Elect Barack Obama
Impeach Bush & Cheney!
"Google" your Voter Registration
Register to Vote
Vote Early-Absentee-Nov4
Visit the Democratic Party
Snapshots of Democratic Hypocrites on Alito
A total of 19 Democrats voted yesterday to kill a filibuster attempt by Senator John Kerry on the nomination of Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. By doing so, these Democrats have ensured that the ultraconservative Alito will be confirmed.
While most of them are saying they will vote against his confirmation today, have a look at some of the strong statements they have made about why a Supreme Court Justice Alito would be bad for America – despite voting yesterday in a way that guarantees that will happen.
Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI): "I am not confident that Judge Alito will be able to fairly apply the principles embodied in the United States Constitution… Important questions on privacy, the environment, presidential power and women's reproductive rights will all come before the Court to be resolved. With Judge Alito sitting on the Supreme Court, I am very concerned about the direction the Court will take our great nation.”
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM): “At a time when the president has asserted expansive powers with regard to imprisoning U.S. citizens without charges, with regard to wiretapping without warrants, with regard to using interrogation techniques that amount to torture, it's essential that we have justices on the Supreme Court that are willing to provide a check on the authority of the executive branch. Judge Alito's record indicates that he may not be the right person to provide this check. I believe that Judge Alito's confirmation will sway the existing balance on the Court in a manner that will jeopardize many of the protections afforded to the American public, many of which were the result of many years of struggle.”
Maria Cantwell (D-WA): “I am very concerned with Judge Alito’s record regarding an individual’s constitutional right to privacy. While I do not expect any judicial nominee to prejudge future cases, I do expect all nominees to make their positions clear on protecting the most basic rights of individuals and the fundamental structure and foundations of our democracy. In the end, I cannot be sure that Judge Alito would do either.”
Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “One of the key questions for me about a new Justice for the Supreme Court is ‘will this person interpret the Constitution in a manner that expands personal freedom and liberty, or will this person interpret it in a way that restricts personal freedom and liberty?’ I believe Judge Alito’s record is one that leans in the direction of restricting the freedom and liberty of individual citizens.”
Joe Lieberman (D-CT): “Based on his personal statements during the 1980s when he was a government attorney, and particularly on his 15 years of judicial opinions, I am left with profound concerns that Judge Alito would diminish the Supreme Court’s role as the ultimate guarantor of individual liberty in our country. This is not about a single issue but about an accumulation of his opinions that leads me to a preponderance of doubts.”
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): “After thoroughly reviewing Judge Alito’s record during his time on the federal bench, I am left with grave and serious concerns about his views on the power and scope of Executive Branch authority, discrimination against parents in the workplace, his general disposition toward cases involving civil rights, and his views on the scope of voter rights.”
John Rockefeller (D-WV): “I have concluded that Judge Alito’s judicial record, his writings and his statements portray a man who will not do enough to stand up against power when the rights of average Americans are on the line and who will not do enough to stand up against the President when the checks and balances in our Constitution are on the line. At the end of the day, I am left with the fear that Judge Alito brings to the court a longstanding bias in favor of an all-powerful presidency…”
Ken Salazar (D-CO): “I am convinced, based upon a very careful review of his record, that Judge Alito will move the Supreme Court outside the mainstream of American law. Judge Alito’s judicial philosophy will expand Executive power too far, hurt the checks and balances built into our Constitution to protect us all, and roll back important civil rights protections that were achieved in our country through the sacrifices of many.”
- Bob Geiger's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Bob,The words they write
Bob,
The words they write, now apply to themselves! BRAND them into their political flesh. I feel bad for them in one way. They thought yesterday that a filibuster was so unbecoming. They think today that they can defend their position. It is going to be child’s play to attack them.
They believe what Alito believes. They are what they wrote. In addition, they are weaklings.
Jim
Yeah
I agree. And that's pretty much what I e-mailed to Akaka and the rest of the cowardly bunch of potatoes last night.
The great thing about banded together like this on-line is that they can't hide. We KNOW who they are, and it's up there for ALL to see. I hope the shame soaks their skin translucent.
.
.
I'm still angry that they did not
support a filibuster. After reading their statements, I'm becoming furious!
If they felt so strongly about Alito's nomination, why on earth did they vote
against a filibuster? It doesn't make sense.
They jeopardize the future of our country because of ______?
What were they thinking?
The SOTU
Last night when they all applauded or booed at the SOTU, I thought what the hell do they think they are doing taking a stance on something. They didn't have the courage to stand up to Scam Scalito and his lies, now we are stuck with this bastard for 25 years.
What are they going to do when he does overturn what is considered settled law, impeach his ass?? The didn't have the courage to use their legislative tool of the filibuster when they had the chance to stand up against him and prevent him getting into the Supreme Court. I don't think they would have the courage to remove him for lying.
What a bunch of craven lousy cowards!
Supreme Court Justices can't be impeached for overturning
settled law. That has happened many, many times in U.S. history - Plessy Ferguson, Brown vs. Board of Education, etc. No Supreme Court Justice in my memory has ever pledged not to overturn a precedent. As I think back, most of the time when settled law was overturned, it was a good thing.
So you think that
So you think that overturning the gains the US has made in civil rights, women's rights, and just plain old fairness would be a "good thing?"
Is that what your "centrist" namesake would want? You are very close to proving my point that there is absolutely no difference between DLC "centrists" and neocon Republicans. They both answer to the same corporate masters.
That's not what I was saying
I was simply making the point that in the past when the Supreme Court overturned precedents that it was usually a positive step.
It's also been known
to make one-time-only-and-only-here rulings. Was that a good thing, too? Can we get that one overuled?
Precedent, smecident.
Bingaman
I was so disappointed in my Senator Jeff Bingaman's vote, and I've written him a REAL LETTER abut that, but I'm not about to just go out and trash him. I think we need to think more about our own strategies first.
I've been conversing with Sen Jeff for awhile both critically and supportively. I know he does care. He's VERY popular here because he can get cross-over votes on things that affect New Mexicans. His resulting track-record is not as good as I would prefer, but it ain't that bad, either. He worked his butt off on the Energy Bill and the Bankruptcy Bill, with probably no support through those long ordeals from NM Progressive Dems at all. I think, in the end, on those bills, he just probably thought, "SCREW IT."
And the Progressive Dems of America/New Mexico are only just beginning to strike up a serious sustained conversation with him. That serious conversation is the only thing that will do the job. This has to be a sustained team effort, IMHO.
Also, there is so much horse-trading going on, because of the way things are. We The People have to make more noise than the powers that finance the campaigns. Right now our voices are all we've got.
I don't know who all contacted him on Alito. Every NM Progressive Dem I know was either in Santa Fe trying to get progressive legislation passed(we are MOVING on voting machines, folks!!!) or trying to put together a progressive agenda for the State Party Platform, in time for our running of Patricia Madrid against Heather Wilson for Congress.
So I can see how Sen Jeff decided to vote the way he voted. Although I don't agree with it.
I believe we are creating a lot of power in our noise. I think we need to be very creative and mature and sober and saavy with it. Otherwise, we'll end up shooting ourselves in the backs and feet with just as much precision as our team in Washington currently does.
I also think the incredible evaluation process of "the Alito fight" that is occuring promises many extremely valuable insights and possibilities.
I know I've sure learned a lot! Thank you a million times over, Bob, for your leadership in this.
They Didn't Have a Strategy
I heard a most useful post-mortem commentary on Monday on Majority Report. They interviewed Bob Scheer from Liberal Oasis who described the fumble narrative.
According to him, Daschle and Reid were adamant about stopping Repub judicial nominees. They had tools and strategies in place for doing it.
Then Daschle got beat, partly on the "basis" of his "hostile" judicial strategies. So Harry was carrying the "toolkit," and, according to Scheer, he was "stabbed in the back," and the "compromise" strategy was forced upon him.
He didn't like it, but let the "compromisers" go ahead. They then wandered thru the Roberts nomination, got a convenient "pass" on Harriet, and then, according to Sheer, didn't even talk about it after that. They had absolutely no strategy in place when Alito was named, and didn't do anything about it at all.
The grass-roots Alito fight caught them totally off-guard and we forced them to act. But it was too late for whatever filibuster strategy they would need to put in play, all things considered.
If Sheer is correct, we need to look at this thing in context.
The Dem Senators let Harry Reid down, not the other way around. I think Harry Reid is as pissed off right now as we are. And he's got about 15 more big battles facing him without so much as time to go for a walk. No wonder he looks tired.
We need to hold them accountable, but we need to know exactly who to hold accountable in exactly what way.
Who is running against Lieberman for the Dem nomination from CT?
'This delicate experiment called 'democracy' is doomed to failure without an educated electorate.' deTocqueville
jSome of us Boston folks are eager to help campaign for the challenger for Senator in Ct. against the Republican Lieberman. Who is this guy and what is his phone no?
Chaos Maximus!
Check out http://www.gesundefamilie.de
Alito and Extremism
My friend writes:
[snip] People say "extremism" as if it were both easy to define and also unacceptable. I wonder if we wouid agree on what percentage of the American population would comprise the "nonextreme" segment. I'd say that maybe 80-90% of the people walking around would fall within what a "reasonable man" would say is the "pretty conventional" band. And in the population of practicing judges and lawyers, who are by nature and training inclined toward precedent, something more than 80-90% of THEM would be found within that band of "pretty conventional". I'd agree that if a justice of the SC is personally outside of that band of conventional thinking in terms of applying the law, he/she should be removed from the judiciary. But that's not Alito. [snip]
My rebuttal:
Would you agree that it's possible to slowly and systematically shape - through whatever means, including but not limited to informational campaigns, "buying-off" not necessarily with money, but otherwise incenting or coercing the media, purchasing expert opinion, selectively creating, dissolving, or otherwise influencing important institutions - what is "inside the band of conventional thinking?"
Would you also agree that sometimes conventional thinking is wholly wrong and detrimental to the long term interests of society? (Remember Germany's conventional thinking?)
I have not argued that Alito is "extreme" in any immediate, obvious sense. But, sense you wanted to talk about "extremism," am I arguing that Alito is one more crucial stepping stone in an overall extreme agenda, outside the interests of 85% of Americans? You're darned right I am.
However, I don't believe there needs to be a litmus test of this sort in order for the minority to act responsibly and exercise their fullest bargaining power as granted by Senate rules. They need only articulate a vision of things to come that might justify their actions; that is the very definition of a responsible act.
Remember, in the "worst" case, the minority would have applied the appropriate amount of pressure to end Alito's "candidacy" and Bush would have had to choose someone else. There are lots of good candidates, many of whom would engender greater consensus among the Senate and the nation -- isn't that what Bush said he wanted to do in his second term? So the President doesn't get his first choice -- big fricking deal.
If Alito's appointment wasn't so important to Bush's overall agenda and to his perceived place in history (i.e., Bush believes he has changed the course of future events through this appointment, for crying-out loud! He wouldn't say that in public, but you know he's saying it to his buddies) then why would the Administration be aglow in the bright light of their great victory?