No More Roberts or Alitos?

[ProSense]

No More Roberts or Alitos?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 08:16:01 AM EST

E.J. Dionne, in a "closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out" column, argues that the Senate should:

Just say no. The Senate's Democratic majority -- joined by all Republicans who purport to be moderate -- must tell President Bush that this will be their answer to any controversial nominee to the Supreme Court or the appellate courts. The Senate should refuse even to hold hearings on Bush's next Supreme Court choice, should a vacancy occur, unless the president reaches agreement with the Senate majority on a mutually acceptable list of nominees.

With all due respect to Dionne, that is a fine sentiment and I agree with it, but it does not undo the damage done. When "idiot liberals" like me were urging filibusters of Roberts, and especially, Sam Alito (who unlike Roberts, was not a stealth candidate, anyone who wanted to could see what he would do), we were told to be "realistic" and that Democrats needed to "keep their powder dry." Indeed, the entire fight over the "nuclear option" was made a bad joke by the capitulation of Senate Democrats on Alito.

Too many "reasonable" Democrats, law professors and court watchers (people like Cass Sunstein and Jeffrey Rosen come to mind with all their blather about "minimalism") chose to ignore the obvious. They all wanted to keep their "serious" credentials intact.

It was a moment of complete disconnect at the time and personally, I was despondent at the time that no one seemed to get it.

But the fall of 2005 and January of 2006, when the Democrats "kept their powder dry," will be with us for decades. There is no undoing that. That said, Dionne's admonitions are welcome, if late.

[MrModerate]

1. Once you've surrendered your backbone . . .

As Dems did on September 12, 2001, it takes a while to grow it back. In the meantime, the wicked have free play.

Roberts and Alito (and Iraq, and warrantless wiretapping, etc., etc.) are the result.

It'll take decades to fix this, and that's presuming a progressive predominance for the next six or eight administrations. Good luck with that.

[Tesha]

6. The Democrats set all this in motion in their reaction to December 12th, 2000. (NT)

[Kagemusha]

2. That's about as well written as I can imagine to express the situation.

And a darn shame, too. If Democrats had stood up, at least the nuclear option would have been expended for something historic.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. This whole thing is mind-boggling.

First of all, why are we talking about Supreme Court vacancies that don't exist? Secondly, there is no indication whatsoever that we'd vote for another Alito. Thirdly, the whole rant about the nuclear debate is just plain ignorant, but that's not surprising because there's so much ignorance on the topic in the first place. Perhaps the author's "despondence" stems from the fact that s/he was wrong and everyone else was right, but, as always, arrogance doesn't allow for that possibility.

[ellenfl]

4. ideally, no new justices would come up for appointment before

2009, kennedy would retire after the elections and we could get the majority back.

ellen fl

[_dynamicdems]

5. Thanks, ProSense.

Anyone who doesn't get it now, never will.

Democrats were cowed during the nominations of Roberts and Alito. They KNEW how these guys would vote but few wanted to rock the boat and look like angry liberals.

Well, more power to the angry liberals!

Roberts and Alito are going to be around for a long time and every Democrat who didn't fight tooth and nail to prevent that should hang their head in shame.

The damage has been done, however. Let's hope this lesson is remembered because there will be a next time and the enemies of democracy (the neocon Repugs) are already planning THEIR strategy. You can bet on that.

[Tom Joad]

7. Feingold and others will always say "Yes, Mr. President"

[cui bono]

8. Feingold? Russ Feingold?

He didn't vote Yes on those two did he?

[Tom Joad]

9. I was half wrong (or half right, depending on your POV)

he voted for the first time against a supreme court nominee in the alito case.
But he did vote to confirm Roberts as the Chief Injustice. (Despicable!)
I mention Feingold because he is expected to be this progressive icon, and just to point out there ain't many of those in the senate.