As a lifelong Democrat who loves his country and so very much values the liberties and protections with which we are endowed by our great constitution, I am pleased to learn that you will be voting against confirmation of Samuel Alito for appointment to the Supreme Court.
However, with heartfelt sadness, I have to tell you that a simple no vote against Alito is not enough. Should you fail to participate in an attempt to filibuster this nominee, I will regard such behavior as not only negligent on your part, but as a direct abdication of your sworn oath as a member of congress to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.
It is inconceivable to me that you, along with so many other Democrats in congress, are seemingly more concerned with a strategy of compromise in the (foolish, in my opinion) hope that such capitulation to the desires of the Bush regime will enhance Democratic Party chances for electoral victory in ’06 and again in ’08; that you find this strategic calculus far more important than actually standing up against the most obvious threat to the very relevance of our constitution and the core principles that have guided our country from the beginning.
Samuel Alito is the personification of this threat, and the fact that you and so many of your colleagues can blithely determine to vote against him in open session yet fail to fully acknowledge the true nature and scope of the threat he poses represents a hypocrisy on an order of magnitude I cannot even begin to describe in words.
Whatever electoral calculus you and your Democratic colleagues may be using to legitimize this strategy, I can only say to you that there are literally tens of millions of us regular democratic voters and citizens out here who repudiate the very premise that not doing all that is possible to block this nomination from going forward is going to be advantageous on any level to the country or to the Democratic party.
There are many many more of us now than there were just a few short years ago who now understand fully the simple idea that, as long as our Democratic representatives fail to stand up vigorously for our principles and beliefs, as long as they continue to “go along to get along” with the Republican machine, we will not be sending you any money, any volunteers, and certainly many fewer votes than previously.
I hope you may understand before too much longer that If you are not different enough from the Republicans to make a difference, we have no use for you, and the sooner we push you out, the sooner we’ll be able to replace you with new representatives that will stand up for that which we value.
I sent this to my Senator Bill Nelson here in Florida. He’s announced he’ll vote against Alito, I haven’t heard him advocate for filibuster, and I douibt I will. Hence the letter.
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).
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/…
I sent similar letters. Made the calls. Whenever final vote is, if they can’t deliver, I’m through. I’ve thought it through. Am I stupid for being a one-issue voter in this regard? Maybe. But I’m done with the party. Was close to going to meetings. Trying to make changes in the Democratic structure. Waste of time, IMHO. Done. Done. Done.
Time to be true to beliefs. Can’t take the caving, going along to get along idiots. Just not gonna do it. Happy to hand it over to the Republocrats. All one and the same. Voting for any third party for the rest of my life, or not voting at all. Living in a police state anyhow.
Super pissed.
Nice try sbj.
we’ll have ’em all in one diary!
Great idea.
And after the fall of the empire an enterprising anthologist can collect these letters together and publish them as proof that at least some portion of the population recognized the threat and the imminence of the impending decline and made some effort to prevent it.
I’m with you. If these cowards can’t stand up, who needs them. Better to make room for new blood.
here is the letter i sent to my senator:
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 on 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 nomination; 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, White House Counsel, 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 be 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
The rationality of your letter gets me because it stands in such stark contrast with our elected officials’ ability and desire to even consider such elemental concepts of common sense and the common good. Their ambition is such that it leaves no room for such considerations.