No successful appointments to the Supreme Court during my conscious lifetime have been approved without a substantial bi-partisan majority of the Senate. Alito will be the exception. I am sad that Bush couldn’t have chosen one of the hundreds of qualified judges who would have gotten 80 or 90 Senate votes. Justice Ginsberg was recommended to then president Clinton by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch.
Despite one of the most aggressive well-financed opposition movements demanding a filibuster, Alito will be approved in a Fristesque vote. Shockingly, Robert Byrd is one of two Democrat senators who said they would not support filibuster. The other is the junior Colorado Senator Ken Salazar who narrowly beat his primary challenger as a result of an organized union movement that he has now betrayed.
My frustration, and resignation is well expressed among the 628 comments here.
The Dems better wake up
I’ve been a registered Democrat my whole life, but I’m so fed up with the party I can’t hardly stand it. The Democratic party lost it’s spine a long time ago. Only a handful of truly progressive Democrats event exist.
The party better wake up, because they are losing their base.
I consider this more important than the Nov elections. Now, it’s 40 more years of a ultra-conservative Supreme. They’ve got bare minimum – Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito who will all vote the same every single time. Domestic spying, ok; 2-term Presidency, out the door. Vote Reform; no.
Benedict Nelson Selling his country out for money.
I called the DC office, took three tries to get through. Told them that I’d never vote for him again for the rest of my life, and they could kiss goodbye any chance of seeing money from me or my family.
Maybe I am a freak. Maybe the Right know something I don’t. Maybe they see a better world when the president is above the law, and women will surrender their reproductive decisions to men in power.
Somebody please tell me how that world will be better than it is now.



#1 by Anon on January 30, 2006 - 11:33 pm
Yeah, the Democratic performance here ticks me off to the quick as well. I had hoped for far more from Harry Reid and the gang. I think Alito’s replacing O’Connor is a likely disaster for the country for a very long time to come. Alito clearly prefers order to liberty, the institution to the individual.
Instead of a wholesale overturning of hard-won past victories over the tyranny of the majority look for a gradual erosion from ever more exceptions in criminal law, reproductive rights, privacy and environmental laws and regulations.
As for Democrats, I am expecting the launch of major initiatives right after the State of the Union address on immigration, outsourcing, education, health care and defense. They had better be forthcoming quickly and be powerful.
I have some (good) ideas in all those areas and would be happy to share some if there is any interest in kicking them around as a topic somewhere here.
#2 by Cliff Lyon on January 31, 2006 - 7:53 am
Anon,
Thank you!
I’d be happy to top post yout thoughts.
Emails me at cliff -at- oneutah.org
Thanks!
#3 by Dow Patten on January 31, 2006 - 8:24 am
One thing that is pretty apparent from the last 30 days on the Alito nomination is that the netroots actually made a difference. For example, Dianne Feinstein, switched from not supporting the filibuster to supporting it. Usually when Democrats have a throw-away vote (they are in the minority) they throw the vote towards the Republican agenda in hopes of availing themselves of the ‘centrist” aura. That changed this week.
Hopefully the Democratic spine implant that is taking years to complete will show up again next week when Mr. Gonzales shows up at the Senate Judiciary committee to justify why we need to break the law to get millions of more dots when we haven’t even connected the ones we have.
Re: discussion on policy choices where the Democrats can make a positive difference: post away!
#4 by Bradley Ross on February 1, 2006 - 11:33 pm
“2-term Presidency, out the door.”
I don’t get it. Is there a rational fear that Alito will change the number of terms a president may serve? How is it proposed that he might do this?