As Armando
noted earlier, the New York Times has already come out against Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. On the eve of the oncoming vote for his nomination, the editorial board of the Times has come out swinging, aptly titling their piece
Senators in Need of a Spine:
Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government -- and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.
It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination. (emphasis mine)
As I've previously stated, this nomination will have a much more long-lasting effect on the nation's makeup than the 2006 elections will. While it's important for us to make electoral gains, some of the greatest progress (and regression) made in our nation's history has been due to the Supreme Court. The importance of preserving independence in the judiciary has never been more important.
But portraying the Alito nomination as just another volley in the culture wars vastly underestimates its significance. The judge's record strongly suggests that he is an eager lieutenant in the ranks of the conservative theorists who ignore our system of checks and balances, elevating the presidency over everything else. He has expressed little enthusiasm for restrictions on presidential power and has espoused the peculiar argument that a president's intent in signing a bill is just as important as the intent of Congress in writing it. This would be worrisome at any time, but it takes on far more significance now, when the Bush administration seems determined to use the cover of the "war on terror" and presidential privilege to ignore every restraint, from the Constitution to Congressional demands for information.
The Times hits on exactly what the Democrats failed to during the confirmation hearings - it's not just his obvious hostility to Roe v. Wade that is worrisome, but rather his advocacy for an ever-strengthening executive branch that was never meant to be supreme to the other legislative branches. We needed to frame this as the final nail of a monumental shift away from constitutional democracy to essentially a monarchy - an overpowering executive and a docile, obedient legislature and judiciary.
The Times ends with a message to Senate Democrats:
Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster -- particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote.
A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.
Damn straight. Senate Democrats should be quite aware that the impact of Alito on the court is going to far outlast any of their political careers. While the Times is wrong in calling the filibuster a radical tool - until the Republicans made any noise about after Bush became president, no one even talked about it that much - it is a necessary tool. As Armando is fond of saying, "The SCOTUS is extraordinary." Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures, and this is the time for Senate Democrats to get some spine and filibuster.