Turns out it really was all over except the shouting, as I watch the State of the Union and see newly-minted Justice Alito sitting in the front row.
Was it really worth it?
The tactics of delay, delay, delay went over about as well as a led balloon, considering the qualifications were never in question. Ideology, yes, but qualifications as to be an unbiased jurist? No doubt.
Negative press was bad enough BEFORE the filibuster announcement (when confirmation was already locked up) and got worse afterward before getting shot down.
So what did Democrats gain?
- They delayed Alito's nomination long enough so that it's another feather in Bush's cap as he gives the address.
- Filibusters may be off the table should another nominee come down the pike before 2008.
- Forcing some Democratic senators up for re-election to vote on a cloture motion may make them vulnerable in November (such as Menendez in NJ)
- The party now appears to be split to most casual viewers which can result in a stay-at-home approach in November if it truly appears to them that they are not a better alternative, also possibly leading to some GOP pickups (or retention of seats that should be lost, i.e. Conrad Burns)
- The margin of victory in a cloture vote may allow for another SCOTUS nominee (if one happens) to be more ideological than Justice Alito (whether that is bad or good is up to personal opinion) and have a good chance of getting through. Not good considering the odds are long that all of the more liberal justices may stay on the Court until 2009.
Wait, I'm sure I'll come up with something they gained.......um......there's gotta be something....
2 comments:
Ok. I'll pop the cherry in the comments section here, Mike. Firstly, the site is coming along nicely. Another place for me to spew my brand of conservatism! ;)
Anyway, as to your question. I'm gonna give the Dems some credit here, more than you anyway. I want nothing more out of politics than a Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade. So you know where I'm coming from. I love Alito. But people like Kennedy and Kerry are 180 opposite from me, and perhaps you, in this matter.
I think the answer to your question is that they probably had nothing to gain. But, for once, they stood on principle. The wrong principle - in my opinion. But in this instance I have to say that Kennedy is fighting for what he believes with every tool he has and not worrying about political fallout.
I wish more GOPers did that more often.
Somehow I don't see it for Kerry as much as a stand on principle as much as it is an attempt to make himself relevant for 2008.
Even so, there's is standing on principle, and there is standing on principle without potentially sacrificing other senators within your party who face the voters in November. Anyone with a nay vote will almost certainly face a slew of ads against them focusing solely on that - and probably registering with voters to turn them out.
Post a Comment