Update [2006-1-27 11:4:49 by Armando]: For folks working hard on drumming up support for the filibuster, I wholeheartedly endorse the idea. Make that miracle happen! What lovely egg on my face if it can be done.
Barring a miracle, Judge Samuel Alito will be confirmed as the newest Supreme Court Justice by the Senate on Tuesday, January 31. I expect the worst from a Justice Alito and hope for something better.
It may be too soon for post-mortems, but I wanted to give my quick take. During the Roberts nomination, the Democratic leadership simply did not understand the stakes and adopted, in my view, the asinine "keep the powder dry" strategy allowing the White House to stonewall the Senate. On the Alito nomination, the Party leadership did try to stop Alito, did recognize the importance of Alito's ascension to the Court, did try to persuade and cajole the Democratic Caucus to unite in opposition.
At the end of the day, the numbers were not there. We don't have 41 votes to oppose cloture. Markos touched upon the problem of the margin of error, and the perception of Red State Senators that a filibuster would hurt them politically at home. Perhaps they know best, but it seems to me that since there has never been a Democratic filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee (the Republicans filibustered Abe Fortas), I think they (with the help of the Media) talked themselves into believing that. Some Red State Senators just don't agree with us on Alito. Some come from states, like Nebraska, that still back the President strongly. Bottom line, they weren't with us on stopping Alito.
But a surprising number were. After the debacle of the Judiciary Committee hearings, the Beltway conventional wisdom was that not only would Alito be confirmed, but that he would likely garner nearly as many Ay votes as Roberts. That certainly did not turn out to be the case and I think, whatever they might say now, the Leadership tried damned hard to whip up support for stopping Alito. And they made some headway.
Dems are learning, unfortunately slowly, to fight. We lost this battle, but at least Dems threw some punches. And that is progress.
The battle lost was monumental and I think even we don't fully realize it yet. There is no putting a happy face on this result. But I do feel somewhat heartened by the fact that Dems threw a couple of punches this time and tried to stand up for principle, for the nation, for what is right. Not enough Dems. But more than before.
We need more Dems willing to fight for us in the Congress. And that is what Election 2006 will be about. Personally, in the primaries, I will support the Dems who will fight for our ideals and our well being. I am a Big Tent Dem, and I will support almost all the Dems in November, but in the primaries, I fight for the principles of the Democratic Party.
More on the flip.
Now the Bad.
The first stop was the Judiciary Committee hearings and, frankly, this was Bad. Senators love the sound of their own voices too much to ask crisp, probing questions, especially against the short clock that an 18 member committee requires. There was little organization, cohesion or integration to the Democratic questioning. "The process is broken" we are told. Well, in a way that is true. But only because our Senators simply are not effective in the process. It pains me to say it, but the problem is not the process but the Senators.
Instead, of concentrating on two or three themes and battering them home - I argued for these 3, Unitary executive, right to privacy, and Alito's admiration for Robert Bork as the model judge - the questioning wandered from issue to issue with little in the way of coherence or narrative. To me the easiest narrative was Bork. But ANY narrative would have been preferable.
I think it is important to keep in mind Peter Daou's Triangle in order to fully understand what we and the Senators were up against on Alito and most everything. This process can, as Peter points out, repeat itself in the upcoming hearings on Bush's illegal surveillance. Democratic leaders have to realize that the Media is not their friend. In most respects, it is their enemy. They must treat it as such. And fight its incompetence and irresponsibility. Not just let the blogs do it. THEY must do it. They needed to on Alito. They didn't.
It was because of this Media maelstrom that Senator Kennedy went for some hot button issues like Vanguard and CAP. These were valid issues to discuss no question, but Kennedy's emphasis on them came from his perception that it was that type of issue that might penetrate the brainwashed heads of the Media.
But the bottom line is that Democrats, and maybe us too, didn't find the right approach for breaking through on Alito. The extreme views he espouses were never understood or explained. And the coup de grace was the crying game of Mrs. Alito. After that, the Dems, stupidly in my view, backed off.
The Dem strategy and execution on Alito was simply horrible. The Bad.
The Ugly
To me the ugliest moment of the entire process happened yesterday:
Mr. Byrd said his constituents had told him they were "appalled" by the harsh questioning Judge Alito received from the Senate Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearings, calling them "an outrage and a disgrace."
Outrageous statement from Byrd. Despicable in fact. Byrd is certainly entitled to his view on Alito, and I criticize him for that, but do not condemn him for it. But I do condemn for his lies about the hearings. There was nothing outrageous about the questions put to Alito. The only disgrace here is Byrd's slander and lie.
Moreover, Byrd's speech was the epitome of sophistry and delusion. Deluding himself or us, I do not know.
Byrd claimed concern about the unitary executive theory, stare decisis, respect for civil rights an dother issues. He claims that his talk with Alito confirmed his view that Alito was right thinking on each of these issues.
How absurd. Anyone who has read Alito's writings, opinions and saw his performance in the hearings could not seriously be satisfied with Alito if he were truly concerned about these issues.
Contrast that with the statement from Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota. Johnson also will vote for Alito. Johnson also expressed concern about Alito's views on executive power, civil rights, and Alito's penchant for favoring corporations and instituions.
But Johnson did not pretend that Alito had satisfied him on these points. Instead Johnson argued that the President has discretion on Supreme Court appointments and that Johnson did not believe his concerns rose to the level of voting no on a qualified nominee.
I vehemently disagree with Johnson's views and actions. I think he is gravely mistaken and has voted in a manner that will cause harm to the Nation. But his views were presented honestly.
Byrd chose to play the peacock and to pretend his was the principled path. The truth is Byrd was a disgrace.
His performance yesterday was by far the ugliest thing I saw in the entire process.