The Future of the Constitution is Now
History shows that the most important time for Senators to put pressure on the White House about Supreme Court nominations is before the President chooses his nominee and becomes invested in defending the nomination.
Hence it makes perfect sense for Democrats to start talking about a potential filibuster even though the President has not yet said who he will nominate to fill Justice O'Connor's seat. The more time, energy, and political capital Bush believes he will have to expend on this nomination the more likely he will judge it prudent to pick a more moderate nominee.
Therefore Democrats should not worry about being labled obstructionist in making threats of opposition at this point. They should take a firm position about the sort of nominee they will find acceptable or unacceptable and stick to it. Threats must be credible; that is particularly so with this President, who generally does not budge unless someone stands up to him.
Well, the time to stand up and be counted is now. The Constitution we will live under for the next generation depends on it. If Democrats truly believe in constitutional values, they should be willing to fight for those values when it matters most, and it matters most right now.
LOL!
You must have watched too much of the History Channel tonight, because you have illusions of a party of grandeur, vision and a commitment to the common man/woman. No one could possibly confuse the current Democratic Party with that. This bunch couldn't scare a kitten. These guys are weak, undisciplined, unprincipled and have little connection with the average Americans who were the focus of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society, and if progressives had the balls and coordination most of them would be facing serious primary challenges next fall.
It's sad really. Some how we've gotten to the point where we have one party of pro-life corporate whores and another party of pro-choice corporate whores.
I'm done being taken forgranted. I submit my letter of resignation from the Democratic Party on the day the Roberts vote goes before the whole Senate. This Democratic Party will get no deference from me when elections roll around.
September 22, 2005 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big Heavy Sigh...
DWCG is correct of course.
It would make perfect sense to fight the nominations tooth and nail. That's why many Democrats in Congress won't do it. Fortunately, Kennedy and Kerry have come out against Roberts. Things aren't as bad as they used to be.
In my own personal case, I really have to get the beam out of my own eye, before trying to remove the beams from the Democratic leadership's collective eyes.
September 22, 2005 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Threats must be credible; that is particularly so with this President, who generally does not budge unless someone stands up to him."
Isn't that the problem? Now (after it's clear that the Dems have folded on Roberts, etc.) isn't the time, because now it's nothing but threats. The only way to make a threat credible is to demonstrate that you'll carry through with it -- something the Dems haven't done (and given their structural disadvantages would be hard pressed to do). So if you're Bush, why do you think the threat is credible?
September 22, 2005 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the continued obsession with Roe hides the true issues that have been slammed down the throat of this country by the Rehnquist Court for years. Issues of Federalism and the 11th Amendment, or the hallowing of the Federal Arbitration Act, or the roadblocks to federal court jurisdiction, or restricting the reach of the commerce clause are never discussed, although these are the issues that people should truly be concerned with because they simply matter more.
The Democrat stand must involve issues other than privacy rights. If we have a nominee from the Federalist Society who truly believes in the Constitution-in-Exile or belives that Lochner is a case to be revived, we will then all begin paying the price for the narrow focus on privacy that has dominated the discourse for years now.
As for other comments that the Dems should be abandoned because they are not progressive enough, it must be remembered that we live in a conservative society and change in this country is brought about slowly or it begets a serious reactionary impulse. Progressive candidates have historically lost national elections (with very few exceptions), and the main concern now that the country is about as far to the right as the political pendulum swings, should be to get a Dem in office to start moving the country in the other direction, not to trot the second coming of McGovern out to get waxed by whoever the Republicans nominate in '08.
September 22, 2005 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You talk a good game, but come November 2008, you'll be right back there eating up everything Howard Dean throws at you and back in the lap of the Democratic party like a good little puppy.
September 24, 2005 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
This seems to be a recurring theme with the democratic party- no matter what the majority of the people agree with, they will oppose it because they somehow believe that republicans are evil. Dems are should ALREADY?? be talking about fillabusters? They dont even know who the nominee is yet and they should oppose it?
And what was so wrong with Roberts? He is a man who believes in the rule of law, has outstanding credentials, does not want to overstep the bounds of the system of checks and balances... the only reason I see such a big uproar over this whole thing is because Democrats hate it so much that they are not in power and that those "evil, braindead, dishonest, racist, white christians" (Dean) are the ones with a great, respectable, honest, credit-worthy justice nominated to the bench
September 28, 2005 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink