Republican-led Senate defeats bid to stop Alito

Posted by on . 8 comments.

Reuters:

The Republican-led Senate on Monday defeated a Democratic bid to block Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito — clearing the way for confirmation of the 55-year-old conservative who could move the high court to the right.

The needed 60 votes were mustered in the 100-member Senate to approve a motion to end debate on President Bush’s nominee. A confirmation vote is set for Tuesday. Alito has a commitment from a required simple majority to be approved.

A conservative federal appeals judge since 1990, Alito would replace the more moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. O’Connor, who is retiring, often has been the swing vote on the nine-member court on abortion, civil rights and other social issues.

Thanks to everyone who emailed/IMed with the tales of their calls. It’s good to know that we can mobilize when we have to. More on this tomorrow.

Comments

  1. JimC says:
    January 30, 2006 at 4:12 pm

    Is there anythng the Dems can do now to stop the confirmation? Lock the doors?

    -”Teddy, put your weight behind that door, if Frist gets in here, we’re done ‘fur!”

  2. JCW says:
    January 30, 2006 at 4:48 pm

    I’m an avid reader of this site, and yet have never posted…namely because much of what I have to say is expressed by others much more eloquent than I. That said, I’ve finally been inspired to put down the mouse and start typing….

    JimC…just shut the hell up already. At first you were interesting if only because you expressed an opinion that was markedly different than what I usually find on this site (note the very deliberate use of OPINION)…

    Then you became an annoyance, but one I likened to a housefly in summer…inevitable, but one that would (eventually) go away…

    Now, you just piss me off…you’re like the annoying meathead in the back of the class who thinks that watching Jeopardy every night counts as education. So I’m going to play the role of teacher here…

    GET THE HELL OUT OF CLASS…you’ve brought nothing to the table that is well researched, thought provoking, or even witty. I would have figured that by now you would have realized this fact…but apparently the not-so-subtle hints have failed to get through to you. So I’ll speak plain Ohio-folk language to you (I’m allowed, I’m close by)…Leave. Go Away.

    I’m assuming (hoping) that since you are married you have to have some sense of instinct and the ability to read people (if not, I feel very sorry for your wife)…use it. Call us elitist, call us libs, think that we’re destroying the country…we don’t care. You are obviously not the type of person who this site even caters to (that is, independent thinkers)…I think I speak for a few on here who realize that there are some people you just can’t reach, so there’s no point in wasting your time.

    Jim…it’s now official. You’re wasting our time…

  3. JimC says:
    January 30, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    Now I know there were suppsoed to be a few Dems that are in Red states that had a tough choice, but with a final vote of 72-25, that’s a *lot* of dems who broke ranks. Perhaps the radical left were the only ones crying foul on Alito….

  4. JimC says:
    January 30, 2006 at 5:13 pm

    >JCW Says:

    Nice speech, heard it before… I’m sorry you feel that your intellectual superiority cannot somehow come to grips with my insolence. I mean, how dare I come here with my crazy views of the world and force you to read them. When you say things like this, it only emboldens me to continue, for I know that if I irritate a liberal, I must be saying the correct things. Like I’ve said before, just because you don’t think I’m contributing does not bother me because the way I read that is that I’m not contributing to the virtual self gratifying and validation of the populace of this site. I neither desire nor need your acceptance or approval. In fact, the more you think I’m wasting your time, the more I know that I am in fact the dissenting voice. Unless I am forcibly prevented from posting here which is by all means the right of the operators of this website, I will not simply concede your self assigned intellectual pre-eminence. I know matt would be reluctant to ban me for nothing more than being a dissident (or irritating in most opinions here). Like I’ve pointed out, I’ve been most respectful (most of the time), never attacking anyone personally, nor purposefully trying to derail the purpose of this site. In fact when I’ve been chastised by people on here for not using links or proofs, I’ve tried to do better and provide them, only to be attacked for some other reason. So I can only surmise that you don’t like hearing anything that doesn’t validate your views. If that’s enough to get me booted, so be it….I will not go quietly. If you don’t like what I have to say ignore me, should be easy enough. Heck, matt ripped several of my comments out today, so its only a few more steps to full censorship, and then if that happens, that’s a shame for it will have proven many of the characterizations I have laid out before….

  5. matt says:
    January 30, 2006 at 5:22 pm

    >Heck, matt ripped several of my comments out today, so its only a few more steps to full censorship

    you posted a full copyrighted article. for you, wrapped in semi-anonimity, this might not be a big deal. for me, the idea of getting a cease and desist from Fox isn’t what i do this for. past that, you can’t shit on a Gallup poll for being partisan and then post a full Fox poll. it doesn’t work like that.

    your status here could best be described as day-to-day.

  6. JCW says:
    January 30, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    Dissent I can handle, Jim…sure, I may not like your opinion most of the time, but I can respect the fact that you hold one and feel strongly enough about it to disagree…hence I’ve bit my tongue on many occasions while reading some of your posts. However (and this is just an assumption), knowing what you do about the demographic that frequents this site, I get the feeling that your intent is no longer to provoke THOUGHT, but to just PROVOKE. In my eyes, your last statement about “irritating a liberal’ sums it up.

    What gratifies you when you come here? Is it to experience and contribute to a forum of ideas, or is it because you know that some leftie like me is going to take your bait? Obviously it’s not to change our perception of things…if that were the case you’d have realized what tactics worked/didn’t , adjusted your approach when needed, and continually backed up your opinions until the overwhealming weight of your position would be too much for us to argue against.

    Since this has not been the case, all I can assume is that you’re throwing things out there not to inform, but to incite. Which, to be fair, you’ve done well (incite, that is). Tolerable until these last few comments (The “see you tomorrow” and the weak Ted Kennedy joke), which in my eyes had no purpose but to blatently throw a half-assed punch.

    I’m completely against banning you….however, as Matt has said before, step up your game and actually try to state and defend (and re-defend) your points. Otherwise, why the hell make them, and why the hell be here?

  7. JimC says:
    January 30, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Matt:
    So what’s different about what others have posted from many websites and the article I posted from Foxnews? You couldn’t possibly be held accountable for what a commentator placed in comment and I believe the first post I did was not the full article just a snippet with a link. The second time was the full article. Sorry if I breached protocol but again, I didn’t know that was a problem. Like I’ve said, maybe you need a Rules of Conduct page to lay out the rules, or perhaps a link to one….

    JCW
    One of many reasons I stick around is that I truly feel that I may make a beachhead for other more timid conservative would be commentators. Sometimes my goal is to illicit a response, sometimes I am truly engaging the debate, sometimes I am stating my opinion, so far, I’ve not seen anything different in my actions to other on this site, except lacking some of the more colorful words in the English language and personal attacks on dead relatives. Sure, I’m still trying to *learn* how to play the game on here but the rules seem squishy and like a moving target. The short of it is that I believe what I say and at no time am I posting anything just to post it. I weigh what I say with however much time I can allot to it.

    Sure the last two posts were, well inflammatory, sure I was feeling a bit gleeful to have a solid win for my cause, sorry, but I feel that had it gone the other way, I would have been hammered, with far more abusive language…so maybe I’m not sorry.

  8. matt says:
    January 30, 2006 at 6:24 pm

    >So what’s different about what others have posted from many websites and the article I posted from Foxnews?

    it’s called fair use, and you can google it. it’s why we don’t post full articles in our posts. a link an a paragraph or two does the trick unless the point is to irritate…

    >Sorry if I breached protocol but again, I didn’t know that was a problem. Like I’ve said, maybe you need a Rules of Conduct page to lay out the rules, or perhaps a link to one….

    it’s funny that no one else seems to need one.

    >Sure, I’m still trying to *learn* how to play the game on here but the rules seem squishy and like a moving target.

    it’s painfully simple. respond to what we say. your opinion is fine, but it doesn’t substitute for research and facts. when you do go to facts, they are unfailingly from Fox or a pro-life group or what not. that’s fine too, but not as much for winning an argument than starting one.

    when you say something like people who are pro-choice are in the extreme left, you ignore years worth of polls from a multitude of sources. we get that you are against abortion, and believe it or not, that is fine with me as well. but it’s not enough to win an argument.

    >Sure the last two posts were, well inflammatory, sure I was feeling a bit gleeful to have a solid win for my cause,sorry, but I feel that had it gone the other way, I would have been hammered

    nothing wrong with that, and you’re certainly right. but if you were trying to be funny, you missed by a bit.

    the short of it from here is that we don’t mind the dissent or the arguments, but stirring up the shit is a different story.