Party does matter in the SCOTUS nominations BUT Democrats helped bring us Roberts and Alito

[Armstead]

Those who say that the reason to vote Democratic because we won't get horrible justices are partially true.

But the handling of the process is just as important. If democrats don;t stand firm against bad nominees, they do just as much damage.

Roberts was confirmed by a vote of 78-22.
-------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092900859.html

"The White House swearing-in ceremony took place three hours after the Senate voted 78 to 22 to confirm Roberts. All 55 Republicans, half the 44 Democrats and independent Sen. James M. Jeffords (Vt.) voted yes.

The vote reflected the gap between many Senate Democrats and the liberal groups that strongly opposed Roberts and are important to the party's base. Senators in both parties predicted a much more bruising fight over Bush's upcoming choice to succeed centrist Sandra Day O'Connor. Liberal activists said they will expect more spirited opposition from rank-and-file Democrats, but some Republicans said the relative ease of Roberts's confirmation suggests that opponents will find it extremely difficult to block anyone picked by Bush."

-------


As for Alito...From Wikipedia -- Notice the math here, and compare it to today when the Democrats use 60-vote margin as the perennial excuse. Had the shoe been on the other foot....Do you think republicans would have stepped back from filibustering a nominee they didn't like?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito_Supreme_Court_nomination

"The Democratic Senators from Massachusetts, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, attempted to gain support for a filibuster of the nominee, however they gained little support even within their own party. The Senate voted for cloture on the nomination 72-25.

The Senate voted 58-42 on Tuesday, January 31, to confirm Alito as the 110th Justice of the Supreme Court. All but one of the 55 Senate Republicans voted to confirm Alito, as well as four Democrats: Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), and Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND). Forty-two Senators voted against Alito's confirmation (40 Democrats, Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), and Jim Jeffords (I-VT))."

[ShortnFiery]

1. Our damn Senate is filled with ELITES who are sadly out of touch with the trials and tribulations

of the Average American. :thumbsdown:

p.s. Even those who stand up for us, don't build SIGNIFICANT coalitions. They are NOT inspiring LEADERS. Why? Because they are "distant and OUT OF TOUCH."

[mzmolly]

2. What a crock. Democrats were placed in a position that Wellstone

warned about when he implored people to vote for Al Gore BECAUSE of this issue and others. But, instead of those who did not prevent Bush from taking office to the best of their ability saying "yeah, I was wrong" they say "well Democrats are to blame." Must be nice never having to take any responsibility for anything, while maintaining the right to bitch.

[Armstead]

4. Get your head out of 2000 and look at the decade between then and now

[mzmolly]

7. Sorry, I told people like you, in 2000 and look to the future

when it came to the SCOTUS and other issues. You didn't listen then, and now you want to blame those who told you so? It will NOT fly with me.

[Armstead]

11. I didn't vote for Nader -- But he should have been irrelevant

The reason Nader got support was because the Democrats had already sold us down the river on so many issues -- NAFTA, corporate "free trade," deregulation of broadcasting, the financial sectror and most other industries, privatization of public services, welfare deform...etc.

Nader only resonated with progressives at the time because the democrats were so out of step with any notion of liberalism that the differences did seem relatively minor.

And the behavior of Democrats under Bush only made that disconnect worse, as the lack of opposition to the SCOTUS nominees proves.

[mzmolly]

16. You voted for Gore? Also, there was plenty of opposition. The majority of Democrats

voted against the nominees in question. But it's not practical to suggest that Democrats stop all legislation indefinitely every time the President tries to do anything.

It IS right to point out that those who did not vote for Gore, have no right to bitch HERE about how DEMOCRATS didn't "stop" Bush.

[Armstead]

23. With Alitlo the GOP had less of a majority than we do....But no filibuster

Democrats, with more a majority, will still be paranoid about nominating any justice not wholly acceptable to the GOP.

The difference in willingness of each party to at least oppose things they disagree with is depressing.

[mzmolly]

28. Again, it's simply not practicle to filibuster every nominee. Sotomayor

wasn't filibustered, either. So your specific example about opposition doesn't really pertain. Also keep in mind that the R's are a cult. We're not. We don't think in lock step, which in a larger context is a good thing.

You're a good egg Armstead. I'm sorry that if became angry in this thread. When one sees what one knew would happen, happening and those who were warned, pissing on Democrats for it, it makes me really angry.

Nader is a good person, who has done many great things. In fact, one of his organizations (Public Citizen) defended DU and myself in an internet privacy matter. I appreciate that very much. But, I still take issue with the assertion that Democrats are always to blame, no matter what position we're in or how many oppose a given matter, it's always the fault of Democrats?

[Armstead]

30. I know...It's frustrating for all concerned.

It's frustrating to see the GOP being so strong, while we vacillate and form all these circular firing squads.

Frankly, I wish the Democrats would be more cultlike -- as long as they all agreed with me. :evilgrin:

[mzmolly]

31. I agree. We look weak and wishy washy much of the time. We need to be strong

starting with the President. Though R's are calling him "arrogant" in hopes he'll run from that and remain essentially, weak. *sigh* He does appear to be getting a bit tougher in rhetoric, so perhaps the Brown win will help in some strange way?

[TheKentuckian]

38. True, but only if you don't pretend it was just those that voted Nader or even stayed home

A big chunk of Democrats voted for the chimp and it's time to hold them to account too or let it go.

For me this is becoming about fairness because I've certainly bashed the Naderites too but now it has just become a bat to bash liberals and I'm not having that.

I'm a liberal and my time, money, effort, and votes has gone to Democrats all my adult life and I tried to be active as a young person.

I think it is foolish to even pretend we'd have made an iota of progress without liberals and the demonizing needs to stop.

Conservatives have done far and away more damage than any measly handful of mostly inexperienced voters.

[mzmolly]

41. Conservatives are not here openly advocating against

Democrats. If they were, they'd hear from me. :hi:

[ulysses]

46. ?

But it's not practical to suggest that Democrats stop all legislation indefinitely every time the President tries to do anything.

The GOP seems to have no problem with doing so.

[Raineyb]

40. What exactly does that have to do with asshat Senators who refused to filibuster then

voted against the nominee knowing that voting for cloture would mean allowing the man on the bench?

Oh I get it only people who voted for Nader, and Nader himself should be blamed for anything. People in power who sat on their hands and allowed the right wing nominees to get onto the Supreme Court are utterly blameless.

:eyes:

[mzmolly]

42. My point don't bitch about how Democrats enable Republicans, unless you are taking an actual

stand against said Republicans at the voting booth.

[mzmolly]

3. One more thing, why didn't Nader voters 'FILIBUSTER' Bush?

How dare people who refused to "filibuster" W, demand that anyone represent them in Washington. You chose your candidate. He lost.

[Armstead]

5. Everyone who is frustrated with democrats voted for Nader?

I wish my worldview was as simple as yours. In wouldn't have to waste energy thinking.

[mzmolly]

8. I'd bet money that

you did. ;)

[Armstead]

13. You'd lose

...er, I'll take that bet.

$50

Okay you lose. I didn't.

Hand it over. :)

[mzmolly]

18. You stayed home?

;)

[Armstead]

20. Nope -- Hint, begins with G

[mzmolly]

22. You can't bring yourself to say the name

Armstead? ;) :hi:

[Armstead]

25. In 2000 held my nose for him -- But in 2007-08 I was hoping he'd run

I like the new freer Gore. I wish that guy had shown up more in 2000.

(Actually, I thought his acceptance speech at the convention was spot on. I just wish he'd stick to that kind of liberal populism in the campaign.)

[mzmolly]

29. I always liked Al Gore.

I thought the country could have had one of our greatest Presidents. I was sorry that others didn't see him for what he stood for, all along.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

9. My candidate did beat the frat boy.

But, you and your candidate made it close enough for the SCOTUS to hand it to shrub in spite of this.

[jgraz]

10. It should have never been close.

Gore ran a piss-poor campaign and chose a sanctimonious tool as his running mate. (I'm sure you were drooling over the idea of Vice President Lieberman)

The lesson here is to choose candidates wisely, and make sure they fight like hell -- both before AND after the election. Gore didn't. He may not have technically "lost" the election, but he certainly failed.

[mzmolly]

12. The sociopathic trend is obvious. "Blame everyone but ME, for the Bush years

even though I didn't support Al Gore."

[jgraz]

15. You demonstrate that trend aptly. Al Gore didn't run in 2004.

The candidate chosen by the Nader-Haters did. How'd that work out for ya?

[mzmolly]

17. Nader haters chose Kerry? Fascinating. I supported Dean in the primary

so, I'm not sure how that fits into your story.

However, Kerry wouldn't have been an issue if Gore were President. My point is don't complain about the situation you helped place us in, unless you take responsibility for your part. Nader has NEVER done that, and I have little respect for him as a politician. I do respect other contributions he's made to society, however.

[jgraz]

21. If Democrats had owned up to their part in the 2000 failure, we would have nominated Dean.

Your insistence on blaming Nader meant that people didn't learn the right lessons from 2000. Bush should have never had a second term.

[mzmolly]

24. Ah yes, the "people didn't learn the right lessons" mantra.

Unbelievable. It is YOU who needs to learn a lesson. A lesson about the differences making a difference. Differences like "it matters who appoints the SCOTUS" and many others. Yet your still trying to "teach" me something?

YOU were wrong about Al Gore, YOU were wrong about BUSH, YOU were wrong about the SCOTUS appointments not mattering. I wasn't.

Peace

[jgraz]

34. It's a "mantra" that you have still not absorbed, even after 10 years.

Democrats basically ran the same campaign in 2004 and they lost. Again. And the Nader Haters still have no clue.

[mzmolly]

43. I don't vote for a candiate based upon their campaign style.

I vote because I care about the issues.

[mzmolly]

33. *dup delete*

[jgraz]

14. Oh, and one more thing: Roberts and Alito were appointed in Bush's SECOND term.

Failure to learn the lessons of 2000 and this delusional insistence on blaming Ralph Nader led directly to the stolen election of 2004.

Enjoy your Supreme Court. Your inability to learn helped appoint them. :hi:

[mzmolly]

19. He wouldn't have had a second term

thus my point. Though while we're on the subject, did you vote for Kerry?

[jgraz]

35. He wouldn't have had a second term if we had run a better campaign in 2004

Nader Haters made sure that didn't happen.

[mzmolly]

44. There would have been no Kerry campaign

if some had voted based upon issues vs. personality and a desire to cast a protest vote against all that is imperfect.

[Overseas]

26. I remember being excited at the prospect of Dems filibustering Alito.

I really thought it was going to happen. We were so excited that Harry Reid was going to hang tough. Then the GOP threatened a "nuclear option" and Dems backed down.

I remember opposition to Alito for being too pro-corporate in his rulings. But that wasn't deemed important enough to oppose him somehow.

And here we are. Instead of undoing corporate personhood-- abuse of a ridiculous footnote-- the GOP's Activist Judges have shored up the concept.

[Armstead]

27. Jeeze I forgot about the nuclear option -- Why aren;t we using that threat?

From Wikipedia:


In U.S. politics, the "nuclear option" is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005.<1>

[Overseas]

36. Misguided Noble Bipartisan Pretense with the party that ruined our country.

I wrote a longer reply in your other post on the topic.

It has been so very demoralizing to me to watch our president who was elected with millions of crossover votes from people who knew the Republicans had driven our country off some moral and financial cliffs making such a big fancy deal out of trying to be bipartisan with the cruel new GOP.

The GOP hasn't been bipartisan for over a decade at least. They've been bullies. Smash and obstruct Dems at all costs.

So why would we bend over backward to appease them?

Look who was in the Gang of 14 that stopped the GOP's threat of the Nuclear Option--

The block of senators who agreed to the compromise included Republicans John McCain, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Warner of Virginia, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; and Democrats Nelson, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Ken Salazar of Colorado.

[onenote]

37. the repubs limited the nuke option threat to judicial nominations

Even they didn't threaten to use it for legislation. I hate the fact that we're forced to get 60 votes to do anything now, but there is no chance that the Senate is going to get rid of the filibuster. It wasn't that long ago that organizations like moveon and common cause etc were very vocally defending the filibuster.

[stray cat]

32. The senate agree elections have consequences - presidents have some leaway

on their supreme court justices if the proposed justice can not be PROVED to be insane

[slipslidingaway]

39. This is still relevant ...

everytime we turn our backs on the truth we pay for it in the long term and Junior would never have been a candidate or at least never won had the truth been told.

Recent thread...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7524487&mesg_id=7524487

"Why? Because Dem presidents and party powerful let BushInc off the hook EVERY TIME they're exposed and at their most vulnerable. EVERY TIME the majority of the country loses trust in the Bushes, a few powerful Dems step up to protect the secrecy and privilege of the Bushes and their cronies. Some Dems even work to REHABILITATE the disgraced Bushes in the eyes of the American people. That allows them to retreat and plot their way back to power...

How many times do Dems need to LEARN the SIMPLEST lesson of all....TRUTH MATTERS."


Article by Robert Parry...
From May 2006

Hey, Democrats, the Truth Matters!

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html


"My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

......"


We heard the same thing from Obama - we need to look forward.

:puke:

[cascadiance]

45. We need to demand ALL future nominees be asked what they think of Santa Clara vs. Souther Pacific...

... and whether they think a court clerk head note should have been used for legal precedent giving corporations "personhood".

If you look back in DU threads on the hearings for Roberts, Alito, etc. I've asked that those questions be asked then, but of course it was conveniently ignored, and Republicans tried to wrap themselves up as believing in constitutional law and us being defensive about and focusing on Roe v. Wade.

If this question gets asked, we put them on the defensive, and the wing nuts will have no way of selectively OK'ing judicial or court clerk activism in this one instance becoming settled law and at the same time advocating Roe v. Wade being overturned. It would have worked for us for BOTH of these criteria of getting a decent judicial candidate instead of just ignoring the corporate influence over these judges.