Doomed to Repeat History
by matt at 6:00 am on January 31st, 2006 in Congressional Man Date, Supreme CourtDemocrats took one to the solar plexus on Monday, and it wasn’t pretty. I am encouraged by the anecdotal evidence of rammed switchboards and the genuine emotion expressed by probably tens of thousands of blog readers and their friends, but it’s difficult to look at the unsuccessful filibuster as anything but a total loss. The foundation for this failure was of course laid in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections where too many people just didn’t realize the threat posed to our civil rights and privacy by George W. Bush and his many enablers. For that, we all share responsibility. But those in power, those we selected to speak for us in D.C., fell down on the job when they needed to stand tall.
The Supreme Court confirmation hearings of both John Roberts and Samuel Alito made a mockery of advise and consent. Whether or not one believes that either or both should have been confirmed, no one was served by the Senate Judiciary committee’s kabuki show. It wasn’t any easier to watch committee Democrats pontificate with elaborate questions that were met with a lawyerly “no comment” and no follow-up than it was to watch the Republicans prattle on about judicial activism and original intent as if their definitions didn’t hinge on favorable rulings. Roberts and Alito were just as enigmatic after days of questioning as they were at the start, hardly acceptable when a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land is at stake. If Republicans were so sure that their ideas were resonant, and if Democrats truly wanted to stop either, the time was at these hearings.
Last Friday, I wondered about John Kerry’s motivation in calling for a filibuster. While it’s still unclear whether he was doing it for politics or principle, it’s crystal clear that he never had the votes to mount a serious challenge to Alito, and when that became clear, he lost even more votes from colleagues not wishing to be part of a losing gambit. The damage done by the loss and its exaggerated margin really isn’t much more than it would have been in the absence of the filibuster, but the 19 Democrats who voted for cloture made a serious miscalculation and added to the narrative of The Ineffectual Democrat.
If there are two themes that I have stressed over the years here, they are these:
One argument that anyone following the hearings heard ad nauseam was “Well, Republicans allowed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to sail through, but now the big bad Democrats are obstructing.” In addition to the rebuttals I made based on Orrin Hatch’s virtual selection of Bill Clinton’s nominees, I forgot a much more obvious one that relates to point one above: Republicans have no standing to carp about the game changing because they changed the game. Republicans hold House votes open for hours on end while they bribe their own to support their caustic plans. Republican Bill Frist became the first Senate leader to campaign against his counterpart. Senate Republicans dreamt up the “nuclear option.” If they are getting misty for the good old days, just say the word, I’m sure that there are some cowering Dems who would love to take it back to the friendly days of yore.
While we’re certainly used to the hypocrisy spewing forth from Republicans, it’s no more of a surprise to see Democrats unaware of point two. A quick look at the list of Democrats voting for cloture (Akaka, Inouye, Cantwell, Rockefeller, Byrd, Bingaman, Lieberman, Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Baucus, T. Johnson, Dorgan, B. Lincoln, Salazar, Conrad, Landrieu, Pryor, Carper, and Kohl) reveals a heavy concentration of Senators up for reelection this year, both red-staters (in bold) and shaky blue staters (in italics). The majority of the rest will face difficult campaigns in 2008. The fact that doesn’t fit is that many of the yes-on-cloture crew will be voting against Alito today despite ample evidence that the distinction they make is meaningless. Dobson and his ilk will target red-state Dems whether they vote in his interest or not; they are targets because they hold a seat, not because they filibustered or didn’t. The ones who voted for cloture and will vote against Alito sold out their party for the illusion of safety because they haven’t been paying attention to the new rules.
The only thing that we can do is continue to remind our leaders that we are watching. They missed a crucial opportunity this time, and the consequences will be painful and swift. But there are other battles ahead, and we need to lead our leaders if we want this country back.
JimC wrote:
In your opinion, does oppsoing a nominee *require* you to filibuster? If so, why? If not, why then is it hard to beleive some Democrats may simply have felt their opposition did not rise to the level of requiring a filibuster? Furthermore, is it your challenge that since members of their party were attempting a filibuster, that they should have fell in line and gone along with it?
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 7:22 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
What are you trying to get at, Jim? Are you defending Democrats now? Opposing political parties acting in lock-step? Sounds like a lot of playing Devil’s advocate if you ask me. I hope Jesus doesn’t find out.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 7:40 am ¶
matt wrote:
>In your opinion, does oppsoing a nominee *require* you to filibuster?
Not at all. But for the Supreme Court, I think that it’s always a possibility. I understand that you don’t think Alito is extreme, and that’s fine. I’m willing to bet that you don’t think that Scalia and Thomas are extreme either but do think that Breyer and Ginsburg are extreme. Feel free to correct me on that. But what I am sure of because you’ve said as much many times, is that extreme = people who oppose things you feel strongly about. We’ll certainly see where Alito really stands very soon, and just because he isn’t caught on video talking about reversing roe or granting extra presidential powers doesn’t mean that his record doesn’t suggest he’ll do just that.
Set aside abortion for a minute. Tough, i know, but bear with me. Alito and the rest of the original intent posse say and believe that there is no Constitutional right to privacy. You may not like the idea of what, say, gay men do behind closed doors, but clearly no fetuses are being harmed, nor any Iraqi civilians. That’s just a small bit of privacy, and there are certainly plenty more examples, and Alito doesn’t grant any of them. For someone taking a 30 year seat on the Supreme Court, this doesn’t work for me, hence the filibuster support.
>why then is it hard to beleive some Democrats may simply have felt their opposition did not rise to the level of requiring a filibuster?
>Because they may as well have voted for him.
>Furthermore, is it your challenge that since members of their party were attempting a filibuster, that they should have fell in line and gone along with it?
Not in all cases, but certainly in this one. The political upside warranted it, and they misread the downside as they have repeatedly. Those Democrats failed their party, and many of them failed the majority of their constituents. Remember, a filibuster doesn’t always result in the nominee being withdrawn. It just means more debate. They could have supported Kerry for a day and then voted for cloture and even then voted for Alito. Hard for someone’s opponents to bitch about a filibuster when you ultimately vote for the nomination. Yes, it’s pure politics, but Dems wouldn’t be alone in that.
(I will add, that this was probably you best comment to date. No absurd conflation, no accusations, no fake facts, etc. WTF happened?)
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 7:49 am ¶
JimC wrote:
No, I’m trying to get at if one in a prty can think for themselves or must they fall lock step in line with whatever the party decides? It should be an easy question, if your party is trying to filibuster, should you go along with it even if you don’t think it is the correct thing to do? Is this possible?
I mean, it seems like you are chastising these Senators and calling the essentially traitors to the party because they didn’t follow in line and do as they were told. Look at Byrd, he’s from a Red State so basically his constituents are more likely than not right leaning, so if he is representing them, shouldn’t he take that into consideration? Or since he’s a Democrat, it doesn’t matter what the people in his state think, he should follow the party?
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 7:50 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>and believe that there is no Constitutional right to privacy.
That being said does not mean he would rule that gays cannot sleep together, that is conjecture based on a comment. Furthermore, if it is not in the law nor the constituion, then *it* needs to be added and not implied nor made law fro, the bench. The Supreme Court is to interpret the Law not make it. If in fact there is no law covering a particular area, then Congress must act to put it in place. Having said that, it is my *opinion* that Alito will not suddenly start ruling in favor of invading peoples lives (and bedrooms), however, in matters of National Security, he may very well rule that the President has limited authority during times of war to eavesdrop on suspected threats., but this would be a guess, and only a guess.
Also, saying that Alito may overturn Roe V. Wade makes him an extremist is the same as saying Ginsburg upholding Roe V. Wade makes her an extremist. I think neither are the case really. Opposing views maybe but not extremists. Otehr things that Ginsburg has said makes her an extremist i.e. her extreme femenists views.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 8:26 am ¶
matt wrote:
>That being said does not mean he would rule that gays cannot sleep together, that is conjecture based on a comment.
well, the time for speculation is really over now. we’ll see before the year is up i imagine.
>Furthermore, if it is not in the law nor the constituion, then *it* needs to be added and not implied nor made law fro, the bench.
well, i don’t see it that way at all. nothing in the constitution says anything about gay rights, it’s the bible that does. when people try to legislate the bible, the courts should step in.
>Having said that, it is my *opinion* that Alito will not suddenly start ruling…
like i said, the time for this is really over, he’s now been confirmed. his rather lengthy record means nothing when compared to how he will rule now. all we can do is sit back and watch.
>Also, saying that Alito may overturn Roe V. Wade makes him an extremist is the same as saying Ginsburg upholding Roe V. Wade makes her an extremist.
but i didn’t say any of that. i consider Alito an extremist because he believes that the president can cede himself more power. right or wrong, agree or disagree with the principle, that is certainly an extreme reading of the constitution.
>Otehr things that Ginsburg has said makes her an extremist i.e. her extreme femenists views.
serious question, what is an extreme feminist view? you’re pretty much going to have to answer that, so get used to the idea.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 8:39 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Why can’t one side be extreme and the other not? Cannibalism is extreme, but opposing cannibalism is not. Or is it?
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 8:39 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Not necessarily. Check out the Ninth Amendment.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 9:23 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Ruth Ginsburg made the same assumption as the rest of the feminist movement. She accepted without question the Marxist claim that women’s role as mothers and wives is inherently oppressive (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0106roberts.html). And she believed that equality of opportunity should always translate into identical social roles.
In 1977, Ginsburg wrote a report for the Commission on Civil Rights titled “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” (http://dl.jctc.kctcs.edu/users/anne.kearney/Doc5.htm). This report demanded 800 changes to federal laws in order to eliminate any and all distinctions between men and women.
“…the report claims that the Boy Scouts perpetuate stereotyped sex roles, so they must be gender-integrated or abolished…instructed to clean up our speech: “manmade” must be changed to “artificial,” “midshipman” to “midshipperson,” and so forth…”
And to allow both men and women equal rights to work as breadwinners she insisted the government should; “The increasingly common two-earner family pattern should impel development of a comprehensive program of government-supported child care.”
And her idea of coed prisons and Constituional protection for prostitution, and the elimination of Mother’s and Father’s day as a sexual discriminatory event. http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2363/pub_detail.asp
Seems radical to me…
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 9:41 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>Not necessarily. Check out the Ninth Amendment.
So if it is not in the Law nor in the Constitution, then the Supreme Court gets to make it up?
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 9:44 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but with a cloture.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 9:45 am ¶
matt wrote:
I’ll stand by what Ginsburg wrote 30 years ago if you’ll stand by what Roberts and Alito have written in the last 15. Deal?
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 9:51 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
That’s not what I was demonstrating. A right to privacy does not necessarily need not be explicitly stated in order for it to exist or at the very least be available to the people. My point being that Congress does not bear the burden of enumerating all of our possible rights.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 10:06 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
From the good folks at FindLaw:
There’s more to read, there, but I figured you’d like this one, Jim, because it has to do with fetuses.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 10:14 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>matt Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 9:51 am
I’ll stand by what Ginsburg wrote 30 years ago if you’ll stand by what Roberts and Alito have written in the last 15. Deal?
Sure, Ginsburg continues her support for Feminists movement…..ahhhhh who cares…forget I said it…
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 10:39 am ¶