Patterico's Pontifications



Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 6:42 pm

The vote was 72-25 against a filibuster of Alito. As Dafydd ab Hugh says:

After the extremity of the rhetoric against Alito, how do the Senate Democrats justify filibustering the next nominee for any level of federal judge, from district to Supreme Court? Do they say the next target is not just Hitler, he’s Hitler squared?

Yup, they were dumb to attack this good man so harshly.

UPDATE: And for an example of what I’m talking about, watch Ted Kennedy’s meltdown (via Malkin).

19 Responses to “72-25”

  1. I have to confess that my predictions have not panned out lately. I thought that there would only be a handful of democrats voting against Alito. I was wrong.

    I also thought that Rove would be out of office by now – wrong again.

    So I’m out of the prediction business – anyone want to buy a slightly used crystal ball?

    Psyberian (1cf529)

  2. Testing…

    Just hammered Markos “Fascist” Zúniga, and it was lost.


    KarmiCommunist (61fe73)

  3. Psyberian says:

    So I’m out of the prediction business – anyone want to buy a slightly used crystal ball?

    No one knows all the answers, Psy, and you got more class (admitting you were wrong) than 99% of all the classless idiots over at the “Lost Kos”.

    It appears the pendulum is still swinging to the right. But that may not be such a bad thing since it had been so far to the left for so long.

    What the democratic leadership did to Alito did not, IMO, show much “class” either. This whole thing played out by the “leadership” playing pandering to the extreme left only stained more of once was well respected party. Now it seems to be only about power and money.

    Those on the right should be humble in this appointment and attempt to reach out for a consenses with the Dems for the sake of the nation. Although, I doubt their bitterness and hatered for GW will allow that.

    Rovin (b348f4)

  4. By the way – speaking of Malkin; are we Democrats supposed to be spineless or unhinged? I keep forgetting.

    Psyberian (1cf529)

  5. I don’t think the Dems and their backers on the radical left are worried too much about appearing extreme. The real challenge will come if one of the left-leaning justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, or Breyer) ends up leaving the Court while Bush is still in office. The pressure will really mount among the chattering classes for Bush to appoint someone in the Stevens or Souter mode, i.e. a Republican who will judge as a liberal. Bush will probably (hopefully) ignore it and appoint someone similar to Roberts and Alito. That will be when talk of the fillibuster really heats up. It looks like this time around, 20 Dems understood that we were replacing a center-right justice with a likely mainstream conservative justice, and that it wasn’t worth having the GOP invoke the Byrd Option and end the judicial fillibuster for good.

    JVW (54c318)

  6. Hmmmm, just as predicted.

    The system works–just like chess.

    Medrawt (8be888)

  7. New Ian Schwartz Blog: “Expose The Left”, Formerly “The Political Teen”

    Congratulations to Ian Schwartz on his new blog, “Expose The Left”. Looks like the blogger formerly known as The Political Teen got a cool new blogover, but will still be offering the best video blogging on the right side of… (b6f1aa)

  8. What this shows is that the Miers nomination was hopelessly timid. Now, when Stevens is replaced by Janice Brown, you might see fireworks. I’d especially like to see Teddy lecture Brown on segregation.

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  9. The problem is that after taking it in the seat of the pants twice, the Dems will absolutely have to block any replacement of one of the four liberals who even has a whiff of conservatism about him or her. Yeah, Kevin, I think a Brown nomination would be a lot of fun too, but I don’t think there is any way the Dems could be peeled off of a fillibuster on that one. The hard-core left would deliver retribution on any Dem who strayed. It would come down to whether the seven Republicans who joined the Gang of 14 would be willing to vote to rule the fillibuster out of order, and I don’t see that happening. Not unless the GOP picks up another two or three Senate seats in the 2006 election, that is.

    If (God forbid) Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, or Alito has to leave the Court for some reason, the Bush Administration would have a little more leeway to replace a conservative with a conservative.

    JVW (54c318)

  10. Oh, sure they’d filibuster Brown, but what works for the Dems works for us, too. Any Republican who didn’t vote for the rule change could retire right then and there. Wouldn’t win the primary, and that includes McCain.

    Another thing I really want to see is a nominee answering the 7th Dem Senator who asks whether Roe is settled law with: “Surely, Senator, you see the irony here? If Roe was settled law you wouldn’t all be asking about it.” And if it was Brown, she could follow up with, “Now, Plessy, THAT was settled law.”

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  11. Yep, she would be entertaining, and she would probably do more than even John Roberts did to put the dim-witted Senators in their proper place.

    Still, you know that weak-kneed Republicans like Snowe, Collins, Chaffee (I hope he loses his primary challenge), maybe Hagel, maybe Specter will abandon someone like Janice Brown. McCain would probably end up as a “yes,” just because he can’t afford to alienate conservative voters before 2008. Unless the GOP majority gets up to 57 or 58 after 2006, though, I don’t see the Senate confirming a staunch conservative.

    It would also be fun to bring up Miguel Estrada again, just to see Chuck Schumer pout. I would also love to see Estrada’s mother sitting behind him staring daggers at the Judiciary Committee.

    JVW (54c318)


    And, um, oh well, we’re not going to stop him.”

    Why should we trust them to do better on national security matters?

    See Dubya (cec5a1)

  13. Psy asks:

    By the way – speaking of Malkin; are we Democrats supposed to be spineless or unhinged? I keep forgetting.


    Dana (3e4784)

  14. By the way – speaking of Malkin; are we Democrats supposed to be spineless or unhinged? I keep forgetting.

    I go for unhinged, they surely ain’t spineless. The Congressional GOP has that market cornered.

    Veeshir (dfa2bf)

  15. Happy as I am to see this nomination, rather than Miers go through, it doesn’t really do all that much for the close, 5-4 cases.

    What we’ll see is a shift in the marginal vote from O’Connor to Kennedy. That will change a number of cases, but not many. However, the big change will come in a shift of the vote from Kennedy to Roberts, who’s probably the most next-left of the Justices.

    Given the ridiculous extremes gone to to sink Alito (and that we’ve lost at least Chafee, and possibly Snowe to confirm, putting the GOP total at 53 yea votes), it is going to be damned uphill for the next one.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  16. Yeah, but we are confirming someone who has said he didn’t believe the right to abortion is in the Constitution. That’s big.

    Patterico (929da9)

  17. Speaking of timid and “spine-less”, I would like to recind my comment from last night. Having slept on it, and remembering the 8 years of hell under the Clinton machine, I think it would be more prudent to go for the jugular now. The left will go after the NSA situation with a vengence, which will expose them to their “soft on national security” position. Ram it down their throats along with this degregation of Alito, pick up 6 or 7 seats in both houses, and the appointment process becomes moot. Regulate the democratic/socialist party to obscurity.

    Then be humble………..:)

    Rovin (b348f4)

  18. Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! orovkrczjl

    suoesipnuc (ec1554)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2007 secs.