Why were us Dems so wimpy on Alito and Roberts?

[KansasVoter]

The GOP is gearing up to fight against Obama's nominee.

Why is it that Roberts and Alito seemed to have very little fight from us Dems?

[DJ13]

1. The same reason they're wimpy on most everything else

$$$$$$$$$ from large PACS.

[Thrill]

2. Weak Leader in the Senate

Plus several Dems fail for the bullshit Roberts was selling

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. Because Mrs. Alito cried (coached by Mr Rogers...er, Lindey Graham, of course)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. Even Russ Feingold, a liberal stalwart in the Senate, voted for Roberts. n/t

[beachmom]

9. A lot of Democrats voted against Roberts AND Alito. Feingold is a maverick.

He does his own thing.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. See my reply below. If liberals can support conservative nominees, then conservatives

should exercise some candor and support the nominees of Democratic presidents.

[karynnj]

11. Feingold believes the President should get his nominees -

even on the SC - unless there is clear reason for them not to.

John Kerry, in making a very passionate plea for Democrats to think and vote against cloture, listed some of the reasons they were giving. (Remember the gang of 14, which allowed many bad lower level judges in, was theoretically suppose to shift and block a really bad nominee - especially on the SC. Alito was exactly when that should have happened - and it didn't. The Democratic gang of 14 members were taken for a ride).

Here is what Kerry said:



I understand that, for many, voting for cloture on a judicial nomination is a very difficult decision, particularly on this Supreme Court nominee. I also understand that, for some of you, a nomination must be an ``extraordinary circumstance'' in order to justify that vote. I believe this nomination is an extraordinary circumstance. What could possibly be more important than this?

This is a lifetime appointment to a Court where nine individuals determine what our Constitution protects and what our laws mean. Once Judge Alito is confirmed, we can never take back this vote. Not after he prevents many Americans from having their discrimination cases heard by a jury. Not after he allows more government intrusions into our private lives. Not after he grants the President the power to ignore Federal law under the guise of protecting our national security. Not after he shifts
the ideological balance of the Court far to the right.

<snip>
We believe no less. And we should do no less. We did allow the confirmation of three of the most objectionable appellate court nominees. There was no talk of prolonged debate on Chief Justice Roberts. Now we are presented with a nominee whose record raises serious doubt about serious questions that will have a profound impact on everyday lives of Americans. What on Earth are we waiting for?

Many on my side oppose this nomination. They say they understand the threat he poses, but they argue that cloture is different. I don't believe it is. It is the only way that those of us in the minority have a voice in this debate. It is the only way we can fully complete our constitutional duty of advice and consent. It is the only way we can stop a confirmation that we feel certain will cause irreversible damage to our country.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. I understand why he did it. I was making the larger point that even the most ideological

disparate Democrats supported Bush's nominees. Why can't the conservatives do the same?

[karynnj]

32. I think I am in the opposite place

I think it is a good check when the party not in power rejects the most extreme choices, accepting more moderate ones.

Had the Democrats built the filibuster around right to choose - and filibustered a perfectly acceptable nominee - just for that reason, it would have been wrong and stupid - as Bush's next choice would also be pro-life.

There are likely people too far outside the mainstream on the left - and the Republicans would filibuster them and would likely get a few Democrats to join.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. That's true and I think it's the pragmatic choice. However, it was probably better not to have

Harriet Miers because I'm not certain that she would have been better than John Roberts, anyway.

I think most liberals, like myself, seem pleased with this choice. The president is being a pragmatist, but he's also a masterful politician. The Repugs have nothing on this pick, so of course they'll resort to ad hominem attacks and pettiness, It is what they do best. When liberals argue against a nominee, at least it's on the merits, not the "she's empathetic" nonsense they're spewing at the moment.

[karynnj]

45. I think a Harriet Miers type appointment discredits the importance of the SC

I assumed that Obama, a constitutional law expert, would never pick anyone who wasn't top notch in terms of competence.

The difference was between an ideologue outside the main stream at the extreme of the President's party versus someone more moderate. Alito was outside the mainstream, where I think she is within the mainstream, from what is now known. She seems an excellent pick given what is known.

[bigwillq]

5. While I think Sotomayor is a decent pick

They're still being wimpy.

I really wish we went for a far, far lefty. The repukes did it under Bush (going far, far right) but we always have to "play nice".

[blue_onyx]

21. Obama isn't a "far, far lefty" person himself

so it would be unlikely that he would want to pick a far, far left nominee.

[Thrill]

37. I don't think is a play nice pick. Shes said some things that show she may

be a fire breathing liberal on the high court. I think he used this pick as one to dare them to go after. I just don't think it would have been smart to go with a Karlan or Sustein first. Especially with the big Healthcare battles looming. He did the right thing here. Go with a solid liberal choice, that they are going to be afraid to fight.

Now when Ginsburg retires, thats where you go with the Sullivan, Sustein, or Karlan type in my opinion. Sustein or Patrick look to be perfect replacements for Stevens.

[Renew Deal]

6. Because in reality, there was nothing they could do.

Fillibustering would have been way over the top. I do have to wonder if nominating Harriet Miers was a distraction to get a more conservative justice through. The dems got her knocked out, so they couldn't really do it twice.

[beachmom]

7. John Kerry wasn't, and he has the battle scars to prove it. Doesn't anyone remember?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/26/192843/363

Filibuster Alito
by John Kerry
Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 04:28:43 PM PDT

Do I support a filibuster? The answer is yes.

Yesterday Senator Kennedy and I spoke with our colleagues about it. I don't have a shred of doubt in my opposition to Sam Alto's nomination. I know Senator Kennedy does not either. He has truly been a great leader in the effort to oppose Judge Alito.

I spent a lot of time over the last years thinking about the Supreme Court and who America needs on the highest court in the land. So I don't hesitate a minute in saying that Sam Alito is not that person. His entire legal career shows that, if confirmed, he will take America backwards. People can say all they want that "elections have consequences." Trust me, more than anyone I understand that. But that seems like an awfully convoluted rationale for me to stay silent about Judge Alito's nomination.

[karynnj]

24. Here was Kerry's speech begging his peers to vote to filibuster him

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=7647371

[jesus_of_suburbia]

49. I love Kerry more each day... (I didn't remember that). He would have been an excellent President!

[NYC_SKP]

8. Our Empathy?

I'm half serious. I think we tend to be more thoughtful, less ornery...

[Enrique]

10. i don't think the GOP will necessarily fight her that hard

she might get more votes than Alito did.

[kenny blankenship]

12. Because they agree on far too much and share too many of the same attitudes and goals

Even though Democratic voters disagree vehemently with Republican choices and with the GOP worldview, elected Democrats beg donations from the same interests that own the Republican Party. A country with ever worsening disparity/concentration of wealth must expect to see a narrowing range of opinion among its political parties. Both parties need money and dance for nickels in front of the same top wealth holding class. Democrats seeking election, whose principles and loyalties conflict with the corporate class, don't usually get that money, and therefore they tend to lose to other Democrats and Republicans who are happy to serve their beneficent masters. Elected Democrats therefore are much closer to elected Republicans than they are to Democratic constituencies. The main difference between the two parties is rhetorical, not substantive. It's not really worth arguing which party is the bigger whore, but it's at least arguable that the Democratic Party is the worse, since it claims to represent the common working person, while it routinely holds the powerless and disadvantaged down while corporate interests commit forcible rape on all orifices. The Pukes on the other hand are pretty straightforward with their belief that such abuse constitutes the natural state of things and builds character among the poor.

So while a voting Democrat may look at a nominee like Roberts and Alito and see an unmistakable threat to women's sovereignty over their own bodies, or see a bitter enemy of his or her right to bargain collectively with employers, or a police roadblock in the way of minority voting rights, the elected Democrat sees a Judge that his true Master would be very happy to see ruling from the Supreme Court bench. We keep expecting a furious they-shall-not-pass defense of Justice, they keep rolling out the red carpet for the neo-Fascist right. They know we don't like it, but they can also see that we don't understand why we keep getting played. As long as we don't get it, they'll keep fucking us like that.

[Blue_Tires]

13. four words:

"keep your powder dry"...

if i EVER have to hear that phrase in ANY context ever again....

[kath]

23. Yep - they had to add to the huge stores of the Dry Powder Warehouse.

:puke:

[blueclown]

14. 42 senators voted against Alito.

I highly doubt Sonomayor will face that type of opposition.

[karynnj]

25. Fewer were willing to vote against cloture - the only way to stop him

Those who voted No on that vote and yes on cloture were not serious in their opposition.

[bornskeptic]

28. Compare that to Ginsburg and Breyer

who were confirmd 96-3 and 87-9.

[LSK]

15. we are not scum of the earth lowlife slimeballs like they are???

:shrug:

[secondwind]

16. I don't think we had the votes at the time.

[Jennicut]

18. There wasn't. Didn't Obama and Biden both vote against him?

[jillan]

17. I remember the dems giving them tough questions - remember Mrs Alito crying

because those big bad dems were mean to her hubby?

I was proud of our team, but in the end, we didn't have the votes.

[karynnj]

29. I was NOT proud of our team

Mrs Alito crying was dumb, but the committee - including Kennedy 9one of my favorite Senators) and Biden did an AWFUL job. The concentration on Princeton eating clubs - when Kennedy had belonged to an exclusive Harvard club was pathetic. Biden wasting 26 minutes explaining that he was Irish Catholic and thus could not go to Princeton - but his kids could - but they preferred U of Penn etc etc etc.

Feingold'd questions were ok, but not stellar. I think that we could have won had every Democrat made the issue things like Unitary President and things like his deciding that it was ok to enter a farm house in VT with guns drawn to evict a family they could have won over some of the more Libertarian Republicans and made it easy for Conservative Democrats, especially from places like MT and NE, to vote against cloture. What they needed to do was to absolutely not make it about a woman's right to choose. That was a losing argument for two reasons. One, the next choice would also be pro-life. Two, making that the issue made it harder for some Democrats to vote against cloture.

In addition, Reid explaining that "after the cloture vote fails, we will ...." did not help. Biden saying he would vote against it "just once" made his vote useless - because if it would have been the critical 41 st vote, the Republicans would just bring it up for a second vote - where it would fail without his vote. Obama was VERY flaky on it on the talk shows. HRC was furious that a filibuster was attempted - and moved to voting for it only as it became a big issue. Many many Democrats were acting in their own self interest and gave Kennedy and Kerry little support. Kerry, in particular, was mercilessly bashed in the media - even by the NYT that had advocated for "someone" to lead a filibuster. I guess the leader the NYT wanted was not Kerry.

[politicasista]

34. Interesting

I remember the backlash the senator got. And that whole mess is another reason why Reid needs to be replaced as majority leader. :thumbsdown:

[cali]

19. why were the pukes so wimpy on ginsberg? Why is it that ginsberg seemed

to have very little fight from the pukes?

[kiranon]

47. Because she was mainstream middle of the road and fair unlike Roberts or Alito.

[onenote]

20. Only three Democrats voted for Alito

Admittedly, 19 voted for cloture. But there was never a serious threat that the Democrats were going to successfully filibuster Alito. All that the repubs needed were two votes and, as noted, three Democrats (Byrd, Conrad and Nelson (NE)) were willing to support him on final confirmation. Any number of Democrats (as well as Jeffords) supported the concept that ALito deserved an "up or down vote" under the terms of the Gang of 14 agreement. The split vote allowed a number of conservative/moderate Democrats to cover their asses by not seeking to block the vote, but then voting against confirmation.

The difference now is that the repubs don't have "moderates" (apart from Snowe and Collins) who need to worry about the reaction of independents and other moderates to a filibuster threat -- in fact, it plays well with what remains of their base and will serve them well in their fundraising efforts among their base. At the same time, the Roberts nomination came up only a few months after the Gang of 14 compromise and even the Alito nomination was less than year from the compromise. The passage of four years from that compromise (and the fact that three of the eight repubs who were part of the Gang of 14 are no longer in the Senate) also changes the equation.

That being said, I believe that Sotomayor will avoid a filibuster by a relatively safe margin and will be confirmed with at least as many repub votes as Alito got Democratic votes.

[karynnj]

30. Had all the people who voted against him voted against cloture

he would have been filibustered.

The whole point of the Gang of 14 was to "preserve" the filibuster so it could be used in a situation like Alito. The fact is that the gang of 14 NEVER EVER swung to work on the Democratic side.

The real problem was the Democratic leadership decided not to even try - and were angry when Kerry and Kennedy thought it was important to do so. Another problem was that the Democrats were by and large AWFUL in that confirmation hearing. Don't you think several questions on Unitary president and other out of the mainstream believes should have taken up the time spent on Princeton eating clubs or Biden's monologue?

Imagine Reid and conservative Democrats would have fought it on the expansion of government power inherent in Alito's ideas - I bet they could have sold that in their states. Much better than speeches on a woman's right to choose that they could excerpt in appealing for the woman's vote.

[onenote]

40. right. but that never was going to happen

And, quite obviously, the gang of 14 compromise was not designed to facilitate a filibuster "in a situation like Alito". It was designed to allow each Senator to make his/her own decision as to what was an "extraordinary" situation that would warrant a filibuster. Clearly simply being opposed to confirmation did not equal "extraordinary circumstances" in the minds of the signatories of the gang of 14 deal since all of the Democratic signatories that were part of the gang of 14 and who opposed alito's confirmation voted for cloture.

As for doing a better job at the confirmation hearing -- you're right about that, although i'm less certain than you that, in the end, it would've made a difference in the outcome.

[karynnj]

44. I agree completely with what you are saying

It is clear from their actions that they thought Alito did not represent extraordinary circumstances. What I do think is that the Democrats in the gang were given two things. One the ego inflating sense that they were among the 14 people who could MOVE the Senate's decision. Two, a gang - so they didn't have to stand alone with their decision. All Senators always have the ability to vote their conscience at any time - they in fact agreed that they would act as a group making these decisions - and EVERY decision they made was to stick with the Republicans.

I agree that what I said on strategy is simply my opinion - which I already backed as well as I could. It is clearly not CW because many Democratic Senators against the nomination did the opposite and they know Senate dynamics far far better than I do. (Turn it around - would a Republican argument complaining a nominee was pro-choice work or would bringing up something that puts her/him outside our comfort zone on something work better? I think many small government Republicans would have been uncomfortable with the Unitary President or spying on Americans.)

[Jack Rabbit]

22. We Dems were not wimpy about Roberts or Alito

The ones in the Senate were.

[annabanana]

31. Scared of the "nuclear option". . . And "the gang of_______"

(Whatever the hell number of quislings there were that time)

[AlexanderProgressive]

35. Obama voted against Roberts

Showing great judgment as usual.

[Thrill]

36. And Alito. I remember him being very vocal against Alito. Hopefully they don't replay

some of the stuff he was saying. He was leading the charge against Alito.

[politicasista]

46. He was one of those leading

Kerry and Kennedy called for the filabuster though and other Dems joined them.

[blm]

48. No, he didn't - Kerry did and so did Kennedy. Obama said he didn't think Dems SHOULD filibuster but,

he sided with filibuster in the long run. Clinton and Schumer led the debate AGAINST filibuster in the senate caucus, and after Dem activists pounded Clinton's office with angry phonecalls she decided to join the filibuster the next day (presidential primary tactic).....halfheartedly, of course.

[politicasista]

53. Hopefully behind the scenes

Obama has (this is politics so won't hold breath on that).

I do not trust or care for Schumer any Blue Dog Democrat in the Senate. And after what happened with Caroline K, I don't trust some (maybe all) NY pols either.

Too late to edit the post above, but I haven't forgotten what Kerry and Kennedy did. Much kudos to them both.

[Honeycombe8]

38. I think they did fight the Alito confirmation as best they could. But they couldn't

do much. The Republicans had the majority and had the votes, and as objectionable as Alito was idealogically, there was nothing really to bar his confirmation.

The Roberts confirmation...he had a crystal clear record, was highly respected among other judges, highly respected by both major parties, was distinguished. There was absolutely nothing to vote against, except that he was a conservative. The Dems didn't fight the Roberts nomination. Why would they? They KNEW the pick would be a conservative. As far as conservatives go, Roberts wasn't bad. I was surprised they picked someone so young to be the head justice, though.

As others have said, part of winning the Presidency is that you get to pick the Supreme Court Justices.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. "Nuclear option" and the gang of 14, Bill Frist played brinksmanship exceptionally well

Roberts would've been confirmed regardless given that he was replacing the already conservative Rehnquist. But Altio was an easy confirmation as well because Frist brought the Senate to the brink of ending the filibuster and in order to save the filibuster the Gang of 14 basically agreed to bring any Bush judicial nominee to a vote for the rest of the term.

[Orsino]

41. It wasn't *us* Dems being so wimpy...

...just a very few elites among Dem leaders.

But that's all it took. :mad:

[mmonk]

42. Bipartisanship was the excuse. Looking for the imaginary middle was

another. Being "moderate" I'm sure could be included.

[Vidar]

43. Because a fair number of the Dems are owned by the same corporations financing the repubs.

[depakid]

50. That's the nature of about 1/3 of Senate Dems at any given time

I might also add that Obama showed a bit of his nature when- rather than rallying the troops and using that high powered rhetoric to prevent an unethical (per the record) and extremist judge from sitting on the court, he criticised the filibuster process.

It'll be interesting to se whether he steps up to the plate and fights for an effective public option or not. A defining monent, to be sure.

[harun]

51. It's the presidents choice. Congress should raise issues about the nominees

but if they can do the job, it isn't their choice.

[Mike 03]

52. Because Alito was a great, great liar. One of the best I've ever seen. NT.