I oppose his nomination too.

Last week, I called my Senators, Voinovich and DeWine, both Republicans, to express my worries about the expanding Presidential powers, and how I believe it's the wrong time to confirm a Justice who would expand them further. Voinvich's staff answered my call, listened to my worries, and thanked me for my call. Voinvich is a real class act. My call to Sen. Mike DeWine went straight to voice mail, and the voice mail was full, so I couldn't leave my message. DeWine is going to have trouble come election time. DeWine, pick up your phone! The voices of your voters matter!

And, oh yeah, the nuclear option is a joke. Read my post On Why the Nuclear-Option is Illegal.

"It's our party. We bought it, we paid for it, and we are taking it back."

What else is there to say? Very few Dems, especially in the Senate, are willing to think outside the Moonbat base.

Sticks and stones.

Hey, I have my Senator's numbers on speed dial. If they want a vote, they answer their phone. Else, I just think they are not working. With so much going on Mike DeWine, why are you not at work?

At least in Nebraska we have a class act democrat in Nelson. Of course as long as he has a (d) behind his name I won't vote for him.

My guess is Voinovich and DeWine know Slippy won't vote for them no matter how they vote on Alito. Hell, I call Headline Hagel all the time and complain to his staff. A couple weeks later I get some BS letter thanking me for my input and telling me how Hagel is working hard for Nebraska...he can kiss my @$$.

I hope the dems are stupid enough to filibuster Alito and drive further off the cliff into political oblivion. America saw what a class act Alito was during the hearing and also got to see the classless dems pontificate and bloviate for the cameras.

Can the Republican party be so lucky and have the dems step on another Rovian landmine?

At least in Nebraska we have a class act democrat in Nelson. Of course as long as he has a (d) behind his name I won't vote for him.

Ahh, to be in Nebraska.

My guess is Voinovich and DeWine know Slippy won't vote for them no matter how they vote on Alito. Hell, I call Headline Hagel all the time and complain to his staff. A couple weeks later I get some BS letter thanking me for my input and telling me how Hagel is working hard for Nebraska...he can kiss my @$$.

Yep, no one likes the form letters. Didn't the White House respond to John Murtha, or some other congressman, with a form letter?

I hope the dems are stupid enough to filibuster Alito and drive further off the cliff into political oblivion. America saw what a class act Alito was during the hearing and also got to see the classless dems pontificate and bloviate for the cameras.

I hope the congressman are smart enough to act as a check on the President's ever expanding powers.

Can the Republican party be so lucky and have the dems step on another Rovian landmine?

With any luck, Rove will be in jail soon.

slip,

It can't be illegal - it is just a Senate rule, and per the Constitution, each body of the legislature sets its own rules however it wants...if a majority of Senators want to make it a requirement that you hop on your left leg while addressing the Senate, then that would be the rule and no one outside the Senate can have any say about it.

The super-majority for cloture rule is, indeed, a very old rule and old things should not be changed for light or transient causes...but it is patently absurd for the Demcorats to block approval of nominees who command majority support of the Senat.

Mark,

the nuclear-option, changing the rules with only a simple majority (over 50 votes), is illegal. The rules are in place. What they are saying, is you should be able to change the rules after the fact. Right now, a Senator can speak on an issue as long as he wants. They, and I guess you, are suggesting that while the Senator is speaking that you can stop him from speaking to change the rules. That's not the case. Well, you have to change the rules, before the Senator starts speaking. You can change the rules after the fact. And if you try to change the rules, that will be fillabustered. So, you can't do it with 50 votes. You need to be able to break the fillabuster before you can change the rules. That's 60 votes, and that won't happen.

The Senator that is fillabustering has the floor. No motions can be made until he returns control of the floor to the parlimentairing, unless you get sixty votes. You can't break the fillabuster with fifty votes, and then change the rules. That's the idea behind the nuclear-option, and it is illegal.

But, don't take my word on it. I'm some hick in Ohio. What do I know. The Senate parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, was appointed by Rep. Senator Lott. Mr. Furmin is an ostensibly neutral staff member and appointed keeper of the Senate's rules, and is opposed to the nuclear option. It's been reported that a Congressional Research Service report "leaves little doubt" that the nuclear option would not be based on previous precedents of the Senate.

You can't change the rules durning a fillabuster, unless you stop the fillabuster first. That takes 60 votes. That would be legal, but the nuclear option is the idea that this can be done with a simple majority, or 51 votes (and the VP Dick Cheney would be the tie breaking vote), and that is illegal!

The Democratic pols are doing a good saber-rattling for the left-wing wackos who pay the bills. But, these guys are pros and they will back down short of losing their fillibuster rights. They know better, They also know that they would lose at the polls if they really do pull a fillibuster. They just look and sound stupid to us when they do stuff like this.

if a majority of Senators want to make it a requirement that you hop on your left leg while addressing the Senate, then that would be the rule and no one outside the Senate can have any say about it.

But, lets say that rule change is filibustered. It would not take a majority, but a super-majority to get closure, so the rule change can be voted on. They can do it with over 60 votes, but not 51. The nuclear-option is illegal!

slip,

Once again, stop thinking in terms of legal and illegal - the sole judge of what is proper in the Senate is the Senate, itself...they can, if they are so inclined, require a person to walk ten steps between each word spoken.

You are correct that they can't change the Senate rules while a Senator is speaking, but as soon as he sits down they can do so...and you'll note that none of the filibusters have been actual filibusters: it doesn't work like that anymore (as I found out by talking to Senator Majority Leader Frist a couple weeks ago). If Frist gets wind of a filibuster, he can call for a vote on a rule change any time he wants...and he can postpone debate on Alito until after he's got his rule change.

There's nothing legal or illegal about it - it is just the rules of the Senate.

Now, it'd be nice if we could just keep the rules as they are...but when Democrats are unfairly denying a vote on nominees who would get majority support, that is to violate the spirit of our democratic institutions and it cannot be allowed to stand.

Go ahead, make my day and blow up the Senate. I dare you! Peace

Slip,

BTW - it only takes a simple majority to change the rules of the Senate: a super-majority is required in only two cases in the Senate...

Constitutionally, it is required in order to approve a Constitutional amendment to send it to the States for ratification and....

By mere rule of the Senate, it is required to shut off debate in most, but not all, circumstances.

By nature we conservatives don't like to change things, but you are forcing us to do so...

Karl Rove, you magnificant bastard!! How did you get the dems to consider fillibustering an obviously qualified candidate. Especially after the dems damaged themselves so much during the hearings. I have heard that this would be the best time to use the nuclear option, since numerically the GOP is at its strongest right now.
The dems keep trying to re-win the votes of moveon.org, while alienating the rest of the country.

You are correct that they can't change the Senate rules while a Senator is speaking, but as soon as he sits down they can do so...and you'll note that none of the filibusters have been actual filibusters: it doesn't work like that anymore (as I found out by talking to Senator Majority Leader Frist a couple weeks ago)

Has Bill Frist been indicted yet?

They can do it with 60, not with 50.

slip: holy cow, try posting at daily kos.

Slip, you miss one important point.

Who's going to declare it 'illegal'?

The Judiciary will demur - the Senate's rules are its own business, etc., etc.

And there's a much better argument that filibustering nominees violates the Advise & Consent clause. The underlying assumption of the Founders is that the Senate will take up & vote on nominees. The idea that a minority could prevent the Executive or Judicial branches from being staffed just doesn't fly.

Has Bill Frist been indicted yet?

Way to go, Slippy-Sloppy; did you learn this trick from Bob Bechel, lower DemocRAT strategist? Mark kicks your arse, so you change the subject. You donk-turds are good at this. Accepting defeat is for real men...that leaves you out. As for calling your RINO senators, have at it. They're not counting on your vote anyway. Thay know you're voting for Paul "The Kook" Hackett. What district do you live in? My guess is that your hero is Dennis Kookcinich. Am I right?

slip your vote is worthless in Ohio mine will cancel yours out not to worry I use to be one of you worked with the John Glenn campaigns and supported Metzenbaum and Dick Celeste

That was before Dems became so anti-family, anti-business, anti-military, anti-church, anti-common sense

Mark,

It is good news that the left moves further left as this takes votes away from liberal's with a realistic chance of winning. In economics we call this dilemma Hoetelin's paradox. To win the majority of votes in a US election, both sides will move toward the center in an effort to garner more votes from one another while still retaining their base. This is why it is difficult to sometimes distinguish between the two major presidency platforms on most issues.

Since Kucinich is mentioned above, let me point out that he's an example of someone who will never win a major election because of his socialist ideas. He proposed that there should be no patents for private companies rather they should all be held by the govt. Only fools vote for radicals like this and fortunately, there aren't enough fools to win an election.

Well, Slippy, you've gotten on thing right in this thread. ...4 little words, in a third paragraph..
go fetch!!!!!!!!!

Xango, elaborate, if you would, on what you said to Slippy. I'm game for a laugh.

Slippy, a few typos and a misspelled word here and there are excusable, but come on. Fillabuster? It's "filibuster;" one "l", and no "a." Holy cow...

Xango, elaborate, if you would, on what you said to Slippy. I'm game for a laugh.

Slippy, a few typos and a misspelled word here and there are excusable, but come on. Fillabuster? It's "filibuster;" one "l", and no "a." Holy cow...

Slip,

Honestly, do you have any understanding of the way the Senate works, or what a law is? You're really barking up the wrong tree here..

The senate can only change their rules if they follow their own rules while changing it.

51 is not enough to stop a fill-a-buster on the rules change. They need 60+, or it's more of your CoC (and I'm not talking about the College of Charleston).

Slip,
Ya really think the gang of 14 will go for a filibuster?

Come on, you know Alito is going to get voted out of committee on a party line vote and confirmed in the Senate with 59 or 60 votes. I really don't think the dems of enough ammo and balls to sustain a filibuster. They are talking tough now to keep the moonbat dough rolling in. You are the perfect example of the fringe lefty they are trying to keep hanging on. They will cave and let you down again.

Prepare yourself to lose another battle against the Rovian forces. The American public is behind President Bush and we know Alito is the right kind of judge for the SCOTUS. It becomes even more apparent when a wacko lefty judge in the northeast gives a convicted child rapist only 2 months in jail...prison doesn't work according to the progressive lefty judge. CAUTION...Right Turn Ahead

Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus...Merry Fitzmas Slippy

Honestly, do you have any understanding of the way the Senate works, or what a law is? You're really barking up the wrong tree here..

Mark, his post immediately following your question proves he doesn't know squat, except how to redirect the debate. CoC, Slippy? Do some research, nimrod. Corruption has been around for a while, and doesn't pledge allegiance to any political party.

BTW, I went to your blog and read your weak argument about the Constitutional Option being illegal. You wrote an opinion piece, jerk! And may I add, it was poorly written. Who the hell is "Chaney?"

Disclaimer: I make typos, and I occasionally misspell words. However, I'm not writing a blog, trying to convince people that I know what I'm writing about. Poor writing skills--grammar and spelling--and improper word usage, tend to severely damage the credibility of the writer.

So keep up the good work, Slippy-Dippy--you present your case well...to the kooks at Kos, Digby, and DU.

The Nuclear Option won't be necessary. It's true there's a lot of pressure from extremists on the left, but Alito performed (it's appropriate but ridiculous to use that verb; one shouldn't have to "perform" during a confirmation hearing, but that's what the Dems have degraded judges to doing)quite well and has the top qualifications. Serious opposition will not only fail, but will be potentially deadly in 2006 and 2008 for Dems. Notice the Dems leaning toward confirmation are from Red States.

I agree with Burky. My Senator is a Moderate Dem from a Red State. My Senator did vote to confirm Roberts, so if Judge Alito were to be voted up or down based on qualifications, he would surely be confirmed by my Senator since he is the most qualified nominee in over 70 years, right? We'll see...a vote against Alito by the Senators who voted for Roberts are clearly making this a political game.

Way to go, Slippy-Sloppy; did you learn this trick from Bob Bechel, lower DemocRAT strategist? Mark kicks your arse, so you change the subject. You donk-turds are good at this.

Mark seems to think that the GOP can cart in Dick Cheney and have him say that the fillibuster is illegal, and because Bill Frist says that's ok, that it is legal.

If you could break a fillibuster with only 51 votes, don't you think someone would've done it before now? In fact, it's not really a fillibuster if you can break it with 51 votes, is it?

Mark, I don't think you are keeping good company. Hanging out with the likes of Bill Frist my land you in court one of these days.

Louise – A political game indeed it will be. Judge Alito was approved unanimously in 1990. Now having sat 15 years on the 3rd Circuit Court, lauded by his colleagues and the American Bar Association, how could the same Democratic senators now find so many faults with Supreme Court nominee Judge Altio?

Although I’m from a blue state, it’s reassuring to see both our Republican Senators standing beside Judge Altio.

I will be shocked, yet encouraged and reassured for the overall state of our union, to see any blue state Democrats voting for Judge Alito.