President Bush ran on a promise to appoint conservatives to the U.S. Supreme Court. He had to wait 4½ years for a chance to do so, but with last fall’s confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts and this morning’s 58-42 Senate confirmation vote of Samuel Alito, that sizable piece of Bush’s legacy fell into place. As the replacement for moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Alito is expected to steer the court to the right on defining issues from abortion to affirmative action. Democratic senators unhappy about that ideological shift did a disservice to the Senate’s role in the process with their lame (and, for some, disingenuous) attempt at a filibuster Monday. In the end, Alito proved well-qualified for a seat on the nation’s highest court, and Democrats got a hard lesson in how much elections matter.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- CapnAmerica on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
32 Comments
Rhonda,Well said! Your best post ever.
Did it really surprise anyone that this is how the democrats would act?
Rhonda you said:”Democrats got a hard lesson in how much elections matter.”
I think you’re confused. Explain how Democrats acted as though elections did not matter.
Steven E: They’ve made John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean the faces of their party. Does that sound like a party that’s interested in winning elections?
Dear Rhonda,
Very good! Alito is a very good choice for a Justice on the Supreme Court! I aggree with almost everything in your post!
Hank
Todd,I was unclear about Rhonda’s comment about elections in the context of her post.
In fact, it seems to me that Bush and company are the ones who seem to think elections do not matter. Witness, Dick Cheney’s counsel after the popular vote loss in 2000 – they were to enter the whitehouse as though they had a mandate. Consistent with nearly everything this administration does, they seem to adhere to the notion that if they make believe something is true, it becomes true. This strategy works great if you are two years old, but it falls a little bit short for the alleged “leader” of the free world.
Since you Repub’s are so interested in fair and balanced reporting, the following is an e-mail from Kerry where he shares his views on the subject:
Dear Steven,
Yesterday, 25 Democratic Senators joined our effort to filibuster the Alito nomination — that’s more votes to filibuster the Alito nomination than there were votes against Justice Roberts’ nomination itself just a few months ago.
This morning, 42 Senators voted against Alito’s nomination. That’s the highest number of votes against any Supreme Court nominee since Clarence Thomas in 1991.
It’s hard to lose — but it’s important to fight for what we believe in. I want to thank the hundreds of thousands of you who signed our petitions, called your senators, wrote letters to the editor and, most important, refused to stand silent while President Bush worked to pack the highest court in the land with far right ideologues. We fought a fight that needed fighting.
We made sure the nation knew the truth about the Alito nomination. We made sure America heard how a right wing ideological coup sandbagged Harriet Miers’ nomination and replaced her with Judge Alito. No one will be able to say, in five to ten years, that he or she is surprised by the decisions Judge Alito makes from the bench. People who believe in privacy rights, who fight for the rights of the most disadvantaged, who believe in balancing the power between the President and Congress had to take a stand.
We also made it clear to the Bush administration that no matter what they throw at us in 2006 — whether it’s extreme nominees, special interest giveaways, shortsighted policy or Swift Boat-style attacks against Democratic candidates — we will never surrender. We will always fight back.
Now, we must be clear about something else. Winning the 2006 congressional elections is the only way to change the dangerous path George W. Bush has put us on. We need to defeat those Republicans who have overlooked this administration’s incompetence, turned a blind eye to its failures, and lent a helping hand to its dangerous ideology.
Together, we have to act to make sure 2006 is the year Americans, led by Democrats, stand up to incompetence, cronyism and corruption, take back Congress, and get our nation moving in the right direction again.
I look forward to fighting alongside you.
Sincerely,
John Kerry
“I voted for the (Iraq) war before I voted against it.” John Kerry
Yup, that Kerry is a real man of principle.
Why SHOULD Democrats think that elections matter? It’s clear that the Republicans will lie, cheat, and steal to win elections.
Paul,
You seem to forget that JFK, with the help of the mob, literally stole the 1960 election from Nixon. Of course you are a hypocrite as are most leftists!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
The last legislator to be elected President of the United States was John F. Kennedy. Since then, our Presidents have been Governors and ambassadors (Johnson and Ford were not elected)
Why? Because of such instances as “I voted for something before I voted against it”. The way our bills are drafted and bandied about, by the time they come up for a final vote, they often have so many things attached to them that some legislators find it necessary to vote against the bill in order to keep out an issue they find worse than the face issue.
When this happens and a legislator runs for public office, he/she is accused of waffling or flip flopping. Both parties are guilty of this. The only way to avoid ever being accused of waffling is to NOT have a voting record. Thus, we end up having former Governors running the country. I think we’ve lost some very qualified Republican and Democratic candidates due to this practice.
As far as Iraq, I can honestly say that I was for the war before I was against it. And from what I can see, the same goes for A LOT of people. It’s funny how the truth changed our minds.
There used to be this pretty good video clip of John Kerry’s words on war against Iraq.
Basically showing him flip flopping on the issue. Had nothing to do with his voting record, just him opening his mouth.
I wonder if I can find it still…
Justice Alito’s joining a new majority to overturn Roe v. Wade isn’t all that troubling. It won’t be that expensive for women to take a bus ride to New Mexico, Virginia, Nevada, Illinois, Michigan, or wherever–there is not going to be a national ban against abortions. Pro-choice groups can raise funds to subsidize travel.
It is troubling that Justice Alito approved a policeman’s shooting a fleeing petty criminal in the back. In many states, police are only allowed to kill others to protect their own or innocent citizens’ lives. The punishment in this case far exceeded the crime, and so was cruel and unusual, a violation of the Constitution that all then-judge Alito’s colleagues found unacceptable.
It is troubling that in failing to recuse himself in the Vanguard case, and then later being challenged, then-judge Alito cited an inapplicable statutory sub-section to make his action appear to be “legal”, when the relevant provision made it clear it was illegal, according to the testimony of a Juciary Committe expert witness, whose conclusion was never controverted during the confirmation hearings (see C-Span video archives). This is deeply troubling for a reportedly brilliant legal mind. It does not indicate that Justice Alito will be above “bending the law”.
It is deeply troubling that then-judge Alito tried to deny a jury trial to a civil complainent, when our Constitutional framers believed that trial by jury was an essential construct in creating a democratic republic, one in which ordinary citizens were active participants in civic matters.
We have a divided nation. The voting record shows that is no overwhelming mandate for radical change by either the Republican or Democratic party. This suggests that moderation is called for.
Remember President Bush’s 2000 campaign promises. “I will be a uniter, not a divider.” “I will be the education president.” “If elected I will not engage in nation building [i.e. imposing military force on other nations to make them "democratic".] Perhaps the former Yale frat party boy and ex-alcoholic’s brain has been irreparably damaged, and he just can’t remember his promises. Or maybe he was just manipulating people as he did in changing his New England prep-school accent to Texan after losing a Texas congressional race. (Kudos to his accent-training coach!)
Ian – so I can safely assume from your response that most Conservatives are racist?
You want a definition of hypocrisy? How about the Conservatives being both pro-death penalty and pro-life?
Oh yes Paul, please equate the lives of innocent unborn with scum like Tookie Williams! You leftists want to spare the worthless lives of criminal scum while “aborting” potential Mozarts and Hawkings and such.
V.L.R.B!!
Ian – Ah yes. Don’t kill them now, let the state kill them later.
Of course, abortion would also deprive the world of racist sheep like yourself.
Whatever. Like the old saying says, you can’t teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
How is that hypocrisy Paul?
When the United States was founded, there were 4 million people, and one House of Representatives member for every 30,000 people.
A nation with 300 million people and one representaive for every 300,000 citizens was never envisioned by our nation’s Founding Fathers.
Kansans think that Californians are whackos and Californians think that Kansans are hicks. How about if we develop new nations, i.e. split the U.S. so that Kansans can be happy having people like GWB and Justice Alito, lead them, and other people can have leaders of their choice, as presidents and Supreme Court justices? Kansans cannot object “You do your thing, and we’ll do ours.” This is actually the most sensible proposal that anybody can make, if you really think about it. This way, everybody is happy. The right-wing won’t invade the West Coast, because the smartest weapons designers live there, while the West Coasters won’t invade the hinterland, because there’s no advantage to it.
DJF,While I agree with your point that legislators have a difficult time running for the Presidency, it is a factual matter than LBJ won the 1964 election, and that Richard Nixon had served as a congressman and senator. It is the case, of course, that both ran for Presidency from the office of VP.
As for Rhonda’s contemptuous tone, it frankly sounds like she’s repeating the Rovian spin about what Supreme Court nominees are entitled to–which has zero to do with what the Constitution stipulates. A question, Rhonda: is the role of Senators in this process to advise and consent, or isn’t it? And if one thinks a nominee is unfit, where is it stipulated that the filibuster can NOT be used? How is this a ‘disservice’? And how is it disingenuous to use a filibuster to register a protest vote against an extreme nominee who is going to receive approval? The filibuster is part of the Senate rules, right?
Your complaint, Rhonda, echoes the GOP / media narrative about how Democrats who fight are big meanies who play dirty. It is NO Democrat’s job to give in to this President. Moreover, who is REALLY the ‘disingenuous’ Democrat, Rhonda: the one who votes against Alito and supports a filibuster, like Hilary Clinton and Joseph Biden, or the one who votes against Alito and will NOT support it, like Maria Cantwell and Daniel Akaka? Aren’t THOSE Democrats the ones who are ‘disingenuous,’ Rhonda, along with Lincoln Chafee? If Alito is bad enough to reject, why isn’t he bad enough to filibuster? Moreover, when conservatives whine for an ‘up or down vote,’ one wants to ask why, if this was good enough for Alito, it wasn’t good enough for Miers. By signing on to this spin, Rhonda, you help to advance IOKIYAR: you know, “it’s OK if you’re a Republican.”
If a Senator thinks Alito’s the wrong guy for the job, where does it say in the Constitution that one HAS to vote for such a nominee unless something disqualifying arises? And where is it even written that Senators have an ‘obligation’ to allow nominees to come to a vote? They don’t. By holding Democrats to this standard, Rhonda, you’re adopting the implicit standard pushed by Rove, Hatch, Cornyn, Kmieck, Sekulow, and the partisan team assembled to push this nomination through. Is that any less political and partisan than the standard you castigate the Democrats for employing in pushing the filibuster?
Alito’s record contained ample evidence for his ‘judicial activism’ and ‘legislating from the bench’, all of his protestations to the contrary. I’ll support the Senators who voted against cloture, and work against those who did.
Finally, twenty-five votes to oppose cloture, on a Supreme Court nominee, is anything but ‘lame’. There has been only one successful filibuster, that of Abe Fortas in 1968. I think twenty-five votes against cloture is a strong, strong message.
In contradiction to what various media shills think, it is no Senator’s duty to lie down and submit to the President’s will. In this case, their duty is to the Constitution. I am proud of them for taking it seriously.
*********************************
So, Wingnuts, the next time you disagree with Rhonda and want to hurt her feelings by calling her a liberal, just remember that I,for one, do NOT identify many of her positions as liberal or as progressive in any way. If she is a ‘liberal,’ she is of the self-hating, Bush-toadying type favored by the DC media. She does NOT speak for me.
What really needs to happen is this: the president and all the members of Congress who voted for the Medicare Modernization Act which spawned Medicare Part D should be prescribed 10 prescriptions each (and all of them just above 150% of the federal poverty level, but not much, so they can’t qualify for the low income subsidy) and then forced to choose a Part D plan.
Heh, so much for the LIBERAL media.
Democrats “got what they deserved.”
Nice objectivity.
Thank God for Rhonda, liberals and radicals of the past secured her right to vote, her right to work, and her right to equal treatment on the job.
Thanks to their sacrifice, Rhonda now has the luxury to sell them out by backing the greedy bastards that call themselves “conservative.”
It is satisfying to see the leftists converge upon each other like a pack of hyenas. I bet the neo-con artists are constructing gulags as we speak.
V.L.R.B!!
Ian said:”You seem to forget that JFK, with the help of the mob, literally stole the 1960 election from Nixon. Of course you are a hypocrite as are most leftists!”
You bigot,Get your conspiracy theories straight.
Mayor Daley helped him steal the election.
The mob were the ones who helped assassinate him.
And I betting at the time you were on the grassy knoll doing unspeakable things to male children.
Steven E,
Ha ha ha ha ha!
“I’m your Uncle Ian! No,wait, just pretend I’m a priest of Pius SSPX.”
And, and Ian, numb nuts, my whole point was that Rhonda ISN’T a Leftist. Duh.
CF,
I know that YOU do not think that she is a leftist!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
You guys act like it is the end of the world that there was actually a conservative lead-in blog topic. Your reaction is hilarious when you think about the 99.9% of the lead-ins that are anti-conservative.
But don’t worry, I don’t think that I would worry about an actual consrvative showing up on the editorial staff anytime soon.
I’ll concede that I didn’t make a very good case against Alito, but that mean that someone who wasn’t just damn lazy couldn’t have figured him out. Unfortunately, my workload increased at just the wrong time.
Dems got what they deserved? Oh, Rhonda, how friggin’ juvenile. It was the COUNTRY that got what they amply deserved, by electing idiots and crooks, and buying into painfully moronic nonsense like “judges legislating from the bench.” And you certainly got EXACTLY what YOU deserved. Unfortunely, the rest of us will pay along with you.
I could have gone through, case-by-case, quoting from the original cases, explaining why this man is a dangerous fascist. . .a HELL of a lot of work. . . but it wouldn’t have mattered. It’s all D’s versus R’s to you. At least Walker thought about it.
But, as I told him. . you’ll find out. . .
Assuming in some mythical, hopeful, fantasy future, we get a thinking, gutsy Democrat in the White House, both fairness and the past 35 years will demand another William O. Douglas or William Brennan be appointed.
Looking at the future more realistically, though, Canada is looking better by the day. Thanks, Rhonda!
“Looking at the future more realistically, though, Canada is looking better by the day.”
Rage: Don’t let the screen door hit you…
I promise I won’t respond to Ian again. . .but. . .
I am amazed at the traction that Kerry quote has gotten from stupid people. News flash: Kerry voted for it before there was all kinds of crap added to the resolution that he could not, in good conscience, vote for. That’s a very common thing in the legislative process.
I can think of plenty of reasons to rip Kerry a new one, but this ain’t one of them.
Ja, Outlander, arischer Bruder!
Canada just went Conservative. You sure Rage?
Better try Mexico, I don’t think the Canucks want ya…and take Antareswayrethproudliberalplgalahadwith you, and Chas (CF) can ride in the trunk of the hybrid. :)