Stump Lane
in the dirt since history began

Here are the Senators who cast meaningless votes against Judge Alito. That is, they voted against his confirmation, but yesterday voted to end the filibuster that would have actually prevented his confirmation*. (In other words, they voted for his confirmation before they voted against it.)

1. Akaka, HI
2. Baucus, MT
3. Bingaman, NM
4. Cantwell, WA
5. Carper, DE
6. Dorgan, ND
7. Inouye, HI
8. Kohl, WI
9. Landrieu, LA
10. Lieberman, CT
11. Lincoln, AR
12. Nelson, FL
13. Pryor, AR
14. Rockefeller, WV
15. Salazar, CO
16. Chafee, RI (R)

That’s sixteen names!

There were twenty-five “no” votes yesterday against invoking cloture (i.e. in support of the filibuster.) If these sixteen had had the courage of their convictions and done likewise, there would have been forty-one votes needed to keep debate open (and without the need to count the two Senators that didn’t vote on the filibuster at all!)

You sixteen are now responsible for every 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court where Alito is in the majority.

Seattle Post Intelligencer: Senate Vote: Alito nomination

*Edit: Maybe not. It would have forced the Republicans to consider resorting to the “nuclear option” to break the impasse. Or at the very least, it would have created a delay in which… aww, fuck it. It doesn’t matter now anyhow.

PS: Your Montag knows this ain’t funny. For now, let me brood. I’ll hatch a joke later.

Shamelessly borrowing (and butchering) lines out of ODB‘s Baby C’mon:

Thinkin’ are they really raw as they said they’d be?
If they weren’t really raw, down on the Senate floor
We’d be like aawwwh! They ain’t hardcore!

(And we are.)

Later today, a list of Senators— to be blamed and shamed —who sold out the Constitution for incomprehensible political reasons.

To the twenty-five who voted “no” to ending the debate, Your Montag comends your decision, though the world may never realize the depth of the courage your actions would have required had the effort been successful.

Washington Post: Roll Call of the Cloture Vote

i think
i think i am
therefore i am
i think

of course you are
my bright little star
i’ve miles and miles of files
pretty files
of your forefather’s fruit
and now to suit
our great computer
you’re magnetic ink

i’m more than that
i know i am
at least, i think i must be

there you go man
keep as cool as you can
face piles of trials with smiles
it riles them to believe
that you perceive
the web they weave
and keep on thinking free

The Moody Blues — In The Beginning

John Kerry obviously reads this blog and was swayed by Your Montag’s moving exhortation yesterday to invoke the puklear option and actually do something about the constitutional crisis we’re facing. So this post is made special, just for you, Senator.

Your Montag supports your efforts, Senator, to filibuster the Alito Supreme Court Nomination. Though I’m slightly disheartened that the leader of this charge is the same guy who once vowed not to concede the presidential election until all the votes had been counted, but quickly gave up the ghost saying:

“I would not give up this fight if there was a chance we could prevail. . . . There won’t be enough outstanding votes for us to be able to win Ohio, and therefore we cannot win this election.”

I am even more disheartened by the response, (the inexplicable, reflexive back-knifing response,) your filibuster effort has gotten from other Senate Democrats.

Minority Leader Harry Reid:

“No one can complain on this matter that there hasn’t been sufficient time to talk about Judge Alito, pro and con. . . . I hope that this matter will be resolved without too much more talking.”
[Kerry Urges Alito Filibuster, but His Reception Is Cool]

Yeah. That’s real nice.

Go for it, Senator Kerry. Don’t let us down again. Go for it even if there aren’t enough votes to prevail. Go for it to let the record show which Senators lack the courage of their convictions.

Haven’t done one of these in a while…

Bush Confident Warrantless Wiretaps Legal

President Bush again defended his program of warrantless surveillance Thursday, saying “there’s no doubt in my mind it is legal.” [Emphasis added.]

This is No Doubt. But this is not what OFFAL is talking about when he says “no doubt.” No. He isn’t talking about an American alternative rock band whose music was initially influenced heavily by ska, punk and New Wave [Wikipedia.]
No. He means something else altogether. He must. “No doubt” is no uncertain term. But there is a good deal of uncertainty surrounding the issue of the legality of warrantless surveillance. (You know, if you really think about it.)

Let’s try and draw a bead on what OFFAL was driving at when he said “no doubt.” (And, just for grins, let’s not type “no doubt” again. We’ll go for a children’s picture book feel.)

When else have our leaders been able to present their case with such certainty?

“There can be at all that those weapons existed, absolutely because that is said not just by this government or the United States government, it was set out in detail over 12 years by the United Nations and by United Nations inspectors.” —Blair

“There is that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.” —General Tommy Franks

“Before the war, there’s in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical.” —General Michael Hagee

“Simply stated, there is that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” —Dick

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” —OFFAL

“And even though we have in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological and nuclear — I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful.” —Colin Powell

Oops. Forget the last part of that last one, that Powell character never was quite on the right page, was he?

Whatever became of all that pre-war lack of doubt, anyways?

[Continued...] (more…)

Alternate title: The Puklear Option

[Don't despair, Democrats. Read on. We'll bring it all home with a pep-talk in the last three paragraphs. Promise.]

From The Raw Story an article about the pending Alito confirmation, Democrats break silence on Alito: Filibuster unlikely, frustration high

[A] longtime aide to a senator on the Judiciary Committee said Democrats feel they simply can’t win and are looking to focus their energy elsewhere.

“I think that people kind of saw the writing on the wall, and that [opposition to Alito] doesn’t have a lot of energy. Oddly the whole hearing in the aftermath of [John] Roberts and [Harriet] Miers — everybody thought it was going to be the big enchilada because of the stakes, replacing a moderate rather than a conservative.” [Emphasis added.]

“Thought it was going to be”? Is it not? What’d I miss?

“I guess nobody anticipated the dynamic. This has kind of sputtered out, and I think the Democrats are like, ‘Look, Is this the issue that we want to dominate the news, our attempt to present ourselves to the American public.’ I think that Democrats think that if there was a filibuster, if this thing went on for a few months, in the end we wouldn’t win… [and] there are so many other things where we could take advantage of our strength relative to the Republicans here.” [Again, emphasis added.]

Nobody anticipated ‘the dynamic’ because the Democrats failed to place the proper emphasis on ‘the dynamic’ in the hearings. Your Montag sensed that ‘the dynamic’ was ‘sputtering out’ when I heard the palpable lack of vigor in the examination of the Judge’s dissents.

Yes. It’s the ages-old story of Democrats Can’t Get it Done in Supreme Court Nomination Hearings. We saw the same thing in the Robert’s hearings, when the milquetoasts were forced— by their own ineffectiveness —to cut and run; supposedly to save their ammunition for the then upcoming debate over Justice O’Connor’s seat.

Well that debate has come and it seems there is a new twist on that ages-old story. It seems it is actually a tale of Democrats Can’t Get it Done in Supreme Court Nomination Hearings No Matter How Significant a Constitutional Crisis May Result.

If they are not going to fight now, then when? Today a New York Times editorial entitled, “Senators in Need of a Spine,” in its infinite wisdom, points out:

It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public’s attention to the import of this nomination.

Look. It seems to Your Montag that The People are ready and eager to get behind somebody. Especially if that somebody won’t continue fucking up everything in sight, including the very structure of our democracy. Dang, the group that’s running the show now is like the King Midas of shit. But all this stuff going on, you can fight against wrapped in the flag and reading from the Constitution. It’s a no-brainer!

Fuck. Snarl this motherfucker up for a while! Filibuster (walk) and go to town on the NSA data mining and wiretapping issue (chew gum.) Meanwhile, the party can work the Clusterfuck of Corruption in the House.

The sun ain’t gonna just shine on you, Democrats, so you’re gonna have to make hay any way you can. With body blows to the stomachs of the pigs that ate all the hay in the first place, for instance. Make ‘em puke . . . Puke ‘em . . . It’s the Puklear Option! (See what I did there? . . . I slay me.)

Constitution for the United States of America
Bill of Rights
Article the sixth [Amendment IV]

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.

Now see this: Defending Spy Program, General Reveals Shaky Grip on 4th Amendment

Regards: Proof Through the Night

Well, the title just about says it all. But this picture from the New York Times has something to add:

Given the care our rulers always take in presenting their message— think of backdrops declaring things like “Securing Our Economic Future” or “Moving America Forward” or “Protecting the Homeland” or “Mission Accomplished” —I think it is safe to say that this was not the image they were going for yesterday. [Note: the backdrop behind Gonzales says simply, "Georgetown Law Forum"]

This is what the AG had to say: Prepared Remarks for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales at the Georgetown University Law Center (01-24-06)

I am writing this letter in opposition of the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. While I am concerned with the fact that his record betrays an extremely narrow interpretation of the laws intended to protect working people; of graver concern are his attitudes about Executive power. The views he has expressed in this area, on the record, are frankly beyond the pale. In my view, a vote to confirm Judge Alito will also be a vote that marginalizes the Legislative branch— that’s you! —and contributes to the erosion of the separation of powers and the checks and balances required for just governance.

On the issue of workers rights, I understand you have received the AFL-CIO’s review of Judge Alito’s record. I trust that you have reviewed this information and are aware of the concerns. I will just echo what AFL-CIO President John Sweeny wrote in his letter to you: that Alito has shown “a disturbing tendency to take an extremely narrow and restrictive view of laws that protect workers’ rights.”

Alito himself is on the record with his views of executive power. He has espoused the “theory of the Unitary Executive,” (i.e.: extreme deference to the executive branch); he has supported absolute immunity for government officials in cases involving illegal wiretaps and warrantless FBI video surveillance; and, he has supported the use of Presidential “signing statements” to dictate the interpretation of laws with disregard to Congressional intent.

These issues cut to the core of the lives of American working people, and threaten the very nature of our democracy. They are of such importance I strongly urge you to vote against the Alito nomination. Furthermore, I would view a failure to vote to sustain a filibuster— if there should be one —as an affront to our democratic traditions; and a vote in favor of the so-called “nuclear option” to kill a filibuster as a hostile attack on the foundations of our democracy, and ultimately, the voice of The People in government.

I will appreciate a response from you in this matter; most importantly regarding your views on the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the “nuclear option.” Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Your Constituent Montag