Why is the Senate Dem Leadership Doing It?

[lawrocket 3]

Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry (both Massachussetts Democrats) are fighting tooth and nail to force a filibuster of Alito. It seems that both are convinced that Alito would be bad news for them.

Said Ted Kennedy in a pretty interesting statement, "How can a clear record like that possibly justify a lifetime position on the Supreme Court?" Why is that interesting? Because Ted Kennedy has held on to his Senate seat since 1962. Only Robert Byrd has served longer - since 1959.

The longest serving membr of the SCOTUS is John Paul Stevens, having taken the bench in 1975. Rehquist served from 1972-2005. Byron White, who served until he retired in 1993, was confirmed by Kennedy in 1962. Yeah, lifetime tenure is feared by Kennedy.

Still, the American public doesn't seem too terrified. A large number of democrats seem to be sharply opposed to the idea of a filibuster. Odds are, the other dems who don't support the filibuster are not from states like Massachussetts, and will likely face some political consequence from a filibuster.

Why is it that the Democratic leadership seems so out of the "mainstream?" What is the point that Kerry and Kennedy are trying to make?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry (both Massachussetts Democrats) are fighting tooth and nail to force a filibuster of Alito.

And I just love the irony of Kerry calling for this in a speech he made while on a ski vacation in Switzerland. If he's so darned in favor of it, maybe he ought to come home and do it himself.

Quote

What is the point that Kerry and Kennedy are trying to make?

Desperation?

They lost the Presidency, twice. They lost the Senate. They lost the House. And now they're losing the Supreme Court. It was the last vestige of power they had remaining.

And yet they still cling to their extremist liberal policy positions... Doh!

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Yeah, lifetime tenure is feared by Kennedy.

Running for re-election every six years for life is hardly comparable to lifetime tenure.

You're usually such a clear thinker that I'm astounded you made this mistake.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[lawrocket 3]

It's no mistake. Nobody can touch Kennedy in Mass. Not even a homicide could stop him.

Byrd is similar. How many buildings are named after the guy? HE is effective at securing funding.

ONce these senators get established, it's pretty hard to get someone else elected. Funding, the franking privilege, etc., all are systems in place to keep them in power once they get it.

Don't you think it says something that Kennedy has had a much longer tenure than the longest serving justice in SCOTUS history (Justice Douglas served 36 years starting in 1939)? Doesn't it say something that there have been 3 federal judges with lifetime tenure removed from the bench since 1986? Kerry and Kennedy have been Massachusetts senators since 1985.

Of course, one of those judges who was removed - Alcee Hastings - is doing quite well in the House of Representatives, where he has been since he was elected in 1992. There appears to be no prospect for an impending defeat for him, either.

Clearly there is something more at work when lifetime tenures as federal judges may be less secure than a job as a Massachussetts Senator or a Florida Representative. A federal judge has more of a chance of being removed than a Massachussetts Senator. A little food for thought, eh?

Anyway, the Senate voted 72-25 to end debate.

Alito is in.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

What is the point that Kerry and Kennedy are trying to make?

Strategy for the future.

They -know- that the Republicans could have and would have easily blocked the filibuster. By pressing the issue they stave off future attempts when it's their turn.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It's no mistake. Nobody can touch Kennedy in Mass. Not even a homicide could stop him.

Long standing Senators *have* in fact fallen from grace and been knocked out of office. But Clarence Thomas is still in the Supreme Court. Stop pretending these are at all alike.

I don't think this is a serious blocking attempt by Alito. Looks more like a kickoff to the election.

[wmw999 2,600]

Quote

speech he made while on a ski vacation in Switzerland

Actually he was at the World Economic Summit. That said, I think a filibuster is a terrible idea, and it's all about political posturing. But such is life and politics.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

it's all about political posturing

Indeed. Here's the Senate voting for the SCOTUS justices. (Name, Appointed by, Senate Vote, First day on the job):

John Paul Stevens, Ford, 98-0, 12/19/75

Sandra Day O'Connor, Reagan 99-0, 9/25/81

Antonin Scalia, Reagan 98-0, 9/26/86

Anthony Kennedy, Reagan 97-0, 2/18/88

David Souter, G.H.W. Bush 90-9, 10/9/90

Clarence Thomas, G.H.W. Bush 52-48, 10/23/91

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clinton 97-3, 8/10/93

Stephen Breyer, Clinton 87-9, 8/3/94

John Roberts (Chief Justice) G.W. Bush 78-22, 9/29/05

With the exception of Thomas, the lines were pretty clear. I think Alito is gonna be approved in the 55 vote range.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

it's all about political posturing

Indeed. Here's the Senate voting for the SCOTUS justices. (Name, Appointed by, Senate Vote, First day on the job):

John Paul Stevens, Ford, 98-0, 12/19/75

Sandra Day O'Connor, Reagan 99-0, 9/25/81

Antonin Scalia, Reagan 98-0, 9/26/86

Anthony Kennedy, Reagan 97-0, 2/18/88

David Souter, G.H.W. Bush 90-9, 10/9/90

Clarence Thomas, G.H.W. Bush 52-48, 10/23/91

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clinton 97-3, 8/10/93

Stephen Breyer, Clinton 87-9, 8/3/94

John Roberts (Chief Justice) G.W. Bush 78-22, 9/29/05

With the exception of Thomas, the lines were pretty clear. I think Alito is gonna be approved in the 55 vote range.

And by far the most radical and out of touch justice is one of the two appointed by Clinton. (when details are looked at) Go figure

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

Quote

And by far the most radical and out of touch justice is one of the two appointed by Clinton. (when details are looked at) Go figure

I'll assume you're not kidding. You don't think Scalia and Thomas are radical and out of touch?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Channman 2]

> Why is it that the Democratic leadership seems so out of the "mainstream?" What is the point that Kerry and Kennedy are trying to make?

Mainstream, lets see, If my numbers are right that there were (25) Dem. Senators demanding a flibuster. I for one would love to see one truely happen but I digress. With 25 percent voting for filibuster, is a clear indication that the Dem's do not represent the mainstream but the wacko left.

As of this posting Alito was confirmed with a vote of 58 in favor and 42 opposed. It appears that Bush is not on the ropes but standing over his opponents yelling, you want some of me, then get up.

[Channman 2]

> Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clinton 97-3, 8/10/93

Whens the next vacancy, I'm thinking NEXT.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

> It appears that Bush is not on the ropes but standing over his opponents yelling, you want some of me, then get up.

Actually Bush's taunt is "Bring 'em on", in encouraging the Iraqi insurgents. Stupid!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

And by far the most radical and out of touch justice is one of the two appointed by Clinton. (when details are looked at) Go figure

I'll assume you're not kidding. You don't think Scalia and Thomas are radical and out of touch?

Blues,
Dave

I will voice the opinion that Thomas and Scalia are neither "radical" nor "out of touch."

One of the more interesting terms that has been used by those on the left is that Bush, the Republicans, and especially the judiciary thought as exemplified by Thomas and Scalia are "out of the mainstream."

One of the things that most of the learned and studied lawyers and professors that I have come across, once they objectively view things (which lawyers are pretty good at, actually), is that while they disagree with Scalia's outcomes, his opinions and dissents are probably the most logical and well-reasoned opinions of any justice in the last century.

Most of them agree that it is hard to find flaws in Scalia's reasoning. While they usually disagree with the outcomes he supports, they usually will state that his logic and reasoning is damned near airtight.

Clarence Thomas is similar, though he's more rebellious than others. Clarence Thomas, like Scalia, does not hesitate to call bullshit on the other justices. Thomas, however, is the only true federalist on the court. He's the only one that openly challenges the SCOTUS's commerce clause jurisprudence, which was utilized in the medical marijuana cases. About a week ago, he pdrafted a dissent that called the judges subscribing to the majority a bunch of hypocrites for not even following their own precedent that was set months before. (He dissented in the first case that found in favor of federal power (the medical marijuana case), then dissented in the next case that found in favor of state's rights (assisted suicide). He said in the second case basically that the federal government intervention in purely intrastate matters is ridiculous, but thanks to the medical marijuana case, "that is now water over the dam."

Thomas likes to point out inconsistencies in the court's opinions. He'll dissent even if he's happy with the result of the majority opinion just to call out the majority.

Thomas and Scalia's point is that the Constitution was set up so that the "mainstream" don't run roughshod on the rights of those outside of the mainstream. They believe that the Consitution has the final say, and not mob rule or politicians.

Scalia and Thomas also believe, as do I, that the "intent of a law" should have no relevance. Laws are words, and only the words - not the intent behind those words - put people on notice of what is and is not allowed. If a law intending to allow federal wiretaps "pursuant only to a judicially authorized warrant" was passed, but the law actually said, "pursuant only to an authorized warrant," the "intent group" would look at the congressional record and testimony to try to learn what was intended. They would say, "Oh, they meant to be JUDICIALLY authorized. Okay. The law is cool."

Guys like Thomas and Scalia say, "Wait a minute. What does the law say on its face? It is not valid under the 4th amendment on its face. Since people only look at the letter of the law, and don't have the luxury of poring through pages of reports and testimony about what they were trying to to, it's not fair that a person should independently judge the intent of the law. Strike the law down and make them write what they meant."

They are viewed as outside of the mainstream because they believe, as I do, that the Constitution should only be rewritten by Amendment, and not by judges. They believe, as I do, that the only way to put people on notice of what is and is not allowed is to maintain consistency.

Isn't that actually pretty "in touch" with the population - recognizing that a 65 mph speed limit means 65 mph, and not "somewhere around 65 mph?"

They leave political questions to politicians. Expanding the Constitution is not their job. I agree with that.

So I think I am out of the mainstream, and I am glad I am.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

I like that write up. These guys are about as "anti-activist" is it gets.

That means you have to follow the words of law. If you don't like the outcome, then the LawMakers, not the judges, are responsible for fixing the law itself. Interpretation is for the lazy and the activist. And if you look at it, it pretty well means an activist judge IS lazy and doesn't trust the real system to do right by the people.

I hope to see the new judges slap down Congress more often and force congress to do their jobs when they put out poorly defined, mealy mouthed subjective "laws". Law needs to be about right and wrong, not "nuances" of hazy wording design to garner votes.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[livendive 8]

Have you ever tried to actually write a law? It's nigh impossible to consider every single possible scenario. Should the writers of the constitution have to define every possible definition of speech, and abridgment thereof? Should we have to amend the constitution because the internet happened? Should they have to define every possible meaning for "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and "unreasonable search or seizure"? Sometimes, leaving "intent" to be decided by learned, impartial, modern-age judges really is the best way to go.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Ginsburg by far. She wanted 12 years old to be the age of consent for a girl and thought that prositution should be legal across the US (to name a couple I can remember right now)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

With 25 percent voting for filibuster, is a clear indication that the Dem's do not represent the mainstream but the wacko left.

I agree. The spokesmen we always hear representing Democratic views are whackos like; Dean, Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstien, Kerry and Boxer. Where are the moderates? They're missing in action. They need to quit letting these liberal extremists represent and run their party, and re-take control.

And to re-gain support of the citizenry, they need to change their liberal tune. For example, they need to acknowledge the right to keep and bear arms, and quit trying to take guns away from the law-abiding. They need to quit demonizing Christians and other religious people. And they need to stand behind U.S. troops in the war against terrorism.

And what are their party platform positions? They don't have any. Each of them has their own, and they can't seem to get together and agree on anything. The only thing they agree on is: whatever Bush does, they're against it. That's a lousy way to run a party. They need a program - state their goals, and how they're going to achieve it.

And to top it all off, there was a story in the news about three days ago, that the Republican party had six times more money in the bank than the Democrats. Howard Dean's radicalism is destroying the Dems fund-raising ability. They need to kick him out and appoint someone else in charge. Quote:

"Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill are privately bristling over Howard Dean's management of the Democratic National Committee and have made those sentiments clear after new fundraising numbers showed he has spent nearly all the committee?s cash and has little left to support their efforts to gain seats this cycle, ROLL CALL reports. Congressional leaders were furious last week when they learned the DNC has just $5.5 million in the bank, compared to the Republican National Committee's $34 million."

Around the world, even countries are changing over from liberalism to conservatism: the U.S., Portugal, Germany and Canada.

Personally, I hope the liberals never get their act together. But we need a moderate democratic party in this country. They need to have the balls to admit that they're on the wrong path, and make some changes.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Ginsburg by far. She wanted 12 years old to be the age of consent for a girl and thought that prositution should be legal across the US (to name a couple I can remember right now)

I'd imagine a 12 year age of consent woudn't be mainstream, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the legalization, regulation, and taxation of prostitution was favored by a majority, or at least enough people to qualify as "mainstream".

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I like that write up. These guys are about as "anti-activist" is it gets.

That means you have to follow the words of law. If you don't like the outcome, then the LawMakers, not the judges, are responsible for fixing the law itself. Interpretation is for the lazy and the activist. And if you look at it, it pretty well means an activist judge IS lazy and doesn't trust the real system to do right by the people.

I hope to see the new judges slap down Congress more often and force congress to do their jobs when they put out poorly defined, mealy mouthed subjective "laws". Law needs to be about right and wrong, not "nuances" of hazy wording design to garner votes.

Well stated !

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

What is the point that Kerry and Kennedy are trying to make?

Strategy for the future.

They -know- that the Republicans could have and would have easily blocked the filibuster. By pressing the issue they stave off future attempts when it's their turn.

The more I think about this, the more I am concluding that is is a huge victory for the conservatives. Put into light of history, this all started with Harreit Miers. It was the conservatives who put their foot down on that one.

This put the onus on Bush to actually put forth "the best" candidate instead of one who operated under the radar. It was a challenge to see what would happen now when a judge with an extensive record is nominated to the SCOTUS. After Roberts, it was clear that there were Senators who wouldn't vote to confirm probably anyone that Bush chose. After Miers, it was set to do battle.

There should be no need, for the near future, to appoint guys like Souter who nobody knows what will be the result. Alito's track record, as opposed to workign against him, actually worked in his favor in testimony from the ABA and his fellow judges, who all described him as good, fair, brilliant and ethical.

My guess is that the Dems are hoping and praying tha Alito will be as bad as they say he will be. if he isn't, then they can only use the tactics that they use against Scalia and Thomas to puff them into the outskirts of the spectrum. If Alito is the thrid antichrist, as Kerry and Kennedy seem to be alluding, then the Dems will ultimately win out.

But if Alito is good, competent, fair and ethical, I see an immediate impact in providing reasoned rulings that go from the bottom up and not with post hoc reasoning.

This all started with the pressure on Miers to withdraw, and now we've got someone who appears to be one of the best instead of a stealth candidate.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brierebecca 0]

While I think that your take on strict constructionism is a good one, you have to acknowledge that there are some serious problems with this theory. The arguments you make assume that we can actually understand what phrases like "reasonable search," "equal protection," and "due process" really mean. They're broad and ambiguous terms for a reason: because lawmakers cannot possibly comprehend every scenario for the application of such laws or rights, and it is better to make the term broad than it is to narrowly define that term and possibly disenfranchise a group of people

Because these terms are so broad and ambiguous, it is sometimes impossible to discern the meaning of the terms by simply looking at the phrase itself. Originalists like Scalia and Thomas counter this argument by interpreting the terms in the Constitution by what the "framers" meant when they write the Constitution. There are two problems with this argument.

First, interpreting a term as the framers meant for it to be interpreted is NOT simply looking at the words themselves. It is determining what the framers meant by those words. I don't understand how this is any different from interpreting statutory language to mean what its authors intended it to mean.

Second, it is impossible for ANY of us to know what the framers really thought. The notes from the Constitutional Convention are sketchy at best, and often one version will contradict another.

Some of us dirty hippie liberals think that the broad nature of the terms above is a part of the genius of the constitution, and that it should evolve with the country as its values and policies change. Originalists like Scalia would never ascribe to this view, and think that the Constitution should only be changed by Amendment (like the equal protection clause amending the voting clause making blacks 4/5 of a person). As idealistic as this may sound, it is very difficult to amend the Constitution. Whether it should be made easier or not isn't for me to say, but the reality is that unless Originalists and Strict Constructionists want to do away with privacy and the dormant commerce clause, they need to rethink their positions.

I just wanted to give the other side to your argument. I totally respect your position, and I think you're a smart guy.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[rehmwa 2]

Offer Miers, then come in with Alito.

It's like your kid requesting a Flame Thrower for Christmas and then saying "if I can't have the flame thrower, can I have a bike?"

Do you think the Harriet Miers thing was pre-staged to set up the conditions we see now?

I don't, I think it was a bad choice that they turned into a silk purse - strategically speaking.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

I enjoyed reading both your bit here and lawrocket. Both of you have great points from either side.

I have to side mostly with you though. The wording of law is often ambiguous. I mean, like you said, what exactly is "reasonable search?"

From what I have read on the Constiution this argument pretty much mirrors the fight for and against the bill of rights during its creation.

Good stuff.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

Good stuff.

Thanks.
Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie