tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post113088763382991740..comments2024-03-29T09:28:15.883-05:00Comments on Althouse: Fighting Alito "to the bitter end."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130993963104644262005-11-02T22:59:00.000-06:002005-11-02T22:59:00.000-06:00SO Dobson supported her before he oppsed her. Hmm,...SO Dobson supported her before he oppsed her. Hmm, that has has a familiar ring to it....Icepickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09616554052707230326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130968444679942422005-11-02T15:54:00.000-06:002005-11-02T15:54:00.000-06:00"didn't Dobson support Miers?"Initially, yes, unde..."didn't Dobson support Miers?"<BR/><BR/>Initially, yes, under enormous pressure from the White House. However, there is a widely-circulated version of events that has Dobson telling the White House on the monday that the Miers pro-choie speech broke, that if Miers was still the nominee by tuesday, he'd come out against her.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130964037519359442005-11-02T14:40:00.000-06:002005-11-02T14:40:00.000-06:00Adrianna,So you're saying that Bush is kowtowing t...Adrianna,<BR/><BR/>So you're saying that Bush is kowtowing to the evangelicals by dumping an evangelical SC Nominee and replacing her with a Catholic SC Nominee. And didn't Dobson support Miers? This is strange kowtowing on Bush's part....Icepickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09616554052707230326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130960325742284672005-11-02T13:38:00.000-06:002005-11-02T13:38:00.000-06:00RCdean-Read my comments above. The notion that ove...RCdean-<BR/>Read my comments <A HREF="#c113094314622557125" REL="nofollow">above</A>. The notion that overturning <I>Roe</I> will criminalize abortion is a result of the deliberate distortion that suggests that what <I>Roe</I> did was legalize abortion. Both the premise and the conclusion are flawed; overturning <I>Roe</I> (and, presumably, <I>Casey</I>) will simply permit states to adopt whatever laws on abortion they see fit. Which is to say, the issue will return to the democratic arena, where the Constitution leaves it - and the majority will get its way. Pro-choice people always claim that they're the majority, so unless they know that their position is pure propaganda, they should have no problem overturning <I>Roe</I>.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130960273359384722005-11-02T13:37:00.000-06:002005-11-02T13:37:00.000-06:00Re: "fighting the Alito nomination to the bitter e...Re: "fighting the Alito nomination to the bitter end" -<BR/><BR/>Overall, I don't see the filibuster as an effective tool for the Democrats so I'm struggling to objectively address your question. However:<BR/><BR/>A filibuster could be a win for the Democrats because their liberal base is spoiling for a fight on the Supreme Court (as are many conservatives). While a filibuster might alienate independent and undecided voters - and thus seem to be a bad tactic - my belief is that politics in off-election years is more about energizing and satisfying the base than appealing to the independent or undecided voters who are less attentive in off-years and more willing to forgive and forget than the base.<BR/><BR/>In addition, I suspect that once the Democrats start fighting Alito, it will be hard to put the brakes on and stop a filibuster without seriously jeopardizing the support of the liberal supporters. They don't see many more opportunities to fight this fight, and won't be happy if the Democratic leadership caves in. <BR/><BR/>The current Democratic position is similar to the situation Republicans would have been in if GWB had not withdrawn the Miers' nomination. In other words, just as GWB had to focus on his base after the Miers' nomination, now is the time for Democrats to focus on their base even if they don't want to or believe it is counterproductive.DRJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185807047984353497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130954473666999292005-11-02T12:01:00.000-06:002005-11-02T12:01:00.000-06:00Adrianna: It most definitely was not religious con...Adrianna: It most definitely was not religious conservatives who opposed Miers. It was people who think that nominees to the Supreme Court should actually be qualified to sit on that august body...which the late Harriet obviously was not.Charlie Eklundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01981498391686912579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130952611408935552005-11-02T11:30:00.000-06:002005-11-02T11:30:00.000-06:00Adriana,Read Ann's post above. No meaningful numb...Adriana,<BR/><BR/>Read Ann's post above. No meaningful number of senators supported her, nor the attorneys who prepped her for the hearings. <BR/><BR/>"Let's be clear about what happened with the Miers nomination. It did not collapse because of the criticism from those who wanted a committed conservative and certainly not from people who wanted someone to "do their bidding and overrule Roe v. Wade." If Bush had picked an able, well-credentialed nominee who would not clearly commit to a strongly conservative position, this group might not even have kicked and screamed. Indeed this is what Bush did in nominating John Roberts, and they did not kick and scream. But the Miers nomination did not go down not because the strong conservatives spoke up. It went down because more moderate Republicans could not support her. Her insubstantial record and her failure to present herself creditably in the one-on-one meetings ruined the nomination."<BR/><BR/>Can you really dispute this? Or are you just ticked off at Bush in general?PatCAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08920623662477828662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130951640931620472005-11-02T11:14:00.000-06:002005-11-02T11:14:00.000-06:00Almaviva, I get my spectacular information from W....Almaviva, I get my <I>spectacular</I> information from W.Bush himself. What other group was he speaking to when he kept harping about Miers' evangelical Christianity if not the religious right? Why was Dr. Dobson speaking up about a S.Ct. nominee? Why should I care about what Dobson says, why should any moderate Republican care? Your sarcastic illusion of being "in the know" isn't going to make W's public kowtowing to extremists go away, a kowtowing that has created a hostile division of the country.Adriana Blisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14120973373594320270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130943379952251492005-11-02T08:56:00.000-06:002005-11-02T08:56:00.000-06:00How could you take T. Kennedy seriously? Only by i...<I>How could you take T. Kennedy seriously? Only by indulging in a fatal level of optimism regarding his character. </I><BR/><BR/>Boring, Are you talking about Ted Kennedy? Or his brother on the Supreme Court, the sweetly mysterious "Fifth Kennedy," Tony Kennedy, who at this point is a more reliable liberal vote than Teddy, and purportedly poses less of a danger to his clerks? <BR/><BR/>And Adrianna, please. Your opinion on how the Miers nomination fell apart is spectacularly ill-informed, as if you'd heard something about it the other week from some guy at the butchers who had heard about it from a friend at the football game. The religious right had little or nothing to do with knocking off Miers. The conservative intelligentsia, especially legal conservatives (noticeably absent from the public debate on Miers, noticeably present in the behind-the-scenes manuevering) had a lot more to do with it. The rank & file religious conservatives actually seemed to be spouting a lot more of the invective about beltway elitism and anti-religious right motives, and appear to have been much more on board with Miers than the rest of the right.Al Mavivahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08412226476727190819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130943146225571252005-11-02T08:52:00.000-06:002005-11-02T08:52:00.000-06:00reader_iam:But my understanding (correct me, Ann &...reader_iam:<BR/><I>But my understanding (correct me, Ann & other professional law types) is that the overturning of Roe (the substance & wisdom of which I'm not currently taking on) would not in and of itself make abortion illegal. So it's not so much about "turning back the clock" to when abortion was illegal, but rather turning the clock back as to when the matter rested with legislatures--i.e., the elective bodies DIRECTLY accountable (via voting, most important, but individual lobbying, e-mails, etc.) of all of the people.</I><BR/><BR/>This is exactly right. The corruption (deliberate, I fancy) of exactly what <I>Roe</I> is has made it easy to misrepresent what the people who call for its repeal are actually saying. If you can convince the majority that <I>Roe</I> is this nebulous thing (which, by the way, very few people actually take the time to read), this quasi-legislative action that legalized abortion, doesn't it follow from that proposition that people who are advocating <I>Roe</I>'s overturning are advocating criminalizing abortion? Of course it does! But if you can open the majority's eyes, if you can explain that what <I>Roe</I> actually did was to declare that no state could effectively legislate on a tremendously important and divisive subject, despite the Constitution leaving the matter to the states to do exactly that, <I>then</I> I believe that the proposition logically follows in any intelligent mind that overturning <I>Roe</I> simply returns the choice to the people, and to the majority.<BR/><BR/>The problem is, pro-choice people cannot have it both ways. they cannot claim that those of us who are pro-life are some tiny benighted minority, and yet rely on an explicitly countermajoritarian device to keep abortion legal. There is a disconnect here, something doesn't add up - and the reason is because, even if there is a majority for <I>choice</I>, in some circumstances, what there is <I>not</I> is a majority for what NARAL, NOW and their ilk want. NARAL and its allies don't just want abortion - they want abortion on demand, any time, any person, any reason, no restrictions, no limitations, partial birth abortion, no parental notification or consent, no spousal notification or consent, abortion on-demand, period. And normal Americans look at that position with contempt and horror. If <I>Roe</I> is overturned, I could believe that first (and maybe even second) trimester abortion would be legal in most states. But what it would not be is what NARAL want it to be, and what <I>Roe</I> currently protects: it would not be unregulated; it would be subject to sensible, reasonable restrictions, and I actually think more states than you'd imagine would choose to ban it outright.<BR/><BR/>THIS is what GOP nominees to the Supreme Court should be explaining when asked about <I>Roe</I>, not some insulting verbal misdirection and waffle about stare decisis. <BR/><BR/>I wrote about this at more length <A HREF="http://simondodd.org/noise2signal/default.asp?view=singleentry&entry=204" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130942363004444032005-11-02T08:39:00.000-06:002005-11-02T08:39:00.000-06:00I think the Democrats have to turn up the rhetoric...I think the Democrats have to turn up the rhetoric to satisfy their base, but I doubt they really want to risk the nuclear option over this nomination. Bush may well have the opportunity to appoint one more justice and, with the threat of a filibuster gone, he could appoint someone who would really drive the left crazy, like Brown.Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762303177565357877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130925474617118492005-11-02T03:57:00.000-06:002005-11-02T03:57:00.000-06:00DRJ: I can see that it is in their interests for t...DRJ: I can see that it is in their interests for the reasons you state to question him vigorously and then to vote against him, but not to fight him "to the bitter end," i.e., to filibuster.Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130916071820487302005-11-02T01:21:00.000-06:002005-11-02T01:21:00.000-06:00Adriana -- When one looks at the fact that the Dem...Adriana -- <BR/><BR/>When one looks at the fact that the Democrats have managed only twice, in <I>sixty years</I>, to convince a majority of Americans to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate, while the Republican candidate has won an absolute majority six times, one comes to the conclusion that the American people don't particularly think the Republicans are ruining the country that much more than the Democrats would/are.<BR/><BR/>So, yes, I see why you would think it's necessary to use parliamentary tactics to try to prevent the President and Senate chosen by the American people from ruining the country by appointing a Supreme Court Justice whose views on the law are utterly unremarkable for a Republican. When that fails, what other alternatives would you suggest to save the country from the choices of its citizenry?Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05138730966226244399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130915702106811852005-11-02T01:15:00.000-06:002005-11-02T01:15:00.000-06:00"Do you win elections by fighting down a man like ..."Do you win elections by fighting down a man like Alito?"<BR/><BR/>Sure, and while you're at it, make sure you alienate the moderates. <BR/><BR/>Then nominate another guy from Massachusetts -- or maybe a former vice president. If only there were a former vice president from Massachusetts. <BR/><BR/>Now the serious note to Democrats: Don't trust the Republicans to play fair. Win elections.Peter Hohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06916196998855947137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130913665635395822005-11-02T00:41:00.000-06:002005-11-02T00:41:00.000-06:00"Do you win elections by fighting down a man like ..."Do you win elections by fighting down a man like Alito?"<BR/><BR/>Maybe - To the extent fighting Alito mobilizes the press, as well as induces the liberal Democratic base to contribute money that can be used for media buys. <BR/><BR/>The best weapon liberal Democrats have today is television and print media. Opposing Alito generates stories and headlines in which liberals can be interviewed and quoted. This makes them seem important, relevant and effective - even though their current agenda is primarily to oppose whatever Republicans want to do. Thus, fighting Alito makes liberal Democrats seem principled and energetic.<BR/><BR/>Having said this, i believe fighting Alito is a losing strategy. While it may have some benefit in the short run, Americans generally prefer politicians who stand for something positive, rather than preach doom and gloom.DRJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185807047984353497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130912400532414892005-11-02T00:20:00.000-06:002005-11-02T00:20:00.000-06:00Sanford Levinson writes that he "doesn't trust the...Sanford Levinson writes that he "doesn't trust the Republican leadership" - apparently because he doesn't have "faith in the good will of people who have been demonstrating for the past decade that they have only contempt for those who disagree with them."<BR/><BR/>This is the same man who admitted contempt for his intellectual opponents in the legal academy when he wrote the following about Bush v. Gore in 2002:<BR/><BR/>“One of the things that some of us learned on December 12, 2000, was that five Republican Justices -- that is, Justices with a pre-judicial affiliation with the Republican Party who were appointed by Republican Presidents -- were willing to do whatever it took to shut down the electoral process in Florida in a context where that meant the inevitable occupation of the White House by the Republican candidate, George W. Bush.<BR/><BR/>***<BR/><BR/>To the extent that no one -- or, perhaps more accurately, very few -- on either side of the debate seem willing to grant genuine respect to both the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, or to both the majority and dissenters within those respective courts, it seems equally difficult to establish a way within the academy for proponents of radically different views genuinely to engage with one another. Instead, we are all tempted to move fairly quickly to viewing (and treating) one's intellectual opponents as either fools or knaves. I will confess that this is sometimes the posture I myself take ... "<BR/><BR/>http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/articles/lcp65dSummer2002p7.htm#H1N1DRJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185807047984353497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130912141569539552005-11-02T00:15:00.000-06:002005-11-02T00:15:00.000-06:00Of course there were Dems who said bad things abou...Of course there were Dems who said bad things about Harriet Miers (as they should have), but they didn't cause the ruckus that resulted in the withdrawal of Miers nomination unless one believes Bush's contention that it was the Democrats' request for supposedly priveleged papers.Adriana Blisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14120973373594320270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130911987457892192005-11-02T00:13:00.000-06:002005-11-02T00:13:00.000-06:00I think it would be a terrible shame to think that...<I>I think it would be a terrible shame to think that colleagiality in the Senate has fallen into such a state of irreparable mistrust. If the Democrats treat Alito fairly, at some future date they will be able to point to what they did and demand the same for a Democratic President.</I><BR/><BR/>this is the funniest thing I have read in a loooong time.Kathleenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00923975835078747456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130911600126387522005-11-02T00:06:00.000-06:002005-11-02T00:06:00.000-06:00Eli, Bush did "consult with Harry Reid". Reid pus...Eli, Bush did "consult with Harry Reid". Reid pushed Miers and Bush agreed with him and nominated her. Than Reid let Miers twist in the wind, refused to endorse her and let his senators attack her (Yes, Adriana there were Democrats who said bad things about Miers, though to be fair to them they were absolutely right). <BR/><BR/>As Bush himself said "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... can't fool me again".Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13951813428886781412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130909224009418752005-11-01T23:27:00.000-06:002005-11-01T23:27:00.000-06:00Chrees, pray tell who "blocked the Miers nominatio...Chrees, pray tell who "blocked the Miers nomination" if not the religious right?Adriana Blisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14120973373594320270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130908667382277492005-11-01T23:17:00.000-06:002005-11-01T23:17:00.000-06:00Did I miss something with all those Dems marching ...Did I miss something with all those Dems marching to the White House to tell Bush what they wanted earlier this year? They've done it and have advised, per their constitutional role. The appointment is ultimately Bush's to make, and he has allowed the Dem leadership to have their say. Now it is their turn.<BR/><BR/>But allow the voters to see their reply and judge for themselves how they comport themselves. If it is Robert Byrd quoting Old Testament stories while reminiscing about how he met his wife, then I welcome the chance to view it and make up my mind accordingly.<BR/><BR/>Which comes down to your point on the question "Do you win elections by fighting down a man like Alito?" The answer is you do if the press allows you to paint your opposition as trying to save the country from fascism, etc. If the press thinks that the religious right blocked Miers, I don't trust them to report anything correct about this nomination. And given how things have been reported in the past 5 years, Bush can win the nomination handily yet the press will skew things so badly that it is a public relations disaster for the President. Facts no longer matter--the final taste in the mouth of the public does. It doesn't matter to the Dems if Alito is approved or not...how he and the administration is perceived at the end of the process is what counts.Dwighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13688525659034403580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130905269666652352005-11-01T22:21:00.000-06:002005-11-01T22:21:00.000-06:00If the Democrats treat Alito fairly, at some futur...<I>If the Democrats treat Alito fairly, at some future date they will be able to point to what they did and demand the same for a Democratic President.</I><BR/><BR/>Good point. But one that the Republicans should have considered first: To wit:<BR/><BR/>If that were the case, you would have seen the President consult with Harry Reid or other Democrats about this nomination and find someone they could support. After all, that is what President Clinton did before his Supreme Court nominations. He didn't just announce one day, say, that he was nominating Lawrence Tribe. He talked to Orrin Hatch and arrived at mutually agreeable nominees.<BR/><BR/>To argue that the Democrats should act in good faith in hopes it will be reciprocated in the future, when the good faith that was displayed in the past has not been reciprocated now, is ridiculous on the face of it. <BR/><BR/>And Democrats are sick of the 'be a nice guy when you have the reins, then get kicked in the face when we have them' mentality on the part of the GOP, and it won't happen anymore, of that you can be sure.Eli Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00792743206074537073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130905231113492092005-11-01T22:20:00.000-06:002005-11-01T22:20:00.000-06:00Pogo, as usual you seem to be offering good advice...Pogo, as usual you seem to be offering good advice to the party you're (apparently)opposed to. What are you going to do if Democrats take the high road, resist filibustering, and start winning elections again? : )<BR/><BR/>As for the charge of Republicans "playing fair" with a future Democratic president, it does seem laughable that they would do so. Still, the Dems shouldn't let that guide their behavior.<BR/><BR/>Until the Democrats grow a spine and start to act differently from their opponents—that is, to demonstrate real moral and political leadership based on a set of beliefs—they are going to continue to lose elections to the likes of Bush, Rove, Frist, & co.Commander Carrotshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15655094293626849733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130905189882835352005-11-01T22:19:00.000-06:002005-11-01T22:19:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Eli Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00792743206074537073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1130905008357685792005-11-01T22:16:00.000-06:002005-11-01T22:16:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Eli Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00792743206074537073noreply@blogger.com