Barone: Why Democrats won't want to oppose Samuel Alito

US News & World Report ^ | November 1, 2005 | Michael Barone

[billorites]

Isn't playing the race card in support of Judge Alito as odious as doing so in opposition to his appointment?

[Nonstatist]

Isn't playing the race card in support of Judge Alito as odious as doing so in opposition to his appointment?

It worked with Scalia, and its all part of the game. A game the Democraps are particularly fond of playing and in fact invented, I might add.

[Dog Gone]

He might name JRB, but it depends on the timing. I don't think any of the new appellate court justices were seriously considered for an early promotion to the Supreme Court.

A year might make a difference. Two surely would.

But Bush is not an impulsive man. He's neither afraid to nominate her nor in a rush to nominate her to satisfy the FR crowd. His decision will depend on the factors at the time.

I've had a little experience in dealing with Dubya. He's greatly misunderestimated.

[MNJohnnie]

Go ahead and filibuster Dems, there is a nuke in your future!" Or at least the trunk of someone's car. ~;^D by billhilly (If you're lurking here from DU (Democrats unglued), I trust this post will make you sick.)

HHHHHaaaaaaaa! Be afraid Dems. It Scalitoween and the "Right Wing Extremists" are coming for your Court. We took your House. We took your Senate. We took your President. And now, your last bastion falls to our assault. Are you scared yet Democrats?

You should be. YOU SHOULD BE!

[MNJohnnie]

They'll have nothing to lose by filibustering because it's Custer's Last Stand as far the liberals are concerned

Now there is a consumation devotely to be wished for. Who gets to be Sitting Bull to Harry Reid's Custer?

[fish hawk]

Lucca Brassi is for him too!

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

Bush doesn't give second chances. He never has.

One thing's for sure - he's not offering Laura another chance to pick one, and she's not going to be asking for it either.

[Nam Vet]

Whenever Barone speaks, I listen and he points out many things that are valid as h*ll.

So far as your comment, I've had that worry cross my mind too. Especially since leftists such as Randi Rhodes have already broached the subject more than once on the air waves no less. We see placards supporting those very thoughts at leftist rallies too. And they call Conservatives 'reactionary' ???

Nam Vet

[zendari]

If I was ginsberg or stevens I would quit now, hoping that they would get a more "moderate" nominee.

[Billthedrill]

I don't think the whole Italian ethnic thing would have come up at all (except perhaps to be derided as a cheap ploy on the part of the Republicans) if the DNC hadn't raised the issue themselves by a remarkably stupid insinuation that Alito had been soft on Mafia figures. That was just the sort of political thumb-hammering we are beginning to expect out of a party in utter disarray.

I hope they do filibuster - that'd be even worse. The DNC blew this one before it even began.

[unseen]

It is not so much his blood but his ideas and cultural that he grew up in. An Italian-american Catholic family has certain beliefs and views that say a southern baptist family doesn't. To vote against someone like Alito that has all the qualifications for no reason points to them voting against his beliefs which translates pretty well to the rank and file Regan Democrats that the liberal left does not support their views which means a no vote in the next election. Now if he wasn't qualified or he had spoken or acted out of character from those views that would be different.

[nopardons]

bttt

[ChildOfThe60s]

IOW, someone of italian descent is harder for the left to cast as one of the "great unwashed" as they do with southerners and people of faith. They would if they could.

[krazyrep]

I find it highly doubtful that the Demolibs will filibuster.

First, at least two Republican members of the "Gang of Fourteen" have openly stated they would not support a filbuster. DeWine is up for re-election next year, and his son's defeat in Ohio after the first Gang of Fourteen fiasco sent a clear message from Ohio voters they aren't going to put up with any more nonsense from him. Graham is up for re-election in '08, and he has no doubt gotten an earful from his constituency. Even if every other Gang of Fourteen member sides with the Dems, that leaves a 50-50 tie on the Consitutional Option, with Cheney's vote the tie-breaker. Bye-bye filibuster.

Given that, the Dems won't want to waste the filibuster fight on someone who would only replace a relatively conservative Justice. With the distinct possibility of Stevens and/or Ginsburg retiring, they'd be much wiser to save the big fight for that nomination, which would have a far larger impact on the right-left makeup of the Court. My gut tells me Ginsburg and Stevens will try to hang on at least until after the '06 elections, if not those in '08, hoping the Dems will pick up enough seats to regain control of the house (or regain the Presidency in '08) or at least make the Constitutional Option impossible.

I think we'll hear the required whining and moaning and smearing by the Demolibs, after which Alito will be confirmed by a comfortable margin.

[Dick Holmes]

I find it highly doubtful that the Demolibs will filibuster.

It does look less likely, as more people speak up for this very well-chosen nominee. Well done, Mr. Bush!

[unseen]

no doubt

[unseen]

True. but that leads to the question why didn't Bush nominate a conservative the first time around. So many people said he wanted to avoid a fight. But the libs are the minority who really cares what they think. the Reps have got to get out of the loser mentality. Bork is gone get over it.

[marktd]

I keep hearing about Stevens and Ginsburg holding on until at least the '06 elections and possibly '08 in the hopes of Democrat gains in Congress or possibly a Democrat president. I find it interesting that no one points out how risky a personal and political strategy that is, particularly for Stevens, who was appointed by a Republican president (ok, maybe it doesn't mean that much to him after all). How would you like your legacy to be that you held on to your court seat, in failing health and against the wishes of your friends and family, for the sheer partisan notion of having your seat filled by someone of similar POLITICAL leanings? Let's say the strategy backfires and Republicans keep their majority in '06 AND win the '08 presidential election (not entirely far-fetched, is it?) Your Stevens or Ginsburg, now what do you do... retire right away and make it obvious that your a partisan hack, and a loser of one at that, or just stay on until you die and not give a hoot since you'll never have to listen to what the public says about you anyway? Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that Stevens and Ginsburg aren't above this strategy, just pointing out the possible pitfalls.

[Dick Holmes]

that leads to the question why didn't Bush nominate a conservative the first time around. So many people said he wanted to avoid a fight.

I think he wanted someone whom he personally knew and trusted. I'm sure he thought she was a strong conservative, but he should have realized/been advised how weak nominating his own lawyer, not a judge, to the SC would look!

[unseen]

Yes but I think he was getting the wrong advice altogether. After Katrina and others the "advisors" IMO thought Bush needed the democrats more then HE needed to keep his promise on the SC. With the 1992 tax increase and now Miers I think America are finally starting to hold their elected leaders accountable. It will be interesting to see in the 08 election what promises they make.