Update [2006-1-26 18:8:59 by BooMan]: Here is the link to CNN’s article on the Kerry filibuster plan.
Update [2006-1-26 19:3:25 by BooMan]: Get your Kossackian reality check right here.
Bill Frist just introduced a motion to induce cloture (end debate). Debate would end on Monday at 4:30PM.
The actual vote would be scheduled for Tuesday at 11:00AM.
Tuesday night is when Bush will give the State of the Union address.
I’ll update as I learn more.
While we have to generate the pressure on all Senators, the decision to filibuster (or not) will also be a leadership decision.
Call the Leadership Offices!
Harry Reid, NV Democratic Leader (202) 224-3542
Dick Durbin, IL Assistant Democratic Leader (202) 224-2152
Patrick Leahy, VT Ranking Member Judiciary Committee (202) 224-4242
CALL YOUR SENATORS! (And those who need a spine implant):
1-888-355-3588
or
1-888-818-6641
If Repug, tell them “No” to Alito; if Democrat: FILIBUSTER!
If the Washington lines are busy, the Senators’ home office numbers and fax are listed here: CONTACT YOUR SENATORS (Click here)
For extra credit, use the same numbers to call all the 2008 Presidential candidates who are sitting Senators – Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold – and tell them to either LEAD THE FILIBUSTER or FORGET ABOUT YOUR SUPPORT. You can also send that message to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (202-224-2447) and the Democratic National Committee (202-863-8000).
Polls and public opinion are another way to apply pressure — get word out about why Alito needs to be filibustered:
Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. (Click here)
People for the American Way has collected nearly 65,000 signatures to send to the Senate, please add yours: Save the Court Petition
John Kerry has endorsed this anti-Alito petition, signers’ names will be read into the Congressional Record:http://www.johnkerry.com/action/alito/
First : Call the three Democrats (Mary Landrieu, Ken Salazar, and Dianne Feinstein) who oppose Alito but also said they oppose a filibuster. We must persuade them that a vote against Alito is meaningless if they don’t support a filibuster. Senator Salazar (D-CO) 202-224-5852 Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) 202-224-5824 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) 202-224-3841
Second : Call your own Democratic Senator: 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641. If you can’t get through, look up the Senator’s District Office number in your phone book or here: http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/dbq/officials/?lvl=C
Third : Unbelievably, three Democrats (Ben Nelson, Tim Johnson and Robert Byrd) support Alito! Tell them to either support filibuster or at least “don’t get in the way.” Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551 Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) 202-224-3954 Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) 202-224-5842
888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641. If you can’t get through, look up the Senator’s District Office number in your phone book or here: http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/dbq/officials/?lvl=C
Fourth: Call the “Red State” Democrats: (Message same as above — “No” is meaningless) Tom Carper (DE)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Blanche Lincoln (AR) Mark Pryor (AR)
Fifth : Call these “Blue State” and pro-choice Republicans: (Message: A “Unitary Executive” is dangerous to balance of powers–please do not get in the way of a filibuster.) Lincoln Chafee (RI)
Susan Collins (ME)
Lisa Murkowsky (AK)
Bob Smith (OR)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
Ted Stevens (AK)
For extra credit, call all of the 2008 Presidential candidates who are sitting Senators–Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, and John Kerry–and tell them to either LEAD THE FILIBUSTER or KISS YOUR SUPPORT GOODBYE. 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641. If you can’t get through, look up the Senator’s District Office number in your phone book or here: http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/dbq/officials/?lvl=C
You can also send that message to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (202-224-2447) and the Democratic National Committee (202-863-8000).
We need a shift in the wind.
If Senator Kerry leads a filibuster, I hope he invokes these issues:
Those are worthy causes to fight. THEY MUST FIGHT!!!!
From the AP:
Take it with a grain of salt, it’s not like we can trust the journalists to do their jobs.
regarding Reid not supporting Kerry:
So who’s the “senior Democratic leadership aide”?
Thanks for tracking this so closely, honey … it’s tense 🙁
this helps me get the aggression out without going ape shit on any living creatures in my immediate area.
unfortunately, that sounds fairly accurate. i didn’t catch all of what reid said, but i definitely heard him saying that they’ve had plenty of time for debate. not sure what’s up.
filibuster isn’t technically debating — I mean they hold debate open, but they really aren’t debating. Just reaching for any hope, I know.
Am I the only one that thinks this smells odd?
I’m just imagining the smirking chimp crowing about “the renewal of his man-date” on Tuesday night if Alito is confirmed. ugh.
uh huh
and my long term plan is to NEVER watch a SOTU address (republican or democratic) unless there is good reason.
Sounds like a sane plan, Mary. It’s a dreadful burlesque.
Say, I caught the last few minutes of the PBS French/Indian war special last night on the Seattle PBS station … sigh … I hope they reair it because it looked fascinating.
The boys and I caught 2 episodes of it last night. It was really good; Cabin the Younger didn’t even want to go to bed until it was over.
I thought they did a good job — I missed the first hour last night but i have it on tape and will probably watch it tomorrow night. It really made Geo. Washington seems more real than he does in history books.
St. Louis was founded as a direct result of the French / Indian war and I’m descended from French and Indians (although I’m mostly Irish). So I’m always interested in the topic.
I think it’s even more than that. I think they’re going to announce something during the SotU that they want Alito on the court for. The timing’s just too convenient.
Like what? Bush is going to say that he is essentially a king during wartime, the perpetual never-ending war on terra… “I know I’m legally right,” then follow it with “Let’s let the Supreme Court decide if that two-term limit thing on presidents was really the intent of the, um, original framers. Yeah, um, I should be president for life (heh, heh, heh) and you all agree with me, don’tcha. (standing ovation) And if you don’t, well, you’re traitors, I say, traitors to America!” (standing ovation; Kerry and Kennedy slip quietly from the Chamber to their private helicopters and leave the country; Reid, Byrd et al applaud wildly.)
I’m thinking more some kind of statement about domestic spying during wartime.
I just had a conversation with a Democratic colleague of mine. He votes Dem but doesn’t really get involved in politics so he’s representative of the majority. I started out by mentioning that Kerry was planning a filibuster. His response was that it would be crazy for the Democrats to filibuster, they would look stupid. Then I pointed out how 41 “no” votes without a filibuster made the Democrats look weak and stupid. He sort of agreed. Then I pointed out the timing of the vote with the state of the union that night and pointed out how gleeful the repubs would be. And that means the Democrats watching will be angry — but they won’t be angry at Bush, they’ll be angry at their own party. His response — well the Democrats should absolutely filibuster — at least long enough to avoid THAT scenario. So, its possible to bring people around to the IDEA of a filibuster. If only we had the media on our side. (Or at least neutral).
C-Span just announced that Sen. Snowe will not speak tonight.
What does that mean?
Sen. Sarbanes is speaking now … says this is one of the most serious matters that come before the Senate …. “the installation of two new justices in a short time period has the means to alter … fundamental … of this nation ….”
More is required of the Senate’s advice and consent than merely okaying pres’s choice unless some serious misqualification found …
important to note that, historically, one out of four has been rejected ….
neither the plain language of the appointment clause or the structure of the constitution requires senators to simply defer to a president’s Supreme Court nomination …
quoting a Univ of Calif prof
quoting Rehnquist writing in 1959 long before he went on Court:
The senate should follow the practice of thoroughly informing itself of the JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY of a nominee before voting to confirm
i had to take a nap
is abortion illegal yet?
i dont feel like cooking….im having spice drops and white chocolate truffles for dinner…should help me get past the disgust i feel over this whole thing.
Hell, your diet should be illegal.
:):)
tell your senators – even the (R) ones – that it is entirely appropriate to extend debate on this nomination until we get somewhere with the spygate hearings. given alito’s support of the “unitary executive,” his nomination is inextricably linked with shrubya’s extralegal domestic surveillance.
and for whatever it may be worth, here is my very incoherent letter to smith, typos and all. i was barely awake when i wrote it, but if any of it is useful, please use it. i chose the example of the Arctic Refuge because Smith actually stood up for that; tailor examples to your Stepford Senators’ pet causes. it was also suggested that this is great fodder for an LTE:
I have abiding concerns regarding the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Few, if any of them were allayed by watching the Senate debate today.
In all honesty, the Senate should not even be considering his nomination right now – the investigation into Bush’s NSA extralegal spying directive is far more important. It starkly calls Alito’s fitness for the nation’s highest court into question, given his previous support of such increased executive branch powers.
For example, would Alito concur with the administration’s claim that the AUMF permits domestic surveillance, even though the Senate explicitly denied Bush that capability? Would he support the notion that Bush can ignore FISA because he is CinC?
His past encouragement of wiretapping is disturbing in this regard, as is his endorsement of executive “signing statements.” Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the president shall interpret laws sent to him by Congress, but Bush has used these statements to not only evaluate laws, but decide that he can ignore laws based these interpretations. The Constitution is also explicit in that even the president must obey the law – I’m not sure Alito can be counted upon to uphold that.
It is in this context that an imagined deference to the executive regarding nominees is so troubling – why should the co-equal branch of government tasked with evaluating nominees need to “defer” to the executive branch? The Constitution is very explicit on this: the executive appoints justices with the Senate’s oversight and agreement. It does not say the Senate has to agree.
There is no reason the Senate needs defer to the executive whatsoever. He certainly didn’t afford the Senate the courtesy of consulting with them or seeking their advice on this nominee; if he had, I’m sure the Miers debacle would never have happened.
At least he consulted on the second try, but instead of the Senate, he solicited feedback from his Chief of Staff, Harriet Miers and prominent members of the religious right. Where in the constitution does it assign those people the role to advise on judicial nominees?
Samuel Alito, in his support of the “unitary executive” theory, is a threat to Congress’ role as an equal branch of a tripartate government. There are already two lawsuits resulting from the NSA wiretaps; what would Alito’s opinion if they went before the Supreme Court? We can’t know for sure, but his past record indicates that he would be in favor of broader governmental power.
What happens when Bush starts ignoring other laws of inconvenience? Or decides to invoke the CinC “national security” excuse to drill in the Arctic Refuge without explicit consent from Congress? Establishing this precedent in the executive branch is extraordinarily dangerous – I do believe Alito would help set such a precedent.
His nomination is especially critical given that he will be replacing the very centrist Sandra Day O’ Connor. Not everybody in the country thinks like Scalia and Thomas and the Supreme Court should reflect a comparable balance of ideology. Some would argue that justices are not elected officials and therefore SCOTUS doesn’t need to encompass a variety of beliefs as society does. But justices are appointed by elected officials and approved by elected officials. As the popular reminder goes, “elections have consequences.”
In this sense, the resulting judicial appointments should take the national character into account – the federal government represents ALL citizens, not just those of the party currently in charge. As such, the composition of the nation’s highest court should be seated with people of varying perspectives and viewpoints, to ensure balance in our justice system. Protecting the voice and rights of the minority were of paramount importance to our founding fathers – they knew well the dangers of one-party rule.
I was also dismayed at the assertion that being “qualified” is the only valid criterion for evaluating justices. If that is the case, why waste the president’s and the Senate’s time with nominations, debates and voting on confirmation? “Qualified” is a fairly objective measure and one that made many justices suitable choices for this appointment.
If ideology plays no role in the fitness of a justice, why not insist on an equally qualified, yet more moderate nominee? If ideology means nothing in this, why are religious right groups ecstatic over this nomination?
I simply cannot put in strong enough terms how completely inappropriate Alito is for our Supreme Court at this time. I know you have come out in support of the nomination, but I am urging you to reconsider and insist on a nominee that respects the primacy of Congress’ role in our government. Encouraging the development of a strong unitary executive by appointing supportive justices to SCOTUS could well mean dispensing with “advice and consent of the Senate” altogether.
Very sincerely,
an unhappy constituent
Inhofe on C-Span 2 now, disparaging the efforts of his ‘2 friends from Massachusetts’ in trying to drum up support for a filibuster.
Whining about a ‘litmus test’, saying dems don’t pass any nominees that don’t meet the ‘librul agenda’ (he’s used that phrase several times).
Uhhh…John Roberts? Hello? Short memory?
I desperately need a punching bag with his face on it. NOW!!!!!
I hear ya, Susan. Ohhhh boy do I hear ya.
Not easy for her to do. Congratulations, Mrs. Lincoln.
On their front page
Why do you think John Kerry wants to filibuster Samuel Alito?
Conviction 41% 5115 votes
Politics 59% 7426 votes
Total: 12541 votes
It has also become their lead story on their site.
Kos is right — we have to keep our eye on the ball. The important thing is to win elections. Because if we don’t we’ll get another Alito when Stevens dies and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not in good health either.
And 6 Scalias on the court would be a loss we (and the country) could not recover from. Filibuster if we can do it — but we MUST win elections.
But how do we win elections when the Democrats have no discernible ideology/principles that they stand up for?
Eye on the ball. You’re so right, Mary.
We cannot let this be a make-or-break event. We have to keep fighting. We have to gain seats in ’06 and gain more seats in ’08.
Piece your comment with Grandma M’s and it’s all there — why we must keep fighting and WIN some seats.
(Our emotions run high. I (in)famously said, after Kerry conceded last November, that I’d never vote for another Democrat for president. I was very upset. Time has helped me see the bigger picture…. and without the # of Democrats in the Senate and the # of Democrats in the House, we are hog-tied. We have to reverse that. And the only way for that to happen is to stay true, keep fighting, keep voting, keep hoping.)
Well, they just lost me. They need to win elections by being strong.
I divorced the party this morning. And actually… I feel freer. Before, it was cringingly embarassing -like seeing your kid pick her nose while doing a solo for the school concert. Now I can sit back and say: “Boy, is that a stupid thing that they chose to do.”
If Alito gets on there is nothing to fight for anyway. W’re already fucked beyond redemption.
As far as the argument that we all need to band together to elect more dems- naw. The ones we have don’t listen to me anyways. Having more would be like collecting abusive boyfriends.
If we follow the Kos plan and elect more Dems that are like Bobby Casey, why bother?
I don’t understand how the government of our country continues to move towards the right while the populace moves left.
It doesn’t make sense.
Oh, and it pisses me off.
This sums things up pretty well.
Let’s all be realistic for a moment. The chance of Alito NOT being on the court — even WITH a filibuster is infinitismal. Do you really think the Dems, with such tight numbers in their caucus, can filibuster forever? The country will turn against them eventually. All the repubs have to do is wait them out. So, while I agree that to have 41 no votes and NOT filibuster is ridiculous and spineless, the fact is that (absent some miraculous event) Alito is going to be on the court even with a filibuster. Bush won the election; the Repubs hold the senate. The Dems don’t have a big enough minority to hold out forever. Until the Dems start winning elections, this is the result. It’s sad. No, its more than sad. It’s frightening. But its a fact. Burn your Democratic voter card if it makes you feel better. but make sure its a symbolic act.Voting independent or not voting is not going to solve the problem. Focusing on elections at the state level is a sane strategy and I’m glad that Dean recognizes that.
There are many possible answers, but they all come down to one simple, quiet
no.
I respect that its your choice to make.
I couldn’t agree with you more.
As for Kos, his “do what it takes to win” position confirms my long held opinion that he is a crass, insular, empathically challenged adolescent who has so little respect for issues and principles that he values them only as bargaining chips in a game with one objective: to elect people with a “D” after their names. To this end he will sell out those most vulnerable in the Democratic Party, untroubled by the actual human consequences, because of his inherently flawed and simplistic notions of “winning”.
The Democrats deserve better than a “strategist” with the ethical sophistication of a child.
OH Booman. This is indeed sad news.
I have spent the last week researching this “Unitary Executive” Doctrine. The very short version, is that it is Nazism, which called it the “Leader Principle”.
There is a direct line between Carl Schmitt, who was the chief Jurist in Germany as well as a Professor at University of Berlin and the players in our own government today. After the Reichstag fire (Reischstag being the equivalent of the Capitol Buildings where Congress is located), Schmitt declared Hitler Dictator, approved an Emergency Powers Act (a la Patriot Act)and devised the “Leader Principle” in his ruling. The Nazi’s started the fire just for that purpose. Schmitt then supervised a project to conform all German Law to Nazi Theory.
Carl Schmit had a student protege named Leo Strauss. In 1938 Schmitt finagled a Rockefellow Foundation grant and Leo Staruss ended up teaching at the University of Chicago. Some of Strauss’s more prominent students were Edwin Meese, Irving Kristol, and Paul Wolfowicz. Strauss mentored and brought Anton Scalia into the fold when Scalia was teaching at University of Chicago. When Strauss died, his protege Allan Bloom took over the furthering of “Straussian – Nazi” governance.
In 1982, Meese, Kristol, Scalia and a guy named David McIntosh, founded the “Federalist Society” whose core principles are identical to the German “Leader Principle”. The Federalist Society was funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, whose money helped spread the Federalist Society to Yale, Harvard, colleges across the country and now in DC. Scaife still is the primary funder of todays “Federalist Society”.
Cheney’s life in politics began during the Nixon administration. When he arrived in Washington, D.C., then-Sen. Donald Rumsfeld took Cheney under his wing. Rumsfeld was buddies with Gerald Ford, and when Ford ascended to greatness, he took Rumsfeld along as chief of staff. Rumsfeld took Cheney along, as deputy chief of staff. Rumsfeld (who was a member of “Concerned Alumni of Princeton-CAP), used the “Unitary Executive” Doctrine to argue the Hamdi and Padilla cases in the Courts.
Among Strauss’ protégés are: Paul Wolfowitz; Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; Judge Robert Bork; Judge Anton Scalia; neo-con propagandist and former Dan Quayle chief of staff, William Kristol; former Secretary of Education William Bennett; the National Review publisher William F. Buckley; former Reagan Administration official Alan Keyes; current White House bio-ethics advisor Francis Fukuyama; Attorney General John Ashcroft; and William Galston, former Clinton Administration domestic policy advisor, and co-author, with Elaine Kamark, of the Joe Lieberman-led Democratic Leadership Council’s (DLC) policy blueprint.
Many Straussian acolytes, along with Cheney and Rumsfeld, were signatories to the PNAC “Statement of Principles”. Today’s Straussians comprise most the membership of the “Federalist Society”. Judicial nominations by Bush I and Bush II are predominately from the “Federalist Society” including SC Justices, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. The top officials of DoJ are also members of the “Federalist Society”.
Bottom line, we are in the midst of a coup-redux of Germany 1933, with the same damn so called principles. From the 2000 election, Iraq War, recess
appointments, violations of the law, spying, shredding of the constitution, and all the rest of the issues are a direct result of the application of the “Unitary Executive” Doctrine – more accurately called Nazi theory. If Alito is confirmed he will play a major role in conforming US laws to Nazi Theory.
After I eat and rest I will FAX you and Susan, what is hopefully a coherent piece with a Bibliography of the most pertinent research. I desperately need your help in getting this information out in the reasoned and understandable way, only you and Susan do so well.
Wow. You’ve done a superb job.
Have you seen “The Power of Nightmares,” the BBC documentary that played Cannes this year? It traces the same path — not as detailed as yours — but through Strauss to present-day. Truly brilliant.
I’m trying to get the DVD. Very sadly, the infoclearinghouse.org site was forced to remove its excellent video copy. There are other sites with it out there on the ‘net, but their audio quality is very poor compared to what infoclearinghouse had.
Susan, if you email me your mailing address, I’d be happy to mail you copies of it on DVD.
Thank you Susan. No I haven’t seen power of nightmares. Is there a website where I could see even an inferior copy?
What I really would like help with, it HOW do you communicate that a vote for Alito is a vote for a Nazi Dictatorship? How do you let Senators know that voting for Alito is a violation of their oath to uphold the constitution from enemies without and within, and that such a vote unequivocally constitutes treason, without insulting them? And I do not have access to KOS and other blogs, a choice I made when I realized health issues were going to be with me until late spring early summer, so I cannot get the information to them.
(Kerry & Kennedy are my Senators and Durbins Legal Correspondent is terrific and knows, but is as frustrated as I am in getting in out to others)
This is very interesting. You should expand this into an article, and you should provide evidence and links to support your conclusions and linkages. I despise the Bush administration as much as anybody on earth, but I must say that my first impression is that your little essay here is too neat. For example, I’d like to see some real evidence regarding the supposed connection between Strauss and Schmitt. I think it’s accurate to call the neocons fascists. But I don’t think it’s accurate to call them Nazis.
Agreed Arminius.
I have been seriously thinking in how to do it as a diary. I too wanted to disprove these connections, and I literally went through over 500 links in a week. (Ah denial – what a treacherous device we use to hide unpalatable truths from ourselves.)
I did finally start a word Bibliography that runs about 2 1/10 pages of the most pertinent links. Problem is I do not know how to attach a word file as an addendum. To do a diary – I would have lots of green and it would be a bear for those who do not want to delve in that deeply to read.
Any ideas on how to do, or get around this??? I am always open for suggestions!
Hi. Thanks for the response. Now, although I did start a small Internet company in 1995 (that eventually sold for six figures) and I used to do the computer programming and network administration, on top of most everything else, I must say that I’ve never embarked on the kinds of large blog diaries that our most famous colleagues create. How’s that for a single sentence?
If I understand what you’re saying correctly, and if this is something you really want to organize and communicate out to others, then I would suggest that you start by realizing that you’re basically talking about writing a book. And you can’t cram a whole book into a single response post on a thread, nor on a single diary.
You can’t dump 500 links in a big Word file on people.
I suggest that you consider composing a series of diaries, perhaps three or four, no more. (After all, you don’t really want to write a book…you just want to get some ideasout.) That means you have to first compose a rigorous outline of your findings offline. Then make each diary be sternly supported by links. Don’t use all your links. Throw out most of them. Use the ones you count as reliable for one reason or the other. And in your diaries, explain why you’re selecting certain links.
Just some ideas, since you asked. There are a million ways to do it. I wish I had the time these days for that kind of thing!
THANK YOU, for YOUR response.
No I wouldn’t dump all 500+ links. I actually saved only the 60-70 that best summarized or synthesized 3 or more links.
One issue being that the best summarizations and synthesis were done by Lyndon LaRouche’s organization Executive Intelligence Review (EIR). Incredulous, I followed back on his research and ended up going to many more links. Also the PDF files written by the Straussians/neo-cons run for sometimes over 250 pages. God they are even wordier than I am – Heaven help us! As a former college teacher, I am perhaps too sensitive to the quality of sources for information and LaRouch is NOT top shelf in my opinion. Our own press at best provided a short paragraph or a few sentences in their efforts to be “balanced” so there is another source of lots of links. IE. I took a name then googled with that name and a plus (+) sign (if I had seen a previous link) to an organization or another person. That’s when I personally had to start believing what I was reading. As Einstein said “There are no coincidences” and there volumes of them, if I wanted to maintain my own denial.
I like your idea of 3-4 diaries. Your are 100% right on – I definitely do not want to do a book and win a free trip to Guantanamo, Baghram or some other exotic place. And I am too old for prolonged water sports.
As a former teacher, my strength is in outline planning, then taking one chunk and requiring students to work in groups, do the research, and validate their conclusions. The drawback is that when teaching, I realize that there will be continuity and everyone is on the same page, more or less, so I do not have to worry about abrupt breaks in information. As you can probably tell science and quick summarizations are not one of my talents. ( I feel that’s cheating someone out of basic information).
Any ideas on how you feel I should break out the information, without ruining or losing the continuity of the whole? This is the part I still haven’t been able to comfortably figure out.
Thanks for your help- and PLEASE, keep it coming.
Kerry is over on dKos again… on filibustering Alito. Please go give him your voice.