Senators in Need of a Spine (NY Times Editorial Board Urges Filibuster Alert)

New York Times ^ | January 26, 2006 | The Editors

[RWR8189]

Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.

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.

At the Judiciary Committee hearings, the judge followed the well-worn path to confirmation, which has the nominee offer up only the most boring statements and unarguable truisms: the president is not above the law; diversity in college student bodies is a good thing. But in what he has said in the past, and what he refused to say in the hearings, Judge Alito raised warning flags that, in the current political context, cannot simply be shrugged away with a promise to fight again another day.

<SNIP>

Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster — particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote.

A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

[Howlin]

LOL!

[Howlin]

You know, this IS a fight to the death, isn't it?

[Mo1]

From what I can tell .. they don't think they have anything to lose now

Their earnings are in the toilet .. their subscriptions are in the toilet and they have been caught red handed on more then one occasion

This is a do or die for them

And they will lose

[RobbyS]

. If there was ever a classic case of the spoiled, idiot kid taking over the family business and running it into the ground, the NY Times is it.

You have it.

[Anti-Bubba182]

It is a step up from their usual bias.

[hsalaw]

58 votes so far to break cloture. The Dakota and Arkansas senators are pacing.

Sorry to be so uninformed about the process, but what does this mean? That 58 votes (I assume FOR Alito) are enough to break up a filibuster? And what's happening in Dakota and Arkansas?

[LdSentinal]

If the Democrats do filibuster, it would take 60 votes to break it when not using the NUKE option. All 55 Republican senators are against the filibuster. That doesn't mean all 55 will vote for him, but Alito has over 50 votes for confirmation. With the 55 Republicans against the filibuster, three Democrats have said they, too, would oppose a filibuster: Ben Nelson, Ken Salazar, and Mary Landrieu. This takes us to 58.

North Dakota has two Democratic senators with one up for re-election this year. North Dakota is a heavily Republican state and a vote against Alito would create a backlash. The same for South Dakota senator, Time Johnson (D). South Dakota, too, is a heavily Republican state. Arkansas has two Democratic senators, but it's a state that continues to trend Republican. All five senators have not yet said how they will vote if a potential filibuster came about or on Alito himself.

[Southack]

"The Editors So nobody had the guts to sign their name to this drivel?"

Humorously, though not intentionally, the NY Times had an even worse piece pubished last week about how nation after nation was electing Leftists to lead them, citing such "powerhouses" as Boliva and Venezuela...ignoring that Germany just kicked out Schroeder in favor or Merkel.

And then this week the Canucks kicked out lefty Martin in favor of righteous Harper. Some trend!

This particular editorial above, is more pale than the "leftward" trend article...but also more accurate in the sense that the Editors actually got one point right: the Dems are being spineless by not filibustering Judge Alito.

The remaining 18 Blue States are essentially unrepresented in Washington right now...because the Dems are laying low (well, except for their daily episode of crying "Wolf!" over some newly imagined "scandal") until the November elections.

[hsalaw]

Thanks very much for the helpful information. I was confused because I thought that Gang of 14 thing took the filibuster option off the table. Guess I was wrong.

[Dolphy]

These people are actively -- and in plain view -- working to unseat a sitting president for no other reason than the fact that they don't agree with him.

I agree with you but I don't know what the force is behind it all. This isn't traditional party politics. The only comfort I take is knowing when they are screaming the loudest and making the most outrageous claims they are very close to another defeat or the President is closing in on a victory that sets their agenda back many, many years.

[JennysCool]

Har!

[Cyclopean Squid]

But it doesn't know it's a laughingstock. It's the George Galloway of journalism.

[Zeppo]

Gotta hand it to the Times - no beating around the bush for their editorial board - they came out with the big lie right in the first sentence, no need to read any further...

[Howlin]

This isn't traditional party politics.

This isn't something you and I have seen in our lifetimes.

[Dolphy]

The remaining 18 Blue States are essentially unrepresented in Washington right now...because the Dems are laying low (well, except for their daily episode of crying "Wolf!" over some newly imagined "scandal") until the November elections.

How do you mean laying low? Watch how they work every issue into their theme of an unconstrained executive branch that has little concern for the most vulnerable (almost a direct quote from Obama on Alito). They are planting election theme seeds but if the past is any guide, the President will have moved the garden when they come to check their crops.

[BigSkyFreeper]

What the hell happened to "comity"?

By all appearances, nurtured in the womb, and aborted by the left.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Just when you thought they couldn't go any lower, that steaming pile just gets higher and unmanageable.

[Southack]

"How do you mean laying low?"

No filibuster. No policy proposals.

Dems are laying low between now and the November elections...save for their regularly scheduled daily cries of "Wolf!" in regards to whatever "scandal" they are trying to sell at the moment.

[Mo1]

I agree with you but I don't know what the force is behind it all. This isn't traditional party politics.

You're right, it's not traditional party politics

As for the force ... Can you say Big Time $$$$ Lobbyist ?

[Mo1]

oh .. that steaming pile will get even higher

This is a do or die for them