If you have any friends/family who need the filibuster issue clarified...

[WilliamPitt]

in terms of the actual mechanics of what is going on, this article is an excellent resource:

===

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0128-21.htm

Mr. Smith Comes to Washington
by Paul Savoy

How many senators does is take to launch a filibuster? If you said 41, you’d be wrong. It takes only one.

The term, filibuster, from a Dutch word meaning "pirate," describes a hallowed tradition of unlimited debate in the Senate based on the principle that any senator has the right to talk his head off for as long as he wants on any issue. That is, until at least 60 senators vote to shut him up.

In the classic Frank Capra film, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," Jimmy Stewart, playing freshman Senator Jefferson Smith, carries on a one-man filibuster for more than 23 hours until he passes out from exhaustion. Smith, an idealistic senator from an unnamed state, reads from the Declaration of Independence, and summons his colleagues to get up there with that Lady of Liberty on top of the Capitol Dome and take a stand against "compromise with human liberties."

Senator John Kerry, in announcing that he and Senator Edward Kennedy would participate in a filibuster against the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, said, "It’s not ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’ . . . It takes more than two or three people to filibuster successfully."

At least five other Democrats have announced their support for the filibuster: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Minority Leader Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. But, in trying to block the confirmation, each of these senators may have to be a "Senator Smith" to succeed in demonstrating the danger a Justice Alito would pose to civil rights and civil liberties.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter has defended Judge Alito’s refusal to answer specific questions from Democratic senators aimed at showing the American people just how frightening a Justice Alito would be. The distinguished senator from Pennsylvania has declared that the nominee "has answered questions as far he could go." Judge Alito said it would not be "appropriate" for a judicial nominee to express his views on issues that might come before him if he were appointed to the Court. Well, it turns out that Judge Alito and Senator Specter are wrong. Who says? The Supreme Court. That’s who says.

In 2002, the Supreme Court, in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, declared that it is not only proper for a judicial candidate to express his views on disputed legal issues -- the First Amendment guarantees him the right to do so. In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, and joined by then-Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, the Court concluded that a Minnesota canon of judicial conduct which prohibited a candidate for judicial office from announcing his position on abortion rights and other controversial issues violated his right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

...much more, read it...

[babylonsister]

1. Thanks, Will. It's being sent. nt

[0007]

2. Judge Alito and Senator Specter are wrong.

The Minnesota decision yields three fundamental constitutional principles:

First, a judicial nominee has a First Amendment right to express his specific legal views on controversial issues even if they are likely to come before him should he be confirmed.

Second, a necessary corollary of the nominee’s right to express his views is the right of the people and their representatives in the Senate to know them. This right entitles the people to know not only a nominee’s judicial philosophy or general legal views, but, according to the Court in the Minnesota case, how those views are "exemplified by application to a particular issue of construction likely to come before court -- for example, whether a particular statute runs afoul of any provision of the Constitution."

Third, and most important, in the absence of specific answers to senators’ questions about a nominee’s views, his confirmation would be a violation of the Constitution’s Article II requirement that the Senate exercise its "Advice and Consent" function in an informed manner. This implication from the Court’s Minnesota decision, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained in her dissent, is clear: "y the court’s reasoning, the reticence of prospective and current federal judicial nominees dishonors Article II, for it deprives the President and the Senate of information that might aid or advance the decision to nominate or confirm."

The Court specifically rebuffed the kinds of arguments Judge Alito’s supporters have made in defense of his refusal to answer questions about whether he believes Roe v. Wade should be overruled, or if the President acted unlawfully when he ordered electronic eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant. Announcing his views, Alito’s defenders argue, would compromise his impartiality. They say that a preconceived view about the law would make a judge less open-minded in deciding particular cases.

[liberalla]

10. Very good info! Thanks!

[Coexist]

3. this is a fantastic article

thanks for posting it. Here is a very interesting part:

<snip>
"A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted after the confirmation hearings shows that 54 percent of the American people support Judge Alito’s appointment. But when asked about their support if they became convinced Alito would overturn Roe, opinions dramatically shifted: from 54 percent in favor, to 56 percent against his confirmation.

The people’s "right to know" is therefore central to the confirmation process. So, it is hard to understand why Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee were not trumpeting the Supreme Court’s Minnesota decision from the Capitol Dome. Whatever the reason, the effect has been to keep the people in the dark about a constitutional right to know a nominee’s legal views."

[orleans]

4. great. thanks will. n/t

[ellenfl]

5. thanks for the civics lesson. it has been shared! eom

[WilliamPitt]

6. .

[Nutmegger]

7. This is great information, thanks WilliamPitt!!! [nt]

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Great article

Thanks

[FogerRox]

9. Polls seem to be on our side

, Fax to Holdouts


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=266798&mesg_id=266798