Its 12:34pm and I've already decided
that I'm tired of the SCOTUS/Alito coverage. Because until he is confirmed, every single day in the blogosphere is going to be as ridiculous as this:
Bill Frist on Fox News:
"If the Democrats are looking for a fight, we'll be up for the fight. We won't back down... We're gonna get an up or down vote on the Senate floor and if the Democrats want a fight, they'll get one."
I guess Miers didn't deserve one? Or maybe she didn't deserve one because conservatives think she didn't deserve one. Then..its ok.
And then this, via Michelle Malkin:
1110amEDT Schumer...Will Alito use his seat like Rosa Parks did to change history for the better?...raises real questions about his commitment to civil rights, women's rights, workers' rights...blah blah blah...America needs unity now...the president seems to want to hunker down..soothing the ruffled feathers of the extreme right wing of his party...[Alito] would make the court less diverse...whines about need to fill the seat with someone in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor...Judge Alito does not appear to be another Sandra Day O'Connor...
[Indeed.]
More Schumer on timing: When there is a controversial nominee for a pivotal swing vote on the high court, the procedure should not be...rushed...this is a nominee who could shift the balance of the court...for decades to come...we need to review his 15 years of judicial opinions...it will take time to assemble those documents...and review them...a lot to fit in between now and Christmas...no one should seek to delay for the sake of delay...but no one should seek to rush these hearings through simply to make a point, distract from issues of the day or avoid thorough review of this nominee...
Jason Smith writes: "How shamless of Chuck Schumer to have converted Rosa Parks' casket into a soapbox to stand upon and give a partisan-hack speech about Alito."
Ditto that.
Hugh Hewitt: Schumer hits bottoms.
Yes, how disgusting of Schumer.
Oooppss...(via AmericaBlog):
Wasting no time, the White House arranged for Alito to go to the Capitol after the announcement.The schedule called for Senate Majority Leader Bill First to greet him and accompany the nominee to the Capitol Rotunda to go to the coffin of the late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.
Did I say tired? I meant sick to my stomach. The far left and the far right have been dying to have an ideological battle--not for right or wrong--but for the battle's sake and here it is. Anyone who thinks the many on the right are happy for the sole reason that this nominee makes the left angry is kidding themselves. Its the same thing with the left's tepid 'support' of Miers. It was there because she made so many on the right angry.
posted by Katinula | 12:31 PM
6 Comments:
I agree with you, and depart from many of my ideological allies, that I don't want the battle for the battle's sake as many (on both sides, but probably more on the right) really do.
I don't see anything wrong with Alito, and I think he should be confirmed, but I would rather persuade people of that, then have a big fight over it.
If it comes down to a filibuster, I will probably be in support of a 'nuclear option' but I really hope that it doesn't. Let the Democrats who don't like him vote against him. Let them explain as best they can why, but I really hope they don't try a filibuster.
Miers was not given an up or down vote because she was a bad nominee.
At 12:35 I was sick of all the Dems parroting the "Miers didn't get an up or down vote" line.
Miers was a bad nominee? Really? Who decided that? Bush? I don't think so. If you want to delude yourself into thinking that Miers really did withdraw for the 'good of the team, of her own free will' go ahead. But we know why she withdrew. She withdrew because members of all factions of the 'base' were not happy with her and decided that she in fact didn't deserve an up or down vote and should be withdrawn. I'm not argueing for an up or down vote, but when you spend 6 years parroting that line and then refuse to give it to someone you don't like, you look like a hypocrite.
No one 'refused' to give Miers an up or down vote. There was no filibuster against her. When it became fairly obvious that she would lose the vote though, she withdrew.
Very few Republicans have said that a Supreme Court nominee must be confirmed, or that the Senate must vote for them as a matter of procedure. What has been claimed, is that the filibuster is not a proper tool for a confirmation. Vote against all you want, but vote.
Democrats a certainly free to tell their Senators that they should not vote for Alito if they don't like Alito. Each Senator should be able to choose whether to vote for or against him. IF those opposing Alito can get more than 50 Senators to vote against him, he won't be confirmed. If they can convince everyone next week that they have more that 50 Senators who will vote against him, doubtless he will withdraw as well.
The 'up or down vote' had nothing to do with Miers.
I think you are being naive there Dave. There is no way that Alito withdraws no matter how many votes might look to be going against him. I dont think there is any danger of him not being confirmed but from a hypothetical position:
Miers not being confirmed makes Bush look weak. Alito hypothetically not being confirmed does not make Bush look weak because he is much more the conservative that the base wanted. Alito not being confirmed will look like obstructionism rather than weakness.
I haven't seen anything (yet) worthy of oppostion, let alone filibuster. I have seen things that worry me, but nothing completely extraordinary. However, Republicans never wanted Miers to get a vote at all, because either vote, a no or a yes, would be very tough politically to reconcile.
But I want to reiterate again that I'm not parrotting the Dem line that Miers 'didn't get an up or down vote', I'm just saying, the Republicans have created a situation in which they look a bit hypocritical because politically, they NEVER wanted to have to vote for Miers, either way. Lo and behold, coincidentally, it worked out they wouldn't have to.
I find it hard to believe that if 100% of Democracts and 6 Republican Senators publically opposed Alito that Alito would not withdraw.
Of course, that isn't going to happen. No more than 1 or 2 Republicans will oppose Alito and it is likely that several Democrats will support him. I am doubtful that Democrats will be able to maintain a filibuster if they try one.
I don't have a problem with any Democrat (or Republican) saying that Alito is a bad choice. I don't have any problem with them putting pressure on the President to get Alito withdrawn. I don't know of many Republicans who have said that such things should not happen. Obviously, some will say that Alito is good and therefore you should not oppose him, or that it is a politically stupid move to oppose him or whatever, but the principle that you can't oppose a nominee in general or Alito in particular has never been something that Republicans have espoused.
The 'up or down vote' is a wholly different thing. It is a question of whether the filibuster is a proper tool for a minority to block a vote from taking place.
Post a Comment
<< Home