Why such a strong reaction vs Alito as opposed to Roberts?

Of course I understand that the left was very much against Roberts, but when he was nominated for CJ I didn't hear the same kind of outcry at DU I am hearing now, with all the "fight or die" or "unless they go all the way I am leaving the Democratic Party" posts.

Does anyone think that Roberts is any different than Alito or that Bush would appoint anyone but a right wing fanatic to the Supremes? Does anyone think for one moment that Roberts, despite his polite, intelligent and impressive demeanor, is less of a right winger?

So what is the difference in the reaction between the two? Oh, sure, some might say that Roberts was just replacing Rehnquist, a right winger for a right winger and now a right winger is replacing a "moderate", making it the swing vote. But a vote is a vote on SCOTUS so why should the left get so excited about one but not the other?

And what if the Dems DO successfully block Alito? Of course, Brown, Pryor or someone in that mold would be next and eventually Bush would get his right winger on the court.

Do we really want to make the 2006 election a referendum on abortion rather than on the war and corruption in the WH and all the other issues like poverty, the environment, etc.? Isn't making abortion the central issue playing right into Rove's hands so he can motivate the right wing base like he did in 2004 with all the gay marriage referenda on the ballot?

I think this is the central question we have to ask ourselves before demanding that our representatives go all the way on Alito, because, in the end, whether Alito is blocked or not, Bush is going to get a right wing judge on the court. We cannot block them forever.

We might well know that Roberts will be an uber-right wing nutjob, but we couldn't prove it at all because we had no paper trail. Alito's got a paper trail. That is all the difference in the world.

That's a zero sum game.

Alito is being proposed to replace O'Connor, that's a dramatic shift to the right in an already rightwing churc...er....court.

same result.

I still think the main question is the strategy for the 2006 elections and that should take priority over any single issue, including SCOTUS.

- to replace O'Connor. When Rhenquist later died, Roberts was "bumped up".

At least in the post-McReynolds era of the court. Rehnquist was a complete right wing mouthpiece who never saw a police action he didn't like.

Alito is rather clearly to the right of O'Conner. Hence the concern.

....and it aint pretty!

Roberts was an unknown quantity.

Alito leaves a record of his judicial "accomplishments".

I am personally quite chilled by the 'abortion only with permission of husband' opinion.

and I realize his paper trail makes him easier to attack.

But if we do go to the filibuster - nuclear - shut down the Senate route - Are we doing what Rove wants us to do rather than concentrating on the issues that have driven Bush's numbers down into the 30s?

:)

Bush appoints another right winger and next year's election is about Democrats defending themselves for being obstructionists rather than the war. Is that what we want, or rather, isn't that what Rove wants?

I have come to the conclusion that if the Dems DON'T fight, regardless of the outcome, the 2006 elections will see a lot of Dems staying at home or voting Green. Dems almost HAVE to fight this battle if they want to get the base out next year and hope to have any chance of picking up seats in Congress.

The Christofacist base of the Repug party will come out regardless of what happens: if there is a fight, the RW media will energize them and get them out there in 2006. If nothing happens and Alito is confirmed easily, then the Christofacists will feel the momentum and want to get out and push things further. They will also want to thank Junior, their savior.

A fight, of course, could be very problematic for the Dems. The right wing spin machine will be in overdrive, and, of course, could push moderates away completely.

I see this as a "lose--lose more" situation for the Dems. They lose less if they actually fight.

The phrase, as used in the following statement, "The Republican party is full of nuts and robber barons, but the Democrats are such wimps."

This is a frequently heard statement from the sane Republicans who detest the theocratic neocons but they want to see the Democrats stand up and fight.

They may lose, but J.H.C., at least put up a serious fight.

of the 2006 elections, is it worth it? Once again I ask, and no one has responded to this question, wouldn't making the issue "obstructionist Dems" for 2006 rather than "Republicans who lied us into a war" make Rove jump for joy?

And a lifetime appointment job, aka hard RW vote replacing a swing vote, on the SCOTUS is a fight worth having.

If that's not "important" then I don't know what is.

That's the way I see it. We win the battle but lose the war. Yes, "obstructionist" is RW propaganda, but so was gay marriage and it worked, didn't it?

Iraq will continue to be a slow-draining quagmire with or without my input.

Fitzgerald will continue his work with or without my input.

But the SCOTUS is something I can personally get involved in via action.

The people who voted R because of gay marriage will continue to vote R no matter what.

This is a battle over exposing the radical RW and a clear cut battle over the SCOTUS is a way to show the moderates that the Democrats do have the right stuff.

You want to focus on the issue. What I am saying is that I would rather focus on the war and other issues.

Really, that is what we are talking about here. We have to decide which it is going to be because I do not think it can be both.

A moderate/center left Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Act was signed by a conservative president (Bush I). It has since been challenged on numerous grounds in various lawsuits and absolutely emascualted by the already hard right US Supreme Court. Unless something is done about the Court, it really doesn't matter who controls the Congress.

And control of the Senate for how long? You need to rephrase your question as Control of the Senate for maybe only 2 years vs. a LIFETIME appointment to the Court which will likely be another 20 years since Alito is as young as he is. The Court can essentially veto any good done by a moderate to progressive Congress and President. It's far more important than one silly election for Senate.

Though of course I'd love to have both.

It all has to do with how he played the Roberts and Miers nominations. He welcomed them both - he voted for Roberts and praised the Miers nomination. As soon as the fundies forced Miers to withdraw, he called them out for being extremists. And quite frankly, the rest of the country actually DOES see that now.

because it's the right fight to fight? I think I see your point here insofar as if we know we're not going to win the fight is it worth fighting if it hurts us in the next election, but a) if there's even the remotest chance that we can salvage some balance on the Court and prevent it from tipping substantially to the right and subsequently rolling back hard-won rights for all Americans, isn't it worthing doing; and b) isn't there something worse to not fighting based on presumed political fallout?

I think a lot of people are pissed off at politicians for that very reason - because they don't do things because they think they are the right thing to do and they honestly represent their constituents, but because they are politically motivated and designed to curry favor with a powerful few. I call bullshit.

Fight the fight because it's worth fighting.

P.S. Long time lurker, first time poster. Thanks for the stimulating dialogue DUers. :)

Bush has always had a choice of pandering to the hypocritical right wing by appointing a judge with right-wing fascist tendencies OR appointing judges based on their intellect and IMPARTIAL FAIRNESS.

Bush has made his choice.

The Democrats have two options. Cave in to the effort to pack the court with ideological justices who represent everything we oppose and who oppose everything we stand for -- OR FIGHT BACK.

Sure, if they fight, they may still ultimately lose. BUT THE FIGHT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EDUCATE THE COUNTRY WHAT IS REALLY AT STAKE. AND TO SHOW MODERATES WHAT THEY GET WHEN THEY ELECT RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVES.

And it's not just about abortion. It's about control of powerful business interests, the ability of workers and consumers and citizens to have the fair support of government in addressing grievences, and the very existance of government as a counterbalance to the powerful.

IF DEMOCRATS DO NOT FORXCEFULLY FIGHT AND SHOW WHAT THESE IDEOLOGUES REPRESENT, we have no right to call ourselves eitehr an opposition party or an alternative.

IF DEMOCRATS DO FIGHT, it is a step toward reclaiming our role as the champion of the average majority and the disadvantaged.

It would change the focus of the 2006 elections away from Bush and the war and gas prices and the environment, etc., to narrow it down to an ideological argument about abortion that would greatly excite right wing evangelical voters like gay marriage did last year and paint Dems as obstructionists. The Dems would be defending their actions instead of Bush defending his terrible decisions.

Doesn't all of this sound Rovian to you?

I see it just the opposite. Democrats should be pro-active and go on the attack against the GOP plan to strip government on every level. This affects every otehr issue.


Gas prices, for example. If Bush packs the court with blindly pro-business stooges, the SC can very well take away any ability the government might have to provide controls or remedies.

What is at stake in the court fight goes far beyond abortion. It should be part of a larger agenda and message that the democrats will fight on EVERY front to protect the interests of the majority and preserve the ability of government to provide remedies against the abuses of the powerful.

Rove will crank up the Republican spin machine and the entire 2006 election will be about how Democrats obstructed and shut down government.

Bush is doing miserably right now and the Supremes has nothing to do with that. It is the war and the lies we must focus on. I fear that we are just stepping into a Rovian trap by taking this bait.

Rove will try to attack and twist ANYTHING that Democrats do.

Look what he did to John Kerry. Made a war hero look like a coward and liar....Also twisted Kerry's support of Bush in the debate over Iraq War to brand him as a flip-flopper.

There is only one way to deal with Rove and his GOP minions. Take them on directly and smartly. We can't cower and base what we do based on the question: "But what will Rove say?"

If they bitch and moan about those obstructionist Democrats, we have to come back and make it clear WHY we are being obstructionist. because what we are obstructing is an attempt to damage the interests of the majority of Americans.

We HAVE TO STOP letting Rove set the terms for everything. he's gonna attack anything. So let's give him something real to attack by becoming a real opposition party again.

every time.

I still think we are making a mistake by letting him make us the issue rather than Bush.

The only reason Rive gets away with it is because we allow him to.

The issue should be that Democrats are fighting this administration's destructive agenda and incompetance.

Rive and his minions will whine that Democrats are only "Bush bashing" and all the rest.

But it's up to us to make our own case.

An opposition party will oppose anything that our petty tyrant proposes. A coalition party will sound just like you.

What I am saying is that going all the way via filibuster - nuclear option - shutting down govt in retaliation by insisting that Senate rules be followed in all instances, changes the issues for the 2006 election completely away from Bush defending his actions to the Dems defending their actions. Is it worth it?

than to succumb to the lure of the easy way out.

I think changing the subject entirely from Bush's failures to Dems defending themselve would cost us the elections. As much as I fear Alito's decisions I would trade a Dem majority in the Senate for his confirmation without hesitation.

Well, reproductive rights, LGBT rights, and the war in Iraq are very important issues to me and are non-negotiable when it comes to my vote.

What's the point of having a Democratic majority in the Senate when it does not speak for me on reproductive rights, LGBT rights, and the war in Iraq?

First, there is certainly no guarantee of a Dem takeover of the Senate in 2006. That's just very optimistic thinking based on polling data a year out from the election.

Second, one freaking Senate session is irrelevant compared to a justice's LIFETIME tenure in the federal court system. Are you still being impacted by Congressmen and women who were in office when Reagan was president? Barely. But every single day, jurists appointed by Reagan, Bush I, and even Ford continue to impact your life, your government and your rights. Please think about that for a second.

Besides, it's time for the Democratic Party to decide what it stands for, and then fight for it.

Tho' I'm not buying any popcorn in hopes of watching a good brawl considering their record of (non)combat against boobya and his Fearsome Fratboys.

I agree that most polling shows Americans in favor of choice, but not by a wide margin and many polls I have seen have a majority who favor "reasonable" restrictions like advising parents, etc.

Regardless, Bush is in the toilet right now. Why would you want to change the focus and the subject to something else?

Abortion, like "peace", like affirmative action, like the environment, like gun control, like poverty, like almost every issue that may cause the "moderates" (aka the right wing of the Democratic Party) to get upset have been soft pedalled, ignored, water down, and avoided by the political games players. The result has been a minority party that is seen as without ideals and ineffective. With good reason.

The irony is that the Democrats do nothing, say nothing, but whine and cave, and then complain that the media ignores them. You got to make news to get on the news.

It just seems to me that right now we have everything going our way and that changing the subject does not make a bit of sense to me.

I do agree with your statement that the Dems must clearly stand for issues that they will fight for, but I cannot help but wonder why we would, by necessity, alter the dynamics of next year's elections at this time.

according to the same polls the Democrats aren't doing much better. The perception, by the people, is that the Republcans are not at all interested in the welfare of the nation but only in retaining power and satisfying their corporate bosses and the Taliban wing of the party. The Democrats are seen as a wimpier version of the same thing.

They failed to oppose Roberts for fear of disturbing the "moderates". The result is that we got a rightwing justice with no corresponding reward of "moderate" approval for forebearance.

The wishy-washy "not as bad as the Republicans" DLC driven strategy has failed. I give you as evidence, that when the Republicans were in the electoral wilderness, they produced a rightwing zealot named Ronald Reagan. When Clinton was running things, they responded with Newt Gingrich and rightwing agenda that they unashamedly trumpeted. However abhorrent we may find what the stood/stand for they didn't cave and try to become warmed over liberals but "not as bad as the Democrats". And, it worked. Not because their ideas were better, but precisely because they stood for something.

The Democrats needn't make opposition to Alito based only on abortion rights, but the whole list of issues that Alito backs. Everything from the environment, equal rights, and all the rest. But, they won't win by pussyfooting around the hot button issues and wringing their hands.

I am still going back and forth on this and thought it would be a good idea to try to hash this out in my own mind. I agree with what those who want to go all the way with Alito have to say but I am torn due to the fact that I think we might be making a mistake that will cost us the election.

I guess I should be more patient and just see how things play out for a while.

IMHO, the concerns of appealing to the electorate in order to "sell" the candidates is usually a futile exercise in gamesmanship. I happen to, perhaps naively, believe that the people are best served by the use of simple honesty, and blunt speaking. An absurdly rare attribute of politicians of any stripe.

Nothing is going our way.

Bush has been doing poorly in the polls because he is doing such a bad job for our country here and abroad. It is getting so obvious more people can see it.

That is not things going our way since it is our country he is screwing up. And as we keep looking into this potential judge for life it may be clear he will be bad for the country. What we know of some major decisions he already looks that way. It is not just abortion, it is so many things we value that we need to protect.

We should obstruct what needs obstructing. Those running for election can speak with passion on why this man was wrong for the direction this country needs to go.

You sure don't gain votes by giving in time after time, knowing it's wrong and then fighting.

Heres another Alito thread that merits attention

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2204776

We should change the focus of the issues for the 2006 election because there are lefty interest groups that say Alito is the worst thing that ever happened?

Shouldn't we look at the overall picture and decide what issues the Dems should concentrate on for the election rather than be guided by one issue oriented organizations?

BTW, I don't think anyone is going to buy a tinfoil argument that Alito is protection against Bush getting punished for wrongdoing.

I'm sorry if that sounds sexist, but it is the truth. I don't think most men understand pregnancy, much less abortion rights. The only person who should be able to place the needs of a potential child above the needs of a woman is the woman herself. It should not be a government issue and to make it such is paramount to slavery -- forcing someone to be subordinate to another, in this case the fetus.

There is no way a man can understand the outrage of women on this issue because no man will ever be placed in that situation.

that is not the issue really. I am as pro choice as you are ever going to find (for a male).

All I have been trying to say is that the real issue here is not Alito or choice. The real issue is what we want to talk about to win the 2006 election. Should it be the issues that up until now have brought Bush down under a 40% approval rating or should we shift it to something else, that is, approval or disapproval of a right wing court.

If we lose the 2006 election there may be many more Alitos. If we win it there can be none as long as we hold a majority in the Senate. We must choose the issues wisely and not engage in a noble battle born of emotion that will only cause us to lose the war.

Don Quixote defeated many a windmill but never won a real battle except in his own mind.

that if we lose on Alito, there will be little left to fight for.

front and center in the list of issues that should be discussed in the '06 platform? And if so, isn't shifting the court dramatically to the right a big part of that issue overall?

Also, as to the issues, hasn't it classically been a problem of cohesion of issues with Democrats that has led to a significant reduction in political influence. By dividing our attention to multiple and disparate issues, as you say, we weaken our solidarity and put find ourselves in a position of having to defend ourselves. But by formulating a message - a whole & unified message that contains multiple and related issues that cover a broad range but that are connected by thread of commonality - don't we strengthen the resolve of our base as well as becoming more attractive to more centrist voters?

The reason we want to win in '06 is to allow the republic to function again as it was intended. I think it's very likely that Judge Alito will be confirmed. I'm not at all sure that Democratic representatives in Congress will bring a fillibuster on this nomination for precisely the reason you have cited. However, not opposing the nomination could be disastrous. As a loose analogy look at Kerry's vote to allow the President to use force in Iraq. The better part of his campaign was spent explaining that fact and trying to illustrate the finer points of why it wasn't a so-called "flip-flop" when he campaigned on the President's failures in Iraq.

Finally, I think that the rights of women and all Americans is a deeply important issue and one that is innately worth fighting for.

think about it.
If there has been a worse nomination, name him.
If there hasnt been a worse nomination,that would make Alito the WORSE SCOTUS NOMINATION EVER.

Shouldnt the WORSE supreme court nomination EVER, be vigorosly opposed?

Look, I am from New Jersey and am familiar with many of Alito's rulings. No, of course I don't want him on the court. He is a disaster from many points of view. But he is no Scalia and Jeezus, certainly no Thomas.

Right here:

http://www.moveonpac.org/stopalito/

I wrote:

This is IT! This is the moment. Whatever it takes even if Frist decides to go "nuclear", this is the appointment to resist.

Don't forget to broadcast far and wide why you're resisting and how important to the survival of this experiment in building a democratic, secular state your resistence will be.


---------------

Of course, I have that corporate tool DiFi as one of my senators so who knows what the hell she'll do... :shrug:

For the fundies, EVERY election is a referendum on abortion (and gays and school prayer and...). And that won't be changed in the least by our opposition to or support of a Bush nominee.

But it might just be time to motivate OUR base- as well as the moderates of the world- by showing just how extreme the republicans have become. And we can do that by focusing on the totality of the circumstances- the far right appointments, the treasonous leak, the lies for war, the widespread corruption of the administration and its supporters- and use it all to get OUR people motivated for a change.


But also, with increasing opposition to Bush and his policies, we can also possibly prevent him from ever getting another appointment to the Court. The Constitution does not prescribe a set number of justices, and there have been a number of times where a vacancy has lasted for some time (though none for years). The Court and the federal bench are far more important than what happens with other seats. After all, if Bush and his supporters get their way and a far right Court is in place, it really doesn't matter who wins in 2008.


All that said, I personally did oppose Roberts just as much as Alito. For that matter, I personally take the position that if Bush nominates a person, I'm opposed to their appointment. It's a modified Phil Gramm Rule for us Texans. :)

I have not decided what the best course of action is yet but I wanted to argue about my concerns regarding the 2006 elections and the Alito appointment. While I still haven't made up my mind I appreciate your input.