Matt, Same question: it is 2009. President Feingold nominates a very liberal judge for a Supreme Court vacancy.  Do the Radicals (A) accept the nomination, vote no, and move on (B) Lash out wildly in every direction, using all the resources of FoxNews, Big Pharma, and the Washington Post at their disposal, detonating every "nuculear weapon" they can get their hands on, until the earth is scorched and the President is "forced" to withdraw her as his supporters stab him in the back one-by-one?

sPh 

Much as I'd love to see Alito's nomination blocked, a filibuster, even if successful, would be a pyhrric victory that would give the Repubs further ammo to paint the Dems as obstructionist. This is an opportunity not to filibuster but to elaborate on key philisophical differences - and paint the Repubs as the party that is out of the mainstream - at a time when the Dems will have the voters' undivided attention.

That said, if something were to come out that really resonates with the public - e.g., clear evidence of an extremist view regarding presidential war powers - that could present an opportunity to wage a filibuster without looking like the bad guys. And if such a filibuster is met with the nuclear option, it's the Repubs who could pay the price politically, similar to Gingrich's government shut-down.

With the appointment of Alito, we will have 4 "Justices" to the right of Atilla the Hun.  All of them can be expect to be on the court for 20 more years or longer.  To solve this mess, we will have to go back to FDR's court packing scheme.

Since the Radials paint the Democrats as obstructionist firmly, loudly, and consistently today, what exactly would be the downside?

I agree that the wingnuttery will heap scorn on the Dems no matter what they do short of embracing the Repubs in Zell-esque fashion. But why make it easy on them by giving them tangible ammunition?

=== But why make it easy on them by giving them tangible ammunition? ===

Each and every time the Dems allow the Radicals to fence off a topic like that, the Radicals simply leave a marker to maintain the pressure (Marshall Whittman could explain how this is done) and move on to the next topic.  10-15 years of that and the Dems are left with, well, nothing to fight over - they have lost everything.

sPh 

The issue seems more difficult than just filibuster or not.  If the issue is Roe and only Roe then a filibuster is probably a bad political move even if it will make women's groups and indeed many women happy.  If however the Democrats believe Alito will simply endorse the growing and uncheck power of the Presidency and the abuse of citizens' rights then they should mount a principled filibuster.

Fighting for our rights is not merely obstructionist.  Democrats can educate us and show why it is that Bush and any President should not be trusted with they type of unchecked power that Alito seems to endorse.  

Even if they lose this fight, I assume they will, and even if they are accused of being obstructionists, of course they wil, they will have fought on principle.  This will be a very good thing for a party that seems spineless.

But Alito will be a bad Supreme Court Justice. So what's a Democrat to do? The same thing they should have done on John Roberts -- explain why putting him on the Court will be bad for the country, vote "no," let the GOP majority confirm him, move on to other issues, and try to win the next two elections.

What about spending the next dew weeks using every communications tool at our disposal to get out the message to ordinary Americans that Alito would indeed be a "bad Supreme Court Justice"?!   Let's tell them that Alito is a radical right-winger, a dangerous believer in an authoritarian presidency and an enemy of women's rights.  Let's also send the message that Bush is the person who is screwing up the confirmation process by sending up a rigid ideological nominee.  I'm sure we can find some other good stuff as well.  When Bork's hearings began, polls also showed the public thought he should be confirmed as well.  If we work and fight hard, instead of giving up the fight before any shots have been fired, we can turn so many people off on Alito that even moderate Republicans will be afraid to vote for him.

Low salience issue?  Matt, you have this curious tendency to recommend holding our fire on the really big and important things, so that we can use the ammunition on the humdrum.  We win elections by fighting and getting people on our side.  It is not enough to poke our heads up into the cold polling winds, like a timid and skinny little groundhog, look at the shadows on the ground, and then scamper back underground with a few dim notions of the current public opinion environment, an environment that varies from one day to the next.

Natural gas prices?!  Gripes about things like natural gas prices will always be around.  But new Supreme Court Justices don't come around very often.

oh, and 3) i am really tired of people saying that the democrats should sit tight, keep their powder dry, be strategic, do nothing, wait for the next opportunity, be careful not to antagonize the voters.  where is the democrat who is willing to fight?

I have to agree with the majority of the posters here--if you're not willing to fight for a woman's right to control their own body, why call yourself a Democrat? If you're not willing to fight against someone who will enable an imperial presidency, why call yourself an American?

 This brings to mind Josh Marshall's call-to-arms a year ago, at the beginning of the Social Security battle: if we are to lose this one, be sure to lose well. Because without these core values, there is nothing left to fight for.

 Recall, though, that we won that one...and rather than being depleted by the battle, we are stronger for it. And the same can happen here. By far the number one complaint I hear about Democrats is the wish that they would (forgive the macho imagery) "grow a pair" and stand up and fight. So let's fight this one--and if we lose, lose well.

Follow our principles, ignore the carpings of the pundits, and  the elections will take care of themselves...I suspect the electorate wants to see if we can stand up Ann Coulter before they give us another shot at bin Laden.

a quote:  

“Senator, I never attended a school that was co-educational until I went to Princeton,” Alito told the committee on Tuesday morning, “and after I was there for a short time I realized the benefits of a co-educational school.”  Italics added.

How different Alito is from most Americans.

There are good arguments on both sides of the question of whether to filibuster or not to filibuster. On the one hand, it would be an unequivocal demonstration of commitment. On the other hand, it is undemocratic, obstructionist and smacks of desperation.




To me, the only issues that matter are these:




1. Can the filibuster be sustained? The worst of all outcomes would be for Democrats to filibuster and then have that broken either by the "nuclear option" or by Democratic defections. I think that in order for a filibuster of Alito to be politically worthwhile, it has to be successful. This notion that the public will reward a romantic, valiant fight for a lost cause is bunk.




2. Is there any evidence that Republican commitment to Alito is anything but rock solid? I seem to recall that one of the key moments in the Bork episode was when Specter announced he was going to vote no. That signaled to many that GOP commitment to Bork was not universal. Look for signs that Specter is wavering.




Whatever happens, Democrats need to use this issue to articulate why it is important. I fear that the importance of judicial nominations in general is not understood by enough people. The GOP has been hammering away at "liberal judges" for a generation now. But where are Democrats to articulate why they disagree?