Even senators who've said they don't support a filibuster could support postponing the vote on Alito until we know more about the NSA's warrantless wiretapping and what role he played in it. Even if all he did was helping concoct the 'unitary executive' argument, that might sway a few votes in the Senate.
more below
Here's a letter I'm going to e-mail to all the Democrats and a few Republicans in the Senate. I'm flattered if anyone wants to use part or all of it, though I suggest personalizing it to preserve impact.
---------------------
January 29, 2006
Was your phone tapped? Did Samuel Alito sign the order for it?
There is no need to rush a Senate confirmation vote on Samuel Alito, and there is good reason to wait.
There is no vacant seat on the Supreme Court; rather, there is a justice who will retire when her successor is confirmed. The court is not running short-handed, so there is no need to rush.
There is a good reason to wait. Senators of both parties have called for hearings into the apparently illegal wiretapping without warrants by the NSA. Mr. Alito has helped make a case for a 'unitary executive' with sweeping powers, and he may have played an important role in cobbling together the flimsy legalistic 'justification' for the NSA's spying. Would you vote to confirm Mr. Alito if your own phone or e-mail had been intercepted? I dare say you'd want to reconsider.
The Senate should not vote on Mr. Alito's confirmation until we have a clear picture of what the NSA was doing. If the Bush administration delays the hearings on the NSA wiretaps, by refusing to turn over documents or allow members of the administration to testify before the Senate, that should also delay the vote on Mr. Alito. This would not be a filibuster. It would simply be doing things in the sensible and proper order.
