I suppose this is good to keep the troops fired up

but, really, forget about filibuster.

They won the elections, they have the votes. Alito will be a justice and we might as well get used to it and really work on changing the composition of the Senate. We have less than 11 months to do so.

I have to wonder the damage that an attempt to filibuster will do to our chances to win the next elections. No, I am not a DLC troll. I want to win. I did not like Clinton's stand on the death penalty - still don't - but I voted for him. Twice.

I am not saying that we need to invoke Jesus' name or to compromise on women's rights to privacy to win the rednecks, the ones who get their news and commentary from their Sunday sermons.

I keep saying it here again and again. We know what matters to most voters. Their day to day making a living, providing for their families, good schools, decent jobs, access to health care and decent retirement. Talking about "killing babies" and "perverts" is easy to change the subject from jobs and health care.

This is where we need to make our point in simple language with real life examples. And filibustering Alito will interfere with this goal, will distract from it, pointing us as "not in touch with reality."

I suppose it is OK for Senators from blue states like Kerry and Finstein, or for Minnesota Dayton who is leaving his post. Yes, I want each and every one of our Senators to vote against Alito and to say why, but I am afraid that filibustering will damage our cause, certainly for the short term in 2006 but maybe for 2008.

OK, start shooting.

Choosing not to fight because you're a loser is worse.

Stand and deliver.

a filibuster.

I am thinking of the old civil rights debates where someone would just read from a bible, or from War and Peace, just to prevent a vote.

After reading Kerry's comments I certainly support him and others - as I stated above - explaining why Alito will be bad for the country.

Here is the definition from C-span http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/filibust.htm

"A Filibuster is the term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote."

Thus, even if Frist will not use the "nuclear option" how long is Kerry and others intend on talking, preventing a vote - the way the old Southerners did trying to prevent a vote on civil rights?

Do we want the "nuclear option?" Will this be something to carry to the poll? Will this damage the Senate forever? Is there anything worth saving in the Senate, at all?

Or do we want to keep hammering about the budget deficit, the disaster in Iraq, the loss of jobs and other issues that we do want to bring to the voters?

We still have Kennedy as the swing vote. We don't know how long he and Stevens can hang on. And I really have to wonder - I don't know - how much voters who do not log onto the Internet or who do not have cable - really follow and care about the Supreme Court. Does this fall into "I am feeling your pain?"

There obviously will be a filibuster. I just hope that it will not end up damaging us.

Come November, I will be the first one to say that I was wrong if this brings us more Senate seats. Right now this is the most important goal that we have. More than bringing our troops back from Iraq, more than finding bin Laden.

I did not have a problem with the IWR vote. Based on what everyone thought Saddam had WMD and it a resolution to allow the president to start a war, not mandating a war. I think that Clinton had plans to go to war in Iraq for the same reason, but he did not. There is a difference between allowing - when the claims have been found right and with the rest of the world going along - and mandating.

Now we know that the neocons had plans to go to Iraq even before the 2000 elections and they were just looking for an excuse.

Kerry's problem was that he was incapable - probably still is - in explaining the difference. I am quite certain that others senators did manage to.

Unfortunately with the world of sound bites one has to immediately say where one stands now. And if someone asks, the short reply, I suppose, would be "things change."

Ever think of taking a stand?

Gore did. Now it's back to pandering. Why can't that be the platform?

"Do just once what others say you can't do, and you will never pay attention to their limitations again."
- James R. Cook

I've been really involved with the filibuster campaign -- I've called, written faxes and e-mails, called and e-mailed friends and family, and I've been following the news.

However, today, two things occured to me:

1. I don't think Alito will overturn Roe v. Wade. He ruled, I think, in Pennsylvania that a law against late-term abortions was not Constitutional. In Casey, I believe he only ruled in favor of the notification because there WAS an exception for spousal abuse, incest and other such complications. He said, in his pitiful hearing that Roe was settled, and I, personally, don't think that the GOP REALLY wants to overturn it. I think Bush is pro-choice, as are his daughters and wife, and I think he's a fucking ACTOR.

2. Therefore, playing into the inevitability of a Roe overturn is kind of like helping out the right wing by mobilizing their base -- like a wedge issue for the Supreme Court hearings, used in the same way that they do (and intend to with a re-visitation of the Marriage Amendment, this summer) in the legislature. Without the loonie winger contingent, support for Alito might not be so strong. His "die-hard" confirmation rating (NQA), in the latest polls, are only at 33 percent. There are many "I don't knows." In fact, if you examine it critically, I don't think that the fetus cult has ANY MORE certainty in the fact that he will overtun Roe that we do that he won't. What they do have, however, is the word of their fringy legislators and their Mullahs. I was looking for the text of Bushler's fetus cult call-in, at their march, to see what I could read into it -- I haven't yet found it, so I will reserve certain comment on that aspect. Other than that -- what they clearly have is our fear, manifested in this filibuster thing. Does it help, or hurt?

3. The real danger with Alito is this concentration in the executive branch thing -- which unsettles me, and is the major libertarian sticking point against him. I look to the libertarians, to see how they feel about this confirmation, and they are split. Cato has kind of come out for it, saying he could be worse, while some of the less Repuke-leaning libertarians have voiced concerns. His explanation of his interpretation of the unitary executive theory (power within in the branch v. increasing executive power, overall) seems plausible.

Both of those things taken into account -- is this an extraordinary circumstance? I don't know. We have, of course, the high-profile instances of the shooting of the purse snatcher, and the strip search -- but those things can be based on rather nuanced intricasies of the law, and, perhaps, not as cut-and-dry as it seems. To say "Alito is in favor of strip-searching little girls," is most likely a logical fallacy.

I am concerned of course, but I always have the "running dialogue" of the detractor in my head, at all times. Believe me, I would HATE to hand the Republicans this victory -- and I HATE the gang of 14 deal, as an exercise in masochism by the Dems -- but, since they agreed to it, it makes the question relevant: what is, exactly, the extraordinary circumstance?

I support the filibuster to continue debate, because it's brusish of the Cat Killer to have to race the nomination forward -- there's simply no point in that, other than helping the Criminal in Chief score points at his State of Lying address. They're dispicable -- and it looks to be a long, hot summer for the pukes with Abramoff and the Plame thing, and they're counting on this as a victory to save their asses in the fall.

As to the question of whether or not it will hurt Dems, my answer is "I don't think so," as I posted, yesterday:

The short-term fallout for the Dems, if the filibuster is not well-received is the 2006 senate races. From what I can tell, the only Dems who are in danger, in red states, of potentially not being re-elected are that cat from Nebraska, and Byrd. Everyone else seems relatively safe.

I don't think, in 2008, with another no-holds-barred presidential campaign, that people are going to be quite as concerned with "who filibustered" Alito. In addition, the filibuster could help 2006 senate races in Montana -- Burns is hanging on by a thread, and if it is clear to Montanans that the filibuster was to stop "big government," it can only help. The way I see it, that's the ONE red state who actually means the whole conservative thing, and not the fascism thing. It could also help sink Chaffee, by giving him his "whose side are you on, anyway?" moment. The only dem who is REALLY in danger of losing her seat is Cantwell, and, despite the fact that I hate her, I think she'll hold on. I think the open seats in Minnesota, NJ and Maryland are all good.

If Byrd and Nelson vote for Alito and don't support the filibuster, the threat is avoided -- and they're both leading, BTW.

The latest polls show that ONLY 47 percent say to confirm Alito NQA, while a slightly different poll shows that he has only 33 percent of solid approval.

If the Dems filibuster, it dares the pukes to force a rule change, which could have political fallout for them -- first of all -- they DO NOT HAVE THE POLITICAL CAPITAL -- to be forcing a right-wing wacko SC justice on the nation. Second, this would be a handy way to remind the populace of this, while the Democrats look stronger as an opposition party. I think that the right momentum could HELP the 2006 Senate races, and could be the ONLY possilbe event, short of anything catastrophic, that would tip the balance soundly in favor of the Democrats.

I think that the Dems hiding behind the "what will the public think of the obstructionists" are putting on a front for some other reason. Far as I can tell, the path is wide open for a filibuster.

I would like to add that I called Alito a "right-wing wacko" before I read his opinions -- I'm not saying that I've changed my mind, only that I'm mulling it over, carefully. At the very least, he's right-wing. What kind of right wing -- is my question. The social authoritarians, to me, are far more threatening than the "less big government" kind. He might be a little of both, but maybe not as much as we expect. Like I said -- I'm not sure, and truthfully, it is exasperating to read all of the opinions, but I don't think you could call me lazy sheep citizen. I just need a break. It would be great if some manic person would read all of the opinions and give a summary. Or maybe they have, but I just missed it.

**Edited for grammar, which I'm sure is still poor, but I've got swirly eyes from reading so much.

on item #1: Alito did not say in his hearing that Roe was 'settled law', and he was asked this question repeatedly.

Roberts, on the other hand, said in his hearing that he considered Roe to be settled law - probably a lie, but that's what he claimed to believe.

I agree with everything that you said, including raising the issues of executive power.

Yes, I would like to delay the vote to after the SOTA and I would like for each senator to raise the issue of concerns. Will be good for campaigning back home.

But after everyone has spoken - on the issues, not reading from War and Peace - I would like to keep the whatever left of the decorum of the Senate and to vote a yes or no.

(Not that Frist and others will now a decorum if one hits them on the head; not that many voters in the red states would, either, but it would not cost us to try to keep it. The GOP used to, but they have long abandoned it.)

what we say or think. It is over, we are done, prepare for the de-evolution of our country to third world status and complete elimination of individual citizens rights. Survive on the land and defend it with whatever means are available.

who are willing to serve, who bring fresh ideas and style - I am still hopeful.

I have to. Otherwise might as well curl up in a fetal position and wait for the end.

I don't have to agree with everything the new comers say, but as long as there are people who are willing to fight for the contract between government and citizens, not between government and the oil, arm and pharmaceutical industries, there is still hope.

Tell your average worker tgat Alito will make it a lot harder to have any workplace rights.

I hate to be tacky, but tell your average good old boy that he might not be able to look at adult entertainment.

Tell your average driver that if they get beat up for a traffic ticket the SC may not give them any legal recourse

Tell your average woman that she will no right to either have birth control or get an abortion

Tell your average local community that they may lose the right to zone and plan

Those are all of the kinds of issues that will direrctly affect real people in the real world as a result of this.

We need to reduce the debate to sixth grade level. Unfortunately. If they are talking about "baby killing" and "perverts" than we need to talk about jobs, and visit to the doctors, and abandoning grandma and grandpa to choose between food heat.

I don't think there's much the Wingnuts can say can say about the Dems that will seriously injure them further. Filibuster, successful or not, cannot be easily spun into "damaging our cause." The Repugs have blocked far more appointees than Dems. We have a right to try everything we have to block their appointee. Forget about how using our right to filibuster will 'appear.'

Polite strategy doesn't work so well against tyrants.