« Help a Technical Virgin! | Main | Jonah "Da Pretzel" »

July 30, 2006

The Alito Reality

By Neil the Ethical Werewolf

Dan Gerstein thinks that we shouldn't blame Lieberman for not voting to filibuster Alito.  Matt Yglesias partly agrees.  I don't agree at all. 

I'm not buying Gerstein's claim that a Lieberman filibuster vote would've triggered the nuclear option.  See Mark Schmitt on November 1:

But to pull off the Nuclear Option banning filibusters on judicial nominations will still require an extraordinary exercise of leadership and party discipline to force Senators to do something many of them don't want to do. Frist couldn't quite pull it off five months ago, he sure can't do it now... the prospect of a "final showdown" in which Alito is confirmed by the Nuclear tactic is just not going to happen in a Senate effectively run by Harry Reid.

And here's the real question: If something happens to Justice Stevens, and Roe is on the line, will Joe Lieberman vote to filibuster? Will he rally other Senators to his side? Will he do some good partisan bashing to define an anti-Roe nominee as an extremist? Given Joe's bipartisan tendencies, I don't know. His cloture vote suggests that he might not fight, though nobody knows what to read into that. But while Lieberman leaves you with uncertainty, I'm pretty sure that Ned "I would have led the opposition to the nomination of Judge Alito" Lamont will be right where we need him from day 1.

July 30, 2006 | Permalink

Comments

How would the nuclear option have been worse than what actually happened? What's the point of having the theoretical option of a filibuster if you can't use it? Furthermore, if the Republicans actually did use the nuclear option, not only would the immediate situation have been no worse than what actually happened, but a long-term precedent might have worked in our favor. When we get a majority back and the Republicans try to filibuster, say, universal health care, we then have the ability to steamroll them on that.

Posted by: Firebug | Jul 30, 2006 11:29:08 AM

Bring on the nuclear option. It is not clear the Rethugs could have got it passed in the first place; there are a few Republicans with some conscience left. And some day there will be a Democratic president with a Democratic Senate. You just make sure the Republicans understand what is going to happen then.

In any case, as Firebug said, what is the use of having the filibuster if you're never going to use it? Alito was a good case for it. The failure to filibuster Alito means the next nominee is going to be even more extreme (assuming they can find one more extreme than Alito).

Posted by: shargash | Jul 30, 2006 12:21:22 PM

There are judges more extreme than Alito available; Janice Rogers Brown is completely insane. Ayn Rand mania with an interest in overturning the New Deal.

The Republicans wanted to only do away with judicial filibusters, not legislative filibusters. But it's not clear why we'd let them limit the scope of their rule-breaking. We probably could just say, "hey, you guys blew away all filibusters by breaking that rule back then" and then pass Universal Health Care.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 30, 2006 2:48:37 PM

I think Lieberman is a douchebag - although I'd vote for him in the primary were I a Nutmegger for some slightly complex reasons. I think Alito should have been filibustered for reasons both substantive and political. And finally, I think the filibuster in general is an obstacle for progressives, and getting rid of it would be a good thing, even during Republican control of the government.

There are many legitimate cases to make against Lieberman, but much like saying he was acting to hurt Clinton during l'affair Lewinsky, this is a false rap.

The decision to pursue a Gang of 14 type deal was made by leadership. Specifically, it was made in Harry Reid's office. I think it was the wrong decision, but Lieberman was acting as a good Democratic soldier in trying to carry it out.

Like I said, there are plenty of legitimate ways to slam Lieberman without resorting to the kind of ex post facto rationales the Daily Koses of the world employ as their rhetorical staple.

Posted by: Petey | Jul 30, 2006 4:56:37 PM

The decision to pursue a Gang of 14 type deal was made by leadership. Specifically, it was made in Harry Reid's office.

Let's see someone from Reid's office saying that, not just speculation that just happens to back up Petey's own adherence to the center-right DC cocktail circuit consensus.

I think it was the wrong decision, but Lieberman was acting as a good Democratic soldier in trying to carry it out.

Wait, I thought Lieberman prided himself on his independence from the party and adherence to principle? And now suddenly he's a good soldier? And Petey says that Kos is guilty of ex post facto rationalizing?

Wow.

Posted by: paperwight | Jul 30, 2006 5:00:40 PM

Lieberman's problem (aside from being a neocon) is that, like David Brooks, he confuses personal moderation and non-partisanship with political moderation and centrism. He doesn't ultimately want to stop a John Roberts or Sam Alito because each has all the characteristics he counts as hallmarks of good and decent centrists: politeness, good educational backgrounds, an ability to get along personally with Dems, etc. As long as you're that kind of a Republican, your political philosophy can be as far to the right as you want, and Lieberman will consider you a moderate. I suppose his problem isn't as bad as that of David Brooks, who has convinced himself that he's a moderate. But that's pretty faint praise.

But, seriously, who cares? Even if Lieberman wins the primary, he's been publicly scared. That's what matters, both for Lieberman, and for other Democratic politicians. It will be more fun if Lieberman loses, though: think of all of the potential Dem presidential candidates trying to make their bones with the part of the party that feels betrayed by campaigning against Lieberman. Good times, good times.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jul 30, 2006 5:31:50 PM

Lieberman's problem (aside from being a neocon) is that, like David Brooks, he confuses personal moderation and non-partisanship with political moderation and centrism. He doesn't ultimately want to stop a John Roberts or Sam Alito because each has all the characteristics he counts as hallmarks of good and decent centrists: politeness, good educational backgrounds, an ability to get along personally with Dems, etc. As long as you're that kind of a Republican, your political philosophy can be as far to the right as you want, and Lieberman will consider you a moderate.

This problem is not just Lieberman's. The media has internalized this narrative, as have a lot of other folks. I call it the Krikkiter / Vogon problem.

Posted by: paperwight | Jul 30, 2006 6:11:20 PM

Yeah, I hope that if Lieberman does come out on top in November (not what I want) that he has had a good scare put into him. A little more listening to his constituents and a little less moral preening would be nice. Unfortunately he could go in the completely opposite direction and decide that he doesn't need liberal support to survive and become even more "bipartisan".

Posted by: Col Bat Guano | Jul 30, 2006 6:12:30 PM

I haven't seen any evidence that Reid was involved in Gang of 14 planning.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 30, 2006 6:17:40 PM

I should also mention that I'm excited to see Petey say that there were good political reasons to filibuster Alito. (I agree; it's just not the opinion I would've expected.)

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 30, 2006 6:18:56 PM

Its clear to me that the Repubs DID have hte votes for a nuclear option if Alito had been bustered.

The only repubs who didnt initially support the nuclear option joined with a few democrats to support a compromise, stating that bustering is still an acceptable tactic, but ONLY if its an "extreme" candidate.

But those same repubs, when alito vote drew near, also made a public statement claiming that in their view, alito was NOT "extreme" enough to justify a buster and they clearly stated that they would vote to exercise the nuclear option if the dems bustered him.

Given that public statement by the only repubs riding on the fence regarding the nuclear option, its crystal clear to me that if alito had been bustered, the repubs would have been successful with the nuclear tactic.

Maybe the dems should have bustered anyways, just to force the repubs hand to use the nuclear option. But its a foregone conclusion that the repubs did in fact have the votes to use it.

Posted by: joe blow | Jul 30, 2006 9:18:54 PM

Excellent post Neil.

Posted by: Armando | Jul 31, 2006 1:09:54 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.