Skip to main content

The Democrats do not have to show a full 41 votes to slow this train down.  The burden is on Bill Frist to round up 60 affirmative votes to proceed to confirm a nominee.

UPDATE: Late day news – Durbin, Reid, Feinstein, Wyden are switching now to vote No on cloture come Monday.

The magic number is 60, not 41, on Monday. Nearly all recent judicial nominees, for lower court and SCOTUS, gained this level of support, either for cloture or for the actual nomination.

It is rare for a court nominee to prevail with less than 60 "yeas."  If some Democrats would rather abstain than vote no for cloture, then Frist has to pull together a bipartisan consensus for this nominee, as many prior appointees have needed in the past.


Here's an example. In '93, the motion to move to a vote for Clinton's nominee Assistant AG Walter Dellinger failed because it had 59 votes, not 60, even though there were only 39 (Republican) nay votes to deny cloture.

The Republican's successful filibuster of Dellinger held for 2 successive cloture votes.


The Dems needed to drum up more support for the nominee.

A week later Dellinger was confirmed with 65 ayes, and 34 nays because the Dems had to win over 10 GOP votes on top of their own 55 to confirm Dellinger.

The Republicans stopped filibustering Dellinger once they knew he had more than 60 votes to approve.  (I don't think they called for a 3rd cloture vote, at least I don't see it in the roll call record.) They just did not object to moving to a vote once the Dems mustered more than 60 with a whip-count.

Links to the roll-call votes are in my May 2005 diary here, scroll-or-"edit-find" Dellinger for the detail.

-------------
We should prevail on some of the less-than-fervent opponents of Alito (Salazar, Landrieu, ...) to vote "present" on cloture; then cloture would not succeed for awhile.

 A delay of this nominee is warranted at least until we find out how the President's agencies were spying on ordinary non-terrorist citizens.

   >>   And why did the IRS last year start collecting party ID data on taxpayers?!

An outrage!! Who will check an unbridled presidency?

Vote no or "present," do not vote yes for cloture.

=====
Remember, Stephen Breyer needed to overcome 2 Republican stymieing cloture votes before he could join the 1st Circuit Court in 1980.  The first vote attempt by Democrats failed to win.  The second vote succeeded, 68-28.

-->>>  Then Breyer was confirmed 80 to 10.

  Let Bush select a judge who can garner bipartisan support as well.

Originally posted to joan reports on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 11:51 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Filibuster, How To: (3.15)
    First : Call the three Democrats (Mary Landrieu, Ken Salazar, and Dianne Feinstein) who oppose Alito but also said they oppose a filibuster. We must persuade them that a vote against Alito is meaningless if they don't support a filibuster. Senator Salazar (D-CO) 202-224-5852 Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) 202-224-5824 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) 202-224-3841

    Second : Call your own Democratic Senator: 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641. If you can't get through, look up the Senator's District Office number in your phone book or here: http://capwiz.com/...

    Third : Unbelievably, three Democrats (Ben Nelson, Tim Johnson and Robert Byrd) support Alito! Tell them to either support filibuster or at least "don't get in the way." Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551 Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) 202-224-3954 Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) 202-224-5842
    888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641. If you can't get through, look up the Senator's District Office number in your phone book or here: http://capwiz.com/...

    Fourth: Call the "Red State" Democrats: (Message same as above -- "No" is meaningless) Tom Carper (DE)
    Kent Conrad (ND)
    Byron Dorgan (ND)
    Blanche Lincoln (AR) Mark Pryor (AR)

    Fifth : Call these "Blue State" and pro-choice Republicans: (Message: A "Unitary Executive" is dangerous to balance of powers--please do not get in the way of a filibuster.) Lincoln Chafee (RI)
    Susan Collins (ME)
    Lisa Murkowsky (AK)
    Bob Smith (OR)
    Olympia Snowe (ME)
    Ted Stevens (AK)

    For extra credit, call all of the 2008 Presidential candidates who are sitting Senators--Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, and John Kerry--and tell them to either LEAD THE FILIBUSTER or KISS YOUR SUPPORT GOODBYE. 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641. If you can't get through, look up the Senator's District Office number in your phone book or here: http://capwiz.com/...

    You can also send that message to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (202-224-2447) and the Democratic National Committee (202-863-8000).
    Polls and public opinion are another way to apply pressure -- get word out about why Alito needs to be filibustered:

    Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. (Click here)

    People for the American Way has collected nearly 65,000 signatures to send to the Senate, please add yours: Save the Court Petition

    John Kerry has endorsed this anti-Alito petition, signers' names will be read into the Congressional Record:http://www.johnkerry.com/...

    •  I'm sick of this. (1.62)
      I zeroed this post.

      This is spam.

      ... we now know a lot of things, most of which, we already knew... (-dash888)

      by Tirge Caps on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:04:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sick of this. (3.72)
        I zeroed this post.

        She's posting action items, and trying to rouse support.

        We also can realize the dream of a world without war, but only by stubborn persistence, only by a refusal to surrender that dream -Howard Zinn

        by Jawis on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:09:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  wtf? (4.00)
        this is a relevant diary, ,for god sakes.

        I might agree with you if it were a personal diary on "how I overcame my idocy and became a dem"

        •  I think (3.00)
          this is spam. We disagree. That's fine.

          ... we now know a lot of things, most of which, we already knew... (-dash888)

          by Tirge Caps on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:21:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What is your problem (4.00)
            So, you have a problem with someone trying to rally support to oppost a neocon fascist nominee to the Supreme Court!  Who the hell do you think you are.  This is still a free country, at least until Alito gets on the Supreme Court.
            •  But it's not a free blog. (4.00)
              There are rules that have ot be followed, and one is to not spam a huundred threads with the same message.

              There's such a thingas a 'diaries' for calls to action, you know?

              •  man you're a bore (4.00)
                anyone who follows all the rules all the time is a bore....you've become a spammer too

                Great diary joan reports........

                •  You need to brush up on your definitions. (4.00)
                  "Every post you make uses the word 'and' - you're a spammer!" - not exactly on target.

                  what makes dKos great is the amount of information around - presented in an easy to read, easy to browse, relevant way. If we all decided to JudiBot every issue we each hold dear, you wouldn't be able to move for the spam.

                  And the idea that we can break the rules now because it's important is the exact sort of hubris that the Republicans use to defend illegal wire-tapping.

                  Follow the rules, be impassioned, and use the site properly, and nobody will take issue.

                •  should there be a rule (none)
                  about what percentage of the time it's okay not to follow the rules?  And can we then break that rule too?

                  Fwiw, I think judybrowni's comment clearly is appropriate on this thread--tho it would be nice if she got her info correct.  But she's posted it so indiscriminately of late that I have a hard time not sympathizing with her detractors.

                  •  Hprof (none)
                    is that Harvard U or Hunter College ?

                    Re: your question - Use your own judgement.

                  •  Stop the Spam - Here's why (4.00)
                    I just went through 10 inane comments that did not address the diarist.  Spamming is rude to the diarist.  The diarist did research, crafted her/his words and then swallowed hard and posted it.  

                    The diarist is looking for cogent, interesting comments that refute or support her claim.  The diarist may be right in his/her analysis or she might be very wrong.  This is what I want to know.

                    If you would like to call people to action, set up your own damn website or blog.  Build support for it over the years.  Don't hog valuable comment space or my valuable time with your ad hoc, unorganized, too-late-to-the-game attempt to be a political organizer.

                    I am done now.  

                    •  this is hilarious.... (none)
                      hahahahaya!
                    •  Very well said. (none)
                      To quote Goerge Costanza, "You know, we're living in a society here. There are rules."
                      •  rules which he tried to subvert (none)
                        every chance he had....
                        •  I don't get what you're proposing. (4.00)
                          Are you saying we should all break the rules? Because, why? It's cool to do so?

                          The rules are in place to stop this site fro becoming a free-for-all mess. I suggest, rather than trying to be the cool kid behind the bike shed, maybe you need to think about the world in realistic terms.

                          If we can break the rules now, because we feel like it, than Dubya can break the rules on wiretapping too... because it's cool, or something.

                          •  hey, (none)
                            I just pointed out your example of george costanza was totally the opposite of the point you were trying to make.

                            No, common sense should lead you to break a rule or not. Do you ever cross the street Not at the green and maybe in between? If so, you have broken a rule, but if you look both ways and see no traffic coming,what's the big deal, it can save you a few steps.

                            judibrowni's info got me and many others to call/e-mail senators - the good it was doing far outweighed any rule violations regarding posting on threads.Common sense dictates in this situation - with the clock running out, with most people's inclination of doing nothing unless the info is right in their face - to let the info through for people to use.

                          •  Hmmm.. (none)
                            <div class="blockquote">...the good it was doing far outweighed any rule violations...</div>

                            Hmm.. where have I heard that before recently?

                          •  see, that's where the common sense part comes in (none)
                            duh......
                          •  mindless obediance to rules (none)
                            makes you a Republican, not a Democrat.

                            In this case I am grateful she is breaking the rule.  And if and when Alito is successfully filibustered it will be because of the passion of people like judybrowni.

                            Rules serve a purpose, but in this case the rule is counterproductive to the values it is supposed to represent.

                          •  will you say that (none)
                            when you get 30 emails a day asking for money from sites she has linked. Or when she gets $$  for every email address she referred?
                          •  Are you nuts? (4.00)
                            We've all been yelling for the impeachment of the President because he thinks he can break the rules when it suits him.

                            How exactly is your support of someone who has spammed over 100 diaries any different?

                            Oh, right. Because you have 'right' on your side... Well the other side thinks that too.

                            We're Democrats. We play by the rules, or didn't you get the memo marked 'Abramoff'?

                          •  Good response. (none)
                            Hey Oz,

                            I'm just dropping this because I want a filibuster as much as anyone and folks on the site have gotten heated to the point where it seems there is no point in further registering my views on Judy spamming the first post on any diary with Alito in it, consistently with mistakes not fixed even with..........

                            The mob has spoken. They want these posts. This nomination is different. I hope to god not every issue that is deemed "different" ends up with this practice.

                            Anyway, I agree with you. I think AA brought up some good points too. Who knows? I'm just not going to fight every knee-jerk reactionary member on this site on this point.

                            Peace.

                            ... we now know a lot of things, most of which, we already knew... (-dash888)

                            by Tirge Caps on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 01:50:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  relevant (none)
                This is relevant to the posted diary and very important! I don't see a problem and found it helpful.
          •  I disagree and here is why (4.00)
            Judy has done more than anyone on this site to get people to sign petitions and call their senators.
            You might want to hear it again, but she has been more effective than any other ten kostafarrians.  The reason for that has been that she has been persistant.  

            Have you called your senators yet?

            •  I have. (none)
              And emailed. And I did it the FIRST time I read JudiBot's post.

              I don't need to be told again, over a hundred times, in over a hundred diaries, with the exact same post. I'm surprised you do.

              •  Why Do You Think The Post Is Just For You? (4.00)
                •  Because I see it on every thread I visit. (none)
                  And have for the last week.
                  •  Maybe (none)
                    you just visit too many damn threads. Some people have lives and just pop in. When they do, I'm glad that there is a fresh thread like this to reach them.
                  •  And you've downrated it on every thread too. (none)
                    Doesn't that make you a spammer spammer?  

                    Make your point and move on, but don't beat a dead horse.  

                    Pot, meet kettle.

                    •  You don't see the irony about saying that... (none)
                      ..in response to a diary asking people to fax, email and call EVERY Senator, multiple times, even if they're not from your home state?

                      Regardless, when the horse is dead, I'll be able to move on. But while she continues to spam old, incorrect information in places she shouldn't, this ass needs kicking.

                      •  Uh, no. I'm Southern and we're a little thick. (4.00)
                        Many Southern states don't have Democratic senatorial representation.  I have contacted senators all over the South on this Alito issue and many other issues in the past -- they need to be reminded that their voice speaks for me too.  I've received many thank you's but never a negative comment because I am not their direct constituent.  

                        Further, I contribute money to candidates all over the country.  If they can ask for and take my money, then they can represent my voice when they vote.  I have no ethics issues with contacting someone in a distant state.

                        Regarding repeating a comment in several threads, would it make you feel better if she changed a few words each time?  Then would it be spam?  Or would she have to change several words?  Or a whole paragraph? That is not the issue here.  The issue is that a message is being sent repeatedly and you only want to hear it once.

                        This Alito confirmation is an exciting cause for everybody.  And we're all into it and wanting to help each other in any minute way we can, so it should be expected that multiple calls to action will abound.  

                        I simply think it is bad form to make a pointed effort to repeatedly downrate a message that is obviously meant to uplift us all.  Judybrowni doesn't have a history of abuse of the system.  However, you clearly have a history of downrating her comments simply because, well simply because whatever your reason is.  Maybe your hat is too tight, heck, I don't know.  Relax.  Take a breath.  Exhale.  

                        This is not an issue we should be arguing about because we're on the same side when it comes to the important stuff. (I just relaxed, took a breath, and exhaled too.  It felt good.)  Now let's commit to expending this much energy to the real cause at hand, shall we?  Friends?  

                               

                        •  Friends is easy. (none)
                          ...If we each listen to each other's perspectives.

                          In answer to your question, yes, if she changed the message each time, it would be fine. If you look back through my ratings, you'll find I never down-rated any message she posted where she was saying something different.

                          Just the 100 or so where she auto-posted, like the suicide diary, which had nothing to do with Alito, and enough people found offensive to troll-rate her post out of existence.

                          Look, I've had causes where I wanted to tell everyone to join me and do something great, and you know what I did?

                          I wrote a diary, put a lot of effort into it, pimped it on the open thread (once), stuck it in my signature, and it was recommended enough times to not only get on the front page here for a few days, but also get cross-posted in places like Booman and My Left Wing.

                          That's how you spread the word. And if JudiBot wants to do that, I'll join her in the fight, like I have dozens of others previously.

                          But what I can't take is A) the info she's posting is days old, and now inaccurate, B) the numbers and names she's posting are not all correct, C) she's been asked dozens of times by people here to change those errors and won't even reply to the posts, and D) when she's asked to stop, she won't.

                          For mine, that's not cool. Good message or not, impassioned activism or not, that's just not up to the standard we should be demanding of ourselves.

                          And I think, in saying so, I shouldn't be accused of having my hat on too tight. If anything, I should be respected enough to be heard, understood, and acknowledged as being every bit as concerned with the cause as anyone else.

                          Peace.

                          •  Practice what You Preach (none)
                            you nasty little downrater. I have repaid your two 1's with two zeroes. You apparently awarded me the 1's for giving you a 2 when you complained that a member of the community was spamming and also downrated her.

                            I will revise your zeroes if you do the same with the 1's.

                            Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

                            by dpc on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 03:45:46 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Some helpful info for you from the dKos guideline (2.33)
                            •  No repetitive diaries. If it's been blogged or diaried, there's no need to repeat it. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged. And if you post your same diary entry twice, consider it grounds for banning.

                            • A 0 is a "super-troll" comment.  Generally speaking, 0s are reserved for auto-generated comments, or for comments that serve no other purpose than to sow hurt, confusion and dissent among the posters.

                            If you're going to downrate a legitimate complaint with a 2, because you disagree with the message (contrary to dKos rules), and then use a 0 as retribution for being rated yourself (contrary to dKos rules), in defense of a commenter who has spammed her post on over 100 different diaries (contrary to dKos rules), I'd suggest to you that the nasty one is you.

                            Zero away, 'trusted user'. Ain't no thang, to me.

                          •  Whatever (none)
                            Haven't you got any cats to torment?

                            Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

                            by dpc on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 01:14:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  NOT EVERYONE (4.00)
                posts here on a daily basis.  Not everyone who has seen Judy's post used the information the first time.  
                This is not about you.
                •  You're right. It's not about me. (2.00)
                  It's about the rules.

                  And the rules say you don't post the same thing in a hundred different threads.

                  If you want people to see her info, put it in a diary and recommend it up. Or front page it.

                  Don't spam it.

                •  why (none)
                  Why is she linking to referrer pages that track the referrals to her account?

                  call me a skeptic...oh wait you have...but when I see her in first place on top referrer lists on sites I've never heard of asking you to add your email address I reckon there is more going on here than we are being told.

      •  A useful diary for drumming up support (4.00)
        Here's a post that explains the dire consequences of failing to stop Alito.

        Conservatives are engaged in one of the oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior justification of selfishness.-- John Galbraith (roughly)

        by Dan Hrkman on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:45:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I concur... (4.00)
        regardless of whether it's related to the topic or not, it's still spam.
      •  I resent you using this rating system in this way. (4.00)
        Save your inner fighting till Tuesday when we can all go hit the bottle. BUt for now, be thankful for activism.

        "It is a fair presumption that secrecy means impropriety." Woodrow Wilson

        by Percheronwoman on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:15:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  How can you call it spam? (none)
        This is incredibly USEFUL information that will make it easier for more people to DO something that could make a HUGE difference to our country.

        Your comment is cynical and idiotic.  Please don't discourage people from doing the work to put together all this information and post it for all of us.

        "I don't want to name names, but they know themselves." Koffi Annan

        by Sue in NH on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:41:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Get a life (none)
        Judy's not posting for blog connissours like you sippling your fine whine and worrying about the aesthetics

        Just call, or move on to the next comment.  It just takes a twitch of your forefinger

        •  I've refrained from responding (none)
          to the rash of self indulged stupid responses from a lot of the people here, but you are an assumptious idiot piling on at the end. For Christ's sakes, follow your own advice.

          ... we now know a lot of things, most of which, we already knew... (-dash888)

          by Tirge Caps on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 07:05:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Grateful for reposting! (none)
            Thankfully, I found this diary after scrolling through comments linked from another diary.  I also found Judi's comments/list posted here again after seeing it a day or so ago in another place when I could not do anything with it.  I am one of those who is grateful to see the information posted again, as I was hoping to find it again today when I can actually do something with it.  

            Kossacks whining about it being spam are doing a disservice to bloggers such as myself who only have limited time to come here and read through all the comments hoping to find relevant information to act on.  I'm sure that in this case bending the blog 'rules' is not really hurting anyone. It most certainly is NOT more important than stopping Alito's nomination. Please save your annoyance for the important issues.  If Judi complied with your requests, I would not be able to add my voice or calls to this effort.  If Ted Kennedy had not reposted a diary (horrors, a rule affront!) I would not have found this one by Joan either!

            There is nothing in my life of 53 years more important than to stop this radical and frightening appointment to the Supreme Court. Those who are trying to make this an 'issue' are simply being petty and divisive, by drawing attention to themselves and AWAY from the more important issue at hand, such as stopping Alito.

            Imagine how much more useful their time could have been spent sending this information on to people who don't have it, than wasting time here trying to refute all the criticisms to their complaining posts.

            I repeat, thank you to both Joan and Judi for reposting this information again so I can now go and do something constructive and make my calls and contribute to this effort!  

    •  judybrowni- not a troll (4.00)
      I don't support putting this comment in diaries all over the site, but this is a diary for which your comment is perfectly on-topic and productive. The zero rating you got is unjustified, IMHO.
    •  Update your posting, already!! (3.90)
      SHEESH!

      Wrong senator's names (as corrected by others in several other diaries), still telling people to contact Kerry and tell him step forward and lead on a filibuster...

      This would be useful IF it weren't out of date AND repeating incorrect information!

      •  I agree (4.00)
        not to mention that contacting Senators who aren't your own is extremely likely to be futile.  (as has been pointed out in at least one other thread)

        Everyone should absolutely contact their own Senators --- even the Repubs, especially like Snowe and Chafee, and tell everyone they know (especially in critical states) to do the same.  But spamming every thread with misinformation and telling everyone to spam the Senate offices with opinions the Senators'll never hear is counterproductive.

        War is NOT a preventative measure.

        by demandcaring on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:20:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  email other senators.... (none)
          if you arent in their state they dont take your calls BUT they do tally the positives and negatives of emails AND there is an easy way to send an email to an out of state senator (or house member) by inserting their own local office address as your address.

          this little trick works really well for getting passed the no out of district email barrier house members have on their sites :)

          "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

          by KnotIookin on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:34:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Since when is Alaska Blue? n/t (none)
    •  Fine, I'll put my comment on speed-dial too. (4.00)
      OREGON'S REPUB SENATOR IS GORDON SMITH, NOT BOB SMITH.  PLEASE TELL YOUR POSTING ROBOT TO FIX YOUR SPEED-DIAL COMMENT!

      this message is intended to inform. any annoyance, abuse, threat, or harassment is solely in the perception of the reader, not the intention of the poster.

      by horsewithnoname on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:01:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Toll Free Number for all Senators (4.00)
      You can all the congressional switchboard toll-free number, 1 888 355 3588, to reach any member of the US House or Senate.

      You don't have to waste your cell phone minutes. All you have to do is have a land line and call
      1 888 355 3588 and when the operator answers ask her to connect you with whatever Senators office you are trying to reach.

      Since it is close to 5 pm EST, you may just get a voice mail but you can call back on Monday AM to get through in person.

    •  thanks for this post judi (4.00)
      i realize a few morons say they are sick of your action post and some even troll rated you but I want to thank you for your tenacity and let you know that the moment i heard on the news that CLinton joined the kerry filibuster i immediately opened kos to find one of your posts so i could get that toll free number to the senate switchboard (i know  i know i should have memorized it by now) to immediately call schumer

      keep posting this and ignore the 'i'm tired' comments...i will venture a guess that the ones who are 'tired' never bothered to call their senators and they are tired of being reminded of that every time they see your action post <wink>

      "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

      by KnotIookin on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:31:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent step-by-step HOWTO, Judi! n/t (4.00)
      And nicely organized too.

      Keep up the good work and the fight!

      Dean inspires me, Katrina stirred me, Gore leads me. Draft Al Gore for President!

      by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:30:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Feinstein (4.00)
      Just saw Feinstein on CNN about an hour ago and she said she supported a filibuster.

      "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious" - 1984 - George Orwell

      by elveta on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 05:29:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for reporting, joanreports!!! (4.00)
         Tip jar??
      •  I wish I could give you 60 4's! (heh) (none)
        •  And "joan reports", not (none)
               "joanreports", of course
        •  Channel 11, Atlanta - says (4.00)

          the US was photographing and surveilling vegans protesting outside a HoneyBaked Ham store.  They were protesting meat eating.

          They arrested one of the vegan women because she wrote down a license plate number of the undercover guy who was assigned to them.

          Why is this legal now?  The Georgia ACLU has the government photos of the vegan FBI surveillance.

          I hope somebody can diary this.  It's relevant here before cloture.

          •  diaried here by Steven D (4.00)

            "You'd like that shit...it's all political and morose."

            by Miss Devore on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:18:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  crazy world.. in Colorado (4.00)
            they're publishing the addresses of pit bull owners.

            When the government intrudes on privacy, it creates this atmosphere that NOTHING is private.

            Scary that the public seems to be willing to give up this essential right...

          •  Atlanta Journal Constitution article (4.00)
            published yesterday, 1/26, in the metro section, with the headline: "ACLU decries 'spying on Georgians' by feds", is behind a registration firewall. Here are the most important excerpts:

            In the name of fighting terrorism, the U.S. government and police agencies from the federal to the local level have been spying on Georgia anti-war rallies, peace and social action groups, and even a vegan protest, the state legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union charged Wednesday.

            Documents and surveillance photos obtained by the ACLU through a Freedom of Information Act request reveal a pattern of "spying on Georgians who are our friends and neighbors, and are leading lawful lives," attorney Gerald Weber said at a chilly morning news conference Wednesday outside the Georgia Homeland Security offices in downtown Atlanta.

            Officials from state and federal Homeland Security offices did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

            Weber said some of the documents involve the National Security Agency, whose surveillance program has come under fire since it was disclosed in December by NBC News. That program, approved by President Bush, allowed the agency to eavesdrop, without warrants, on communications within the United States.

            Weber said the released documents from a classified Pentagon database of suspicious people revealed that two local protests by the pacifist group Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition were monitored by federal agents last spring. The demonstrators were termed a "credible threat" in the documents. The surveillance was done at a meeting at the Piedmont Drive Quaker headquarters and at a vigil at an Atlanta Army recruiting station on Ponce de Leon Avenue.

            Other local organizations that complained of being targeted by surveillance include two other anti-war organizations, Atlanta Refuse and Resist and WAND (Women's Action for New Directions); a media watchdog group, the Atlanta Independent Media Center; and even a group of Georgians who eat only plants.

            Vegan Caitlin Childs recounted Wednesday how she was detained for close to two hours last September for writing down the license plate number of a plainclothes DeKalb Homeland Security officer taking pictures of her and five others picketing outside a HoneyBaked Ham store on Buford Highway just before Christmas 2003.

    •  up against the wall (4.00)
      recommender....

      {sfeaat}

      "You'd like that shit...it's all political and morose."

      by Miss Devore on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:24:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  they don't have 60 (4.00)
     and that's why they're reacting so furiously to Kerry's statements today.
    •  Same thoughts (4.00)
      Yesterday, I, to the dismay of my three yr old, had Cspan on. When Specter came running in there trying to call for a vote, I thought it odd. But the action is very telling to me. Yes, maybe they thought they had the votes, but the comments he made, the nasty "more people out of the country than in the chamber" snark struck me as odd.
      They may have the votes. Or, they may have had people who they were worried about on the fence. It might not happen, but the important thing to keep in mind is they are always reactionary. There is more going on than we are privy to, of course, and the whining on their side is for a reason.
      Also, notice the quotes from Senators. Frist, Durbin, many others say they don't have the votes to filibuster. And few say they won't filibuster. But they never said they would vote for cloture.

      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin

      by melthewriter on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:17:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I bet Snowe (4.00)
          does not want to vote Yes on the confirmation Tuesday.

        Her leadership didn't let her speak at the end of the day Thursday.  She was scheduled as one of the last 2 speakers, and then they said there was a change, she won't be speaking.

        They're afraid of the news momentum shift if it was announced Snowe was opposing Alito.  They must be pressuring her hard.  But that doesn't mean she won't be "loyal" and let him thru on the cloture vote.

        •  contact olympia snowe (4.00)
          Lets fill her answering machines and fax this weekend with our thoughts on "Minos" (Moderates in name only)
          (and talk to live staffers on monday!)

          Toll free in Maine:            (800) 432-1599

          email comments

          Wash DC:
          Phone Number:           (202) 224-5344   
          Fax Number:         (202) 224-1946

          Portland Office:       
          3 Canal Plaza Suite 601
          Portland, Maine  04101
          Phone Number:         (207) 874-0883
          Fax Number:         (207) 874-7631

          Bangor Office
          One Cumberland Place Suite 306
          Bangor, Maine 04401   
          Phone Number:         (207) 945-0432
          Fax Number:         (207) 941-9525

          and shes got 4 more offices with contact numbers:

    •  On a cloture petition GOP (none)
      has close to 70.  Not a final vote, but on cloture they do.
      •  Don't think so. That's wishful thinking. (4.00)
        The GOP spin people are probably counting heads of people (Democrats) who haven't said they would oppose cloture, and are counting them as supporting cloture.

        This won't be easy for us, but it might be in the realm of the possible.

        Conrad's office by phone mid-day said he's still undecided on the confirmation (contrary to the quote that the AP got earlier).  I know he most likely would not vote nay on a filibuster.

        Interesting that Hillary now supports a filibuster.  Switcheroo.

        •  there are at least (none)
          10 Democrats who have announced that they will oppose a filibuster which is the same thing as supporting cloture.
          •  not necessarily (4.00)
            I think that's the whole point of this diary.

            it's one thing to say that they don't support a filibuster (meaning that they wouldn't instigate one).  it's another to actually cast a vote saying yet to cloture.

            although it's getting late, you still have plenty of time

            by maracuja on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:28:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Two Things (4.00)
            1.  Which said that they oppose a filibuster, as opposed to saying that they thought one would likely  fail? Big, big difference, and when it is taken account, I don't see how you come up with 10.

            2.  What anyone said about filibuster on Tuesday or Wednesday went completely out of the window yesterday with Kerry's announcement that someone was actually going to try.  And, as we can see this morning, that announcement alone has had impact.  Feinstein was extremely negative about filibuster previously; this morning she's on board.  It's on her website, even.

            I therefore question the current factual basis for your assertion.

            My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

            by shanikka on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:35:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Could you link to or attribute your source (4.00)
        ... of these 10 extra votes? From your posting history, when people independently analyze the source of your unattributed "facts", it usually turns out that you have grossly distorted the information and have to dial it back to reality-based levels.
        .
        Also, as a courtesy, you might work on the growing pile of unsourced "facts" you've posted elsewhere as well. Thank you ever so much.
        .
        •  Links (none)
          How about this one?

          http://www.democrats.com/...

          You can "independently analyze" to your heart's content, but come Monday, cloture will be invoked, and come Tuesday, there will be an extra empty seat on the Third Circuit due to Judge Alito becoming Justice Alito.  So believe me, don't believe me, I don't care.  In 2 days, I will be proven right.

          •  Once again, you have made shit up (4.00)
            The linked material says no such thing. It's merely a list of Senators to call.
            .
            [On a cloture petition GOP] has close to 70.  Not a final vote, but on cloture they do.

            .
            There's no need to actually 'analyze' it -- what you claim is nowhere on that petition. If your expressing your personal opinion, gut instinct, or news you got from the Psychic Friends Network (which is not a news source by the way, no matter how much they're charging you) well that's not exactly inside poop.
            .
            •  Did you read (none)
              the list.  Some Senators are classified as being for the filibuster and some as opposed to it.  The opposed are either in bold or italics.  There is also a running tally.  By my count there are 11 Dems in the latter category.  Which brings the anti-filibsuter vote to 67.  (Which is darn close to 70 I might add).
              •  Your opinion is based on gossamer (none)
                I don't devalue it, but you should make more of an effort, even as a polite troll, at the outset to post sources of your claims.
                .
                Even make some perfunctory effort, however lame, to pretend you've given it some thought, eg, tstate that you are melding with the senate body using the same awesome Fristian brainial prowess that diagnosed long braindead Terri Schiavo as sentient from a scrap of video.
                .
                You know -- not pulling stuff out of your ass so much and holding it up like it's gold.
                .
  •  Is this (4.00)
    true? If so, isn't it kinda, y'know ... big?

    How many votes do the Republicans have?

    Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

    by GussieFN on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:00:04 PM PST

      •  er, you mean 55? (none)


        He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot - Groucho Marx

        by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:55:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No I mean 65 (none)
          All 55 GOP plus at least 10 Dems who oppose a filibuster.
          •  But I believe the point (4.00)
            of this diary is that if these Democrats abstain, Frist will need 5 more votes for cloture.

            "... Just so long as I'm the dictator." - GWB, 12/18/00

            by Bob Love on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:15:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why would Democrats (none)
              who oppose a filibuster or outright support Alito abstain?!  
              •  Fear of Consequences (4.00)

                Then they can say that "while I personally do not wish to mount a filibuster, I will not vote to stop one," which is rather like saying "though I don't want to strike, I won't cross the picket line."
                •  These democrats not only (none)
                  said that they wont mount a filibuster but that they OPPOSE one.  They will vote for cloture.
                  •  Fine.... (4.00)
                    ....it's often a very rough ride for scabs when they cross the picket line, and if they go through in automobiles, the next stop is at the insurance adjusters' place.

                    There are three days before they have to decide whether a vote for cloture is worth risking the political equivalent of slashed tires, smashed windshields, and scratched paint.

                    Revenge is a bitch, but payback is a motherfucker.

                  •  Still not the same (4.00)
                    Neither not supporting a filibuster nor opposing one means that they will vote for cloture. As far as I've heard only Landrieu has definitely said that she will vote for cloture. The others have either said that they wouldn't support a filibuster, or, somewhat more severely, that they opposed a filibuster--i.e. that they weren't happy about it, thought it was a bad idea, and wouldn't help in the effort by participating in the extended debate. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they will ACTIVELY oppose one--i.e. vote for cloture. There's a difference. Perhaps I misunderstood them, but that's what I've been reading.

                    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

                    by kovie on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:48:59 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  This is Not Rocket Science (4.00)
                A Democrat voting for Alito might nonetheless respect the sentiment of his colleagues and not vote to cut off their opportunity to make their case.

                It's not unheard of, you know.  Courteous people do occasionally let other people keep on speaking even when they themselves are done. =)

                My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

                by shanikka on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:37:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's just not going to happen (none)
                  Calling for a cloture vote on a SCOTUS nominee is unheard of in the first place.  It has only happened once before with Abe Fortas.  

                  You can of course keep hoping, as hope always dies last, but a realistic outlook is that on the cloture vote there will be about 68 ayes, and on the confirmation vote about 60 ayes.

                  •  logic alert! (none)
                    Drgrishka1 wrote:

                    Calling for a cloture vote on a SCOTUS nominee is unheard of in the first place.  It has only happened once before with Abe Fortas.

                    Interesting argument ... if it happened once then it has been heard of, which is not the same as "unheard of".

                    an ambulance can only go so fast - neil young

                    by mightymouse on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:26:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Asses (none)
                To cover their asses of course.
            •  Or they can just not be there--go visit vets (4.00)
              Not voting is as good for us as voting no or abstaining. And for some with touchy local politics, might be better.

              And I think or friend drgrishka may be getting just a little nervous ;)

              "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

              by bewert on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:27:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  They have not had the vote yet (4.00)
            Last time I checked, the clouture vote has not yet been held.  Senators who were noncommittal, such as Clinton and Stabenow, have now changed their minds and announced they are going to support Kerry and the filibuster.

            It's not over until its over.  You and your other wussy sell-out Democrats make me sick.  That is why the people don't trust us, because we don't fight.  We sit down and get rolled over.

            Well, there are a few Democratic Senators, and millions of grassroot Democrats who are cheering them on, patriotic Americans who love their country, who will not let the fascists take over without going down in a fight.

            We may go down, but we will go down fighting for a good and noble cause.  One day our children and grandchildren may wonder why the once great Democratic party did not stand up and fight when the fascists were taking over our country and the Supreme Court.  I, for one, will be able to say I was one of those who stood up and fought.

            •  You can cheer all you like (none)
              Come Tuesday it will be Justice Alito.  Democrats don't have the votes.  He may even clear 60 on the final confirmation vote.
              •  both sides are playing the expectations game (4.00)
                Cloture is an affirmative motion, and has to get a necessary number of votes to succeed.  There's no harm in the Dems reminding everyone of that.

                Second, Harry Reid has a big fan club around here, people who think that he's brilliantly laying in wait and will pull off the filibuster at the last minute.  I doubt that's true, but I think it probably is true that Reid and the Dems are trying to do the next best thing, and set expectations low so that, even in failing, they can claim to have won by exceeding those expectations.

                •  :rolls eyes: (none)
                  yeah, right, Reid is running circles around Alito.  Please.  Everyone knows the game is over.  The only question left is whether Alito will be sworn in before or after the SOTU.
                  •  wow -- you replied to my message (4.00)
                    without apparently managing to read even a word of it.  Do you close your eyes altogether, or just hold your head at a very, very funny angle?
                    •  I read your message (none)
                      I guess I wasnt rolling your eyes at you but at those who think that Reid is "lying in wait" "playing possum" "strategizing," etc.
                      •  Are you even a Democrat? (none)
                        And if so, the self-loathing kind? What did you expect, 45 marauding Dems blazing through the senate floor in full battle paint at la Braveheart, giving their best rebel yell? I'd have liked to have seen them put up a better organized and more spirited effort, but I guess they're still getting their shit together. Just because this appears to be an 11th hour effort doesn't mean that it's absolutely doomed. Wait till Tuesday night to celebrate--and don't be shocked if you've bet on the wrong side. I really don't see how your defeatist attitude helps anybody here.

                        "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

                        by kovie on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:54:44 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I by and large (none)
                          agree with democrats on social issues.  I however prefer conservative judges who will not make up new constitutional rights as they go along, but stick to the original understanding.  If people wish to add to the list of protected rights and activities, they can do it democratically by passing laws and/or amending the Constitution.
                          •  Well, at least you're honest about this (none)
                            Not that I agree with your view on judges, but you are of course entitled to it.

                            But do you really think that the debate as currently framed by so-called "conservatives" as one between "liberal activists" and "conservative originalists" is an honest one, when clearly "conservative" judges have been quite activist in recent years? E.g. Bush v. Gore in 2000, which was about as activist a decision as you can get.

                            I won't dispute that liberal judges have pushed the envelope in interpretation (which if done judiciously I have no problem with--it's called Judicial Review and has been around for 200 years, and it would be impossible to survive let alone grow as a nation without it). But so have "conservative" judges. At least grant that much.

                            And I use the quotes because to be a true conservative you have to, well, conserve, not extend the law. A favorite college history professor--an avowed conservative in the Goldwater mold--taught me that.

                            "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

                            by kovie on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:18:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Of course (none)
                            A judge is not insulated from criticism simply because he pins a sign that says "conservative" to his chest.  As an extreme example, I will use Roy Moore.  Is he conservative?  Sure.  Is he a good judge? Not on your life.

                            However, I will take some issue that a "conservative" will only "conserve" and not change the law.  That's like saying that historical conservation if it encounters a building in a dilapidated state can only conserve it in that state, and can never restore it.  Same with conservatives.  if faced with bad precedents they should overrule, but they should overrule strictly on the Constitution and its understanding and not their predilcition for a poltically conservative result.

                          •  original understanding (none)
                            You mean like congress declares war, the 4th amendment against unwarrented seizures, those kind of constitutional rights that have been so wonderfully upheld by the Republicans?
                          •  Have they been challeneged in Court? (none)
                            Ummm, no.

                            And, btw, 4th Am, does not prohibit warrantless searches and seizures.  Only unreasonable ones.

                          •  No. (none)
                            The standard is not "reasonable/unreasonable." The standard is PROBABLE CAUSE.

                            "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

                          •  Nope, wrong (none)
                            standard for WARRANTS is probable cause, as you conviniently highlighted.  Standard for searches is reasonable/unreasonable.

                            The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated;

                          •  good then (none)
                            i think the people have reasonable grounds to search our white house without a warrant from head to toe regarding bushco.'s involvement with jackoff.
                          •  That's just an asinine comment n/t (none)
                          •  the plain meaning of the statute... (none)
                            says it's unreasonable to search without probable cause.

                            The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

                            Also Arizona v. Hicks "The Court ruled that the police officer's acts with the stereo constituted a search and the police would need to meet the "probable cause" standard in order to lawfully conduct a search of the private equipment.

            •  Not a Democrat (4.00)
              Drgrishka1 is a republican. Whatever he says is pro- Alito- he's polite but not a Democrat!

              Just thought you should know :)

              Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought- John F. Kennedy

              by vcmvo2 on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:56:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have no problem with that (4.00)
                so long as he's honest about it, which he was in his reply to my comment. I can certainly respect that. It's a big tent country, and blog. No one said you HAD to be a Democrat to hang out here, although one would have to be pretty damn thick skinned and secure in one's beliefs to do so. I assume he is.

                "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

                by kovie on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:20:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I was responding to Michigan Paul (none)
                  Who seemed to be under the impression that drgrishka was a give up Democrat when he is really a repub. I didn't say drgrishka hadn't been honest or polite. I agree that it's a big tent and I welcome anyone who wants to post here.
                  You misunderstood me. And he does need a fact-checker as Peanut has asserted because he tends to misrepresent certain Dems positions on things in his eagerness to support Alito. Just sayin'

                  Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought- John F. Kennedy

                  by vcmvo2 on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:37:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oops--thread paths can be hard to follow sometimes (none)
                    And as if we lack for Dem misrepresenters. It's pretty much the national pastime these days.

                    Although, as recent history has shown, we can certainly give as good as we get--and then some.

                    Rove has no idea what a sleeping giant he's just awakened. And we're still just half-asleep and getting used to the light.

                    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

                    by kovie on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:44:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No problem! (none)
                      It happens. Yes the sleeping giant is awakening & dkos is its nervous system!

                      Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought- John F. Kennedy

                      by vcmvo2 on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:09:04 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No, we're a neural network of many blogs (4.00)
                        But DKos might well be its central spine!

                        "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

                        by kovie on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:54:21 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  He routinely makes shit up (4.00)
                And when challenged to link to or attribute the source of his "facts", as he has done upthread, it usually turns out that the source says nothing resembling his claim, and he has merely been wrong, intentionally distorting, lying, or outright hallucinating.
                .
                If he's polite, that's lovely. But chronic lying is rude and a waste of people's time.
                .
                He's a borderline troll, but valuable in illustrating that there are deep tears in the GOoPer matrix that anyone would be fronting that much with his tank on empty. (Presumably he'll be offering his insider's report on what the liberals are saying and collect his reward of a small bag of Cheetohs.)
                .
                •  Riiiight (none)
                  I make shit up.  Sigh.  I guess Durbin and Reid also make shit up when they say the votes aren't there.  To the extent you argue that thing COULD radically change, sure they could.  And I could be the next SCOTUS nominee and have a line of Playboy Playmates vying for my attention.  Is it possible?  Sure.  Is it likely?  I could only wish.  Same with the Alito vote.  Is it possible Kerry would get 40 others to support him?  Sure.  Is it likely?  Asbout as likely as the above scenario.
                  •  Yo Drigri (none)
                    Whaz up man?

                    If everyone here is just acting high on some stupid pipe dream, why are you wasting your time writing?  

                    ...Unless your hoping to convince even a few Kossacks to stop thinking seriously about the Filibuster.

                    ...but you wouldn't bother to do that unless you were actually scared it could work.

                    so my conclusion is your shittin' in your pants

  •  Blessings upon she... (4.00)
    ...who gives forth rays of hope in dark times.

    Thanks, oh joan.

    -- MXW

  •  It's looking pretty hopeless (4.00)
    I doubt there will be a lot of Senators not voting on cloture.

    If we can't block a lying racist sexist extremist to replace someone who is still on the court, so that a fillibuster wouldn't create a vacancy, all while Bush is at under 40% approval, and has a shitload of scandals, I don't think we can block anyone. If one of the moderates like Stevens leaves, Bush gets to get a crazy right-wing court. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking we're ever going to block any of Bush's extremist nominees.

    •  Why not? (4.00)
      Nixon was forced to go with Harry Blackmun when Carswell went down in flames.
      •  At the time... (none)
        Blackmun was perceived as a reliable right-leaning vote (and indeed, for his first several years on the court, generally was).
        •  Exactly (none)
          Him and Burger were known as "Minnesota Twins"
        •  If my history is correct, (none)
          he was a reliable right wing judge and not a batshit crazy right wing judge.

          Alito is, without a shadow of a doubt, a batshit crazy judge.

          When Alito burns, Bush won't have the political capital (heh) to push more batshit crazies on the bench, he will have to settle for mere 'reliable' conservatives.

          Want to make a difference in the media war? Kill your cable, write a letter to the company and give that money to independent media.

          by HunterKiller on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:41:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Except that Alito (none)
            will be confirmed.  So the "reliable" will have to wait for the next opening.  Let the guessing game begin.  Will it be Stevens or Ginsburg?
            •  We've already lost the next opening (none)
              Bush gets to appoint whoever he wants. We might as well vote for the nuclear option since we're too scared to ever use it.
            •  Are you supporting Coulter's comments? (none)
              To slip rat poison in Stevens' creme brulee? Because speculating on which Justice will die is quite disgusting imo. And typical of rethugs- polite or not- this is a disgusting comment! I object!

              Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought- John F. Kennedy

              by vcmvo2 on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:59:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No I don't (none)
                But I wish he would retire on his own.  he is 86 after all.  

                I wasn't speculating on his death.  i would never do something of the sort.  I do want him to play more golf in Sunny Florida though and let someone else do the hard work of judging. :)

              •  speculating on who will go next (none)
                seems pretty reasonable to me.  Lots of billion-dollar companies do it, and we gladly pay them for it: it's called life insurance.

                I take your point, but there's infinite difference between calling for a Justice to be poisoned and speculating which one will be next to return to the dust from whence we all come and to which we all return.  These are lifetime appointments, and there's nothing inherently unsavory about discussing when the next appointment will come up.  

                Indeed, if every family gave more regard to the mortality of its elders and planned accordingly, we'd all be better off.

                Loyalty comes from love of good government, not fear of a bad one. Hugo Black.

                by Pondite on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 07:40:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not when the commenter (none)
                  is plotting which wingnut will replace Stevens. In that case I take umbrage since we're already having Alito shoved down our throats. Sorry, after reading Coulter's comment & then drgrishka's it was too similar in concept- even though he doesn't want to poison Stevens. Big of him... I'm praying for Stevens good health until 2009 at least!

                  Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought- John F. Kennedy

                  by vcmvo2 on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:38:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Please do something, anything userful. (4.00)
              If he's confirmed, he's confirmed, the Senate Democrats will reap the whirwind and the shit will really hit the fan. We can turn in our Democratic party card and seriously support a thrid party. Either way, complaing will never, ever, help.

              What and who's purpose is declaring an outcome before the result serving? What positive outcome are you trying to accomplish? So far every one of your efforts amount to meaingless histronics.

              Want to make a difference in the media war? Kill your cable, write a letter to the company and give that money to independent media.

              by HunterKiller on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:02:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Crystal ball (none)
              How bout giving me the Virginia lotto numbers for next week?  This way you can do some more of the predicting the future you seem to like to do so much.
              •  if they Virginia lotto numbers (none)
                are announced 3 days in advance, I will be happy to provide them to you.  

                All but 9 Senators have committed themselves one way or another.  So unless Alito between today and Monday urinates onto the floor of the Senate or there is a revelation that he is actually an alien from another planet, those votes won't change.

                •  Committed themselves (4.00)
                  The only way they really "commit themselves" is when they vote. They haven't. Until then you might as well be giving out lotto numbers as telling us how they will vote. You might like to think you're privy to the final outcome but you're just as in the dark as the rest of us.

                  By the way, some of the folks who initially did not support a filibuster and had made public statements saying that have come out FOR filibustering it now. Clinton was a no filibuster, so was Feinstein both have recanted . If I were Frist I'd be nail biting worried. No wonder he sent poor Arlen to the floor to get a vote pronto(which didn't happen). We went from 2 Senators to a solid 30 in 1 day. We have 3 days. Alot can happen in those 3 days.

                  •  They "changed" (none)
                    because it is a free vote for the base.  they know it won't succeed so why not vote with the base.  Especially holds true for Hill, since she is running against Kerry, so she can't be seen as more weak-kneed then Kerry.

                    And it's not like forecasting lotto numbers.  it's more like forecasting weather.  Only more accurate.

                    Under your logic, Senators don't even commit themselves once they vote because then there is always a motion to reconsider.  You certainly are entitled to indulge in your fantasy, but I am afraid that the dream will end rather abruptly circa 5 pm, Monday.

                    •  Change (none)
                      The key here being they changed their minds. Those votes you keep counting ain't been cast and you can't "really" count them until they do.

                      Spin it how you like but you know no more than we do not accurately(or more accurately in your case) and certainly not logically.

                      I'm sure you wish differently but that's just the way it is. If wishes were horse........

                      Sorry dude.

                      •  I am not the one wishing here (none)
                        At least I have statements of Senators to support my conclusions.  What do you have besides hopes and dreams that more will change their mind?
                        •  I have (none)
                          The fact that more than one senator who previously stated they would not filibuster is now saying they will.

                          My supposition is just as valid as yours.

                          Like you said in a different thread, we'll find out when the vote tally is final.

    •  Magic 8 Ball weighs in, Psychic Friend concurs n/t (none)
  •  I like the twist. (4.00)
    The burden is on Frist to get the votes.

    ... we now know a lot of things, most of which, we already knew... (-dash888)

    by Tirge Caps on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:08:44 PM PST

  •  I'm sorry joan reports. (none)
    I like your work very much, but I disagree with your analysis here.  I wish I could agree with you.

    I think because the public in general like Judge Alito as a person and feels he falls within the range of presidential deference, I think the public places the burden of proof is on us to justify using a filibuster to keep Judge Alito off the Supreme Court.  If the nominee were, say, Brett Kavanaugh, who you know about, I think the public would support using a filibuster, and the burden of proof would be on Republicans to justify why getting Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit is worth virtually shutting down the Senate.  The public judges each nominee individually on his or her own merits.

    (By the way, I'm hurt by the "3" you gave me on my voting rights diary.)

    Today, the Court purports to be the dispassionate oracle of the law, unmoved by "natural sympathy." - Justice Blackmun, dissenting, DeShaney v. Winnebago County

    by jim bow on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:15:28 PM PST

    •  Baloney. If we can't stop things at this juncture (4.00)
        we won't be able to stop the next buy either.

      Heck, this guy won't even credit a worker his full earned pension rights (Alito's dissent on the 3rd Circuit).

    •  That's a different issue. (4.00)
      Justifying it to the public is a completely different question from reminding everyone that Frist has the burden of finding 60 votes for cloture.
      •  And? (none)
        C'mon Kagro, you know all this shit. What do the number look like for Frist?

        Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

        by GussieFN on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:55:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know if he counted. (4.00)
          The only number he really cares about is 50, and he's got that.

          He didn't count last time, so who knows what he's doing this time?

          If I had to guess, though, I'd say he'll get his 60, winning at least 5 of the 7 Democratic members of the Gang of 14, if not all of them.

          •  caring about 50 (none)
            You're crazy if you think this guy isn't worried about having a "solid 60". With their approval rating in the high 20's, a huge deficit, an unpopular war, and all these investigations going on he'd be a fool not to worry about having 60. The nuke option has consequences if you lose power and with the political climate changing and people disgusted at DC there is the thought that the GOP just might lose power. Longshot yes, but it is a possibility.
    •  Trouble is.... (none)
      ...the public are not going to be so happy with Alito soon after he's on the bench. At that point, it's too late and we are all stuck with him.
      •  At this rate (4.00)
        I'd say the "public" will be as complacent as they have been about damn near everything else they've looked the other way from or didn't understand. Sucks, but when everything is presented to us via the media as a twisted form of the Miss America Pageant, this is what happens.

        Can anyone tell me why my American flag was made in China?

        by Skid on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:25:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  and that's why the Dems need to make noise (4.00)
          and get this into people's heads, right now.

          Even if it's just mocking.  even if it's lots of "oh those crazy Democrats, filibustering this good nominee".  

          the point is, taking a stand gets the story into the media.  people might still be complacent about it now, but this way they'll remember that it happened.  when the "good nominee" turns into something different, there's a chance they'll remember the mocking, and for the occasional person, something will click.

          The only other choice is rolling over, and that's been tried enough already.

          although it's getting late, you still have plenty of time

          by maracuja on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:43:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly--I say fuck the public (4.00)
            They've been asleep for the past 5 years and don't deserve to be taken into account on this vote. They'd rather watch some idiot eat live maggots on TV than spend 5 minutes keeping up with the nomination process. We're supposed to take our cues from them? Not!

            One of the many problems Dems have exhibited in recent years is a "finger in the wind" tendency to wait until the public clearly indicates where it wants to be led, and then run ahead to "lead" it. It doesn't work. Even today's lame-ass public doesn't see this as leadership.

            You lead by leading, not following, and taking the lead on filibustering Alito--win or lose--is exactly the sort of thing that will make the public take notice and start respecting Dems again. It's when we DON'T fight that they lose respect for us, not when we DO fight.

            If Bush has taught us anything in his miserable 5 years in office that we might want to learn from, it's that. Until he totally dropped the ball on Katrina, a majority of Americans, however slim and obviously mistakenly, at least gave him credit for his "leadership" skills, because at least he made a pretense at leading.

            I think that Dems, by ACTUALLY leading in a principled fight, stand to gain as much if not even more respect, because this isn't just about politics, but about principle.

            "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

            by kovie on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:05:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I think (4.00)
      your argument is incorrect.

      If the public you refer to includes only wingers, commercial media pr hacks and those partial to abortion bombing and racist jokes at work, your statment is very correct.

      The problem is, polls prove America public does not support Alito.

      Not only does the public not support Alito, they do not not consider him a deferential choice and fully expects the Democrats to push for a fillibuster.

      Want to make a difference in the media war? Kill your cable, write a letter to the company and give that money to independent media.

      by HunterKiller on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:46:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  60 Votes (none)
      I think the diarist's premise that a Senator could be helpful to the anti-Alito cause & avoid the "stigma" of voting against cloture by abstaining or being absent, is incorrect. Everyone knows that the requirement is 60 votes and that not voting has the same effect on the tabulation as voting against cloture.

      Unless someone has a legitimate reason to be absent (e.g., death of immediate family member) they'd be hard-pressed to justify not voting. I believe they'd come across as being opposed to Alito but lacking the courage to say so and/or being derelict in attending to important Senate business. No Senator would want to put himself/herself in that position on a S. Ct. nomination. It's a tactic that's only viable on matters of lesser importance with less public/press interest.

      For this reason, and others, those that say there are 65 - 70 votes for cloture are correct.

    •  Terri Schiavo (none)
      How did the public feel about the Terri Schiavo circus?

      Because that's what Schiavo was all about, of course: this nomination: Alito.

      We just need to explain it to them

  •  Well Alito will (2.50)
    get around 68 votes on a cloture petition.
    •  You wish Dr. Grinch. (4.00)
           Heh.
      •  Count them (none)
        All 55 Republicans plus:

        Byrd, Johnson, Nelson (NE), Conrad, Dorgan, Landrieu, Pryor, Akaka, Biden, and Salazar have all announced that they are either supporting Alito or committed to opposing a filibuster.  By my count that makes 65.  I am quite certain others like Baucus and Lincoln will vote for cloture.  

        •  Maybe more than 70 (none)
               If you're lucky. Which may be.

               Still, don't count all the chickens before they're...

        •  Landreiu may have changed her mind (4.00)
          Someone posted yesterday that they had called Landrieu's office because Landrieu had said she would vote for cloture.  At the time of the call, Landrieu was then "undecided" about cloture.  Others may have changed their minds too from all the phone calls.

          Anything is possible.

        •  Untrue (3.50)
          None of them have said that they are "committed to opposing" a filibuster, that I am aware of.  You have a link for the claim?  

          It is true that all have previously said that they personally opposed filibuster.  But "Committed to opposing" is active - it means campaigning against one.  Fiven these morning's events and momentum -- including Ben Nelson's office now running polls -- it seems as if your hard and fast statements are once again proving to lack solid back up.

          My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

          by shanikka on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:42:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  60 VOTES, YES... (none)
    But I wouldn't call it a burden on Frist to round those up. He has all of Washington's pressure to pile on and guilt the votes out of these Senators, if not reveal what NSA knows about them that they might want to hide...

    I want this filibuster to happen! But the powers that be will crush it.
    Dems needs to boo or walk out of the State of the Union. This is not politics as usual, the Constitution is at stake. But many Senators just have their heads up their butt about this. For many it's all career, me, mine and my campaign, all the time...sadly.

  •  slightly OT, but not really (4.00)
    Associated Press is reporting that

    Scott McClellan chuckled on Friday and said: "I think it was a historic day yesterday. It was the first ever call for a filibuster from the slopes of Davos, Switzerland."

    He's at an economic summit, not off skiing. I'm just so sick of these insults from the White House. I went to their Web site to get the comment line phone number. Turns out there is no 800 number and I'm at work, and can't make an LD call.

    If anyone wants to call for me:

    Comments:   202-456-1111

    I think the WH should have an 800 #, don't you? Sure, we'd pay for it, but at least everyone would be able to call.

    Say no to hate, bigotry, and the author of the Fed. Marriage Amendment, Marilyn Musgrave. Please donate to Angie Paccione.

    by OLinda on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:43:55 PM PST

  •  WTF: Reid throws water on filibuster attempt (4.00)
    Yahoo/AP just put up a story on Alito, reporting the 60 votes are a done deal. They also report that Reid agrees:

    "Everyone knows there are not enough votes to support a filibuster," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Friday. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the same thing on Thursday.

    Three Democrats announcing support for Alito are mentioned as the tipping factor.

    If true about Reid, WTF! The Democratic Party leadership has run up the white flag. Forget 'em. I'm waiting to be disproved, and continue to work on the standard LTE's, calls to Senators, calls/emails to friends, etc.

    But if Reid hauled in the dogs, then haul in his ass. This is the Supreme Court, g-d damn it!

    "...in this abject posture have ye sworn / To adore the Conquerour?..../ Awake, arise, or be for ever fall'n."

    by Valtin on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:45:45 PM PST

    •  I say it's bait. (4.00)
      We're watching a poker match...

      Reid is keeping his cards close to his chest and may be bluffing his ass off.

      Or he's lost hope and we're going down that ol' road again...

      •  That article is not so new. But now Reid (4.00)
        is saying that he personally will vote against cloture.

        That's a full turn from yesterday when he said something about we've had enough time for debate.

        He's not "organizing" a filibuster I'd say, but that's something if he's now voting for it!

        Durbin too.

    •  Ya gotta trust Reid on tactics (none)
      he's earned it.  Either he's playng a game, or he knows it's a lost cause and won't waste his chips on it.  Either way, cut him some slack.
    •  Has REID ever surprised you? (4.00)
      Every time he is in action, I'm amazed at what he pulls out of his sleeve.

      Relax.  Everybody is SO negative.

      If you take yourself too seriously, no one else will.

      by Yoshimi on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:15:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  C'mon, man. (4.00)
      The guy's from Nevada, and used to head the gaming commision.  He knows hold'em.  He's trying to trap the GOP.  I think...he's calling, representing a mediocre hand, trying to get the GOP to raise from a percieved position of strength.  If Frist takes the bait, Reid re-raises...and Frist has to figure out what just happened, and if he can afford to stay in the hand.

      The question is merely what form the re-raise will take.

      </rounders>

      "...but the people aren't looking for a handout/they're America's working core, can this be what they voted for?" - Bad Religion - Let Them Eat War

      by Fraction Jackson on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:46:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reid? (none)
        The guy that said he was "very happy" with Harriet Miers?  Naw, it's not like he'd ever bluff...

        "A CONSERVATIVE is a man who is too cowardly to fight and too fat to run." --Elbert Hubbard

        by Rico on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 05:01:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Okay guys, count me a nervous nellie (none)
          I hope you are right on Reid.

          Glad Reid will vote no to cloture.

          I wish I had a magic mirror to show me the arm twisting behing the scenes.

          "...in this abject posture have ye sworn / To adore the Conquerour?..../ Awake, arise, or be for ever fall'n."

          by Valtin on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 05:35:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Please ignore that "nervous nellie" post (none)
          You guys above me, touting Reid the poker player/master strategist, had me doubting my own eyes and ears.

          Reid has sold out: the leader who says he'll vote to make a point, then announces the fight is over with not enough votes.

          If this be strategy, god save us from such strategic blunderbuss.

          (Note: I never said shit or fuck in this post.)

          "...in this abject posture have ye sworn / To adore the Conquerour?..../ Awake, arise, or be for ever fall'n."

          by Valtin on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 07:46:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Then why was everyone focused on 41? (none)
    Then why has everyone been so focused on 41 for the last few days?

    It seems a more realistic for us to keep them from getting 60 than for us to get 41.

  •  Great Report Joan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (4.00)

    Wow. You really know how to report!

    You are amazing. Thanks for pointing this out. There is still hope. The democrats have to vote for a fillibuster because it is the right thing to do.  This gives them one more reason.

  •  CNN reporting DC flooded with calls... (4.00)
    Keep it up.  Wolf Blitzer and Co. were smearing Kerry big-time, let them know we're not going to take their biased coverage!

    http://www.cnn.com/...

  •  wage the public campaign (4.00)
    make 'muricans realize what this is all about and why a filibuster is justified.

    weather forecast

    The palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. - Paine

    by Cedwyn on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:15:53 PM PST

  •  wage the public campaign (4.00)
    make 'muricans realize what this is all about and why a filibuster is justified.

    great resource round-up:

    http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/...

    go go gadget kossacks!

    weather forecast

    The palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. - Paine

    by Cedwyn on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:16:43 PM PST

    •  Easy 2 minutes to get 12 to filibuster...do it NOW (4.00)
      Time is short, the stakes are high; you only need to fill out 1 form to send
      12 faxes automatically

      .... use THIS link http://www.SaveTheCourt.org/...

      to reach 12 key senators ...

      Senator Kerry has boldly called for a filibuster of the Alito nomination.
      Heeding our calls to do everything possible to defeat Alito, Kerry has asked
      that activists now help convince his colleagues to join him.  Please contact
      12 key senators who can provide critical support to the filibuster effort by
      clicking onhttp://www.SaveTheCourt.org/....

      Then forward this email to anyone you know who is worried that Alito would
      likely condone the abuse of power by the president, vote to overturn Roe v.
      Wade, and help curtail Congress' ability to protect the civil rights,
      health, safety, and welfare of the American people.

      We must stand together and act now to prevent Senate Republican leaders from
      ramming this nomination through the Senate -- Time is of the essence.

        http://www.SaveTheCourt.org/...

  •  Yes! (4.00)
    I was thinking along these lines by putting two and two together from other comments, and I'm REALLY glad that you came out and bold faced all of this that needed the be said. The fight isn't over.
  •  Filibuster FAX: how to. (4.00)
    Diary pimping.  Not a bot :-).  If you'd like instructions on faxing your support of a filibuster to senators, go here.  It is likely easier than you think, and I've made it as easy as I can.

    I think it is not only worth it, it is vital.

    BushAmerica -- Now killing 24/7/365. *Your tax dollars at work*.

    by Yellow Canary on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:43:20 PM PST

  •  Those wavering weenie Dems (4.00)
    who don't want to  filibuster Alito because of [insert favorite 'battered wife' or 'red-state anti-abortion' rationale here], better think ahead on how they will be viewed by the people back home in the WV coal mines or the rural states were they can't pay for rising gas or health care costs, if scAlito gets in (thanks to their cooperation) and then turns into the narrow minded "Bush-ruling class Rubber-stamp from Hell" Supreme court judge, on anti-worker/civil/minority/women's/human rights, anti-health, safety and environment, anti-privacy, pro-police state and anti-little guy cases, as his past record demonstrates he will .

    And those Dem weenies who voted for scAlito will be remembered by the folks back home in 2006, 2008 and beyond, not as the one of the brave Senators  who tried valiently to stop the creeping loss of their individual rights, and stood up against the cancerous growth of  a One Party State in America, but rather as one of those craven valueless fools who helped the scurrilous repugs to subvert the American system of effective checks and balances.

  •  Is the presumption that some Senators are stupid? (none)
    What this diary seems to suggest is that, clearly, at least 60 Senators have stated that they support the nomination or are opposed but won't engage in a filibuster.  Which I certainly concede.

    Then, suggestion is that some of the Senators whom have already stated that they won't support a filibuster would then turn around and vote in such a way that would in fact support a filibuster.

    Because they either feel that they can parse the meaning of a cloture vote in such a way as to fool everyone into think they are being genuine, or because somehow they can be tricked into "okay, I understand that you won't vote no on cloture, but could you just not vote then?" and hope that somehow a sitting United States Senator will somehow miss that not voting is the same as voting no.

    Besides, how does a Senator sit out a SCOTUS nomination?  Unless they are in the hospital, I don't see it.

    If there is anything I have learned from Scooby Doo, it is that the only thing to fear is crooked real estate developers.

    by JakeC on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:17:43 PM PST

    •  it makes just as much sense as... (none)
      ...saying you'll vote no on Alito but won't support a fiilbuster!  Abstaining is NOT the same thing as voting to filibuster.  And it would not make a Dem senator stupid to choose the abstention alternative rather than voting with senate Republicans to defeat his or her own party's filibuster efforts.
    •  No, 60 senators have NOT said they will (none)
      vote for cloture and move Alito's nomination forward.

      The ground is shifting now. Senators's positions shifted yesterday.  The last ones I heard were Wyden and Durbin voting against cloture on the nominee.  Leahy did not put out his position yet on cloture.    Developing ..., as they say.

  •  Wyden staff: committed to filibuster (4.00)
    I haven't seen any listing about which Senators have committed to the filibuster. I called Wyden's non-toll-free DC number and the staffer there said that Wyden had just committed to supporting the filibuster.
  •  Senators who voted against cloture on (4.00)
    Clinton's nominees who also vote for the Nuclear Option are tacitly admitting that they broke the law, either now or then.

    Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

    by someone else on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:20:10 PM PST

  •  Call GOP Sens: R-U for illegal spying on citizens (4.00)
    ... without warrants, probable cause, and against the 4th amendment of the constitution, as scAlito is.
    .
    Why do you believe the pRez is above the law, and why do you believe 9-11 justifies powers no other event has had in history.
    .
    Why do you believe the pRez no longer has a duty to defend the Constitution, as he swore under oath to do?
    .
  •  wyden's in! n/t (4.00)

    weather forecast

    The palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. - Paine

    by Cedwyn on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:30:00 PM PST

  •  Harkin against filibuster (none)
    Harkin will vote NO on Alito but YES on cloture. He will NOT support the filibuster.
  •  I keep hearing this meme on the GOP Corp cable tv (none)
    this afternoon and tonight that:

    " 'moderate' Dem senators from red states are very worried (or should be) about how the voters back home will react next election should they (dare to?) go along with the 'liberal' John Kerry/Ted Kennedy [subtext: commie-wacko] Alito filibuster effort."

    Where is this meme coming from? Is it based on reality (~60% of Americans, and rising, can't stand Bush and his crony administration), or is it just perception management designed to provide convenient cover for/threaten the potential Dem turncoats?

  •  Think a move or two ahead (4.00)
    What happens come the moment of the cloture vote? And the potential nuclear option?

    As I've said elsewhere - don't write off your Republican critters.
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Spittin' in the wind?
    If, like me, you have R Senators (Cornyn and Hutchison, no less) - or a D in a red-state - it can feel hopeless. But don't write them off -write to 'em, call 'em, fax 'em - blitz 'em just like all the undecideds and maybes listed above.
    So what that you'll get the stock "Thank you for your valuable input. I appreciate your concern. After duly diligent deliberation I've decided Alito is da'MAN"

    They are all politicians, and all will be taking the temperature of their constituents. They've likely made up their minds on their votes for both cloture and the confirmation, but the force and vigor of their objections to fillibuster, and willingness to support the nukes may be tempered somewhat if enough of us have asked them to at least consider a no, or at least a delay.

    I just e-mailed my "spit" (and will follow up with a fax when I can get to Kinkos tomorrow)

    Practice absurdus interruptus - Support ePluribus Media.

    by Catte Nappe on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 05:57:18 PM PST

  •  Thanks 4 Excellent diary-Important and timely! (none)
    serious trollage round here...they're desperate tellin lies runnin scared.

    Stand up and FILIBUSTER!

  •  Abstaining could be the solution for some senators (none)
    It makes much more sense for an ambivalent senator to sit out the cloture vote instead of alienating his or her core supporters by siding with the GOP.
  •  It pains me to say this, (none)
    but Alito's confimation is inevitable.  Let's rejoin the reality-based community.

    "Make no mistake about it: We are At War now - with somebody - and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives"-- HST, 9/12/01

    by mraker on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 07:09:30 PM PST

  •  Somebody clue me up on the GANG of 14 (none)
    I need to understand this. It helps us understand some of those strange resistances to filibuster.

    "It is not too late at all. You just do not yet know what you are capable of." Mahatma Gandhi

    by Percheronwoman on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:26:51 PM PST

  •  One other thing (4.00)
    I learned really clearly over in Freeperville (where I spent the last hour reading filibuster threads): Salazar is truly on the fence about the filibuster. He is one to target tomorrow morning with polite e-mails.

    BE POLITE!

    "It is not too late at all. You just do not yet know what you are capable of." Mahatma Gandhi

    by Percheronwoman on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:29:36 PM PST

  •  Joan you rock! (4.00)
    And you give us strength to fight on!

    Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. -1.75 -7.23

    by Shockwave on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 09:55:56 PM PST

Serephin, beedee, Leslie in CA, jaydfwtx, cdalygo, Kimberley, spyral, The Cunctator, jgkojak, wilderness wench, stevelu, KeithH, Peanut, Phoenix Woman, Stevie, Jaime Schulte, awol, KTinTX, ogre, teacherken, deben, eraske, ubikkibu, mndan, GussieFN, Unstable Isotope, Winger, Bob Love, R Dub, lebowski, littlesky, KumarP, Shockwave, billlaurelMD, cotterperson, shumard, Jim in Chicago, OLinda, uffdalib, Mnemosyne, Dan Hrkman, RKS, frisco, caliberal, Poika, jancw, Vitarai, Plan9, HeavyJ, dpc, upnatom65, mrsdbrown1, jackspace, Jon B Good, concernedamerican, Glickman, bronte17, conchita, macdust, FtheNaysayers, HippyWitch, biscobosco, MonteLukast, boadicea, mxwing, Geonomist, Glic, Paul Douglas Fan, Scoopster, Blech, Patricia Taylor, buckhorn okie, mrblifil, roses, jenancona, chechecule, amberglow, Ignacio Magaloni, oslo, freepress4all, vmckimmey, Molee, k2winters, kolly, dchill, EdwardsRaysOfSunshine, Boxers, Nate Roberts, thingamabob, ctsteve, bewert, David Boyle, Cedwyn, Alna Dem, Georgia Logothetis, nitetalker, Janet Strange, SneakySnu, mayan, njgoldfinch, menodoc, hhex65, chinkoPelinke, annan, nancelot, rhapsaria, Subversive, airMaufer, Chicago Lulu, mcm, november3rd, Republic Not Empire, alivingston, kenjib, Not2Me, TXsharon, bblum, NYFM, niteskolar, dwahzon, lizah, nika7k, kirari, The Zipper, applegal, dcookie, MH in PA, Noisy Democrat, Levity, retired, WisVoter, Man Eegee, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, Dr Seuss, nonconreformer, DrewDown, rickeagle, kd texan, We hold these truths, Timroff, Shapeshifter, Gowrie Gal, Tirge Caps, vcmvo2, maybeeso in michigan, rstnfld, Elise, patrioticliberal, lenore68, someone else, Webster, Bad Cog, Valtin, onp67, NeuvoLiberal, homeland observer, buckeyedem08, concerned, jorndorff, jcitybone, Jawis, knocienz, peaceandprogress, IKIA, Cannabis, word is bond, Shaking the Tree, jm taylor, Cory Bantic, Team Slacker, flyoverstatesman, HatchInBrooklyn, kathny, fhcec, bently, robo848, mspicata, PoppyRocks, seoguy, BlueInARedState, Will the Organizer, buhdydharma, Sassy725, TalkieToaster, jguzman17, Tanya, Lashe, PeaceMatters, arbortender, Liberal 2 the Core, Caoimhin Laochdha

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site