The New York Times urges Democrats to filibuster Alito:
It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public’s attention to the import of this nomination.
And I agree. Of course the man is qualified, and of course the Democratic attacks in the hearings were lame, but this guy creeps me out. He’s just too deferential to government power and just doesn’t seem to be sufficiently impressed by the Bill of Rights. A conservative President is surely entitled to nominate a conservative judge, but said nominee needs to be a little more ballsy when it comes to striking down examples of Congressional over-reach.
Bush can do better than Alito, and he should be encouraged to try again. Third time’s a charm.
Good for you! I wrote my senators saying “forget abortion, gay rights, all that crap. It’s the It’s OK if You’re President to Break the Law thing that is most bothersome.
But they probably can’t hold a filibuster- and yet again Joe Liberman will likely vote against Alito after he voted for him by voting for cloture.
Interesting. Constitution calls for advise and consent and you call for the extraconstitutional filibuster. Good thing you were not around in 1964 when Byrd tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act
don:
Evidently you haven’t read the Constitution; otherwise you’d know that a) the Senate is free to set its own rules other than for specifics like approving treaties, constitutional amendments and what-not, b)for all other votes, no voting requirement or procedure is specified.
Filibusters for judges are completely constitutional, just as if the Senate had instituted a rule requireing 60 senators for approval of judges.
Now a truly literal reading of the Constitution might mean that all of the Senators would have to consent, but in reality the Senate never set such a rule.