Yes, good for Wyden. As I've argued before on my site, I may be wary of the filibuster, but I'm happy to see people vote against Alito. In today's edition of Slate Dahlia Lithwick makes as good a case as any I've read as to why Alito shouldn't take O'Connor's seat:

"When it comes to the reach of the president's authority to pursue this war with a warrantless wiretap in one hand and a cattle prod in the other, there is almost no statutory authority or court precedent. Judges, specifically the justices of the Supreme Court, will in the end be making up the law more or less as they go."

She goes on to explain why Alito's not the man to make it up. Moreover, we didn't need the hearings to demonstrate this, so much as Alito's record. The odds are very high that Alito will simply abet Bush's yen for law-and-order; and, unlike the Bush presidency, those laws aren't going to end in 2008. Reason's Matt Welch also did a good number on this aspect of the Alito record, an essay I linked to through this post.

P.S. If it came to the filibuster, that's a tough one. Given, however, that Alito is clearly qualified, we're looking at a fairly naked political decision. And the price the Dems could pay for a loss here is large: Alito on the bench and the filibuster - a useful, if imperfect protective device for the minority - exploded.

With the extent to which this whole thing is political, I wouldn't attempt a filibuster unless the numbers to forestall the nuclear option added up. I don't see the point in losing twice.

Any judge who orders the strip search of a elementary school girl is not fit for any court... of any kind... especially now that Codrescu is dead... hung upside down and shot about 1000 times in the town square.

Them Romanians sure know what to do with their corrupt, lying presidents, fer sure.

Sid Leader writes: "especially now that Codrescu is dead..."

I think you mean Ceucescu (Chu-ches-cue). I'm pretty sure Andre Codrescu is still alive and teaching and writing at LSU and occasionally offering his humorous observations of American life on NPR :-)

Sid --

What's this about the Romanian president? I completely missed your reference, and Google isn't helping me out. Care to give a link to more information? Or are you just making stuff up?

The president of Romania was such a dictator (along with his wife) that when they were deposed and killed their bodies were carried around the country on a train so that people could see they were really dead.

An extreme example of a dictator.

Vera likes trains, right?

Sorry: that was definitely in bad taste. I couldn't help it.

I've got to agree with torridjoe. The "Imperial Presidency" is becoming a huge threat to our freedom and democracy. It's obvious that Alito supports that. I believe that the American people are aching for leaders who will speak honestly and powerfully from the heart and stand up and fight for them and the principles our country was founded on. The most important thing now is to awaken and rally the public. If the republicans try the "nuclear option", it might even help.

Ron Wyden is voting against Judge Alito because, in Ron Wyden's opinion, Judge Alito is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

Mr. Merrick (former Chair of the MultCo Democratic Party and personal injury lawyer) is lobbying against Jack Roberts because, in Mr. Merrick's opinion, Jack Roberts is not qualified to be readmitted to the Oregon Bar. I see several parallels, though not a perfect analogy.

Ironically, Ron Wyden may never have gained admission to the Oregon Bar, based on his (allegedly) unsuccessful attempts to pass the Oregon Bar Exam. Nevertheless, he looks unfavorably upon the ABA's "Highest" ranked judicial nominee. No politics at play here, nosireee!

Mr. Merrick suggests that Jack Roberts may have practiced law without active membership in the bar (while employed by an Economic Development Agency); and alternately suggested Jack Roberts may not qualify for readmission to the bar in advance of the qualification deadline. Again, a purely non-partisan objection to the man's qualifications, or "let's throw it all up and see what sticks?"

Ironically, Ron Wyden has always claimed he was "Director of the Oregon Legal Services for the Elderly", but was never admitted to the Oregon Bar. Yet Mr. Merrick feels Jack Roberts should have maintained his law degree while working in economic development?

How can that be?

T.J.

Honestly, if Alito were a Democrat nominated by Clinton do you really believe that Democrat Alito would have encountered any opposition from Ron Wyden, Esquire? He could have answered every question with the same response, had written every single "unitary executive" memo, "my personal opinion was this, but that doesn't impact my perspective on the bench...", and he would have been the toast of the town, with Ted Kennedy beaming at his side.

Pure politics.

We had eight years of executive privilege under a Clinton Presidency. Been there, done that. I assume Hillary would be less cavalier than her husband. She may be more conservative than he was, at least on fighting terror. At a minimum, we can expect fewer hummers in the Oral Office.

My point on Alito is quite simple: if you rebadged him as a Democrat, the Jackasses would be falling all over themselves to expedite his confirmation. If a liberal Supreme Court nominee working at Planned Parenthood or the ACLU is good; why can't a conservative work in the Reagan Administration. If a liberal judge was simply expressing their personal opinion on the polemics of the day: no problem. But heaven forbid if a conservative judge ever participated in public prayer before a public venue. Distinguishing between professional advocacy and their personal beliefs is never a problem, until you disagree with their personal beliefs.

This is the facism of the Left.

And don't forget, Clinton ran his nominees by the republican leadership to make sure they would pass before he nominated them. ie. Ginsburg

What does Alito have to do with FISA? It seems like you (and Wyden) have confused Alito's previous work as a Reagan Administration lawyer with his ability to serve as an effective judicial counterbalance to a (potentially) over zealous executive.

Alito didn't work for Bush, remember? He worked for Reagan.

My argument is unchanged: if Justice Ginsberg (of the ACLU and all their extremist positions) is not tainted by the strident nature of her employer (the ACLU), then should service under the Reagan Administration taint Alito?

TJ: what makes you think Judge Alito believes the President is "allowed to break the law sometimes"?

You've been surfing Democratic Underground again, haven't you?

Assuming your idea of "right to privacy" is being able to chit chat with your suspected Al Qaeda friends via international long distance or email, then I understand why you object to eavesdropping. If not, then how about you let the Feds do their job, and quit thinking about ways to help the assholes who are pursuing a sequel to 9/11.

The odds of you (or any Oregonian) becoming the next Brandon Mayfield are similar to your odds of winning Powerball. Don't sweat the statistically unlikely stuff.

Speaking of the honorable Senator Wyden, I see this website has an advertisement for a fundraiser here in the Rose City for...what? Hillary Clinton's NEW YORK senatorial campaign? And the good Sen. Wyden is on the top of the bill inviting attendees?

I don't doubt that Sen. Clinton will be hosting a huge event in Madison Squate Garden to raise funds for Wyden's next senatorial campaign. Indeed, tens of thousands of New Yorkers will undoubtedly pour out of their cramped apartments to hear a rousing speech by Wyden.

Folks, get a grip. If Hillary Clinton is the best that the Dems have to offer for president in '08, we are screwed.

Voting against Alito's confirmation is not enough; it is a mere protest vote. Senate Democrats must stand together and filibuster if we are to escape decades of hard-right - governmental, economic, and social - court decisions. Filibuster may be messy, but it's the only possibility of stopping the Shrub Court.

Yeah! Another loss! Wooooo! Boy, we're really getting them now! Maybe in a few years we'll only lose by one vote!

Don't you think if Wyden was really doing his job, he'd be able to put forth the effort to convince others, instead of waiting until the numbers are clear and casting the easy vote?

(resume blowjobs of New-YOrkegon's second Republican senator)

New Yorkegon? I don't follow.

On Alito, my understanding is the Republicans would relish a chance to go nuclear and give the Democrats a new whining point to get them off message. WWJWD? What would Jim Wright do?

T.J.:

How is Grandma Aziz?

If the 5,000 brave souls that shuddered at Valley Forge were here today, I believe they wouldn't recognize the civil liberties we now enjoy. Granted, it just my hypothesis, but it would be interesting if those colonists could see how their country evolved.

Ask their well regulated militia men to apply for a concealed carry permit, and they may reply they would prefer to carry their rifles in the open. But you can't carry a rifle in public, General Washington: please have your troops stack their muskets here, you're frightening the children.

I'm hoping they could adapt to suffrage for women and equal rights for the descendants of slaves.

Then you can take them to a strip club, and explain how it's protected free speech. Maybe a trip to Boeing's plant? That'll blow their minds. Stop by Vermont, and explain to them how a child rapist gets a 3 year sentence. I have a feeling they would sound more like Bill O'Reilly than Al Franken on most of the polemic issues of the day.

Show them the videotape of 9/11 and outline the same foreign militia is intent on attacking us and is currently using our own lines of communication against us. I believe our colonials would intercept those communications in a heartbeat, with the same relish and certainty of purpose that President Bush has shown. Abe Lincoln or John Kennedy would have done the same IMHO. The only difference: even the left would have endorsed the strategy, pre-Watergate.

Yes, I know, another damn message about stopping the Alito confirmation. Consider, though, that we shall live with the consequences of this decision for decades to come, long after G. Bush II is a hazy memory. Please, spend a few minutes; put yourself in a possibly uncomfortable situation; get put on hold, perhaps; or miss an office chat about the SuperBowl and make some very important calls that may determine whether the US is a republic or an empire thirty years from now.

Tom Civiletti

from democrats.com:

TODAY, WE MUST SAVE AMERICA

We have just two days to save American Democracy - TODAY and MONDAY.

Through a stunning set of events, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy will lead a filibuster of Sam Alito on Monday.

Senate offices will be closed this weekend, so TODAY WE MUST CALL EVERY DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TO DEMAND SUPPORT FOR THE FILIBUSTER. And we must call them all again MONDAY.

STOP ALITO

If we lose the cloture vote on Monday at 4:30 p.m., the Senate will vote at 11 a.m. on Tuesday to put Sam Alito on the Supreme Court with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts - where they will vote in lockstep to ensure that the extremist agenda of the radical right is never blocked by any Court.

And what is that agenda? It is no longer a mystery: allowing a President to start illegal wars, murder civilians and journalists, destroy cities, torture prisoners, lock away citizens at home, and wiretap every email and call in the world. Having the Supreme Court choose Presidents, not the voters. Letting corporations crush their workers and poison the planet. And, of course, outlawing all abortions, even at the cost of women's lives.

John Kerry decided to lead a filibuster because he cares passionately about American democracy - and because he was inspired by the hundreds of thousands of emails and calls from progressive activists like you.

Many Democratic Senators urged Kerry not to lead a filibuster because they were afraid to stand and fight.

But Kerry is not a coward. He said, "Judge Alito's confirmation would be an ideological coup on the Supreme Court. The president has every right to nominate Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. It's our right and our responsibility to oppose him vigorously."

You said it, John Kerry!!!!

George Bush needs 60 votes to end the filibuster and confirm Alito. Bush can count on 52 Republican votes. We must make sure he doesn't get to 60.

There are 48 possible votes to sustain the filibuster. We are keeping a scorecard here:

STOP ALITO

Three Democrats - Ben Nelson (NE), Tim Johnson (SD), and Robert Byrd (WV) - plan to vote for Alito.

Three Democrats have said publicly they oppose Alito, but also oppose a filibuster - Mary Landrieu (LA), Ken Salazar (CO), and Dianne Feinstein (CA).

We must give these six Democrats two choices: (1) change their position to support a Democratic filibuster, or (2) spend Monday away from the Senate - preferably at Walter Reed Hospital talking to soldiers who have been maimed for life by the criminal actions of George Bush.

We know how hard you have worked to stop Alito. The White House wants us to believe our efforts cannot succeed, but they are just trying to get us to stop trying.

WITH JOHN KERRY LEADING THE WAY, WE CAN WIN THIS BATTLE.

Let's win it for our children, and for generations to come!!!

http://democrats.com/alito-48

Bob Fertik

Robert Byrd? Why would he vote for a Bush nominee? Something to do with coal mining safety? Maybe they both had the same Grand Wizard back in the day.

I doubt that Mary Landrieu wants to pick a fight with George Bush until N.O. gets their levees built about $8 billion higher. I'm guessing Ken Salazar has some ulterior motive (besides reelection). Dianne Feinstein will be interesting to watch: she's very pro-choice, but she's a long-term thinker. She might be looking to the next nominee, who may be nominated by a Democrat and possess partisan attributes similar to Alito (before beginning their judicial career).

She might be looking to the next nominee, who may be nominated by a Democrat and possess partisan attributes similar to Alito

Do you think for one minute that the Republicans are going to give a left of center jurist a pass regardless of the outcome of this nomination hearing? When the R's lose their majority in the Senate, they will do exactly what the Dems should be doing in this fight. They'll force "the nuclear option", and then shut down the Senate using every procedural trick they can muster -- for years, if that's what it takes to block a Democratic agenda.

And somehow, in stark contrast to a Dem leadership's "long-term thinking" about how a filibuster will play with the American people, they'll pick up votes for standing on principle.

Diane Feinstein is a long-term thinker as it relates to her next election. She is a lousy choice to be part of Democratic leadership in the Senate, and at the risk of repeating a Republican talking point about pro-peace Democrats, she is the Neville Chamberlain of partisan politics -- an appeaser of one of the most dangerous political movements to take root in this country in my lifetime.

As for WB's comments...our ancestors, who happened to think that protection from unreasonable search and seizure was so important a right that they enshrined it in our Constitution, would certainly not accept the notion that the President is not subject to U.S. law on the grounds that it's "inconvenient". The Justice Department has said that Bush's warrantless wiretaps are illegal. The non-partisan CRS thinks they're illegal. Even John McCain thinks they are illegal. The only people who don't think they are illegal are reich wing idealogues like yourself.

And let's face it, if you support torture, the imprisonment of innocent people, illegal wiretaps, and a President who can ignore the law, all in the hopes that it will make you a little more safe from the big, bad wolf, then by any reasonable measure by which Americans have historically judged such things, that make you a coward -- willing to trade the basic liberties enshrined in our constitution for the illusion of security.

Salvador,

Two Words regarding left of center supreme Court Nominees: Justice Ginsberg. Read her bio.

I don't know where you came up with this gem: if you support torture, the imprisonment of innocent people, illegal wiretaps, and a President who can ignore the law, then by any reasonable measure by which Americans have historically judged such things, that makes you a coward You don't sound like a savior to me, amigo.

I was talking about electronic eavesdropping: I don't know where you came up with the rest of your laundry list. Have you tried decaf? If it turns out that Bush's NSA was operating lawfully, I will expect an apology for the "coward" comment. Those are fighting words where I come from.

I believe our founding fathers would not recognize what our civil liberties have devolved into. Nude dancing is speech? The 2nd amendment remains in force, but carrying a gun in public is officially proscribed without a permit issued at the pleasure of a county bureacrat (what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?). Prayer is banned from public meetings. Today's implementation of civil liberties would be largely unrecognizable to our 18th century democrats.

My point on Alito is quite simple: if you rebadged him as a Democrat (substituting liberal beliefs and experience for each of his conservative nuances), the Democrats would be falling all over themselves to expedite his confirmation.

If a liberal Supreme Court nominee working for the ACLU is good; why can't a conservative work in the Reagan Administration. If a liberal judge was simply expressing their personal opinion on the polemics of the day, hey that's free speech. But heaven forbid if a conservative judge ever participated in public prayer before a public venue. Distinguishing between professional advocacy and their personal beliefs is never a problem, until you disagree with their personal beliefs.

This is the facism of the Left.

If it turns out that Bush's NSA was operating lawfully, I will expect an apology for the "coward" comment.

You set the level of this conversation when you implied that Demcorats are whiny, when you used the "Grandma Aziz" comment in response to someone you disagreed with, etc.

If you want to be treated with respect, show some respect for folks in the group. Until then, you have no business complaining when someone chooses to take the terms of debate down to your level. Comprende?

As for your comments about the ACLU... I have to wonder why the far right wing spends so much time, money, and energy smearing and attacking an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights. One need look no further than Bill O'Reilly's shameful "War on Christmas" campaign to see that this is little more than an effort to divide Americans along religious lines for political purposes. If that weren't the case, O'Reilly wouldn't have had to lie about such a large number of examples of "ACLU liberals" secularizing Christmas.

As for your comparison of Alito to Ginsberg... Ginsburg was recommended as a candidate for the SCOTUS to president Clinton by Orrin Hatch. If you don't believe that she should be on the court, you should take issue with Hatch for making the recommendation in the first place. Had Bush attempted to solicit imput from the Democrats on the Judiciary committee rather than caving to the fundamentalist wing of the Republican party, this would have been a very different debate in the Senate.

As for your "fascism of the left" comment ... under Bush, we now have free speech zones in political campaigns; a Bush campaign that required people to sign a loyalty oath before attending campaign events; we've got a president who lied about domestic surveillance during the campaign; we have a president who lied to move the nation to war; we have a president whose partisan appointees on the FCC are trying to relax or eliminate rules that rose in response to fascism; an administrtation that tried to impose its dogmatic worldview on the people of Oregon vis-a-vis it's attempt to overturn our Death with Dignity law; and which has used fear to remain in power all the while enriching its cronies in big business through no-bid contracts, irresponsible tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and deregulation that is going to kill people.

That, my friend, is a step towards fascism. Opposing a judge who believes that Presidential power should remain largely unchecked during such a time is simply common sense.

WBA2 wrote:

My point on Alito is quite simple: if you rebadged him as a Democrat (substituting liberal beliefs and experience for each of his conservative nuances), the Democrats would be falling all over themselves to expedite his confirmation.

Well, dah, Bruce. You seem to be amazed by the the realities of politics. Of course Democrats would support the polar opposite of Alito. Is there any bit-worthy thought in that? The important nuance here is that the "conservative" beliefs and experiences that Democrats object to in Alito are un-American and counter-constitutional.

These Shrubbites are all about what they say they are:

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas. (Governing Magazine 7/98)

-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.

-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.

-- Business Week, July 30, 2001

<h2>buzzflash</h2>