(Edited- my title was misleading; I actually thought I was quoting the AP headline, but it appears not.
Although, I really thought I lost my mind for a moment. I went back to the article (from the Yahoo page, and read it again, and it came across as completely different from what I first read.
Fortunately, the link goes to the initial AP story, and I found at least one big difference.
Initially, a paragraph read: "To be successful, a filibuster would need almost all of the 44 Democrats behind it and certainly all of the Democratic leadership. But the Senate's senior Democrat, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, has said several times on the Senate floor that he has seen no reason to filibuster Alito's nomination. "There is not going to be any filibuster against Alito," Byrd insisted in December in a heated December exchange with Frist."
It now reads: "To be successful, a filibuster would need almost all of the 44 Democrats behind it and certainly all of the Democratic leaders. But the Senate's senior Democrat, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, has said several times on the Senate floor that he has seen no reason to filibuster Alito's nomination"
Big difference there, and to the extent my diary had a point, it revolved on Byrd's position- if he is flat out declaring there will be no filibuster, that is a lot different than stating he doesn't see the need for one at this point.
So, I'm not deleting my diary, although I would have never written based on the seemingly amended AP article. Whether it serves as an insight into Byrd or into the AP, so be it)
Original text below-
First, if this is diaried, elsewhere, please let me know, I will happily delete, I am suprised if it hasn't been placed elsewhere.
And, yes, this is the kind of "Breaking News" diary that is frowned upon.
But I have a reason for posting it anyway.
First off, the link.
Basically, a story on the AP wire with the headline that ALito will not be filibustered.
Now, the body is nearly as definitive- seems more like most leading Democrats just aren't saying one way or the other, which is how it ought to be.
But what caught my eye was Byrd- I didn't realize he had totally ruled out a filibuster of Alito, not just for himself, but seemingly for the party.
Now, obviously Byrd doesn't control the party, but it sure seems likely to me that if he not only refuses to support a filibuster but actually fights it's use that at least five Democrats will follow, and probably even more.
Anyway, I am curious if anyone has any thoughts? I thought the filibuster fight was more or less inevitable here, but it sure seems a lot more likely that, barring a major screw up in the hearings, Alito is going to be on the SCOTUS before the end of the month.