ePluribus Media Community || citizen journalism, for the people, by the people

Kerry Supporting a Filibuster - UPDATE!

by Cedwyn

Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:10:56 PM EST

Kerry's Senate floor speech from today:

“I am proud to join my friend, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, in taking a stand against this nomination. I know it is an uphill battle. I have heard many of my colleagues. I hear the arguments: Reserve your gunpowder for the future. What is the future if it changes so dramatically at this moment in time? What happens to those people who count on us to stand up and protect them now, not later, not at some future time?
“This is the choice for the Court now. I reject those notions that there ought to somehow be some political calculus about the future. This impact is going to be now. This choice is now. This ideological direction is defined now."

Please sign his filibuster petition. And call Salazar NOW - he is taking a filibuster poll. Apparently, Ben Nelson is soliciting feedback as well. I just called Nelson's office and spoke with a delightful fellow who didn't even care that I'm out of state because he's from here! : p

I told him that extending debate on Alito's nomination is entirely appropriate given Alito's deference to presidential power in light of spygate. There is no reason not to put Alito's nomination off until we have some answeres on extralegal domestic surveillance.

And now it appears that Bayh and Bill Nelson are also in the mix and soliciting feedback. And I just got off the phone with one of Wyden's staffers - he is in! That's my good senator!What a day this has been!

Update [2006-1-27 20:6:57 by Cedwyn]: It seems Cantwell needs some prodding. Other Senators who may be on the fence here - Update [2006-1-27 20:58:44 by Cedwyn]: apparently, this includes Obama and Harkin.

Meanwhile, we need to get the word out publically in every way possible - people need to understand what they'd be getting in Alito and why a filibuster is warranted.

Here are some resources for LTE's, etc.:

a democratic staffer !@#$%& gets it!

Anti-Alito Brigade for Justice round-up

and don't forget the wisdom of Mark Crispin Miller:

"A no vote is a yes vote, unless you filibuster!"

Below the fold is my letter to Smith, typos and all. If any of it is useful, please help yourself. I chose the example of the Arctic Refuge because Smith actually stood up for that; tailor examples to your Stepford Senators' pet causes. Or other issues that you know are important locally.

commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!

Dear Senator Smith and staff:

I have abiding concerns regarding the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Few, if any of them were allayed by watching the Senate debate today.

In all honesty, the Senate should not even be considering his nomination right now - the investigation into Bush's NSA extralegal spying directive is far more important. It starkly calls Alito's fitness for the nation's highest court into question, given his previous support of such increased executive branch powers.

For example, would Alito concur with the administration's claim that the AUMF permits domestic surveillance, even though the Senate explicitly denied Bush that capability? Would he support the notion that Bush can ignore FISA because he is CinC?

His past encouragement of wiretapping is disturbing in this regard, as is his endorsement of executive "signing statements." Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the president shall interpret laws sent to him by Congress, but Bush has used these statements to not only evaluate laws, but decide that he can ignore laws, based on these interpretations. The Constitution is also explicit in that even the president must obey the law - I'm not sure Alito can be counted upon to uphold that.

It is in this context that an imagined deference to the executive regarding nominees is so troubling - why should the co-equal branch of government tasked with evaluating nominees need to "defer" to the executive branch? The Constitution is very explicit on this: the executive appoints justices with the Senate's oversight and agreement. It does not say the Senate has to agree.

There is no reason the Senate needs defer to the executive whatsoever. He certainly didn't afford the Senate the courtesy of consulting with them or seeking their advice on this nomination; if he had, I'm sure the Miers debacle would never have happened.

At least he consulted on the second try, but instead of the Senate, he solicited feedback from his Chief of Staff, White House Counsel, and prominent members of the religious right. Where in the constitution does it assign those people the role to advise on judicial nominees?

Samuel Alito, in his support of the "unitary executive" theory, is a threat to Congress' role as an equal branch of a tripartate government. There are already two lawsuits resulting from the NSA wiretaps; what would Alito's opinion be if they went before the Supreme Court? We can't know for sure, but his past record indicates that he would be in favor of broader governmental power.

What happens when Bush starts ignoring other laws of inconvenience? Or decides to invoke the CinC "national security" excuse to drill in the Arctic Refuge without explicit consent from Congress? Establishing this precedent in the executive branch is extraordinarily dangerous - I do believe Alito would help set such a precedent.

His nomination is especially critical given that he will be replacing the very centrist Sandra Day O' Connor. Not everybody in the country thinks like Scalia and Thomas and the Supreme Court should reflect a comparable balance of ideology. Some would argue that justices are not elected officials and therefore SCOTUS doesn't need to encompass a variety of beliefs as society does. But justices are appointed by elected officials and approved by elected officials. As the popular reminder goes, "elections have consequences."

In this sense, the resulting judicial appointments should take the national character into account - the federal government represents ALL citizens, not just those of the party currently in charge. As such, the composition of the nation's highest court should be seated with people of varying perspectives and viewpoints, to ensure balance in our justice system. Protecting the voice and rights of the minority were of paramount importance to our founding fathers - they knew well the dangers of one-party rule.

I was also dismayed at the assertion that being "qualified" is the only valid criterion for evaluating justices. If that is the case, why waste the president's and the Senate's time with nominations, debates and voting on confirmation? "Qualified" is a fairly objective measure and one that made many justices suitable choices for this appointment.

If ideology plays no role in the fitness of a justice, why not insist on an equally qualified, yet more moderate nominee? If ideology means nothing in this, why are religious right groups ecstatic over this nomination?

I simply cannot put in strong enough terms how completely inappropriate Alito is for our Supreme Court at this time. I know you have come out in support of the nomination, but I am urging you to reconsider and insist on a nominee that respects the primacy of Congress' role in our government. Encouraging the development of a strong unitary executive by appointing supportive justices to SCOTUS could well mean dispensing with "advice and consent of the Senate" altogether.

Very sincerely,

an unhappy constituent

Kerry Supporting a Filibuster - UPDATE! | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden)

kerry has come out (none / 0) (#1)

in favor of a filibuster!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/26/123745/548

make those phone calls!

by Cedwyn on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 01:21:50 PM EST

: hahaha! (none / 0) (#12)

young turks are filibustering!
http://www.theyoungturks.com

by Cedwyn on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:24:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just got done blistering Tim Johnson (none / 0) (#2)

He's a SD Senator (as you probably already know).

That twit! I told him I was yanking all financial support based on his vote to undermine the system of checks and balances.

I had already contacted Dayton and wasted breath on Colman.

Shoulda known....

by kfred on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 01:32:40 PM EST

email from democrats.com (none / 0) (#3)

FILIBUSTER ALITO NOW

Harry Reid met with progressive lobbyists on Tuesday and told them he has nearly 44 votes against Alito, but there are 8 Democratic Senators who will not support a filibuster.

Only 41 votes are needed for a filibuster. If Reid has nearly 44 votes against Alito, every one of those Senators should support a filibuster or their vote against Alito is meaningless.

So call the Democrats who are leading this battle and demand a united Democratic filibuster:
Harry Reid (NV)
Dick Durbin (IL)
Chuch Schumer (NY)
Debbie Stabenow (MI)
Pat Leahy (VT)

Use these toll free numbers to call the Capitol: 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.

Reid would not name the "Alito 8" who are blocking a Democratic filibuster - so we need to identify them and tell them not to betray the Democrats who funded them and voted for them.

The most likely suspects are the "Red State" Democrats:
Tom Carper (DE)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Mark Pryor (AR)

Also call these "Blue State" and pro-choice Republicans:
Lincoln Chafee (RI)
Susan Collins (ME)
Lisa Murkowsky (AK)
Bob Smith (OR)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
Ted Stevens (AK)

For extra credit, call all 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 FORGET ABOUT YOUR SUPPORT.

You can also send that message to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (202-224-2447) and the Democratic National Committee (202-863-8000).

Share what you learn with Democrats.com members here:

http://www.democrats.com/alito-8

by Cedwyn on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 04:11:21 PM EST

: It could be the Red State Dems, but.... (none / 0) (#7)

I have a feeling a majority of them are the 7 Dems from the Gang of 14.
The 7 Dems
Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut
Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia
E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
Mark Pryor, Arkansas
Ken Salazar, Colorado
I wrote that Nelson will support Alito. So that is a no on the filibuster.
Salazar already said will is not in favor of the filibuster. But he will vote no.
Sen. Byrd, West Virginia said he will vote for Alito. So, there goes his support for the filibuster. Bloomberg suspects Sen. Byrd said he will vote for Alito because he has a challenger.
Sen. Landrieu said she will not support a filibuster.
Sens. Inouye, Lieberman, and Pryor, I haven't found anything if they will or will not.
I kind of figured they would hold true to alliance to their counter parts.
Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today. - Gandhi
by XicanoPwr on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:23:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

frist on cspan right now (none / 0) (#4)

whinging about "uppderdown." he is pushing for an alito vote monday

by Cedwyn on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 05:16:51 PM EST

update (none / 0) (#5)

he is pushing for cloture vote monday, vote on the nom tuesday.

by Cedwyn on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 05:21:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Critical timing (5.00 / 1) (#8)

Gotta have the approval before the SOTU address.
Makes the filibuster even more urgent - as has been said everywhere in the blogosphere, the Dems MUST show spine specifically at this time. No excuses.

by kfred on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:26:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"uppderdown" (none / 0) (#6)

sounds more like an appropriate description for Rush Limbaugh!

by standingup on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:36:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ocnfirmation on feinstein and clinton (none / 0) (#9)

http://feinstein.senate.gov/index.html

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=250853&&

by Cedwyn on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:53:42 PM EST

: Cedwyn! Thanks for keeping us updated... (none / 0) (#10)

keep 'em coming.

by Cho on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 05:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Federalist #78 (none / 0) (#11)

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

by Cedwyn on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:06:05 PM EST

let's hope I get published! (none / 0) (#13)

i sent my paper my ranting screed to Senator Smith; with any luck, it could be featured as a Sunday opinion piece.

but if not, I also submitted this shorter LTE:

Our Constitution explicitly states that judges are to be appointed by and with "the advice and consent of the Senate." But after the embarassment of the Miers nomination, Bush consulted instead with his Chief of Staff, White House Counsel, and leaders of the religious right to decide on the nomination of Samuel Alito. This aberration should put any true "strict constructionist" on edge, but little has been made of it.

Until now - the filibuster is on and not a moment too soon. The Constitution also fails to mention "signing statements" or anything else about the president "interpreting" legislation, yet Samuel Alito supports these and other expansions of executive branch power. This is especially disturbing in light of Bush's extralegal domestic spying and similar snubbing of constitutional checks and balances. I applaud those Senators standing up for Americans' rights and the separation of powers so crucial to our democracy. Won't you?

wish me luck!

by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 03:02:13 AM EST

: more great LTE fodder (none / 0) (#14)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/28/04946/3050

Sustaining a filibuster on Alito is critical to the future of Congress. Confirmation will condemn America to decades of radically expanded government power and intrusion into citizen's lives --while diminishing the role Congress will play in government
If ever a filibuster was justified, this is it! We must not let Judge Alito, through his unitary executive theory, bestow apparent legitimacy on President Bush's power grabs.

by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 03:31:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's this morning's update from Democrats.com (none / 0) (#15)

WE CAN STOP ALITO THIS WEEKEND

http://www.democrats.com/we-can-stop-alito

The last two days have been amazing.

Early Thursday afternoon, we broke the news that Senator John Kerry would lead a filibuster against Judge Sam Alito if he could get 41 Senators to sustain the filibuster. Three hours later, CNN confirmed our story.

Naturally, the White House freaked out and told Senator Bill Frist to schedule a cloture vote as quickly as possible - Monday at 4:30 p.m. - to prevent Democrats from uniting behind Kerry.

Then the White House called its media whores at the NY Times (David Kirkpatrick), AP (Jesse Holland), Pentagon Post (Charles Babington), CNN (Miles O'Brien), and MSNBC (Chris Matthews) and told them to trash John Kerry for daring to challenge the will of Emperor Bush, and to repeat over and over that Democrats did not have enough votes to stop Alito.

But even as Karl Rove was doing his dirty work, progressive activists like you were calling your Senators urging them to support John Kerry's filibuster.

And one by one, Democratic Senators began to turn around.

http://democrats.com/alito-48

At the start of the day, only Dick Durbin and Debbie Stabenow supported Kerry and Kennedy. Just before noon, Hillary Clinton's office called to say she supported us. Then Harry Reid came on board, along with Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden, Chris Dodd, and (I think) Chuck Schumer.

Most importantly, we even picked up Dianne Feinstein, who just yesterday said she opposed a filibuster.

That's 12 votes for a filibuster - and exactly 12 more votes than we had two days ago!

I believe we really can stop Alito by Monday at 4:30 p.m. - but here's what we must do.

Ignore the media whores. Karl Rove is feeding them lies as he always does, and they are swallowing those lies as they always do. The only media that matters is the media we are creating right here by calling each Senator and getting a YES or NO statement from them.
Keep calling the Senators who are undecided or opposed to a filibuster. You can call their DC office all weekend and leave polite but firm voicemails urging the Senators to support Kerry's filibuster. When offices open on Monday 9 a.m. ET, make another round of calls. Let's shut down the Capitol switchboard on Monday!

http://democrats.com/alito-48

3. Call the DNC (202-863-8000) and the DSCC (202-224-2447) and tell them your 2006 contributions will depend on the success of the Alito filibuster. Tell them they need to get every Democratic Senator on board.

by Cho on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 09:25:50 AM EST

logic (none / 0) (#16)

if:

Elections have consequences. Alito is the consequence.

then:

judicial appointees are to some degree a reflection of the electorate's will

therefore: the court should have a balanced ideological makeup

Q. E. fuckin'D

by Cedwyn on Sun Jan 29, 2006 at 10:32:36 PM EST

And let's not forget about (none / 0) (#17)

the republican precedents of judicial filibusters.

by Cedwyn on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 03:05:37 AM EST

Kerry Supporting a Filibuster - UPDATE! | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden)

Support ePluribus Media -- Support Citizen Powered Journalism!