Democratic Senators must stage a filibuster against the nomination of Sam Alito for the Supreme Court. Even if the filibuster is defeated, it is important both on principal and for the psychology of Democratic Party.
For more than 20 years the ReThUgLies have made hay by calling Democrats "weak" on everything from petty crime to nuclear proliferation. By debating rationally instead of fighting back, the Democrats have proved the Republican's point time and time again. It is high time for the opposition party to finally act in opposition.
Judge Samuel Alito is a known advocate of the theory of the "unitary executive". Under this radical interpretation of the Constitution, the President has virtually unlimited authority as Commander-in-Chief. I ask: Was it not the merger and abuse of executive and military powers, unchecked by other branches of government, that defined the Nazi, Fascist and Communist enemies against whom we fought so hard in the last century? Under the "unitary executive" theory, the checks and balances wisely written into our Constitution by the founding fathers will evaporate. Our unpopular President will be granted free reign to ignore the will of the Congress, the judiciary and the people in the name of making war.
Justice Alito has also promoted the dubious legal theory of Presidential "signing statements". This position holds that the President can assert lawmaking intent simply by issuing opinions of Congressional legislation at the bill signing ceremony. This flies in the face of the Constitution, which clearly reserves the power of drafting legislation for the Congress. The Executive branch is responsible only for enforcement, not interpretation. Under Judge Alito's radical theory of jurisprudence, the President will have the power to ignore Congressional intent at his leisure without the threat of judicial punishment.
The President has already shown unforgivable hubris in the following cases:
- Conducting criminal domestic spying in violation the FISA legislation passed by the Congress in 1978 for at least the past four years. This sensible law which requires that a special court grant a warrant for the surveillance of U.S. citizens was obeyed by every previous administration. The President has still offered neither a coherent nor credible explanation why he did not approach the FISA court for warrants as the law requires.
- Advocating and practicing the kidnapping, torture, and rendition of American citizens based on a unilateral, irrevocable decision to declare them "enemy combatants", a status that has already been found illegal by the current Supreme Court. This compromise of fundamental Habeus Corpus rights should give all American citizens pause regardless of their political affiliation.
- Nominating his chief legal counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, which may very well end up taking cases on the legality of his actions in office. This conflict of interest flew in the face of good government. In the end she was recalled prior to Congressional hearings because the radical right wing did not consider her to be a reliable enough vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and her lack of qualifications were an embarrassment to the administration. However the implication, that the President considers the Supreme Court to be his personal fiefdom, is frightening.
Once in control of the Supreme Court, will the President's zeal to fight the so-called "War on Terrorism" turn our nation into a facsimile of the worst regimes of the 20th century? If our Democratic Senators won't fight back on principal, who will stand up when the President begins rounding up "Enemy Combatants" in the streets of every city in America? Without a filibuster,the ReThUgLies have won the battle before it begins.
Couldn't happen here? With Justice Alito on the Supreme Court it could all too easily happen here.