Tuesday, January 17, 2006

The Politics of a Filibuster [Updated]

With the critical question of whether to filibuster Samuel Alito before them, the Democrats have been granted a one-week delay before a vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Because several prominent Republicans have already threatened to invoke the “nuclear option” if there is a filibuster, it appears Alito will likely end up on the Supreme Court regardless of actions taken by the minority. So the debate over whether or not to filibuster largely hinges on whether potential negative political fallout outweighs the slight chance of successfully keeping Alito off the court – by gaining enough Republican votes to maintain the filibuster in the face of the “nuclear option.”

In short, the issue is: Can the Democrats frame a filibuster to gain maximum support from the electorate regardless of whether they are successful at keeping Alito off of the Supreme Court? In my view, the key question to ask is simply this: Do the American people want George W. Bush as their dictator?

If Alito is confirmed, or forced onto the court by procedural maneuvering by the majority Republicans, Bush will, in essence, be a dictator. At least until the mid-term elections, there will be no branch of government that isn’t beholden to him.

He has insisted that he is not bound by laws enacted by Congress, and the current Republican congressional majority will not allow a meaningful investigation into any of the questionable activities he has undertaken since becoming President. They have proven themselves to be nothing but a rubber stamp for his agenda for the last five years.

Allowing Alito on the Supreme Court could be the final nail in the coffin of American democracy. After all, Alito is the one who authored the opinion that the President can sign legislation with a stipulation that he doesn’t have to follow the law that he is signing, as he recently did with the torture ban. With such an expansive view of presidential powers, Alito, as a replacement for Sandra Day O’Connor, can only tip the balance of the court toward giving Bush the unchecked power of a dictator.

Arguably, with Alito on the Supreme Court and a Republican Congress, the only real difference between Bush’s presidency and the reign of Saddam Hussein would be that the US has elections in which the people can vote to restore checks on presidential power. Listening to Bush, he already seems to think he has the power, if not the overt desire, to do any of the horrible things Saddam was said to have done, as long as it’s in the name of the “war on terror!”

If the Democrats frame a filibuster as their last stand to keep Bush from becoming a dictator, I believe it will be very difficult for the Republicans to make hay by claiming the Democrats are being obstructionists. Regardless of their feelings toward Bush, most Americans don’t like the idea of being led by a dictator, and Bush’s recent actions (and even some of his past statements) indicate that he would prefer being a dictator to being President anyway!

I think it could work, and with relatively little political risk! Besides, even if the “nuclear option” is successfully invoked to get Alito on the court, the Democrats will have just kicked off their campaign for retaking the Congress in the mid-term elections!

[Update] Here's a great post that covers many of the points I want people to know about the Alito confirmation.

16 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:05 PM

    Now that all this fuss is being made about the lobbyist reforms in a bipartisan way, I'm sure the republicans are hoping the democrats forget about Alito.

    It sure is difficult to keep following the corruption revelations. There is a new one every
    minute.

    Incidently the U.S. News and World Report had a lengthy article on Cheney. "The real president of the United States is Dick Cheney" by Lawrence Wilkerson, Chief of Staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wonder what's happening to Bush that this is coming out. Maybe he's going to resign.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wilkerson has been kind of a wild card, calling out Cheney for a while now. I keep hoping he's saying the things that Powell would say if he weren't so deeply brainwashed by military discipline, or better yet that he is secretly saying to Fitzgerald!

    I know I probably sound like a broken record!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous9:42 PM

    Don't you think that dictator is a bit over the top and reaching?
    It seems that your veiws aren't balanced in any way.
    No logic or undrestanding of what is really going on.
    Corruption is on both sides. We do need to make changes,
    but if we can't muster more then 25% of the population to vote, there won't be any changes. Don't foreget the Clinton administration did so called illegal wire taps three times during his administration, and his legal team stated before the 911 commision that is was within his rights.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey anonymous thanks for stoping by. You got all the Republican talking points in just as you are supposed to. You aren't one of those paid right wing bloggers are you?

    ReplyDelete
  5. It seems that your veiws aren't balanced in any way.
    No logic or undrestanding of what is really going on.


    No, but my spelling is impeccable!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous10:59 AM

    Notwithstanding the semi-literate arguments from our anonymous friend (I better be careful; I'm a lousy speller too!), I still think there's a risk in filibustering Snoop Sammy Sam's appointment. Not here in the beautiful blue State of California, mind you, but in those red states that we're hoping to reintroduce to democracy in the midterm elections. I still think that it's a risk worth taking, but I won't be surprised if our often timid representatives in the Senate aren't willing to take it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You get mad because the Democrats won't be able to filibuster a textualist/conservative justice. Funny, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who replaced the pro-life moderate Byron White, was well outside the judicial mainstream; she oversaw some of the ACLU's most outlandish crusades and sang the praises of 'comparativism,' the doctrine of invoking other nations' judicial decisions to support legal rulings that American law and precedent would not. She passed 96-3 because the Republican-dominated Senate interpreted its 'advise and consent' role narrowly. Now the Democratic MINORITY is upset because the elected MAJORITY wants to seat a justice whose views are well within the mainstream. It is not an issue of one party assailing democracy but rather another party being unwilling to accept its decisions. I'd be willing to bet that any response to this will simply assail me as the parrot of BushCheneyHitlerburton rather than debating the content.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon Con,

    well within the mainstream?

    Have you checked the polls lately?

    the parrot of BushCheneyHitlerburton?

    Now that has a nice ring to it. Mind if I quote you on that?

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Democrats are polling as poorly as the Republicans. Regardless, the elections are what count. As per judges, the public sides overwhelmingly with conservatives on every major Court issue save Roe. With every Ninth Circuit edict America is reminded why Democrats are unreliable when it comes to putting people on the bench. It cost Daschle his seat, something Red State Dems like Nelson remember well. Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer may have no trouble foaming at the mouth on national television because it appeals to their constituencies. On the aggregate, however, it hurts the Democrats. This used to be a rubber stamp, and the Republicans have continued to treat it like one.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon Con,

    This used to be a rubber stamp, and the Republicans have continued to treat it like one.

    If the Republicans really treated this like a rubber stamp, we'd have Justice Harriet Miers, and you and I wouldn't be arguing over Alito!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous6:50 AM

    Anon Con,

    There are no red and blue states. That's just a spin.
    This is the United States. Remember! People are tired of that attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous9:48 AM

    Art,

    I'd like to agree with you re: mid term election. I'm just not confident that the integrity of the election process can be fully trusted.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Harriet Miers was a conservative judicial activist in waiting and even though Alito is far more likely to impede or prune the measures that I find palatable we are the better for not having her as a justice. She was utterly unqualified and probably the stupidest move Bush has made since taking office.

    ReplyDelete
  14. She was utterly unqualified and probably the stupidest move Bush has made since taking office

    I think the move was part of a massive logjam tied for first place!

    My question is this: Should stupid moves by the President be rubber stamped by Congress?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous1:34 PM

    Hey AnonCon, I have to take issue with your opinion that "the public sides overwhelmingly with conservatives on every major court issue..." Selfish lout that I am, I don't care much about Roe, since I don't have to worry about getting pregnant. But I care a lot about environmental issues, and Alito is in deep right field there, having argued that congress doesn't have constitutional authority to regulate things like air or water polution. That is not a belief shared by the majority of citizens; even most Republicans (other than King George and The Dick) prefer clean air and water. Alito is also all for the Imperial Executive branch, as opposed to checks and balances. Given this President's predeliction for spying on, imprisoning and torturing folks, anyone NOT concerned about allowing the Executive unfettered authority just isn't paying attention.

    ReplyDelete
  16. When you speak so simplistically of environmentalism, framing it exclusively around clean air and water, most reasonable people would, at minimum, find common ground. When you emphasize ceaseless litigation and costly environmental assessments that can slow or stop projects that their other sensibilities might favor (such as the protection of a low-lying city from a hurricane, the development of hydroelectric projects, and a willingness to torpedo the most economically promising projects out of baseless or questionable environmental fears) that consensus usually evaporates. In Alito's case, we are talking about the pruning of legislative power over people's personal and economic lives. On such issues as the exclusionary rule, Miranda, and other hallmarks of 'liberal' jurisprudence vis a vis criminals, the public is strongly opposed to the actions of liberal judges from the state level up to SCOTUS. Another liberal article of faith, the wall between church and state, clearly animates most people; hence the success of demagogues such as Bill O'Reilly in exploiting it during the Christmas season. Guns are one of the few issues on which the majority disagrees with conservative jursiprudence; nonetheless electoral politics have meant that the vocal minority that agrees are politically more important (the states most in favor of gun control tend to vote heavily Democrat).

    ReplyDelete