If Democrats can overcome mathematics and find 41 votes, the Republicans would probably pull the nuclear trigger.

Now put your rational hat on for a moment, and fast forward to 2007.

Democrats control the Senate, Justice Stevens passes away, and 50 votes + Cheney can still confirm his replacement, with no chance of a filibuster whatsoever.

It is in the GOP's interest to go nuclear now, rather than trying to do it when Bush replaces a liberal justice.

That's why the smart money opposes a filibuster.

them such as Byrd, Lieberman and Nelson.

They bluff with the nuclear option.

They only need them to invoke cloture.

After the nuclear option all they need is 50 votes+ Cheney to confirm any nominee, no matter who controls the Senate.

were solidified, they are still in the minority in the Senate. And they wouldn't be able to filibuster a rule change.

They are on the horns of a dilemma, alright, with both possible rewards and pitfalls, whichever way they jump.

over the nuclear option. This is a win/win for us.

Make them "go nuclear". FUCK THEM.

And I don't mean the words "go nuclear".

This is WAR.

"I'm prepared for it. Posted by benburch This is WAR."

Are you prepared for armed conflict? Didn't think so.

I would literally go to war for this.

More than Alito, the Repigs want their Patriot Act. It's sitting on the table, waiting for action to be taken on February 3.

If the Repigs go noo-kyu-ler, the Dems can counter by shutting down the Senate. Bye-bye Patriot Act. And it will be by the Repigs' own hands.

With Bush's approval between 34 and 36%, with CatKiller Frist mired in his own insider-trading scandal, and all of Washington watching and waiting to see who gets caught in the Abramoff net, they are simply too weak to trigger the nuclear option.

The Repigs would throw Alito under the bus in a minute if we only had the guts to make them see Alito will cost them the Patriot Act renewal.

And have our Orwellian media spin the expiration of the Patriot Act as Democratic surrender in the "War on Terror"

For them, its a better discussion than a lobbyist buying your entire caucus.

and look where we are. Time to kick up a little damn dust and stop being so damned calculating and stand for something. We're not going to control the Senate unless we can give people a reason to think things are going to be different if the democratic party controls the Senate. Inside the beltway thinking is not going to do it.

to them how things would be different and why? Not just that we believe in justice and that kind of thing, but actual concrete programs we have plans for.

Committee. If Dems controlled the Senate, they would never allow that to happen, and they'd be able to stop it.

even with a negative recommendation from the Judiciary Committee.

Got a link? What's the point of the commitee then?

I found this link with a quick search:

Q: What happens after all the testimony?

A: Specter has said he may call a vote on Roberts' nomination as early as Sept. 20, if the hearings run smoothly. The committee traditionally holds voting sessions on Thursday. That would make Sept. 22 the first chance to vote if the hearings run long. Democrats have not committed to vote on either day.

The committee can vote a nomination out favorably, unfavorably or without recommendation. The last nominee voted out favorably was Breyer. The last nominee voted out unfavorably was Robert Bork, on Oct. 6, 1987. Bork then was rejected by the Senate, 58-42. The last nominee voted out of the committee without recommendation was Clarence Thomas, on Sept. 27, 1991. The Senate confirmed him by a vote of 52-48. He is the only member of the current court to get less than a favorable recommendation.

Q: Can a committee vote against Roberts stop the full Senate from voting on his confirmation?

A: No. Supreme Court confirmations are traditionally decided by the full Senate. A "no" vote by the committee would only mean that Roberts' nomination would advance to the Senate with a negative recommendation or without a recommendation.



http://www.courttv.com/news/supreme/091205_primer_ap.html

If the Dems control the Senate I'm pretty sure they could find procedural ways to stop it from happening.

If they don't get the votes, they'll never make it out of committee.

SCOTUS nominees go to the floor, no matter what happens in committee.

nixed in committee...

Voinivich did one of those wimpy "no recomendation" votes for Bolton to the UN in committee, and thats why he made it to the floor...if he had voted no, then it wouldnt have made it to the floor...

The Judiciary Committee voted against him, he still went to the floor.

I think that if we could come this close to a filibuster with a minority in the Senate, we have done very well. And, it ain't over.

Let them go nuclear. Let them break the law and go nuclear. Then maybe some of the asshats in this country will wake up and see the lying fascist bastards for what they are.

... filibuster now and Alito retreats to his previous position. If Democrats control the Senate later, his replacement nominee would be even less likely to survive the confirmation process if as dubious as Alito.

Not doing something good now doesn't mean an accrual of benefit later.

The nuclear option is fantasy on the part of the GOP. See Senate Rule 22 for verification of that. And, if the `pugs were to jam the nuclear option through, the Dems, if controlling the Senate at a later date, could undo the nuclear option as quickly as could the `pugs previously implement it. It's a rule change, not a matter of passing law. It's up to party in power to change Senate rules.

Nope, no cigar on this one, but nice try.

without a formal rule change.

The idea behind the nuclear option is setting a new Senate precedent that says filibusters are out of order and unconsitutional.

They cannot invoke the nuclear option until cloture fails.

If the new precedent is set by the nuclear option, I don't see how they can object to it.

... requires a rule change, which impinges on Senate rule 22. Look it up. They can't do it, because of Senate Rule 22, which requires a 3/4 vote to change the rules--if they force it through without acknowledgement of that rule, the Dems can undo it if they become the majority.

The nuclear option is a fiction promoted by Frist, which, at best, can last only as long as the `pugs are in the majority, and which they would have to pass via a violation of another Senate rule regarding changing the rules.

Period.

Filibuster on, I say, and the consequences be damned, and are temporary, at best.

Cheers.

Democrats could write it into the rules at the begginning of the 110th Congress with a simple majority.

They are not bound to the rules of previous congresses.

... any resistance to the nuke now is just DLC politicking. The best thing the Dems could do right now is to stand up and be counted and show the people they don't like being bullied by the `pugs--that will resonate in the elections to come, not just in 2006, but in 2008, as well.

It's all reversible later--if there's a later. Caving in now will help insure there is no later for the people. That's the stupidity of Dems saying "no" to a filibuster, but maintaining that they'll vote against Alito on the floor. It's parliamentary sophistry--the guy will be confirmed by that logic--because there are 56 `pugs in the Senate, and none of them will step out of line. The only way to stop his confirmation is a filibuster. What do the Dems have to lose by trying?

Cheers.

If we are thinking about what is possible in a democratic majority in the house and senate, (dreams on)
is to add more seats to counterbalance the right wingers bush has appointed.

I'd say 2-3 liberal and moderate seats would serve the court well. It was done in the 19th, and 20th century, why not the 21st?

if they aren't for Alito but not anxious for a filibuster. (Hear that Biden?)

BTW....why are you so working overtime slamming Kerry and filibuster?

Some really really really deep cover operatives are blowing their cover these days. We are getting ready to kick ass and they are afraid because bullies after all are just COWARDS!

Keep up the fight blm! :loveya:

Just keep surrendering and surrendering. Backing down, caving, cowering. And losing more and more votes with each equivocation. The liberal base of the party gives up on the party, the moderates/independents decide to vote for the real Republicans rather than the Democrat version.

Here's an excerpt from a letter written by Paul Hackett:



If not now, when do you suggest we fight? The next time a SCOTUS appointment comes up? After we bomb Iran? When the Patriot Act is strengthened and made permanent? When?

to a filubuster would justify being called and calling ourselves hypocrites. The nuclear option is a fragile move with questionable ramificatons and will get more citizens attention in a negative way for Republicans.

GO FOR IT - all the pro-filibuster justification given here on this thread is sound. We gotta keep moving. We have to use a Constitutional option. Whether they allow it or not, Dems are ahead.

They always go for the short term. It's the Dems turn to take a risk that is more solid than the Repubs short term lies, thefts, tricks for the gain of a few.

I see no evidence of that, as proven by their handling of the filibuster at present, (look at Landrieu -- if anything, the Democratic point person for the after-effects of Katrina! -- to see how poorly and how quickly forgotten American outrage about the mistreatment of inner-city New Orleans residents will be in the 2006 elections. She's afraid of being taken down for not supporting Bush in his attempts to militarize the recovery effort! She feels weak, hence, she would no way no how oppose anything Bush wants between now and 2006. Thank you sir, may I have another?)

Never mind the fact that they lost 5 seats a year ago. What makes you think that'll change a year from now? Blame it on election fraud overlooked by Dems, or inability of the Dem leadership to coordinate with or even sympathize with grassroots anger, the results are the same and unlikely to change.

is the weakness of the Democratic leadership - they do it because they know the Democratic leadership in DC unable to make themselves believe that the gop would cheat (even given the vigorous history of voting fraud in the US) and as a result won't say anything, afraid to rock the boat.

That isn't cause to call the Republican bluff on the nuclear option?

"nuclear" option a defacto nuclear option if you roll over? If they get what they want anyway just by the threat, they get to change the laws and lives of Americans without a fight. Why is there a filibuster if it cannot be used to stop the abuse of power that will come absolutely if you don't try. I'm tired of a twisted logic saying there will be a tomorrow that resembles today when our system of government is going to change.

Dems to control anything again? They have Diebold.