Just Filibuster Him – Moon of Alabama

January 10, 2006

Just Filibuster Him

Can´t they shorten the Alito questioning and just filibuster that freeper?

Well, yes they could. But the public needs more understanding of the case. Maybe Alito will come up with an answer to a question that results in more public resistance. Public opinion is what might grow some backbone into democratic senators and a few moderate republicans.

Roe vs. Wade is the case where some 80% of the public stands left of Alito. Maybe someone can squeeze the right answer to that case out of him.

The more important issue is Alito’s stand on executive power. But as a public explanation for a filibuster, it is hard to make this the decisive issue. Unless more outraging stuff of the NSA spying comes to light.

For me, the case was made when Alito explained why he mentioned specific very right leaning opinions in former job applications. He said he made those at that time just to get the job.

After such an answer, I would never hire that guy for any job with responsibilities.

Either he lied to get that job, and therefore may do it again this time, or his legal opinions are really some degrees right of Borg’s. Both are reasons never to confirm him to the Supreme Court.

Posted by b on January 10, 2006 at 17:29 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Watching the hearings on c-span….it’s a rich white boys club claiming to represent the concerns of females and nonwhites and average citizens.
The grandstanding of the Senators on both sides is matched by the denials of the judge that he is biased in any way.
In the end, the comments in the hearings won’t matter but the math will. It boils down to this: elections have consequences.

Posted by: gylangirl | Jan 10 2006 17:47 utc | 1

i spent a little time this a.m. emailing and calling dem members on the judiciary and my senators, then emailing all my friends and family who put up w/my politics begging them to make an exception this time and do a reach.the text is from siun. i’ll post it all in case anyone want to get pro active

Subject Line: Don’t Give Away Congressional Power Stop Alito
Dear Senator ..:
As reported in the Washington Post on January 2, 2006:
In a Feb. 5, 1986, draft memo, Alito, then deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, outlined a strategy for changing that. It laid out a case for having the president routinely issue statements about the meaning of statutes when he signs them into law.
Such “interpretive signing statements” would be a significant departure from run-of-the-mill bill signing pronouncements, which are “often little more than a press release,” Alito wrote. The idea was to flag constitutional concerns and get courts to pay as much attention to the
president’s take on a law as to “legislative intent.”
If Senators do not stand up for the power of the House and Senate to frame legislation on our behalf, who will? Judge Alito’s position, which President Bush is using to bypass Congressional prohibitions on torture, attempts to mute the voice of the American people through their elected representatives.
Senator, I want to see you, as a member of the Judicial Committee, stand up for the separation of powers and the rule of law. Do not allow a supporter of the Imperial Presidency to sit on the Supreme Court.
Sincerely,
Name,Address,Email address
On this issue, here’s a question I’d like to see you ask:
” Judge Alito, the President has recently come under fire by Republican Senators McCain, Warner and Graham in connection with his actions in putting “signing statements” on recent legislation that was meant to provide limits on the rights of the Executive Branch to engage in torture. Although Vice President Cheney actively lobbied the Senate to allow portions of the Executive Branch to engage in torture, the Senate fairly resoundingly (with the Exception of 9 Senators including 3 on this committee) voted to prevent the Executive Branch from engaging in torture. While the President did not veto the legislation, he did
attach a so-called Signing Statement (and Judge Alito, I believe you may have even been the inventor of this concept – I have to say I have never seen it propounded by anyone until I saw your memo and the President’s recent actions) . That signing statement indicated that the
President believes that he is still able to override the content of the legislation and that caused such concern that Rep. Senators Warner and McCain immediately sent a letter of objection to the White House (I don’t know if they have received a response) and Sen Graham, who had also been involved with the Amendment, told the Boston Globe in a phone interview that he agreed with everything McCain and Warner said ”and would go a little bit further.”
”I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified,” Graham said. ”If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations’ leaders from doing the same.”
Do you agree with Senators McCain, Warner and Graham, Judge Alito? You are somewhat the expert on signing statements, so fill us in a bit on how they work and their intent.”
Phone script:
Ask for legislative aid if not available, ask the staffer on the phone to give the Senator this message: “I am very upset over Judge Alito’s support for Presidential Signing Statements. These statements are an attempt to diminish the power of our elected representatives to frame legislation. I want to make certain that America remains a county ruled by law and the constitution, not by an Imperial Presidency.”
Contact info for Democrats on the Judiciary:
Sen. Patrick Leahy senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
(202) 224-4242
Sen Edward Kennedy senator@kennedy.senate.gov
202-224-4543
Sen. Joseph Biden 202-224-5042
senator@biden.senate.gov
Sen. Herbert Kohl (202) 224-5653 http://kohl.senate.gov/gen_contact.html
Dianne Feinstein (202) 224-3841
http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html
Russell Feingold russ_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
(202) 224-5323
Sen. Charles Schumer 202-224-6542
http://schumer.senate.gov/Schume…act/ webform.cfm
Sen. Dick Durban (202) 224-2152
http://durbin.senate.gov/ contact…act.cfm#contact

Posted by: annie | Jan 10 2006 18:51 utc | 2

The Democrats have to put up a fuss about nominating Alito, but it just a formalitiy before disaster sets in, sorta like playing the National Anthem before a Cubs game.
Goodbye Roe vs Wade, goodbye Brown vs. the Board of Education, hello Plessey vs. Ferguson. Give ’em enough time and they will bring back the Dredd Scott decision…

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jan 10 2006 19:18 utc | 3

I’m such a wreck even thinking about it that I can’t listen to the hearings. This is the thing that prides itself on the fact that No One is to the Right of It. In Nation article, Cass Sunstein noted how frightening his record is. Where he dissented as a “judge”, 91% of the time he was to the right – of other right-wingers.
Happily Gylangirl stopped by to note that:
In the end, the comments in the hearings won’t matter but the math will. It boils down to this: elections have consequences.
Right – that’s why they stole the last two elections.
This thing is a serious sicko. Other than cleaning toilets, I can’t imagine anything it would be useful for. Certainly nothing that involves opening it’s mouth.
This is the portrait of a woman-fearing Dictator Lover. Watch its eyes, its face. The expressions tell all – its so viscious under those robes. The Fascist Catholic Cabal of it w/roberts & scalia will be running things. They would of course Destroy the xAm. Judiciary. Why the hell doesn’t the Donkey Party organize a huge group of Lawyers & Judges Opposed to Dictatorship to speak out. After all, Germany once had a Judicial System as well til hitler…you’d think these guys would want a chance to speak out here before its too late.
I don’t see why bloggers don’t get to work interviewing David Duke, Am. Nazi Party, John Birch Society – leadership, if there is such a thing. They either love it, or possibly, when confronted w/real dictatorship, think its too far to the right. Getting that information out would help as well.

Posted by: jj | Jan 10 2006 20:15 utc | 4

Well, don´t hope for Senators:

It took Biden 12 minutes to get off a single question to Alito. During his 30-minute round of questioning, Biden spoke about his own Irish American roots and his son’s application to Princeton (he attended the University of Pennsylvania instead, Biden said), while still finding time to joke about Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) eyeglasses. With such Democratic filibusters, Alito had less pressure on him to explain himself.

Milbank

Posted by: b | Jan 10 2006 21:06 utc | 5

I heard Coburn (Nut-OK), who, before his election, worried about high school girls who couldn’t go to the bathrooms in Oklahoma because they would be attacked by lesbians…and Oklahomans still elected the fool. thanks.
anyway, he was giving it the Jimmy Swaggert preacher pitiful voice talking about the unborn babies who die..the extremist right makes it sound like women go out and get preggers so they can kill something…
anyway, when he was mewling compassionate conservatism all over his mic, I wanted to scream at him…why don’t you care about the BORN Iraqi babies you agreed to kill by going along with the lies (and funny how so many Americans, but none in the govt felt as certain as possible that Bush was lying…)
Of course, his answer would be “the greater good” of the American people…but apparently that sort of difficult logic and moral ambiguity is not allowed to females when talking about a blastocyte…or even simply a morning after pill IN CASE…there may be no pregnancy there, but these white men think they have the right to deny even that level of responsibility to females.
If there’s a bigger baby killer than Bush in this nation, I’d certainly like to know who it is, and if Coburn cares so much for babies, why doesn’t he speak out against the war and Bush? Or is it only unborn WHITE babies that matter?
argh.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jan 10 2006 23:36 utc | 6

highlight of the hearings thus far:
Schumer: Does the constitution protect the right to free speech?
Alito: Yes.
Schumer: Why can’t you answer the question about whether the constitution protects the right to abortion in the same way?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 10 2006 23:45 utc | 7

argh? No. ARRRRGGGHHH!!! You always put it so well, fauxreal.

Posted by: beq | Jan 11 2006 0:48 utc | 8

Kudos to $cam for his find and to fauxreal for this clever one: Coburn (Nut-OK)
I’m going to poke about for links. I heard exc. discussion by Mike Rattner – Dir. Center for Constitutional Rights on Torture & Scalito. He states that w/Scalito we are staring a Police State Right in the Face. Hopefully I can find his remarks to share. When you hear him discuss Pres. Thingyboy’s statement when he signed the McCain Torture Bill, you’ll realize we need a new category of disclaimers – Be Sure You Have Taken Your Blood Pressure/ Depression Medication Before Listening/Reading/Viewing. Thingyboy basically declared that the Republic is now a Dictatorship. Fascistos (Fed. Society??) has a cutesypoo term for it – Dictatorship is so untidy – something about a “Unitary Presidency”. If anyone knows more about this would they pls. Riff away. Thnks!!) :((

Posted by: jj | Jan 11 2006 3:20 utc | 9

Back to Main