Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

In light of Roberts court decisions, why didn't Dems filibuster?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 07:02 PM
Original message
In light of Roberts court decisions, why didn't Dems filibuster?
So far, the court with addition of one corporate lawyer and one out and out fascist, Alito, we have had an attack on the Fourth Amendment and foreigners have lost the right to due process. The decision today about military tribunals was a squeaker when it should have been unanimous.

Exactly what would the Senate Democrats have lost by filibustering those two and forcing the GOP to either exercise the nuclear option and show their true anti-democracy colors or shut up with the stupid threat?

The worst possible outcome would have been those two ended up on the bench anyway. Or are the Democrats saving that filibuster for when Bush appoints John Bolton or Ann Coulter to the Supreme Court? Or is there ANY nominee so insulting to our system of checks and balances that the Democrats would take a principled stand against them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. when you're right, you're right. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. Because they're paid by corporate cash to be de facto Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. probably right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. I argued with one who called me "shrill"....
who told me that we had to "pick our spots" and "wait in the weeds" for the right time to make moves. And it was right here in DU. Needless to say that person doesn't have my support or respect.

I agree with you completely and it sickens me that the Dems failed to collectively fold their arms against Roberts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. as soon as Alito waffled on unitary executive theory instead of condemning
it as unconstitutional, that should have been it for him. Instead, unprecedented public pressure only resulted in finally getting them to at least vote against one of the criminals, incompetents, and open fascists that Bush nominates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. Too much corporate money in the election system
Edited on Thu Jun-29-06 07:15 PM by Selatius
It tends to have a general effect on Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
6. "what would the Senate Democrats have lost"
corporate donations
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
7. You know that Roberts didn't participate in this decision...?
If he did it may have gone the other way....I am sure of it!

The Dems have no excuse for not fighting Roberts and Alito....I blame them for not taking a stand...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. yeah, I know and frankly, I'm surprised he recused himself--it's not the
republican way. Bros before ethos or something like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
10. When the republicans killed Harriet Maier and insisted on
a more conservative nominee we should have filibustered Alito--he is just another appendage of Scalia. We would have been within our rights since it was the Republicans who didn't allow an up and down vote on Maiers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. they got halfway there with "Scalito" moniker and Bush must have
known Scalia is unpopular because he didn't even attempt to elevate him to chief justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
12. We had to save the filibuster for when we really needed it.
Thank Gawd the Gang of fourteen saved us-in reality they probably undid democracy as we knew it. With the Court deciding the patently illegal mid decade for partisan political advantage redistricting is perfectly acceptable, I think we are in for a long haul with this bunch of Fascists.

But on the plus side, we have dry powder!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. the parable of the dry powder (a poem a la Robert Service)
the Parable of the Dry Powder

During the American Revolution, Colonel Harry Reid was sent to gaurd a key mountain pass. He had twenty men, the high ground, and a good view of all possible routes of attack, but just one small keg of gunpowder to defend the pass.

Each soldier would have powder to let just ten bullets fly. General Washington was thinking of this when he bid them good-bye. He said, "Take care boys, and keep your powder dry!" He would regret those words for they led good men to die.

One night as Reid and his boys were sitting around the campfire at their post up in the pass, a grizzly bear got scent of them and into their camp crashed. Johnny grabbed his musket and aimed at the charging bear. But before he could squeeze the trigger, Col. Reid jumped up and said, "Stand fast! Our bullets are for Redcoats, save our powder for them instead!" Johnny held his fire and the bear tore out his throat.

As the bear began to eat him, the other soldiers grabbed their guns, but Reid said, "Fight him if you must, but no bullets should let fly. Washington has ordered we must keep our powder dry."

So they turned their muskets round and swatted with the butts, they pulled their Bowie knives and they tried to slash his guts. The bear just took the beating, but he would stand the cuts. He turned on his attackers clawing flesh and chewing heads. By the time that he was finished, half Reid's men were lying dead.

Reid thought it a victory for that keg was tight and dry. Every bit of powder meant a Redcoat boy would die.

When the dead were buried, and the night lightened to day,
The watch saw Indians approaching with warpaint and sharpened blades. Bob whispered to Reid, "They are fighting for the crown." "That may be so," said Reid, "but when Redcoats come around, we need every bit of powder to shoot each soldier down."

Bob was going to answer when a bullet hit his lung.
The Indians weren't as stingy with their own powder drum.
Harry took the powder and he began to run.
Half his men were killed again,
just five left from when he had begun.

"Now we can fight," he said.
"We have plenty for each gun."

As the day was fading and they lay up there in wait, a half dozen Redcoats approached them, lined up perfect in their sights.

Tom pulled back his hammer and almost fired a shot,
but Harry grabbed his barrel and said this squad need not be fought. "A bigger army's coming, and no powder can be lost."

"But if we all are dead, then who will fire the shot?" Tom tried to wrest rifle, but in the struggle it went off. The Redcoats were upon them, and then all five were caught.


While he tied their hands, the British sargeant asked why they hadn't fired a shot. Harry Reid said nice and loudly, "I cannot tell a lie, Gen. Washington himself told me to keep my powder dry."

"But if you shot the bear, your men would have lived to fight. And if you shot the Indians, and put a bullet in my eye, you could have stole our powder and have more to be kept dry."


The soldier took his bayonet, and Harry had to die. But he cut loose the others and told them to fly, and he even gave them the powder keg with Reid's head in it to keep the powder dry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thickasabrick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-29-06 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
13. If anyone should have recused themselves, it was Scalia - in
reference to his outburst regarding how he feels the detainees have no rights - in the US or internationally. His emotions regarding his son serving in Iraq were clearly driving his thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. His son is serving in Iraq? I thought he was a lawyer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thickasabrick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-01-06 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. He has a son who apparently was a captain in Iraq - I'm not sure
if he's still there.

Here's mention of it in an editorial from USAToday:

Certainly there are occasions when a justice can cross the line. For example, in March, in response to a question about the rights of enemy combatants, Scalia alluded to enemy soldiers "shooting at my son," a reference to his son Matthew's service in Iraq as an Army captain. That remark was understandable coming from a father whose son was in harm's way. But it does not instill confidence in the justice's ability to rule impartially in a pending case on that very subject. The impetuous Scalia might also have been wise to refrain from using a dismissive hand gesture — in front of a photographer, no less — when a Boston reporter asked him a question he did not like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-01-06 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
17. Let me be the one dissenting voice
on this thread, although at the time I supported a filibuster. Here's why: The repubs would surely have invoked the nuke option. Both Roberts and Alito would have been seated anyway. The court currently stands with four thoughtful non doctrinaire Jurists, four dogmatic conservatives, and Kennedy, who although a conservative does not have an agenda, and more often than not will vote with the more liberal contingent. Justice Stevens is 87. He may die or retire. Justice Ginsburg is over 70 and has suffered from ill health in the past. Those are the most likely to leave the court. Should either of them leave, we need that filibuster, and though I know I'm in the minority, I'm convinced that should bushco try and foist another uber conservative on the court, the dems would filibuster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC