SORRY, FILIBUSTER WON’T WORK… Here's why.

[mb7588a]

I know it sucks, but here’s how it breaks down into two outcomes by the Senate rules. Spread this around.


1.) Democrats filibuster: There are 43 Dems (only sure exclusion is Ben Nelson (D-NE)) and one Independent that COULD sustain a filibuster. It takes 41 votes to defeat cloture. They could possibly have a couple moderate Republicans join them (Snowe? Collins? Chafee?).

Then two things can happen…

1.a.) Republicans do not invoke cloture (less than 60 votes): NUCLEAR OPTION is done by Frist and Cloture rules are changed from super majority to simple majority. 50 or more Republican Senators can then invoke cloture with Cheney’s tie-breaking vote. There is then 30 hours of debate, 15 hours on each side, and a vote is taken at the end. Now see 2.a. or 2.b. below.

1.b.) Republicans do invoke cloture (60+ votes): Debate is limited to 30 hours, 15 hours for each party. Then the vote is held and you can skip down to the next possible outcomes at number 2.a. and 2.b


Oooooooooorrrrrr…


2. Democrats don't filibuster: vote is held.

Then two things can happen…

2.a.) 51 or more Senators vote against confirmation. Alito confirmation is dead.

2.b.) 50 or more senators vote for confirmation with Cheney's tie-breaking vote. Alito is confirmed.


IT WILL TAKE 51 NAY VOTES TO KILL THIS NOMINATION. Any way you slice it, he's confirmed. Democrats don't seem to have a tool to stop it.

Here's the support for saying the NUCLEAR OPTION is a real possibility:
Paraphrase of Steve Schmidt (WH Counsel in charge of Alito nomination, and future campaign manager for Arnold Schwarzenegger) on MSNBC today: "The Senate must now do its Constitutional duty to give Judge Alito an up or down vote." There's no way Bush withdraws his nomination.

Then the Senate is no longer a sacred institution after the nuclear option is used.

The variable I’m not sure about is the gang of 14.
Wikipedia: “The Gang of 14 made an agreement whereby the seven Democrats would no longer vote along with their party on filibustering judicial nominees (except in "extraordinary circumstances"), and in turn the seven Republicans would break with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and the Republican leadership on voting for the "nuclear option." Due to the near-tie in votes between the two parties, the agreement of these Senators practically prevents either side from winning a simple majority to pass either the filibuster or the change to congressional rules.”

That's the White House talking point. Bah. America is fucked. Unless I’m missing something, and please please please tell me how if I am.

[Mass]

1. I dont get 2 a)

If they dont filibuster (assuming you mean vote against cloture), the Democrats would need 50 votes to win. It wont happen, but if it happens, there is little that the Republicans can do.

[mb7588a]

8. my bad. will edit. thank you. nt.

[flpoljunkie]

68. First R's have to get 51 votes to change the filibuster rules. May not be

so easy.

See this post. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2389214&mesg_id=2389214

[rockymountaindem]

2. Option 2a is wrong

It already only takes 50 Senators to confirm a justice if it goes to a vote.

[Coexist]

5. Correct.

[jsamuel]

3. NO MORE POLITICAL POSTURING WHILE ABANDONING OUR PRINCIPLES

THAT IS WHY WE ARE IN IRAQ!

[seabeyond]

10. how are they abandoning principles voting against, arguing against

yet in no way able to stop it because the repugs have the vote. that makes no sense. blame the americna people that voted these repugs in, blame alito for being such a pig. blame bush. but it is absurd to blame the dems on this. doesnt logically make any sense

[jsamuel]

14. did I say I was "blaming" anyone, NO, I said that Dems need to stand up

for their democratic principles and FIGHT. No more posturing, fight for what they believe in TOOTH AND NAIL.

[seabeyond]

16. abandoning principles. that is what you are saying

right in your subject line. wasnt a pat on the back to dems.

they are standing up and fighting btw

[jsamuel]

27. so you are saying that I can't criticize them if they don't filibuster?

I am not threatening to "leave the party."

But you are saying that I am not allowed to criticize them if they don't filibuster. That is bullshit.

[seabeyond]

44. i have watched them time and again kick ass

i have seen them take a nation of americans controlled by brainwashing, a press that villifies and demeans and ridicules everything they say and i have watched a repug party bash in lie after lie after lie never called on a single damn thing.... i have watched dems have SPINES over and over. people rah the moment the dems do something, and then in a flash the moment is gone and dems are spineless again. yet we say it is just constructive critizism. you say but i can want a filibuster. that isnt what your post was about, it was dems are abandoning principles.... pretty tough talk..... abandoning principles. i see no signs of the democratic party as a whole abandoning their principles. i think they stand tall on principles

can you criticize? you can do whatever you damn well please. i will challenge your position that dems are abandoning their principles. i think, that is full of shit and wussy thinkin. since we get to just constructively criticize. no harm, no foul right

[jsamuel]

55. I was refering to those in the party like Ben Nelson who abandon Democrati

c principles to vote for Alito. You have a problem with that?

I am extreamly proud of Reid, Pelosi and Dean over the past year and have been angry at those who have been calling for their resignations over the past couple of weeks. You are attacking me thinking I am someone I am not.

[seabeyond]

61. so your criticizism is one two three dems. ok. i can go for that

not how you post sounded though.

i too am very proud of the dems that are working their ass off. and i always tend to stand up for the people that are doing right, when others accuse them of doing wrong.

[jsamuel]

73. yes, very much

I do, however, still hold a grudge for those who voted for the Iraq War Res. I felt at that time, that many of them voted yes even though they knew better. Even though it may not have stopped the war, they should have voted their hearts and for democratic principles and voted no.

Many of them have learned a lesson or two. For example, the Patriot Act was another one (99-1) and now we filibustered it. But that is why I like Feingold, he was that ONE. A leader...

[seabeyond]

80. i just see things a little more grey. i am not nearly so black

and white. these people are representitive of the people, all the people. go back to the time of those votes and see where the people were. and what the dems said, even in voting for those two, but especially what repugs did with the patriot act. so many circumstances in that vote that was unknown to the people. people in fear yelling for it. the dems couldnt even read the damn thing before the vote. and they put protections in it where they had issues, on what they found. they are just simply people. they are not super heros.

and no one dislikes the patriot act as much as i, or losing rights, or having someone telling me i am suppose to be afraid. i just dont live that way. but i am not just 1 in a whole nation. there are many other voices that factor in. we look at the past from eyes of today and a lot of things have happened since that gives us a lot of knowledge, awareness that we did not have then.

who would of thunk, that our lyin president, that we knew was a lyin president, was THIS MUCH of a lyin president. he was my govenor, i knew he was a lyin dog, but didnt think he could get away with what he has gotten away with to this point.

[jsamuel]

83. well, I did thunk it, maybe I expected them to be smarted than me

But over the years I have realized that yes they are real people and unfortunately many get confused by side issues. See, if it were me up there, I would have voted against the patriot act for the sole reason that "the dems couldn't even read the damn thing before the vote". Do you sign your name to whatever your mechanic hands you without reading it? But that is me...

[seabeyond]

85. what state were you representing. i would suggest that probably

you would have been voted out. and seeing how we were already losing seats in that election, keeping as many seats as we could was mighty important, as we see today in the alito vote. you make all this sound so easy. it is not. again that ole black and white thinking. and many people and congress people felt the need for a patriot act. you and i were in the far minority

[jsamuel]

88. well, look at Feingold, he wasn't voted out, in fact he is now a possible

presidential candidate, partially because of that vote (and he is in Wisconsin, not exactly the liberal capital of the world) (I was in Florida at the time)

I just don't subscribe to the belief that voting against one's principles is ever good. "You may call me a dreamer... but I am not the only one." - John Lennon

The only way they stopped that man was by making his heart stop by bullet.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

62. Unless you can name another Dem from Nebraska that can win,

yes, I do have a problem with that. We need every seat we can get.

[seabeyond]

81. and you are right. not going to be like a clamoring of dems

running in that area

[jsamuel]

82. well, I'll have to let Nebraska DU'ers handle that

my opinion is that if there is a better Dem candidate, then may the best candidate win

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. Thank you.

One of the most logical things I've read here in a long time.

[TheFarseer]

119. Thank you

that's what I've been saying. If we want some power over court nominees, we need to win some elections. That's the bottom line and no rah rah, we need to fight can change that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. No, we were in Iraq no matter what.

You fail to understand that point.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KnowerOfLogic]

110. Not really; a strong showing of opposition could have made a difference

but i guess we'll never know. It sounds like you're looking for an excuse to roll over.

[Caution]

4. so-called "nuclear option" isn't an option in a very dicey

election season for these guys. If they continue to push the American public they WILL get pushed back. Things look very bad for them in the mid-terms that are coming up and changing a senate rule like this one would not sit well with their constituents.

[mb7588a]

15. I'm not so sure...

most normal people don't understand the rule change. Some might even agree with it.

I don't reject your stance, just want to say rather that it could go either way. Could help, could hurt. Spin is a tough thing to predict.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. Polls say only 38% think a filibuster is justified.

That alone makes nuclear a lot less dicey.

[endarkenment]

29. Gallup poll: suspect to start with. nt.

[MADem]

56. You are too kind--they are routinely off by ten points or more! n/t

[Burning Water]

30. Maybe, maybe not.

The Repuke "constituents" want Alito. Polls that I've seen indicate that the American people either want Alito, or are at least indifferent to the issue.

But I seriously doubt that the vast majority of the American people, Dem, Repuke, or other, get as worked up about procedural rules such as the filibuster and cloture, as do we political junkies.

I actually think that we shouldn't try to predict how Republican voters will react to such-and-such a move by the President. They don't think like Democrats, and Democrats don't think like them. It could be that their issues are more important to them than personal or political scandals. It could be that our argument are not as persuasive to them as they are for us because they look at the world through a different filter.

IMO, we need to concentrate on ourselves, and what we should do to improve our position rather than waste time trying to find "wedge" issues for the Republicans. That may work to destroy the votes for one in the primaries, but in the general election, there will only be two choices, and the Repukes will hold their noses and vote for the Republican. "Wedge" issues seem to work much better at destroying Democrats if numerous threads on this site are any indication. Besides, Repukes don't get mad at Bush* for not being moderate enough. Generally they are upset because he hasn't moved fast enough on cranking the country right. The best that can happen for us is if they sit out the election. But I don't think that they will, especially if Hillary is the nominee, as I fear she will be.

[mom cat]

52. Agreed.

[onenote]

97. "up or down vote" == much more easily understood slogan

The typical voter doesn't give a crap about Senate rules, particularly one that allows a minority to basically block action. We live in a society in which the team with most points wins. To the average person, the filibuster makes about as much sense as giving a basketball team that is down by 10 points with a minute to play the option of calling a time out, standing on the sidelines and refusing to allow the game to come to an end.

Personally, I'm torn about the filibuster. I hated it when it was used in an attempt to block civil rights legislation, but I was happy to see it used to stop various judicial appointments during chimpy's first term.

But I think the average person wont' find the "nuclear option" to be very offensive.

onenote

[Yupster]

116. If I were Bush

I wouldn't go "nukular" for a while if there's a filibuster.

I would let the Democratic senators talk for a few days at least keeping them on the floor 24 hours a day.

I'd also have my tv ad campaign ready to go on day one. My theme would be "Ask the Democratic senators to end their temper tantrum. If you don't like Judge Alito, then vote against him, but X number of days of delaying the vote is enough. It's time to vote. That's what you've been elected to do. So what will it be? Yes or No."

I'd also have a string of bills that would be passed in the House that would help particular groups of average Americans that would be "held hostage" to the crybaby senators who won't stop talking long enough to vote.

In short I'd try for a replay on the Newt Gingrich shut-down.

Since the republican leaders can no doubt see the geneic preference poll results, they must know they're heading for a whupping at this year's polls. If I was Bush I would use this showdown to try to completely turn the tables and prove the Democratic leaders are not capable of governing.

I'd let it go on for weeks if I could and focus group and poll and advertise heavily the whole time. If public opinion ever looked like it was turning against the republicans, then they could go nuclear at any time and quickly end it and change the subject to something else.

But as long as public opinion remained on their side, they could milk the filibuster for every Jay Leno Ted Kennedy joke he could think of day after day.

[samhsarah]

6. This whole filibuster thing is very confusing....

All I can say is, if it was not an option at all, don't you think some senator would have come out and said it by now? And if the Pukes go nuclear, wasn't the plan that the Dems would shut the house down? I don't know, maybe you are right. It just seems that if there was no chance of defeating this nomination, someone in the position to would have told us that now. If for nothing else, just to get some peace and quiet in their staffer offices and from their fax machines. lol

[mb7588a]

24. well, i hope i'm wrong, if that's any consolation.

I'd like to see them stand up for their principles.

fucking do it. filibuster. they want to. they ought to.

The problem is the spin. Reason takes over at that point. Dems can't control the spin. If Repbus nuke, they're cheaters. If Dems shut it down, they're obstructionists. The hardest thing to predict in politics is spin. No way to know who wins that argument.

[samhsarah]

42. Fuck the spin. There's nothing left to lose....

But then again, I guess that's easy for me to say as I sit in front of my computer. Don't know how well it will play out in politics. I just hope the Dems get our message this time. We're sick of people playing politics with our lives and our childrens lives. I think if they just go all out b*lls to the wall with this one, they will be pleasantly surprised. Spin will be there either way, if they don't filibuster, they're weak to us, if they do, they're obstructionists to ShrubCo. Either way they lose, but if they go down fighting, they regain some of their dignity and that can only be a good thing.

[endarkenment]

60. I agree.

I am so sick of our NOT FIGHTING. Remember the day Harry Reid took the senate down over the 2nd half of the Intelligence Committee investigation? Remember how great it felt to actually have our party stand up and fight, stand and say NO! Jesus, what is wrong with us that we are so scared to lose?

[samhsarah]

67. What a great day!!!

I still smile thinking about it:+

[endarkenment]

78. By NOT using the fillibuster WE LOSE.

It is really quite simple. By not using the fillibuster we will have allowed the Republicans to change the rules of the senate without their having to actually change the rules of the senate. By not standing up and fighting for core party principals, we will once again play right into the meme of "Democrats are weak". By not forcing them to try to use the 'nukular option' we miss a golden opportunity to both show the public that we are the party of principles, willing to fight for what we believe in, and to demonstrate that they are a party of bullies who try to change the rules when the rules don't suit them.

[kcass1954]

86. We might very well lose and be stuck with scalito for the next 30 years,

but dammit, let's go down fighting!

[mb7588a]

7. Gang of 14 Dems:

Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut (will vote no on Alito)
Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia
E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska (will vote yes on Alito)
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
Mark Pryor, Arkansas (does not see 'extraordinary circumstances')
Ken Salazar, Colorado

Can anybody fill the holes?

[AbbyR]

13. Where did Pryor say that?

I've called multiple times, and every time I tell his folks "If ever there was a time to use the filibuster, this is it."

I'm going to be SO mad if he doesn't do something. Not surprised, though. Even our Democrats down here are Republicans.

[mb7588a]

20. here you go:

Jan. 13 article.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3398109

Another of the group, Democrat Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, said he does not see extraordinary circumstances. "He hasn't heard that there's going to be one," Pryor spokeswoman Lisa Ackerman said. "I don't think there's interest in one."

[AbbyR]

100. Damn...

and thank you for letting me know. His father will be in town soon for a speech, and I intend to ask him if he agrees with his son's stand.

That's what I get for living in Arkansas - even our Democrats are Republicans.

[samhsarah]

47. Salazar will vote no

http://denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3419382

I'm checking the others right now. I actually think Nelson from Florida is one to worry about. I saw on Daily Kos last week that he is still up in the air

[mb7588a]

54. he is a no. nt.

[The White Tree]

63. It's not 14 Dems, 7 Dems, 7 Repubs

I think you got them all.

[mb7588a]

66. miscommunication:

what I meant to say was "The Dem members of the Gang of 14"

I do know it's 7 and 7, just can't write that :)

[cindyw]

9. You have to be willing to lose something of value to save this country.

It takes courage. Don't fear change. Fear leads to poor decisions.

[seabeyond]

12. courage or fears has nothing to do with repugs having more votes.

did you read what was laid out. what does that have to do with courage, or with fear. if all these dems vote against, if they filibuster, there is going to be the same end result. what is the answer to that? and how does dem get the blame?

[jsamuel]

22. and who told you what the end result will be?

you believe them?

'cause they know better?

[gratuitous]

11. The Senate isn't a sacred institution and never has been

But Alito can be confirmed by the Senate with a simple majority; the way I'm reading your post, you seem to think he needs 60 votes for confirmation, and that's not so.

If the Democrats decide to filibuster, they need only 41 votes to sustain the filibuster and defeat any proposal to limit debate. It's my personal feeling that the GOP has shot its bolt on the so-called nuclear option to do away with the filibuster as a parliamentary tool in the Senate. They're far too busy backing and filling right now, and having to take care of their own ethical problems to feel that the electorate will sit idly by while they dismantle the filibuster.

You may remember that prior to the Roberts nomination the GOP was practically daring the Democrats to filibuster, so they could invoke the nuclear option. But once the Democrats successfully stopped confirmation of John Bolton to the UN, the nuclear option became an empty threat. Right now, the GOP tactic is to paint Alito's confirmation as "inevitable," or a "slam dunk." They don't want a Democratic filibuster of Alito and they're trying to stampede their way to a straight party line vote. That says to me that they don't want to do away with the filibuster. And one of the other big reasons for that is that the GOP can count as well as we can, and there is a very real possibility that the Democrats might re-gain control of the Senate at the end of the year. They'll for sure want to have the filibuster available to them in that case, and doing away with it now just to get Alito on the Supreme Court would seem to be a pyrrhic victory.

[mb7588a]

19. i edited option 2.a.

don't know where i came up with my bad info on that. Sorry!

So you are saying the Dems should filibuster regardless of the nuclear option possibliity?

[gratuitous]

59. I'm saying the nuclear option is a bluff

And calling a bluff is the only way to beat it.

[endarkenment]

65. And to expand on the analogy

basically the nukular bluff has us folding at the ante on each hand. What a crock of shit. They've abolished the fillibuster without having to go through the embarassment of forcing a rule change. What a huge win for the creeps if we DON'T fillibuster.

[onenote]

98. why do you think that its a bluff?

seriously...why do you think the repubs wouldn't go through with it?

onenote

[gratuitous]

118. Sorry for the delay in responding

I think the GOP invoked the nuclear option stuff last year when they were at the unchallenged height of their powers. They were able to force a fragile and temporary truce with the "Gang of 14" Senators. But the GOP star has dipped appreciably toward the horizon since those heady days of untrammeled power, and they have many, many concerns beyond the filibustering of nominees for judgeships.

The majority of people polled don't think Alito should be confirmed, and the Democrats are eying the prospect of regaining a majority in at least one house of Congress come November. The GOP isn't about to jettison a very useful minority party tool for blunting the tyranny of the majority just at the time when they could resume minority status.

Their bellicose public pronouncements about "making my day" and "just try it" are designed to get the Democrats to roll over without a fight. Heaven knows that tactic has worked very well in the past. But sooner or later, the Democrats will have to call the Republicans on these threats, and I think this is a very good time to do so.

[sendero]

109. That is what I believe also.

.... if the Reps want Alito that bad, make them go nuclear. They will live to regret it, of that much I'm certain.

Frankly, I think Rep party discipline is so weak at this point in time, they can't pull it off.

NOW IS THE TIME TO TELL GEORGE BUSH that he cannot shove the congress around any more. He does not get a rubber stamp approval for everything he wants. NOW IS THE TIME to kick them while they are down.

There is SIMPLY NO DOWNSIDE to mounting a filibuster. Dems are seen by the American people as UNWILLING TO FIGHT for anything. Time to prove them WRONG.

[mmonk]

26. Since when?

Since now?

"But Alito can be confirmed by the Senate with a simple majority; the way I'm reading your post, you seem to think he needs 60 votes for confirmation, and that's not so."

[Marie26]

17. And even if we could defeat Alito

There's a ready army of Federalist Society, unitary executive supporters ready to take his place. And the Republicans & Bush would be so rallied & pissed that the next justice might be even more conservative (if that's possible).

[Czolgosz]

74. Alito is the worst case scenario. We have no fear of a "worse" alternate

nominee.

[Marie26]

79. Probably true

But there likely isn't a "better" alternate nominee either. I still kind of hope the Dems filibuster, just to take a stand. But they also have to consider the NSA hearings coming up soon.

[Czolgosz]

96. Of course there are better nominees. There have been short lists of

potential nominees circulating ever since Rehnquist was diagnosed with cancer. Of the top dozen or so potential nominees, about a third are equally bad as Alito, about a third are noticeably better, and about a third are like John Roberts and Harriet Miers -- too little background to know for sure whether they are equally bad or somewhat better.

For example, NONE of the most serious female candidates is as bad as Alito. Janice Rogers Brown WOULD qualify as equally bad as Alito but she has such a big mouth (she has actually admitted to the beliefs she shares with Alito) that she wouldn't even get all the Republican votes to confirm -- not because she's more radical than Alito, but because she's more candid.

[Marie26]

106. Sure

Oh, there are definitely better nominees, I agree with you. It's just that I think Bush's primary concern is expanding & approving executive power under the nutty "unitary executive" theory. So he's going to make sure anyone he nominates is a "sure bet" on that issue. Harriet Miers might not have much background, but as White House counsel, she personally approved the NSA spying program. That's why he appointed her. Alito wrote a memo approving "unitary executive theory" while at the DOJ - that's why he was nominated. There are many conservative judges out there, but I think unless they show that subservience to executive power, Bush isn't going to nominate them. He's not as dumb as he looks. It's in that sense that I believe anyone nominated will probably be just as bad (on this issue).

[mmonk]

18. Force them to screw up the constitution if they can sell

the nuclear option so the public can learn and the record can show where the blame lies. Filibuster or go the hell home.

[endarkenment]

25. You are assuming that nuclear option succeeds

you forgot 1.c) Frist attempts rule change and fails - we win

You left out 1.d) Frist attempts rule change and succeeds, Democrats follow through with threat to shut down senate with procedural motions that prevent any useful work including votes on alito - stalemate.

Screw this chickenshit bullshit. Stand up and fight. Win or lose, fight for what is right.

[mb7588a]

32. that's where the gang of 14 comes in dude,

I said I didn't know what that variable does to the situation because we don't know what all of them think. I guess I'll think it through now and edit...

If dems in the group filibuster, repubs vote for nuking? is that correct?

[mb7588a]

36. I think if any of the 7 dems filibuster the nomination,

the repubs vote for the nuke option. We lose.

If i'm right, your 1.C. is wrong.

[endarkenment]

43. We won't know until it happens.

The gang of 14 was a compromise worked out to get through one set of judicial nominations, it is not a 200 year old senate precedent.

Assuming that we can't win so we shouldn't try is simply defeatist thinking.

Is there a risk we will lose? Certainly, but there is also a good chance that we can win, and in losing we lose while standing up and fighting for our principals.

Is it a certainty that we lose if we don't try? Just about. There is next to zero chance that a simple vote will result in your miraculous Democratic victory scenario. Where are your republican votes coming from?

So the only chance of victory, unlike your original post's thesis, comes from playing the fillibuster option. It is now or never.

[mb7588a]

49. Explain how a stalemate is a victory. nt.

[endarkenment]

53. No alito. nt.

[onenote]

99. explain the "good chance" that we'll win?

The nuke option requires a majority of the repubs. If the Dems filibuster Alito, its a virtual certainty that a majority of repubs would support the nuke option. That's why they're emphasizing the "party line" vote in the COmmitteee.

Put another way: has a single repub come out and said they're voting against confirmation of alito?

onenote

[endarkenment]

117. I don't think that vote is a done deal.

Rule number one for bullies: If you let the bully get away with his demands without having to throw the punch: the bully wins and comes back for more.

[Coexist]

33. I hate to kick a thread with that title - but - great post

thanks for that.

[mb7588a]

35. You're welcome. nt.

[Coexist]

38. I was thanking endarkenment, actually.

I was agreeing with his/her post.

[endarkenment]

48. Endarkenment takes a bow! nt.

[mb7588a]

51. sorry. hate on me then :) hehe. nt.

[Coexist]

58. nah.... :0)

[mb7588a]

37. 1.d. i guess is actually a possiblity.

[Lerkfish]

31. Fighting disease won't work, here's why:

its too hard, and there will always be diseases no matter how many you cure.
a certain number of patients will die, despite our best efforts.

Therefore I propose we abandon medicine and assasinate anyone who gets sick.

:shrug:

[mmonk]

39. I second that

:rofl:

[jsamuel]

40. exactly, thank you

[kerry-is-my-prez]

34. We won't get anywhere until the public (constituents) agree.

Polls are showing that the majority of Merkins think he should be confirmed - which really means that the average Merkin is not paying attention and just doesn't give a crap - as usual.

[mmonk]

41. Pubic opinion is never a legitimate excuse

to give up our checks and balances. They must fight.

[tkmorris]

46. It's not that simple

The "average American" doesn't have the foggiest idea what drama is being played out here and thus has no real opinion on it. Many of those will default to the opinion that he should be confirmed because in the absence of reasons not to they think anyone should be.

Fighting it though will raise the public awareness considerably. A public and nasty fight will educate a lot more people about what is actually happening here and support will begin to swing our direction. Is it enough? I don't know.

Furthermore a successful vote against cloture will change the discussion from one about confirmation to one about whether the nuclear option is a viable political tactic and rest assured that a LOT fewer people support that.

[cascadiance]

50. If everything else is equal, one thing they WILL lose...

will be campaign contributions. If they don't LISTEN to us and fillibuster, many people like myself won't donate to the Democratic Party any more unless we go through special interest PACs like Moveon.org or Progressive Democrats for America, forcing the Dems to do more actions before they get blocks of money from them. We no longer will give blindly to the Democratic Party directly any more, since it will be shown that that method of trying to get them to listen to us doesn't do us any good!

[endarkenment]

57. Good point.

Dr. Dean, pay attention. Those Democracy Bonds are going to get devauled if you cannot convince your party to STAND AND FIGHT.

[yodermon]

64. so what is your recommendation to our Senate Dems

oh wise one

[mb7588a]

76. Well,

my intention was to inform. The rules of the Senate are often misunderstood on DU. I felt those calling adamantly for a filibuster didn't necessarily understand the process and ramifications.

I really don't know what the best course is for Dems (politician's answer, i know, i'm sorry).

If they go for the win by filibustering, the best that can happen is the Senate is shut down and in a stalemate and nobody can possibly predict what happens then.

If they don't filibuster, we have Sam Alito (via GWBush) fucking up America.

It's not the Dems's fault. So they could let him be confirmed and use it as a campaign issue in 2006 and 2008.

or

They could filibuster, take their chances on the stalemate, and hope the spin on "Repubs are cheaters" works better than the spin on "Dems are obstructionists."

The question that has to be answered is, "Which is better for campaigning?"

It's a conundrum. I pick pull the trigger, but I don't think it's going to happen. Our leadership tends to side with the more cautionary side of things.

[yodermon]

113. How 'bout this:

1) The Dems filibuster.
2) The repukes nuke it.
3) Alito confirmed
4) Dems campaign on "repukes are cheaters" as you say.
5) Dems retake both houses (!)
6) Dems are in control of Congress and repukes cannot filibuster bcz they nuked themselves in the foot.

Dunno. Could happen.

Downside: we still have Alito of course. But I don't think anyone on DU is under the illusion that we can possibly stop his appointment, so that's not the point.

The point is that IF Dems filibuster Alito can be confirmed ONLY if the 'pukes nuke it. The ball would be in THEIR court -- do they have the 'nads to actually go thru with it? Probably, but at least there is a question.

If Dems DON'T filibuster, then Alito definitely, absolutely gets in, WITHOUT question.

ugh i've rehashed this in my mind too many times, i'm sick of it, let's get the show on the road already!!

[mb7588a]

115. it's all i've been thinking about for a couple days.

your proposal isn't so bad. a bit of a dream but plausible.

[redqueen]

69. I'd say ever-expanding executive power counts as extraordinary.

Or perhaps they think Congress SHOULD be a rubber stamp to whoever's in the WH.

[MadHound]

70. Bring on the goddamn nuclear option then.

What the hell good is having the power to filibuster, yet be afraid to use it? Quite frankly at this point in time I think that the Republicans are drastically overestimating the support that they would have if they invoke this. The administration's numbers are in the toilet, and people are becoming sick of Republican scandals. Filibuster Alito, let the 'Pugs bring down the nuke, and then use procedurals to shut down the Senate and use the power of the bully pulpit to let Americans know exactly what's going on. I think you'll find that the American people will be, for the most part, supportive.

To let Alito go through, simply due to the fear of the nuke option is criminal, and will probably sound the death knell of the Democrats. Alito is a serious threat to all of us, and with the Dems demonstrating an ongoing lack of a spinal cord, if they cave again, many many people will walk away from the party in search of another that actually does act like an opposition party.

[mmonk]

77. Yes

"To let Alito go through, simply due to the fear of the nuke option is criminal, and will probably sound the death knell of the Democrats."

I think history will mark it as the end of the democratic party, if not fully, then for a long period of time.

[Czolgosz]

71. SORRY, VOTING REFORM WON’T WORK… Here's why

One of two things can happen:

1) Republicans get the most votes

orrrrrrrr

2) Republicans hack the election

We may as well give up and pass around the Republican talking points for all to read and believe.

[Wordie]

72. Dem Senators to Frist: WE CALL YOUR BLUFF! (It needs to be shouted!)

You are making the assumption that the Republicans want you to make, that the Republicans really would exercise the nuclear option. That is not a certain thing. Frist made the threat at a time when the Republicans were sitting pretty, and Bush was convinced that he had a "mandate" and that he was going to "exercise his political capital." (Remember that?)

The circumstances have changed dramatically. There have been Republican scandals over ethics violations; the President's "mandate" has disappeared, and Republicans are worried that he is going to pull them down with him in their next elections (and for some of them, that means just a few months from now); the President has been caught in a lie to the American public,and when discovered, he not only was not apologetic, he said it was within his purview as the President to exercise his executive authority to do so (Alito is on record supporting the expansion of executive powers). We read in the papers recently that the government has attempted to obtain Google the records of American citizens; after one unpopular war, there are rumors of plans by the Bush administration that we may be led into yet another; high-level Bush administration officials are under indictment.

Yes, the political landscape has changed dramatically since the threat was first made by Frist. Frist has had problems keeping frightened Republicans in line. They jumped ship on the Anti-torture Act, that the President was against, approving it by a huge bi-partisan consensus. Then Bush attached a signing statement, essentially saying he could over-rule any parts of the Anti-torture Act that he didn't like (Alito was the one to develop the use of the signing statement, when he worked for the Reagan White house, and is on record as supporting them as a legitimate tool to expand executive power).

Want more? I could go on. The circumstances are different. We are assuming that the nuclear option would be invoked, because the Republicans have told us so. We should not make that mistake.

Wiki has a lot more to say than what you quoted. Here is just a bit:

Supporters of the right to filibuster argue that the Senate has a long tradition of requiring broad support to do business, due in part to the threat of the filibuster, and that this protects the minority.

And...
The legality of the nuclear option has been challenged. (emphasis mine) The Senate parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, was appointed by Senator Lott. Furmin is an ostensibly neutral staff member and appointed keeper of the Senate's rules, and is opposed to the nuclear option.<2> It's been reported that a Congressional Research Service report "leaves little doubt" that the nuclear option would not be based on previous precedents of the Senate.<3>

The wiki article about the nuclear option is quite detailed, presents a variety of reasons why it should not be invoked, and worth a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Option

[Coexist]

75. then SHOUT IT! Start this as its own thread

it deserves it - more exposure.

[Wordie]

84. OK, I did. Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x229439

[LaPera]

87. That's not really the fucking point, now is it!!!!

It's to be heard and have the democrats expose Alito, who he REALLY is (and if you don't know by now, I won't bother to go into it for you).

Democrats absolutely must show that they will stand up to the republicans (and to do what's right). And NOT continue to be the spineless, mealy-mouth do nothing Dems...

This is a win, win situation for the democrats, IF they filibuster!!!!

They win by standing up to the republicans, getting their message on all media in the days to come (and in the end if Alito is confirmed, it was better than just sitting on their asses do nothing but taking republican shit...as you purpose).

They also win, if filibuster is successful!!!

The filibuster is indeed a win, win situation for the democrats!!!!

[seabeyond]

89. oh go figure so it isnt about keeping alito out, but a SHOW

hey all rootin for the filibuster, you do realize the point isnt about keeping alito out, just about letting everyone know we are pissed adn not spineless..... i kow htis is how we show we arent spineless, do something non effective. confesses me our dems have spine yeehaw.

do nothins. geez..... what a disgrace.

i am not opposed to filibuster, think it will be a blast and since i have all the confidence in my dems, i am sure they will kick ass, do it well, and be a fine show for all. but i also like reality to pop its little head out now and again. and doesnt hurt for people to actually know the reality, than to pretend otherwise

but good dem bashin you have going there

[LaPera]

92. Speak for yourself...if you are able!!!!

As I wrote..."if the filibuster is successful" it's a win for the Dems and us. As I also wrote, little brain, "Its to do what's right!!!! But some as yourself, want to lie down and know it's over, 55 to 45...get fuckin real, dude!!!

Go learn something..understand your mush...silly, silly little man!!!

As long as you "think it will be a blast" what more could a fossilized dino dem want!!!

[seabeyond]

94. then if all else fails, make no sense and throw a tantrum, wink n/t

[LaPera]

95. You've done it well...Do you also teach? 'Duh, what you say'? n/t

[flyarm]

90. BULL ..JUST PLAIN BULL WHAT DO WE WIN WITHOUT

FILIBUSTER..LEGAL FASCISM????????? A DICTATOR?????????

bullshit..filibuster is all we do have left..the real nuclear option will be against all americans if the dems don't filibuster!..our democracy will be nuked!

bullshit to all nay sayers...our only option for our republic to survive is the filibuster..there is no other there-there!

i will say it loud and clear..our only chance of surviving this evil empire is filibuster!

fly

[onenote]

102. so how does killing off the filibuster help?

It is unlikely that the repubs would use the nuke option in the case of lower court nomination. But there is no doubt in my mind that they'll use it to stop a filibuster of Alito if the filibuster is entirely along party lines, which seems almost certain. So they kill the filibuster through the nuke option and we have lost both the Alito nomination and the possibility of filibustering a nominee in the future that might (and I admit its a very slim chance) be opposed by a couple of repubs as well as dems. If there is any bi-partisanship in the opposition, it gets much harder to invoke the nuke option. Moreover, once invoked for Alito, it increases the likelihood it would be invoked for lower court judges,where it is far less likely to be invoked otherwise.

So as much as I wish we could stop the Alito nomination, I'm having trouble seeing how we do that. And if the choice is losing Alito and keeping the filibuster opition available for lower court judges and (remotely) for the SCOTUS appointment, or losing Alito and the filibuster option, I'd go with the former.

Again, if some repubs would stand up and say that they oppose Alito, I might change my view, but I haven't heard of any yet.

onenote

[cascadiance]

107. Earlier we were letting lower court nominees go through...

... without fillibustering them, saying that we don't want to "use up" our silver bullet on them, but save it for a supreme court nominee.. Well, which is it! The time to use it is NOW! A silver bullet that is never used isn't useful!

[The Onyx Key]

91. Dammit, mb! Don't bring logic into this situation!

:P

[Wordie]

101. Illogical to omit item 1.c.): Nuclear option fails. Alito is out. eom

[onenote]

103. not illogical to eliminate a fantasy

Under what scenario does the nuclear option fail?

onenote

[Wordie]

104. The gang of 14 agreed that a filibuster could be made when

there were "extraordinary circumstances." Do we know exactly what that means? I can't say I understand with perfect clarity what they meant, but it is clear that there were intended to be exceptions to the ban on filibusters of judicial nominees, made by the Gang of 14 as part of their agreement; filibusters were not ruled out entirely.

There are also other questions, as I understand it, about whether the nuclear option would be a legal move, under the Senate rules.

Further, as I mentioned upthread, it is not clear that Frist has the same control over the Republicans as when the nuclear option was first threatened. He may not be able to muster the votes to exercise the nuclear option. There may be Republicans unwilling to go along with so draconian a move.

You can take a look at my earlier post, or see the new thread I posted on the issue, upthread also.

[in_cog_ni_to]

120. If THIS isn't an "extraordinary circumstance", NOTHING

will be. If saving the Constitution and our Democracy isn't an Extraordinary circumstance, something's wrong.

I still want to know what the Democrats got out of that shitty gang of 14 deal. The repukes got their rabid judges. Where's ours?

THIS IS OURS! Filibuster! SCREW the repukes! Call their bluff.

[mb7588a]

111. I know Onyx...

Reason and logic are not allowed at DU. i keep forgetting!

[Snivi Yllom]

93. if you mean 'wont work' by not stopping Alito, you are correct

he's going to be confirmed, he's got the votes, by traditional confirmation or via the nuclear option


if filibustering means sending a message that means something else

[cascadiance]

105. It also pushes the Republicans into uncomfortable positions too..

Voting for nuclear option (or failing to get the nuclear option) can both be used against the Republicans in the following election and they know it. This is a battle of wills.

Yes, technically the Republicans have all of the means to get Alito in. The question is how. I say, make it more difficult, and force them to use measures that they will have to answer for more in an election. If the Democrats in the process are standing firm on their resistance to him, even in defeat, they will win a lot more in subsequent elections than the Republicans. Pushing them to this precipice just may, just may, get some of the Rethugs to vote against Alito either in the direct vote or in the fillibuster, or in urging the president to withdraw Alito's nomination, if the fillibuster succeeds in shutting down the Senate without the votes to "nuke" it long enough.

With fillibustering we still might have a hope of shutting down Alito, and that would be a battle worth winning of course. But even if they don't win in the sense of preventing Alito to getting to the bench, the Dems win in other ways by solidifying their base behind them, and making the Republicans that much more vulnerable if they are too strident in their support for Alito in the course of fighting this fillibuster, which may show himself to be the tip of a court that the public will start to resent heavily soon.

I really don't see how the Dems really lose anyting by doing a fillibuster. Even if they don't get all of the votes they need to solidify a fillibuster, those Dems that don't fillibuster will also be "exposed", and we can make them pay in subsequent elections too, which in the long run is a win for a *true* Democratic party if and when we can get rid of the DINOs.

[mb7588a]

112. yes what i meant was,

filibuster doesn't keep alito from being confirmed.

i dunno if stalemate achieves that or not. nobody does.

[kentuck]

108. That is why Reid does not want to show his hand right away...

With a few speeches given, we may have a better idea of where the moderate Repubs stand. But, if they don't and the Repubs go the nuclear option, then so be it. That is a radical move and will be an issue in November. And the Repubs are scared shitless of November...

[IndyOp]

114. If we can only filibuster with Rethug permission then it is meaningless..

That is where we are *right* now - the filibuster is meaningless if we wait for Rethugs to say when a situation is sufficiently extreme that we can filibuster. Bullshit.

Filibuster NOW. If they go for nuclear then the Senate Dems and the rest of Amurka realizes exactly how far beyond acceptable the Rethugs have gone -- just seeing the Rethugs go nuclear *is* useful in and of itself.

Right now they are in complete control.

We lose nothing by having them change the rules from 60 to 51 votes required to invoke cloture. We will wake up some Dems and Rethugs if the hardliner Rethugs do it...