News To Fillibuster or Not To Fillibuster

[Dawguard]

and you know what I meant. I was striking on the emotional response that Americans have to words used to describe holy men in Islam. Heck, if you listen to the crap that comes from Robertson's mouth it is almost exactly the kind of crap you hear out of the religious leaders of Islam.

Sure, he's called for the Naziesque destruction of the Jews, the anhiliation of every infidel on the planet and the murder of innocent children. I'm sure he'd like nothing better then to send fourteen year old children into market places with bombs strapped onto their back. Yeah, he's just like the extreme muslim terrorists, isn't he?

 

[ComputerGeek]

Sure, he's called for the Naziesque destruction of the Jews, the anhiliation of every infidel on the planet and the murder of innocent children. I'm sure he'd like nothing better then to send fourteen year old children into market places with bombs strapped onto their back. Yeah, he's just like the extreme muslim terrorists, isn't he?

Almost... he has called for the death of all Muslims as they are Satan's followers, he has called for the murder of foreign leaders, He has said that God will destroy cities in the US because they do not teach ID in their schools. He owns Diamond mines that work people to death

No, he does not need to strap bombs on people because he has the power to influence things without resorting to such atrocities.

 

[phcatlantis]

Almost... he has called for the death of all Muslims as they are Satan's followers...

I don't believe he's ever called for the death of Satan's followers.

...he has called for the murder of foreign leaders...

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, this is hard to object to on principle given Hitler's case. Why is Hugo Chavez any different?

He has said that God will destroy cities in the US because they do not teach ID in their schools.

Yet hasn't raised a finger against them himself or incited others to do so. What an amazing sense of restraint.

He owns Diamond mines that work people to death...

And you "own" a law enforcement agency that puts innocent Americans in the line of fire of some dangerous people. Unless you want to charge Robertson with being a slaver, I don't think there's anything profound about observing that mining is a dangerous business.

No, he does not need to strap bombs on people because he has the power to influence things without resorting to such atrocities.

Yes, damn him for peaceably petitioning his government.

 

[SOS2008]

"Religion...mixed into government" is a pretty ambiguous statement, one I doubt the religious right would accept as a description of their aims without clarity of definition and severe qualification. Insofar as the religious right sees Establishment clause issues differently from you, I imagine its because they feel that is the best path, socially, politically and legally, for the country. On the other hand, don't you think random temper tantrums over your disagreements with conservatives deserve their own thread?

Temper tantrum?

There have already been threads on separation of church and state, and the misconstruing of the Establishment clause. I'm sure you can see from discussion about ID that most members feel the religious right is indeed trying to undermine separation of church and state.

In regard to Supreme Court nominations, perhaps you have already forgotten the WH pitch on behalf of Miers? A little slip up that revealed the true desire to accommodate the religious right (specifically the Christian faith), and clearly contrary to separation of church and state.

 

[Dawguard]

SOS2008, I'm not sure how you construe Alito's nomination as trying to destroy the separation of church and state. It's a pretty far leap to claim that a religious man can't hold a high position in government without being biased. What, is everything supposed to be run by aetheists and agnostics? I'm not sure what you're really getting at, how is the separation being violated?

 

[phcatlantis]

Temper tantrum?

Yes, whiny, unreasonable ranting for effect. Temper tantrum.

There have already been threads on separation of church and state, and the misconstruing of the Establishment clause. I'm sure you can see from discussion about ID that most members feel the religious right is indeed trying to undermine separation of church and state.

I'm not sure why your personal superstitions or those of likeminded people should concern me or this thread.

In regard to Supreme Court nominations, perhaps you have already forgotten the WH pitch on behalf of Miers? A little slip up that revealed the true desire to accommodate the religious right (specifically the Christian faith), and clearly contrary to separation of church and state.

We're clearly of two different minds on this issue. So my point stands, I think the religious right would be hesitant to describe its ambitions as you do.

 

[SOS2008]

SOS2008, I'm not sure how you construe Alito's nomination as trying to destroy the separation of church and state. It's a pretty far leap to claim that a religious man can't hold a high position in government without being biased. What, is everything supposed to be run by aetheists and agnostics? I'm not sure what you're really getting at, how is the separation being violated?

Once again, do not twist my words. If you read back you will see I never said that in regard to Alito, though I do believe there is a good likelihood that he will bring his personal religious beliefs into law making. What I said is that the religious right is so consumed with their singular quest to impose their beliefs on everyone else (e.g., make abortion illegal) that they are turning a blind eye to separation of church and state.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather derives from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson referred to a “wall of separation between church and state.” James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, “Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.” Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Church_and_State

There are those who openly want the U.S. to be a Christian theocracy, such as Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism, etc. This is what Bush represents:

Theocracy and Neofascism

However, some critics categorize the Christian Reconstructionist movement as a form of totalitarianism or theocratic neofascism. For example, Karen Armstrong sees a potential for fascism in Christian Reconstructionism, and notes that the system of dominion envisaged by Christian Reconstructionist theologians R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North "is totalitarian. There is no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom," (Armstrong, Battle for God, pp. 361-362).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism#Theocracy_and_Neofascism

 

[phcatlantis]

There are those who openly want the U.S. to be a Christian theocracy, such as Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism, etc. This is what Bush represents:

Do you have any evidence other than the conspiracy-mongering of left-wing lunatics pointing towards an influential Christian movement to institute American theocracy and President Bush's complicity? Or is this just a bunch of fringe garbage sane people should shrug off?

 

[Dawguard]

Once again, do not twist my words. If you read back you will see I never said that in regard to Alito, though I do believe there is a good likelihood that he will bring his personal religious beliefs into law making.

I don't need to put words into your mouth, you just said it now.

There are those who openly want the U.S. to be a Christian theocracy, such as Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism, etc. This is what Bush represents:

Trust me, I know about reconstructionism very well. However, the majority of Christians don't adhere to this. Most of them are premillenialists: believing that Christ will come and rule on Earth for a thousand years. The reconstuctionists are postmillenialists: believing that there will be thousand year reign of Christanity, and then Christ will come. They want to bring about this thousand year reign so that Christ can come. As I said, most Christians fall into the former category. While there are a few reconstructionists, prominently the founder RushDoony who died recently, their beliefs do not translate into actions. I asked you before and I ask you again, show me one instance when the separation has been breached?
As for the part of your quote about Bush, you have absolutely no proof for this. This is groundless paranioa, religiousphobia if you will. Do you expect all of the 210 million Christians in the US to be fairminded? Of course there will be extremists, but why do you insist that they threaten the foundation of American demoracy? Just because Bush is Christian doens't mean he's part of the reconstrucionist movement. I ask you to give me proof, show it to me! All you have done is prove that the movement exists. Is there a single law that has been proposed that threatens the seperation? Have there been any actions taken by the president that threaten the seperation? Take one honest look at reality and I think you will see that your fear is nothing more then an overreaction to inevitable extremism.

 

[Dawguard]

Do you have any evidence other than the conspiracy-mongering of left-wing lunatics pointing towards an influential Christian movement to institute American theocracy and President Bush's complicity? Or is this just a bunch of fringe garbage sane people should shrug off?

It's conspiracy mongering. I don't even know why I bother to point out the lunacy. I guess I'm bored and need something to do.

 

[phcatlantis]

It's conspiracy mongering. I don't even know why I bother to point out the lunacy. I guess I'm bored and need something to do.

You and me both, brutha.

 

[SOS2008]

I don't need to put words into your mouth, you just said it now.

Well thank you for letting me say it myself. And there is good evidence (Alito’s record) to support the comment and concern in regard to his nomination. It is not “left-wing lunatics.”

I'm aware that most Christians don't adhere to Reconstructionism, and I did not say they do. I have provided many a post with evidence on Bush and fascist behavior as well. By stating these things exist is not a conspiracy if it is true these things exist.

Back to the topic…

Long live checks and balances in the United States!

 

[Dawguard]

Well thank you for letting me say it myself. And there is good evidence (Alito’s record) to support the comment and concern in regard to his nomination. It is not “left-wing lunatics.”

Show me the evidence. For the third time now, show it to me! Or perhaps you can't, because there isn't any?

 

[ComputerGeek]

Show me the evidence. For the third time now, show it to me! Or perhaps you can't, because there isn't any?

He just pointed to Alito's Judicial record. He is consistently in the minority in his rulings because he consistently rules against precedent (which is NOT the function of the appeals court)

If you read the majority opinions (most of the time, the majority is all of the other judges on the same court as Alito) They routinely cite Alito's lack of following set precedent.

Every single time Alito dissented from the rest of the court, it was in favor of Government power, Corporate power, against women, or against minorities.

Look at his record and you will see exactly what I am talking about.

 

[phcatlantis]

He just pointed to Alito's Judicial record.

Extending one's finger and pointing at the screen hardly constitutes an argument.

He is consistently in the minority in his rulings because he consistently rules against precedent (which is NOT the function of the appeals court)

Define "consistently dissents."

 

[ComputerGeek]

Extending one's finger and pointing at the screen hardly constitutes an argument.
Define "consistently dissents."

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

OK, can we lay of the semantics? His record shows that, against the rest of the appeals court, he predictably rules against women and minorities, for government power, and for corporate power.

 

[SOS2008]

Show me the evidence. For the third time now, show it to me! Or perhaps you can't, because there isn't any?

Because you have provided so much evidence for your position, quickly:

The CNN survey of his record found he has ruled on many hot-button issues: the death penalty, discrimination complaints, church-state disputes, gun control, police searches.

..."When they touch on issues that split people along political lines, Alito's dissents show a remarkable pattern: They are almost uniformly conservative," said Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor, who conducted a thorough analysis of Alito's record.

"In the overwhelming majority of cases, he has urged a more conservative position than that of his colleagues. In his dissents, at least, he has been a conservative's conservative -- not always in his reasoning, which tends to be modest, but in his ultimate conclusions."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/06/alito.record/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Carl Levin said Thursday that he would oppose Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, citing questions over whether the judge would be independent of President Bush and the executive branch.

"Judge Alito's record ... is one of supporting undue deference to the executive branch and raises significant doubts as to whether he would adequately apply the checks and balances that the Founders enshrined in the Constitution to protect, in part, against an overreaching executive," the Michigan Democrat said in remarks prepared for delivery later Thursday.

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/base/news-31/1138302872323370.xml&storylist=mibusiness

Many legitimate concerns have been raised about the fitness of Judge Samuel Alito for the United States Supreme Court, and few were allayed at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Alito didn't say a lot ...

That leaves mainly Alito's writings from which to weigh him as a potential member of the nation's highest court, and on that basis -- at this perilous point in American history -- he would not be a good addition.

While demonstrably bright enough to do the job, Alito has not as a government attorney and federal judge demonstrated sufficient respect for the checks and balances on which this democracy depends.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20060124/OPINION01/601240318/1068/OPINION

Other links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/02/AR2005110202724.html

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/media/media-samuel-alito.xml

 

[Dawguard]

Of course Alito judges conservatively, what else would you expect from a conservative? Liberals judge liberaly, so I fail to see a problem with him judging conservatively. We can't all be on one side of an issue, a multitude of opinions is what democracy is all about.
As for what you and Levin called his disrepect for checks, balanced and civil liberties, I'm sorry but I won't take his word for it any more then yours. I could quote other senators saying the exact opposite thing: it's only their opinion. The Washington Post artical you linked to said, In civil rights cases, Alito has agreed with the court's majority most of the time, The Post's review found. When he disagrees, he is not prone to inflammatory language or frontal challenges to Supreme Court precedent. Still, when he has taken a dissenting stance, Alito repeatedly has set a higher bar than his fellow judges for plaintiffs to prove that they were discriminated against -- and sometimes even to get a trial. Bold text added.
That doesn't exactly sound like damning evidence to me. All Alito has ever done is judge conservitavely on issues, and I fail to see why that should disqualify him from the Supreme Court. In order to mollify your fears, consider a recent case in the court. An Oregon law made it legal for doctors to give patients fatal doses of medicine if they demanded it: basicaly euthinasia. The law was challenged all the way to the supreme court where it was upheld 6-3. Even with Alito on the bench there the vote would have been 5-4. Just because Alito is more conservative then you doesn't make him a threat to the country. The court is still balanced in favor of the liberal point of view.

 

[SOS2008]

Of course each side can make their arguments. The thread is about the filibuster. The very fact that the Republican majority has threatened the “nuclear option” to prevent checks and balances from the other percent of the nation who feel Alito is too far out of the mainstream is the issue at hand.

That people fail to understand the importance of this is what I find most disconcerting.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Of course Alito judges conservatively, what else would you expect from a conservative? Liberals judge liberaly, so I fail to see a problem with him judging conservatively. We can't all be on one side of an issue, a multitude of opinions is what democracy is all about.
As for what you and Levin called his disrepect for checks, balanced and civil liberties, I'm sorry but I won't take his word for it any more then yours. I could quote other senators saying the exact opposite thing: it's only their opinion. The Washington Post artical you linked to said, In civil rights cases, Alito has agreed with the court's majority most of the time, The Post's review found. When he disagrees, he is not prone to inflammatory language or frontal challenges to Supreme Court precedent. Still, when he has taken a dissenting stance, Alito repeatedly has set a higher bar than his fellow judges for plaintiffs to prove that they were discriminated against -- and sometimes even to get a trial. Bold text added.
That doesn't exactly sound like damning evidence to me. All Alito has ever done is judge conservitavely on issues, and I fail to see why that should disqualify him from the Supreme Court. In order to mollify your fears, consider a recent case in the court. An Oregon law made it legal for doctors to give patients fatal doses of medicine if they demanded it: basicaly euthinasia. The law was challenged all the way to the supreme court where it was upheld 6-3. Even with Alito on the bench there the vote would have been 5-4. Just because Alito is more conservative then you doesn't make him a threat to the country. The court is still balanced in favor of the liberal point of view.

The problem is not conservative rulings.. the problem is that he is to the right of the conservatives on the bench!

The Chief Justice is conservative, but I have faith from his record and his answers in his confirmation that he will rule according to the law (albeit a conservative perspective) but, Being pro government power all the time, pro big business all the time, anti-women and minorities all the time is not a conservative, it is a right wing extremist who values the powerful over the powerless.

 

[Dawguard]

The problem is not conservative rulings.. the problem is that he is to the right of the conservatives on the bench!

The Chief Justice is conservative, but I have faith from his record and his answers in his confirmation that he will rule according to the law (albeit a conservative perspective) but, Being pro government power all the time, pro big business all the time, anti-women and minorities all the time is not a conservative, it is a right wing extremist who values the powerful over the powerless.

I ask the same question of you that I asked of SOS2008, show me the freakin' evidence! Let's see the rulings he made, or argued for, in favor of discrimination, etc. Sure he's against abortion, that's hardly extreme. Sure he's against affirmitive action, that's not extreme either. Shout and rant all you like about how evil he is, it won't do you any good unless you can prove it. You might hear people saying it over and over again until you actaully believe it, but that doesn't make it true. We're talking about a real person here, not some imagenary concept we can insult as much as we like. Those are serious charges you are throwing at this man, just as real as you. If you were in his place wouldn't you want evidence shown against you before being condemned? Show some respect for humanity and abide by the adige "innocent until proven guilty".
Now, getting back on topic about the fillibuster. The fillibuster is, as SOS2008 pointed out, is designed to protect to minority against the majority theatening them. The key point there is threat. The fillibuster can be abused like any other tool, and used only to oppose mere partisan politics. This is not what it was meant for. We must then establish whether Alito is a threat. If he is not then using the fillibuster would be a pathetic attempt to push the party's politics. Therefore the question to fillibuster him or not boils down to another question: is he a threat? That is why the thread changed topics to this discussion. Until that question is answered then the idea of fillibustering him cannot be resolved.

 

[BobG]

There's two parts to the issue.

Alito won't be filibustered. Alito has a very "pro-establishment" pattern, but no single cases you could point to and say he's completely "out there". "Very conservative" is about the worst you could say about him. Alito's key cases
(It wouldn't bother me to see him filibustered. It bothers me to see Bush stack the court that will eventually make rulings on his wiretapping and detainee policies. Realistically, that's unavoidable and a poor reason for a filibuster since you can't implement a "Stop Loss" program to prevent Supreme Court Justices from retiring or dieing.)

The filibuster, itself, should be protected. John Bolton comes up for confirmation in January '07 (recess appointments are only good until the next Congress). He was successfully filibustered last summer and should be filibustered again, even if the result will be another recess appointment. To a certain extent, it's not really beneficial to the US to present the idea that Bush's views entirely reflect America's.

 

[SOS2008]

The problem is not conservative rulings.. the problem is that he is to the right of the conservatives on the bench!

The Chief Justice is conservative, but I have faith from his record and his answers in his confirmation that he will rule according to the law (albeit a conservative perspective) but, Being pro government power all the time, pro big business all the time, anti-women and minorities all the time is not a conservative, it is a right wing extremist who values the powerful over the powerless.

I know I have provided evidence via quotes and links to articles that discuss specific cases such as Bray v Marriott, etc., too lengthy to post here and not focused on the filibuster per the OP. Therefore, I for one will no longer reply to certain members who continue to make unreasonable demands while showing no effort to provide substance of their own.

There's two parts to the issue.

Alito won't be filibustered. Alito has a very "pro-establishment" pattern, but no single cases you could point to and say he's completely "out there". "Very conservative" is about the worst you could say about him. Alito's key cases

(It wouldn't bother me to see him filibustered. It bothers me to see Bush stack the court that will eventually make rulings on his wiretapping and detainee policies. Realistically, that's unavoidable and a poor reason for a filibuster since you can't implement a "Stop Loss" program to prevent Supreme Court Justices from retiring or dieing.)

The filibuster, itself, should be protected. John Bolton comes up for confirmation in January '07 (recess appointments are only good until the next Congress). He was successfully filibustered last summer and should be filibustered again, even if the result will be another recess appointment. To a certain extent, it's not really beneficial to the US to present the idea that Bush's views entirely reflect America's.

Once again BobG, thank you for your wonderful contribution.

 

[ComputerGeek]

I ask the same question of you that I asked of SOS2008, show me the freakin' evidence! Let's see the rulings he made, or argued for, in favor of discrimination, etc. Sure he's against abortion, that's hardly extreme. Sure he's against affirmitive action, that's not extreme either. Shout and rant all you like about how evil he is, it won't do you any good unless you can prove it. You might hear people saying it over and over again until you actaully believe it, but that doesn't make it true. We're talking about a real person here, not some imagenary concept we can insult as much as we like. Those are serious charges you are throwing at this man, just as real as you. If you were in his place wouldn't you want evidence shown against you before being condemned? Show some respect for humanity and abide by the adige "innocent until proven guilty".
Now, getting back on topic about the fillibuster. The fillibuster is, as SOS2008 pointed out, is designed to protect to minority against the majority theatening them. The key point there is threat. The fillibuster can be abused like any other tool, and used only to oppose mere partisan politics. This is not what it was meant for. We must then establish whether Alito is a threat. If he is not then using the fillibuster would be a pathetic attempt to push the party's politics. Therefore the question to fillibuster him or not boils down to another question: is he a threat? That is why the thread changed topics to this discussion. Until that question is answered then the idea of fillibustering him cannot be resolved.

It is PUBLIC INFORMATION.

I cited his record... go look it up. when you do a research paper, should anyone reading it require that you drop off all the cited materials? no... the citation is enough.

you want a meta citation so you do not have to work as hard?

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/685/YLS%20Alito%20Project%20Final%20Report.pdf

 

[Dawguard]

It is PUBLIC INFORMATION.

I cited his record... go look it up. when you do a research paper, should anyone reading it require that you drop off all the cited materials? no... the citation is enough.

you want a meta citation so you do not have to work as hard?

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/685/YLS%20Alito%20Project%20Final%20Report.pdf

Just to nullify the claims that I haven't suplied evidance for my position, I have to remind you that you are the ones accusing Alito. All I have to do is defend from your claims. Never forget, innocent until proven guilty.
ComputerGeek, I read the report you linked to as citation. Unfortunatly I don't find that it conforms what you've said. While a cursory glance at it might make it seem this way, a careful read will show you the details of the cases. His so called anti-woman stance comes from the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey when he said that a women needed to notify her husband before having an abortion. He never said she needed consent, she wouldn't need his permition. All she had to do was tell him what she was doing. The husband could do nothing to stop her. No rights were infringed.
The pro-bigbusiness and anti-minority claims come from dissents where he thought that the plaintiff had failed to provide enough evidance that they were discriminated against due to race or gender. Here again I see little problem. I say little not no because it is very easy to misconstrue his opinions. To accuratly decide whether he is bigotted or not we would have to look at the evidance in the case. However, just becuase he ruled against minorities does not make him biggoted. If every case were decided in favor of the employees then all someone would have to do would be to sue themselves into a promotion. There is nothing inherently wrong in ruling against minorities and employees, so long as they were not ruled against becuasethey were minorities and employees. The article did not discuss this aspect of his rulings. In fact it even said, However, in cases where the employer does not present a consistent explanation for its conduct, Judge Alito has ruled againstthe employer. Bold text added.
Finally the pro government claim you made. He consistenly voted against the power of Congress, he certanly is harsher on criminals then liberals might prefer but this alone is not a condeming since it is a mainstream conservitive viewpoint, he ruled in favor of the EPA and I find nothing in the report of court cases that promote government over individuals.
Reading this report seems to nullify your own claims. You said,

Being pro government power all the time, pro big business all the time, anti-women and minorities all the time is not a conservative, it is a right wing extremist who values the powerful over the powerless.

The report does not support your claims, nor do any of the cases that I have seen. Oh, by the way of your insinuations that I don't want to actually research Alito myself, I must let you know that is false. I didn't just give the man a free pass; I looked up many cases before making up my mind, long before this thread was started. What I did not find was evidence that he was an extremists, so that was why I asked you for it.

Edit: That was an excellent article you linked to. It combined everything in one report, which was better then what I found when researching him.

 

[SOS2008]

Sure he's against abortion, that's hardly extreme. Sure he's against affirmitive action, that's not extreme either.

CBS News/New York Times Poll on Abortion - Jan. 20-25, 2006

Generally Available @ 38%
Stricter Limits @ 39%
Not Permitted @ 21%
Unsure @ 2%

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

= 77% do not feel abortion should be made illegal. People in general who want abortion to be illegal are therefore outside the mainstream. As for affirmative action, this refers to programs to compensate for discrimination, not necessarily in regard to discrimination itself (individual/minority rights). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_rights

I would hope all Americans support individual/minority rights, not just Supreme Court judges.

Edit: That was an excellent article you linked to. It combined everything in one report, which was better then what I found when researching him.

Yes, that was a great link to an excellent study ComputerGeek:

From these cases, we identified several trends in Judge Alito’s judicial approach: he rules in favor of institutional actors and defers to agency decisions in many settings while showing skepticism toward individual litigants’ claims; he appears to support a narrow view of civil rights, prisoner’s rights, and workers’ rights but a broad view of religious freedoms; he appears willing to uphold legislative restrictions on abortion; and he is willing to limit congressional power. When able, he has sought to move the law to achieve the broad philosophical purposes articulated in the memorandum he submitted in November 1985 as part of his application to become Deputy Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel.

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html...l%20Report.pdf

So I think it is fair to say that Alito is outside the mainstream. Returning to the filibuster…

Now, getting back on topic about the fillibuster. The fillibuster is, as SOS2008 pointed out, is designed to protect to minority against the majority theatening them. The key point there is threat. The fillibuster can be abused like any other tool, and used only to oppose mere partisan politics. This is not what it was meant for. We must then establish whether Alito is a threat. If he is not then using the fillibuster would be a pathetic attempt to push the party's politics. Therefore the question to fillibuster him or not boils down to another question: is he a threat? That is why the thread changed topics to this discussion. Until that question is answered then the idea of fillibustering him cannot be resolved.

The accusation that Dems have abused the filibuster is another right-wing claim that has no basis. First we can go back through different administrations and see how presidents typically reach across the aisle for some consensus before making a nomination. Bush has blatantly ignored this precedence. Then if you look at the record, you will see that the majority of Bush’s nominations have been approved, including the three most recent controversial judges per great concession via the “gang of 14.” If you feel the Dems have abused the filibuster, please provide evidence.

 

[Dawguard]

CBS News/New York Times Poll on Abortion - Jan. 20-25, 2006

Generally Available @ 38%
Stricter Limits @ 39%
Not Permitted @ 21%
Unsure @ 2%

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

= 77% do not feel abortion should be made illegal. People in general who want abortion to be illegal are therefore outside the mainstream.

That the 39% who favor limitations not complete illegalization do not say that they're for abortion. You can be opposed to it but still not want it outlawed. For example simply making it illegal would leave no recourse for rape victims, the mother's life endangered, etc. Thus to say that 77% percent of America are for abortion is a minscontruing of the poll. Alito has judges for stricter limitations, so combining two other groups, he might represent 60% of Americans, clearly in the mainstream. This might be misconstruing the poll too though.

As for affirmative action, this refers to programs to compensate for discrimination, not necessarily in regard to discrimination itself (individual/minority rights). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_rights

I would hope all Americans support individual/minority rights, not just Supreme Court judges.

Of course we should support individual/minority rights. That doesn't mean we should support affirmitive action. There needs to be no injustice for affirmitive action to take effect. A minority who lives in a middle class family and has the exact same qualifications as a caucasion who lives in the same category will be, under affirmitive action, preferred over the caucasion simply becuase he is a different race. Any preference of race is wrong, regardless of whether they are a minority or majority. I don't give a damn what race you are, there should be absolutely no discrimination.

Yes, that was a great link to an excellent study ComputerGeek:

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html...l%20Report.pdf

So I think it is fair to say that Alito is outside the mainstream. Returning to the filibuster…

As I said to ComputerGeek, a cursory glance at the beginning will indeed make him appear somewhat extreme. Read on though and look at the cases themselves, you will see that his rulings, while conservative, are hardly extremist. In my last post I cited some of his cases from this report, if you wish me to list even more I would be happy to do so.

The accusation that Dems have abused the filibuster is another right-wing claim that has no basis. First we can go back through different administrations and see how presidents typically reach across the aisle for some consensus before making a nomination. Bush has blatantly ignored this precedence. Then if you look at the record, you will see that the majority of Bush’s nominations have been approved, including the three most recent controversial judges per great concession via the “gang of 14.” If you feel the Dems have abused the filibuster, please provide evidence.

I said if the Dems fillibuster him it would be an abuse. If, not have. I also said it could be abused, which is a simple fact of politics. However, I don't believe that it has been abused yet, only that it could be.

 

[Dawguard]

Well, it was just unoficially confirmed that Alito has got over fifty-one votes. The voting is still going on, but just to let you know he's in now.
Turns out the dems didn't abuse the fillibuster. Good for them, they were able to see beyond partisan hatred, I repectfully salute them for that.

 

[SOS2008]

Sometimes you lose a battle to win a war. Yes, good for the Dems, they were able to overlook the GOP power grab, abuses, and threats. They understand the importance of checks and balances and the future of the U.S.

Meanwhile, illegal activities will continue to be exposed. Americans should take heed of the Palestinians. To quote Bush: "Obviously people were not happy with the status quo, the people are demanding honest government…” With the 2006 elections, power should become more balanced again, and in 2008...

 

[Dawguard]

I completely agree. The republicans are in more trouble then I think they realize. People won't overlook the scandals going on and something has to give. I wouldn't be sorry to see many of them thrown out. Unfortunatly I don't have much hope in the democrats either. I'm an independent and trust neither party. Going all the way back to the Grant administration after the Civil War there has been graft, corruption and abuse of power by the government and I see no reason why it should change.
Oh well, this really is off topic now. You're right, I think not using the fillibuster will help the dems in the upcoming election, and I wouldn't be suprised to see them gain a few seats due to it. It really is ironic that Bush stated the foreshadowed echo of his own demise.