Letters to the Editor
-
More Democrats will work
There are currently 44 Democrats in the Senate. We need 7 more Democrats, not 9, because you are forgetting one thing in your analysis: Control of the Judiciary Committee.
While it is true that some additional Democrats in the Senate would be anti-abortion, and quite possibly to the right on other social issues, the first hurdle is the Judiciary Committee. We lost that round 10-8. Add 2 more progressive Democratic Senators to the JC, and we can stop the nominatons before they ever get to the Senate floor.
Chris
Henderson, NV
-
Everyone Wants to be on the Winning Team
Do you think it is possible that the Dems who voted for Alito did so knowing he was going to win confirmation whether they voted for him or not, only for (potential) political purposes? While this is an extremely irrational reason for voting for a justice whose philosophies you oppose, I have no doubt this is what they were doing. In other words, if there was a snowballs chance in hell- from the beginning- that this candidate did not have the votes to be confirmed, they would have voted against confirmation.
As frustrating and discouraging as this confirmation is, I find War Room's incessant sarcasm and whining very couter-productive; Not to mention annoying.
While I understand this confirmation is about much more than abortion rights, the Republicans, with your help, have the Democrats right where they want them- completely divided over a single issue. By the way, this is where the Dems have been post Eugene McCarthy, and here to stay I presume.
-
math isn't taking election reality into equation
"Of the 33 Senate seats up for election this year, 25 are currently held by senators who voted down the filibuster."
If the democrats in the 25 who voted down filibuster were not up for election in Nov, would they have voted for filibuster?
I am going to bet that many of them are the usuall weak kneed move to the middle democrats that don't want to seem to strident before election season heats up. Especially those Senators in 50/50 states like (WA and NM). Not excusing Cantwell, but I'm sure she is going to be able to use this to stay on the good side of Pro-choice, but not seem like a radical.
Its dissapointing that she couldn't have stood up for filibuster using bush's corruption and possible legal cases and Alito's strong president views as the reason not to vote for him.
Not saying that Pro Choice shouldn't be a reason, only that it seems it moved to the forefront as the only reason to vote against Alito, which will turn off some voters in 50/50 states.
-
Remember Flip Flops.
If we can replace a few pro-Alito Dems, and the other Dems start figuring out that the left will work to primary their sorry asses if they do not support progressive causes, some of those Senators will start to think about voting liberal. All we need is enough new Dems replacing the beltway Dems for them to see the left is getting very serious. Those spineless pro-Alito wimps will be flip-flopping like a fish being caught on OLN. No more DINOs!
Tim, you are sounding like a DINO yourself. OR are you just a Republican writing for Salon?
-
Supreme Court Nominees and Judiciary Committee
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but unlike Court of Appeals nominees, Supreme Court nominees always go to the Senate Floor and cannot be bottled up in the Judiciary Committee.
-
Next Supreme Court pick
It's beyond frustrating to read-watch-hear the news every day. But I think the math would be different if Democrats win a majority in the Senate because a/Bush at that point would be a more weakened president than he is now if the country is in a mood to vote out the Republicans, and he would not be able to propose a candidate who's so right-of-center, and b/the dynamic would be different for Senate Democrats if they have a majority in the Senate, and presumably some gains, if not control, of the House.
And most hopefully, there would be a well-deserved impeachment process underway.
Why in hell is it so difficult to get the Dems rowing in the same boat, firing off some cannons when the important targets pop up??????
-
Alito
An interesting article, but I think you're forgetting that some midwestern Democrats such as Conrad and Johnson are under intense pressure from their consituents to support Pres. Bush's judicial nominees. As much as we may not like to admit it, there were certain reason why Tom Dashchle was defeated in South Dakota, and judicial nominees was one of them. There was no compelling reason, for example, for the North and South Dakota Senators to vote "no" on a nomination that was going to pass anyway and would have given their opponents major ammunition against them. The real issue here isn't getting the Democratic caucus to vote as a block--Senators like Conrad have been a reliable supporter of the Democrat's judicial philosophy in the past--but in, as you mention later in your article, taking back the Senate. Even the filibuster is no longer an option--Republicans are clearly prepared to have it ruled out of order. Democrats could then slow or stall the business of the Senate, with the result that we would be labeled and branded as obstructionists.
I just think your references to mounting challenges to certain Democratic Senators is naive and misguided. I don't know who you have in mind, but do you think that states like North Dakota are liberal bastions? Well, I can tell you they are not, but if you look closely we do have two Democratic Senators there. My point is that we needn't start intra-party sqabbling and should focus on taking back the Senate in 2006, as well as re-electing Democrats in pro-Bush midwestern states.
-
Democrats have a much bigger challenge when it comes to Supreme Court nominees
I think the Democrats did fail, tragically and it was avoidable, but I do have to give them credit for having a much bigger task than the Republicans.
With each new nominee that comes before the Senate, the task of the Republicans is simply to focus on the positive aspects of their personality and promote sound bytes about what a "decent" fellow they are. The perfect nominee for them would be extremely qualified, with no paper trail.
The Democrats on the other hand, have to educate a largely uninterested public in the future threat that past rulings may indicate to their rights. This is an enormous task.
The frame hanging over the entire process is that a "smart" and "decent" fellow would have to have some egregious ethical lapse or commit an enormous gaff during the hearings to not be automatically qualified to serve. Those who vote against a nominee must make their case, rather than those who vote for the nominee.
For Democrats to achieve the sort of political cover they desire to filibuster a nominee, they will need to frame the debate about what is an acceptable position for a judge to have on such issues as civil rights, abortion or the environment long before they are even nominated.