From Democrats.com....Fertik's angry rant the day after the Alito "betrayal".

I find it amazing that so many here are saying oh, be careful, don't look back, stop talking about the Democrats who voted against our country that day. Fertik puts it very well.

The Alito Betrayal



Here are the 19 who voted for cloture...which they voted for knowing if it passed Alito would be the new justice.



He was right. We are seeing the fruition now.

the common folk that they can't even fathom the ill that these two ractionaries can do to our country for the next 30-40 years...

He voted for the bankruptcy bill.
He was in on this gem.
He was a big fan of Gonzales.

The guy is a joke.

They have a lot of money at risk...

And that, I am sure, goes into more and more decision making in Congress, especially the Senate...

What decisions, driven by "wealth", do you think Coors, his opponent, would have made?

The Coors family is one of the wealthiest in the nation...

Salazar's decisions are most likely based on the idea that Colorado, despite trending blue, is still a pretty damn conservative place.

Just sayin'....

Also, and I've asked this before: while I wish like hell we didn't have Alito or Roberts on the court (or Scalia or Thomas for that matter), had the Democrats filibustered, who would've been an acceptable choice? Someone who a Democratic President would have nominated? That's not realistic.

My point is that the way to keep ideologues with whom you disagree off the court is to make sure someone with whom you agree is making the nomination. Which is another way of saying -- vote for whoever runs for president as the Democratic nominee, even if its not the Democratic candidate that you prefer.

No more of the it's ok if its done in a Bush state. No more.

Ranting certainly advances the discussion. Thanks.

If * won't supply a nominee who isn't a troglodyte, then just leave the seat open. There's no requirement that the court have nine justices to operate.

I'm sure you'll say that's not realistic, but think what the Rethugs would have done if Clinton had nominated someone as extreme from the left. That nominee would have never gotten a vote. And every one of those Rethug Senators would have gained in popularity because of their actions.

So why can't the Democrats do the same? Why is it that whenever our side is called on to fight, they start looking for "common ground' and "bipartisanship"?

And then the pugs simply invoke the nuclear option, change the Senate rules and confirm Alito on a simple majority.

Everybody overlooks what the D's in the Senate knew was going to happen anyway.

but..but.. then they'd use the nuclear option.

I swear, that sort of "argument" smacks of something you'd hear from someone in an abusive relationship.

Please rationally explain to me how the Democrats in the Senate could have done anything about those confirmations?

They didn't hold a majority in the Judiciary committee. They didn't hold a majority in the Senate overall. They didn't hold the Presidency to nimonate someone else.....

On top of that, (and most importantly), if pressured, the pugs simply change the Senate rules as they relate to Judicial nominations and make it a simple majority for cloture...Boom...done deal...

What was your grand plan genious?

It's called not being bullied. Not being weak. Not being some stockholm-syndrome abused spouse version of a congressional representative.

And, by the way, "genius", where would we be now if the Rethugs had invoked the nuclear -- sorry, nookular -- option? You do know who holds the majority in the Senate, don't you?

Leave the seat open. Just like the Rethugs did to 60 or so Clinton nominees.

If the pugs had invoked the nookular option, then we would have Alito just as we do now...No difference..

EXCEPT that...

All future Judicial nominees would immediately pass muster, (once out of committee and no matter what party), with a 51 vote margin instead of a 60 vote cloture vote.

Bad for us then, not an issue for us now.

Leave the seat open? Hahahahahahaaaaaa...Like the pugs are gonna "leave the seat open" with a pug Senate, (at the time), a pug House and a pug Presidency?

Get friggin real...

So you're telling me that, in your mind, there's no difference between standing on principle and losing and just caving in without a fight.

Congratulations, you're the core constituency for the Congressional Spineless Caucus.

Yes, I will admit there is one difference...

The way it is now, it takes a 60 vote cloture to stop debate and move for a vote. If the nookular option had been pressed into action by the pugs, (and it would have if the Senate Dems had pushed for a filibuster), then we would be left with a 51 vote confirmation and no debate EVER.

Standing on principle only works when you have some semblance of an upper hand. We didn't have it.

If you want good Supreme Court Justices, then you had better RESOUNDINGLY elect a Democratic President, not one that cannot carry his home state and has to rely on dimpled chads in another state.

Unless you mean - extremely corrupt states where anything goes - stealing elections, betraying constituents, etc.

Here is the 1986 memo, 6 pages

http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/accession-060-89-269/Acc060-89-269-box6-SG-LSWG-AlitotoLSWG-Feb1986.pdf

"SUBJ: Using Presidential Signing Statement to Make
Fuller Use of the President's Constitutionally
Assigned Role in the Process of Enacting Law.

At our last meeting, I was asked to draft a preliminary
proposal for implementing the idea of making fuller use of Presidential
signing statements. This memorandum is a rough first
effort in that direction.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/12/24/alito_backed_immunity_in_wiretap_case/?page=2

snip, from bottom of page

"But the release also included a six-page memo written by Alito to the working group dated Feb. 6, 1986.

Alito proposed a ''pilot program" to have Reagan issue ''signing statements" laying out the president's interpretation of legislation he signs into law.

When asked to interpret ambiguous laws, judges often look to its history, such as statements by Congress about the legislation.

Alito said that putting the president's interpretation of the law on record would ''increase the power of the executive to shape the law."

I had not seen that.

ask Alito about this, especially when signing statements were being used more often.

Don't forget that one.

They get us cause they use fear: the republicans will get ya if you don't vote for us!

There's no excuse for the members from HI, WVA (neither is really threatened) or Cantwell. That's all that needed.

They all claimed he was so competent - when the contrary was starig us in the eyes. Not unlike the starting of the war...

Google "nuclear option"...

That was the next step for the pugs if this had not been dealt with in a bipartisan manner.

In other words, you can lose with grace or you can lose with your face in the dirt with a bloody nose.

Either way you lose..

And if the nuclear option were invoked, that would mean a simple 51 vote majority would always be confirmed.

Another word for "collapse like a wet noodle". A little dirt and blood never hurt anyone, especially if it earns you respect. Our problem is that many of the Dems have gotten so good at "losing with grace" that they've forgotten how to win.

Don Quioxite?

Earning respect means nothing when you lose the war because of it.

And in politics, respect means a lot. You keep saying that the way to solve this is to resoundingly elect a Democratic president. How, exactly, do you see that happening if most of the country sees Democrats as weak?

base, completely for granted.

Well... not all, but some. And, boy, are they in for a rude shock.

transformed things for democrats -- obsessed with not being labelled by the republick party -- they will vote against their own interests and that of the people.

Not.

Every single one of the people on this list should be voted out of office next time they're running.

Get some new blood in who will remember who they work for. For a change.

Send these people packing. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

They're a relatively small, fairly unrepresentative subset of it. Tens of millions of people vote Democratic every year; there are at most hundreds of thousands of those who qualify as "netroots".

What Fertik overlooks - either accidentally or deliberately - is that the result of an attempted filibuster would not have been to prevent Alito's confirmation, but merely to force the Republicans to use the nuclear option.

Choosing not to filibuster may have been poor tactics, but all it cost the Democrats was votes, not a chance of preventing Alito's confirmation. Talking about "a stab in the back" is just silly, though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1209223#1210294

They did stab us in the back - and are directly guilty of what's going on now. Thanks for the individual names reminder!

Especially with his jaded past, this ruling of desegregation does not bode well for him, especially since he will be forever blamed because he was part of the Schmoley 19.

If you doubt that, just look at what the base was unable to accomplish with Joe Liberman. Try as they might, they couldn't oust a Senator from the true blue state of Connecticut. If the base can't even get their way in Connecticut, who thinks they can impose their will on the redder parts of the country?

So we did have success in the primary until Holy Joe made up his own party and got Republican support and centrist Dems support who wanted to continue in Iraq.

As soon as he voted for scalito, I called his office & let the shit hit the fan. I called before the vote as well. I also told them I wish someone would run against him in a primary, so I could help send old herb packin'.

I've been out of WI politics for too long. Who are the candidates who could take on Kohl?

for them! That worked so well back in 2000! Maybe we can help get us another right wing whacko Republican in office! That'll show 'em!