portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

government

Democrats to Stand Aside For Latest Rightwing Anti-abortion Nominee to Sail Past

yawn . . . "contemporary jurisprudence," er, uh, " extraordinary circumstances," yeah, that's the ticket.
Democrats Signal Hesitance to Use Filibuster Against Alito

Nov. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Moderate U.S. Senate Democrats said they want to know more about Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Jr.'s judicial philosophy and signaled reluctance to support a filibuster to block his confirmation.

``There is no question the judge is a conservative,'' said South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson, who voted in September to confirm Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The issue is ``whether his conservatism falls within the broad mainstream of contemporary jurisprudence and whether it is beyond the bounds,'' Johnson said after meeting with Alito in Washington.

Democrats who signed a bipartisan agreement that averted a Senate crisis over the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees said they hadn't heard talk in the group of using the parliamentary tactic that allows unlimited debate. The seven Democrats who signed the May 23 agreement pledged not to support a judicial filibuster except in ``extraordinary circumstances.''

``I haven't heard any of my colleagues on the Democratic side talk about extraordinary circumstances,'' Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson told reporters. ``The question hasn't even been raised.''

homepage: homepage: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=awHkqwzfvc7A&refer=us

Idiotic interpetation 02.Nov.2005 06:19

Mike stepbystpefarm <a> mtdata.com

It's not the seven "moderate" Democrats who are at issue but the seven "moderate" Republicans who were also part of the agreement to leave the "filibuster" process intact. In order for a "filibuster" to take place at least six of these must stay on board, and one has already indicated "no".

What you perhaps do not understand is that Senators talk privately with each other and there are rarely any surprise votes. So before getting critical about the Democrats not indicating "we will filibuster" you need to consider if they CAN filibuster --- or would any attempt to do so be met with a "bye-bye filibuster forever".

There is no CONSTITUTIONAL right to filibuster, just a Senate rule. Essentially it's up to the majority in the Senate whether a filibuster will be allowed. The main restraint against simply changing the rule "ad hoc" is that once this is done it will easily be done in the future for other "hocs" and the Senate will be transformed into a less concilatory/delibatory/compromise body. That is the only thing acting as a restraint against changing the rules (aka "the nuclear option").

Trying to water down the point -- Dems are spineless 02.Nov.2005 07:35

repost

The point is that the Dems are spineless. They could be holding press conferences, making threats on other votes, speaking out on the worst aspects over and over, etc. But they don't on any of it. They even waited until NOW to ask for an investigation on Iraq, even after Fitzgerald is saying the media was what blocked the investigation in 2004 -- and because of that, BUSH is now president! Where were the Democrats then??

Here's WRH's view:

Nice Try Harry (Reid) But it Was Too Little, Too Late

Give me a break Harry Reid! NOW you ask about the evidence presented to the world related to Iraq? Why not ask this on the same day that it was announced in the UN in front of Colin Powel, that the evidence related to Niger were FORGERIES? Remember these words?:

ElBaradei's U.N. presentation Friday, March 7, 2003: "Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence if it emerges relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials."

Now you are asking questions AFTER your Congress signed the OK to obliterate Iraq? Hey Harry... do you remember the 130 nations in the UN General Assembly that ALL voted against an invasion of Iraq? Were they fooled? Either you and your pals in Congress are completely incompetent idiots or your are lying bastard criminals. What do I think... let's just say I don't think you are idiots.

REPOSTING corporate B.S. 02.Nov.2005 09:23

thanks, but no thanks

"Bloomberg news service" -- that wouldn't be owned by the Republican mayor of NYC, would it? YES, it would!

So, the POINT (undiluted) is that a big business multi-millionaire Republican politician (= crook) SAYS that Dems are spineless!

Great source that you have! Shows where you are coming from?

Thanks, but no thanks.

dems are part of the problem, not solution 02.Nov.2005 14:37

S

I don't need any such source to know the Dems are spineless - or owned -

Independent news sources around the world knew the reasons for going into Iraq were lies. Millions of people around the world marched, knowing they were lies. The Democrats and Corporate media had to willfully stay uninformed when it was so obviously, so irrefutably proven.

The blood of all those killed in Iraq is on the hands of the corporate media, and on the hands of the Democrats. They are both willingly cooperating with acts which violate the spirit of democracy, human rights and human decency. This is but one example. The citizens of this country should run both parties right out of office. Both parties are despicable.

but... 02.Nov.2005 19:07

anon

WOuld it not be better to encourage the Dems right now to oppose Alito rather than lobbing bombs from the sidelines? There was quite a bit of discussion about this issue on KBOO Wednesday AM.

Alito, anti-womens rights, pro warentless search 11.Jan.2006 18:53

stigys

Webpage with many interesting articles on Alito http://www.alito.visualfuturist.com