, our democracy, the American experiment. They will piss it all away while they minding their own business and hoping the party will go on until they are ready to go home.