After all the excitement over a possible showdown and a filibuster for the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination, despite all the bluster and posturing by John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy, it looks like the Democrats are ending their opposition to Alito with a whimper rather than a bang - or a defiantly interminable reading of their unpublished memoirs into the Congressional Record.
Not only did only 25 Democrats commit to support a filibuster - far short of the 41 needed - but several prominent Democrats responded to the call for a filibuster (issued by John Kerry from the ski slopes of Davos, Switzerland) by announcing they were actually planning to vote in support of the controversial Republican nominee. Senators Robert Byrd (D-WV), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) all stated are all expected to vote with the Republicans to confirm Alito. It's likely that by the time of the vote on Tuesday they will have been joined by a handful of other defectors like Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and the vote will likely break down with two thirds of the Senate supporting the nomination, meaning that no filibuster would have been sustainable against a floor vote to end it.
This doesn't necessarily mean that these Democrats really support Alito and his beliefs. These four defectors know they face tough election challenges in increasingly conservative states, and all of the Democrats know that a failed filibuster will create an impression of weakness which their party can ill afford going into a very high stakes election year.
Even though I'm not a huge fan of the Democrats most of the time, it might have been refreshing to see them take a stand, even if it was futile, assuming Alito really is the monster they claimed that he was all of a week ago. To oppose him so vehemently in their statements during the hearings and then cave so completely when push comes to shove, makes all of the things they said during the hearings look like nothing but grandstanding.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) laid out what Senate Democrats as a group seemed to believe when he said of Alito at the opening of the hearings:
In case after case, Judge Alito seems to find a way to rule on the side of business over the consumer, on the side of employer over employee, and often against civil rights, workers' rights, against women's rights.
Assuming that's all true then Alito stands for exploitation, oppression and sexism. Why isn't that something to be opposed to the final blow? Or is all of that just a code? Does 'business over consumer' actually mean he favors low taxes and economic growth? Does 'employer over employee' and against 'workers rights' just mean that he doesn't support unions excluding non-members from jobs? Does 'often against civil rights' just mean not for quotas? Does against 'women's rights' perhaps only mean that he doesn't think abortion rights should be a matter of federal policy?
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
In the interest of full disclosure I should point out that a single Republican is expected to vote against Alito - Sen. Lincol Chafee of Rhode Island.
Dave
2 - Silas Kain
The good Senator Chaffee, like his pappy before him, is a Republican in name only. Rhode Island Republicans are Democrats while Rhode Island Democrats are, for the most part, self serving Republican types. The GOP has always stood for progress, reform and the liberal way in little Rhody. The Dems have taken a Tom Delay approach. They're power mad; determined to stonewall the opposition at every turn; and they give the Louisianan reputation of corruption, graft and greed a run for its money.
Insofar as the Alito filibuster is concerned, I'm heartened by the sound defeat served to John Kerry. That's even better than standing up to W. What the Dems don't need is a Kerry candidacy in 2008. He's an opportunistic, elitist pig and his day in the sun has gone. He's become so large in his own mind, that he's eclipsed the sun's light.
3 - Dave Nalle
I think the fact that the phoned in his interview on Kos from the ski slopes of the elite in Davos pretty much says it all about Kerry and his particular class of Democrats.
It does sort of amaze me that there was such intense and serious talk of a filibuster from some quarters - like Kerry - when there was clearly no hope of one and the party leadership wasn't even really behind the idea. It was clearly nothing but posturing, and so transparently bogus at this point that if I were a democrat I'd be a little disgusted with my 'heroes' over it.
Dave
4 - Scott
Dave, I think you're saying what you want to be true. You think everything is posturing and an empty gesture. Your life revolves around taking pot shots at Democrats. Some wanted to filibuster, some didn't...if there were more Democrats in the Senate, it probably would have happened.
5 - Matthew T. Sussman
The Devil Rays had a better chance of signing Roger Clemens than this filibuster working. Did they not count heads in the Senate to see if they had enough?
6 - Dave Nalle
Well Matt, clearly they finally did do that head count yesterday, but they waited until a full week of posturing had been enjoyed by all.
And Scott, I don't get a particular pleasure out of targeting democrats. As you may note from the article. I think I made very clear that this is equivalent to what the Republicans did with Terry Schiavo, which was also very contrived, meaningless and insulting to the voters.
Dave
7 - Tim Chavez
Democrats will feel the effect of their neglect to protect the court seat in Alito's votes on the supreme court. It will take a couple of decades to pull out of this.
8 - Nancy
I am utterly disgusted with both parties: the GOP are being driven by a bunch of power-mad neonazis, the Dems couldn't find an honest spine if they searched both houses, and all of them are utterly, totally corrupted by power, privilege, and money-money-money. It's time for a new box on the ballot: None Of The Above.
9 - Nancy
Why don't the idiots heading the various Islamic Jihad groups stop taking pot shots at civilians & rank-&-file soldiers & come clean out the corruption of the fucking US congress? At least it would be constructive for a change. I guess that would be too much to hope for.
10 - Bing
Alito was confirmed several hours ago and America hasn't fallen apart yet.
Guess the libs were wrong again.
There's a surprise.
11 - Scott
Well, to be fair, he hasn't done anything yet Bing.
12 - Dave Nalle
Nancy, I don't think the Jihadists want to actually HELP us, so I doubt they'll target congress.
Dave
13 - Nancy
What a pity. If they did, and managed to clean it up, I'd nominate even bin Laden for a Nobel.
14 - Dave Nalle
BTW, in case anyone missed it, the vote was 40 democrats against Alito, plus 1 Republican and 1 Independent, so if they HAD chosen to filibuster they DID have the 41 votes necessary to keep the filibuster going, assuming the same people who voted against Alito opposed him in more than a purely symbolic way.
dave
15 - Scott
Some Democrats were saying they would vote "no" but not support a filibuster and a few voted "yes" to confirm Alito (all of them "red state" Democratic Senators). I doubt Chafee would have supported a filibuster...he's in a political pickle as it is and that most surely would have been primary suicide. Of course, voting "no" may not help him either. Anyways, point being, they just didn't have the numbers to do it. If Alito's nomination and vote had come up in January and February of next year, it might have been a different story.
16 - phil
Nancy why don't you just move to Iran or Iraq or Pakistan and then you can enjoy being in company with your own kind, hell, then you can just strap a bomb to your ass and head to the nearest ski slope where you will find Kerry doing his elitist thing. Do you even know what a neo-nazi is? What kind of sick puppy are you with statements of support for bin ladin. No wonder this country is going down the tubes with half the country bent on siding with our enemies.
17 - Silas Kain
Alito was confirmed several hours ago and America hasn't fallen apart yet. Guess the libs were wrong again. There's a surprise.
Well, blow me over with a feather. The first decision meted by Alito goes against the grain of the Bingers. Is Samuel Alito more centrist than we've been led to believe? Now that he sits on the most powerful court in the land, does he see his role as Constitutional rather than religious? Will he be the new Justice O'Connor? You're right, Bing. The Liberals were wrong. Samuel Alito has proven on his first decision, that he is beholden to no one except the Constitution. How refreshing.
18 - Dave Nalle
Damn, Silas. You're more of a polyanna than I am sometimes. One decision doesn't turn him into O'Connor and it doesn't turn him into a hardline constitutionalist. This issue wasn't really all that constitutional in the first place, and Thomas - who's really the strictest constitutionalist of the lot - voted against the majority.
Dave