Alito and the filibuster

[lukpac]

Does this make any fucking sense?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/01/ ... index.html

But Alito found steadfast support after Bush announced his selection, with GOP senators saying he deserved a Senate confirmation vote and threatening to eliminate judicial filibusters if Democrats try to block the White House's newest high court nominee.

"If someone would filibuster ... I would be prepared to vote to change the rules," said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio.

DeWine is one of the 14 centrist senators that Democrats need to sustain a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. Without the group's seven Republicans, Democrats would not be able to prevent Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, from abolishing judicial filibusters and confirming judges with just the Senate's 55-member Republican majority.

Under existing Senate rules, it takes up to 60 votes to end a filibuster and force a final vote.

The so-called "Gang of 14" will hold its first meeting on Alito on Thursday.

Frist said he's ready to move against judicial filibusters, using what Republicans call the "constitutional option," if Democrats force him to. "If a filibuster comes back, I'm not going to hesitate," he told "The Tony Snow Show" on Fox News.

What sense does that make? "We'll allow you to filibuster, but if you try to, we won't let you anymore."

[Rspaight]

It's having their cake and eating it, too. Basically, the "nuclear option" could, in theory, have negative political conquences for the Republicans should they push the big red button in that it would put a big asterisk next to Alito's confirmation. (His term as Justice would be similar to Bush's first term as President in that his legitimacy would be perpetually in doubt.) They would much rather Alito get confirmed "clean."

Also, invoking the nuclear option will limit the Republicans' ability to filibuster if they become the minority party again.

They hope that the *threat* of the nuclear option will cow the Dems into not filibustering. This is because there's a downside for the Dems, too -- they could be painted as the party at fault for all of this. (See also "Justice Sunday.") It'll be *their* fault for forcing the Republicans to do it. If the Repubs push the button before the Dems filibuster, then it's the Republicans' fault.

But if the Dems filibuster, they'll go ahead and do it, damn the consequences.

Ryan

[Bennett Cerf]

Call me crazy, but I think the Dems are going to put up a real fight against Alito.

[Rspaight]

If Harry Reid's closed session manuever today is any indication, this is going to get *very* ugly.

Ryan

[MK]

My guess is, Alito's going to get in. Unless he says something stupid during the confirmation hearings (and he would have to be REALLY dumb to do that, those things are more choreographed than Broadway), there's no way the Democrats can stop it. Solid GOP support, if the Democrats filibuster it, there will definitely be a rule change.

True, there may fall out, but you know what? With Bush's war still in the gutter after 2-3 years, DeLay's corruption, the CIA leak from the administration over Bush's war, more scandals in Ohio, etc., going with a moderate justice isn't going to make an overwhelming, positive change. People on the left aren't going to be won, people in the middle are already soured by these scandals that aren't going away (they may get pushed back in the news...by OTHER scandals), there's no way the GOP is going to alienate the right by picking a moderate candidate. They're going to cut their losses and go to the mat for Alito.

[Rspaight]

I agree. Alito's getting in short of total GOP collapse.

Ryan

[Bennett Cerf]

Again, let me emphasize the "call me crazy" part. I am undeniably influenced by some wishful thinking.

That said, I believe the Miers defeat has done a lot of damage to the GOP's usual talking point that every nominee deserves an "up or down vote" and should never be subjected to "litmus tests." This should allow much more of a debate over Alito than Roberts ever received. Everyone knows Alito is a right-wing nutjob because he has the paper trail which Roberts lacked.

My thinking is that moderate Republicans/RINOs like Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee, and Olympia Snowe (all members of the "gang of 14" that compromised over the filibuster earlier this year) aren't going to want to play hardball over Alito.

I have no doubt that they would all vote for him in a regular vote. But are they going to "go nuclear" for this guy? Note that Snowe and Chafee are both up for reelection next year, and Kerry won their states by 9 and 19 points, respectively. Are they going to change Senate rules in order to barely push through someone they know would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and still think they can run as pro-choice candidates in next year's election?

The "gang of 14" agreement allowed filibusters in extreme circumstances. The fact that Democrats didn't filibuster Roberts and never threatened to filibuster Miers proves that they won't filibuster every candidate. Is it possible for key members of the "gang of 14" to argue that a filibuster does not violate their agreement, regardless of their particular point of view on Alito?

(Obviously no Republican would state outright that Alito constitutes extreme circumstances. But they could stop short of calling for the nuclear option.)

It seems to me like certain Republicans are in a much better position complaining about the tactics of the "obstructionist" Democrats than actually putting an end to those tactics. Of course, that's pretty much the Republican platform: whining about things you don't actually want to change.