There is a lot more to being a US Senator than trying to get more progressive senators elected. Unless I am mistaken, one of those other things they are charged with doing is providing "advice and consent" for judicial appointments. Any individual senator who sits quietly as an inappropriate person is approved for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is simply ignoring his job. Democratic senators need to put up a fight over Alito, a losing fight for sure, but not fighting sends a terrible message to all citizens - that we are politicians, first, last, always and only.

"tend to find the case against a huge fight persuasive"

 You really should share your evidence; I don't think there's any voting behavior data that suggests that judicial nominations play a significant role in elections...

I find this reasoning extraordinarily unpersuasive. First, as noted above, allowing Alito to go in without much of a fight would certainly accelerate the rightward march of the courts. But, most importantly, a vigorous fight against Alito would further the goal you profess is paramount: electing progressive candidates. A strong effort to paint Alito as an extremist on abortion, Presidential power, civil rights, voting issues, etc. would energize the progressive community and, if it were to actually generate enough political momentum to block the nomination, would be a great boost to the entire cause.

If you're not going to fight guys like this, what's the point? 

BriVT is right.  Refusing to block Alito is a dereliction of duty.   Roberts was bad enough but I understood.  It's time to use all that dry powder.  And if the Dems don't, I think <a href="http://casadelogo.typepad.com/factesque/2006/01/le_mew
_has_yet_.html">I know why</a>.

Sorry, I disagree with both the merit of what seems to me the forming Democrat consensus and your stance of "swingability." I don't see why a principled unswerving opposition in this case would be a liability for Democrats.  'Principled' entails something like 'justified by the merits of the case', and there is ample evidence that Alito is a judicial ideologue, not a milquetoast "rule of law" type.

Perhaps an interesting question you might ask (yourself, too) is: Suppose that a Democratic president has nominated Laurence Tribe or Lani Guinier, and a Republican Senate minority is deciding on the response. What do you think they would choose to do?

If not Alito, then who is worthy of a filibuster?

We have clear right-wing ideology replacing a swing voter on the bench. People are looking for a balance -- no one party should run the country. No one party should run the SCOTUS.

What more do we need to put up a fight here?

Yes, we also need to elect more progressives into office. But we should also oppose Alito.

At the end of the day the one and only way to halt, reverse, or even slow the judiciary's rightward evolution is for more progressive politicians to get elected.

Duh.

A Democratic Senate minority faced with a Republican White Hose simply isn't well-positioned to fight on this front as a general matter.

Double Duh.

No matter how passionate you are about the judicial question, the priority needs to be on elected more progressive Senators and a Democratic president. It's the election outcomes that determine the shape of these battles and fundamentally structure the range of possible outcomes. Losing elections and staging filibusters simply can't accomplish very much.

Triple Duh.

So, is there any nominee of Bush's that would be worth attempting to stop? Or should we just cry "helpless" and let slip Janice Rogers Brown, Bork, and Dobson for the next three open spots?

At some point, doesn't one have to take a stand?

You may not think we've reached that point. That's fine. But be intellectually honest - and instead of just ignoring the issue, tell us when we do.

Your points about winning elections are correct, and obvious. But they don't negate the responsibilities of current Democratic representatives to their constituencies.

What if they nominate Björk? Think about it.

I tend to think that a vigorous, united opposition to Alito would very much redound to the benefit of the Democrats, providing they make a positive, forthright case for liberal judicial principles at the same time. Say what you will about the right's judicial philosophy - at least they have some clear sound bites: "activist judges", "legislating from the bench" yadda yadda. So now they have most of America declaring their outrage over activist judges even though it's a completely nonsensical issue. Conservative judges, especially on the SCOTUS, tend to vote to overrule Congress more often than the liberal justices.




Democrats need to be the party of protection of rights, balance of power and freedom. As the GOP moves more and more in an authoritarian direction, this is the open political space out there and the Alito nomination is the perfect chance to showcase this.




Democrats should oppose Alito vigorously (though a filibuster would be of dubious benefit and almost certainly wouldn't succeed) and use it as way to engage the right in the battle of ideas. For too long, Democrats have stood by and watched the right redefine the judicial debate or worse, make everything come down to the nominee's position on abortion. We are the mainstream and they are the radicals. Public opinion is on our side. It's time we took advantage of that.

Our Democratic leaders [sic] seem to be saving their political capital to get a nicer room in the ante-chambers of Hell.

Presidents get to pick judges.  That's it.  I don't like the ones W picks but that's just the way it works.  Yes, the Senate has a say in the matter but I don't see that the minority party really has much say in this whole matter.  And you also must remember that the republicans largely voted for clinton's supreme court nominees.  Where they really were asses was with his appelate court judges.

We have to understand that one day there will again be a democrat in the white house....and he will be appointing judges......and we will want them to get through a possibly republican senate.  We need to look ahead in these things.

Another thing to note.....if Scalito gets in there (and he will).....and if Roe falls (and it will)....then we've got an election issue that has not worked for us in years now possibly working to our favor.

Matt,
It is 2010, and President Feingold nominates a very liberal judge to the Supreme Court.  As liberal as Alito is "conservative"  Do you think the Radicals will play nice and let the nomination slide through, or fight the nomination to the bitter end?

sPh 

I agree!  How are Democrats going to get elected if Americans never hear why it matters to elect them?  If this nomination doesn't matter, what does?  If it doesn't matter, why elect a Democrat instead.  Democrats are not going to win until they can provide a reason they should win and they have to use every opportunity they have to sell, sell, sell, and explain, explain, explain, why it matters. 

Technical point of some signficance: The President does not "pick", he nominates people for appointment.

What really worries me about Alito is his embracing of expanded Presidential power. It is paradoxical, though, for Congress to want Alito since he has more often than not acted to limit Congress.

A creepy explanation for politicians supporting a judge that argues for nearly unlimited Presidential power is that they expect to be able to guarantee a President they like. How can the GOP get behind someone that would legitimize the freedom to surveill political enemies? Some Republicans won't; the wonder is that any will. 

Those politicians must have asked themselves if they want new NSA programs run by Hilary. Do they know something we don't? 

Most of the commenters piling on Matt are making excellent and good points but that doesn't mean that Matt's gut reaction is totally meritless. Where I believe it may come from is that Dems in the Bush era Congress have been so lousy in the past in picking the issues to fight for and particularly in the framing of them, too often playing the whole game in a manner in which the GOP counter-argument that they are being "obstructionist" stick easily.

With judges, mho, from watching confirmation hearings from way back when, the key is for the opposition to plan and select only a few issues that are decided of utmost importance to the party identity and to hammer away on those. And just as important is to let all Senators go their own way on any other issues, and to let them show their own voice, to look independent and fair and "statesman-like." The latter is so that the obstructionist argument doesn't stick. There has to be a balance between the two, and the way to do it is to challenge en bloc on only a few issues. No conicidence that this makes for good media message/talking points in creating the identity for the party. You can't make it look like you're doing it just because the guy is a conservative, and plan to object to his whole being. The result of that is that the individual Senators involved lose their integrity, and that's something important to get across, too: they shouldn't look like political hacks willing to do everything "the leader" says in judicial confirmation processes. If the appearance is that you formed a political bloc to attack on a certain issue that's of importance to each Senator involved, that's ok. If it looks like cynical obstructionism at all costs, it's not.

An important BTW: Olbermann is reporting in the intro of his program right now, first thing, that "Republicans may try to pick a fight with Democrats over Alito" to detract from the DeLay scandals getting more attention.

Why, why, why do we always buy their frame?  What's wrong with being obstructionist if what you are trying to obstruct is a threat to the country?  They want to distract from DeLay, NSA, etc.  Well, tie the issues together.  We want to obstruct plutocratic corruption and oligarchic abuse of power.  If we don't obstruct who will?  Frame the issue on core principles, liberty, equality, privacy, opportunity and the threat that the right wing very much does pose to all of them.  Damn right, we want to obstruct!

Democrats are not going to win until they can provide a reason they should win and they have to use every opportunity they have to sell, sell, sell, and explain, explain, explain, why it matters.

I'm not going to say you're wrong here. I will just mention the quote I've heard a number of times (and enlightens why I often fail at persuasion):  "When you explain, you lose." I suspect that it's not the explaining itself, but rather when you're explaining.  There may be times when explanation is appropriate, and there may be times when your audience is not ready to hear an explanation.

Yes, definitely, sell, sell, and sell.

I suspect that "explaining" is necessary to set up the talking points and the "frames" that in the long run can be used to sell. 

Lets not kid ourselves, every Democrat ought to be opposed to this nomination. The question is simply a matter of tactics. Each member of the confirmation commitee is going to drill this guy with tough questions. Regardless of his answers, to use or not use the fillibuster, that is the question.

What I'm curious is what makes the fillibuster a bad thing? I'm young, only 26, and can't remember the last time it was used. Is it simply for fear of being called obstructionists? But whats wrong with obstructionism when the cause is just?

Its my opinion that the majority of Americans ought to agree with this guy should not be on the bench. If they don't, we're simply not spelling it out good enough or they're incapable of being reached.