Viewing By Entry / Main
Jan 31, 2006
OT: Alito Roll-Call
I generally stay away from politics on this blog, but it has always been something I am passionate about and thus I cannot help speaking on it occassionally. Yesterday, the Senate voted to end debate on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, effectively ensuring his nomination will succeed. Most Democrats have come out in opposition to the nomination, however the vote to end debate included 19 Democrats. This stikes me as playing both sides of the table. These same Democrats are likely to tout their "no" vote in the upcoming mid-term elections, banking on that you are not aware of their vote to end debate and its significance. So, in doing my part, here are a list of names of Democrats who voted in favor of Alito's nomination by choosing to end debate:
Arkansas - Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes
Colorado - Salazar (D) Yes
Connecticut - Lieberman (D) Yes
Delaware - Carper (D) Yes
Florida - Nelson (D) Yes
Hawaii - Akaka (D) Yes; Inouye (D) Yes
Iowa - Harkin (D) Not Voting
Louisiana - Landrieu (D) Yes
Montana - Baucus (D) Yes
Nebraska - Nelson (D) Yes
New Mexico - Bingaman (D) Yes
North Dakota - Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes
South Dakota - Johnson (D) Yes
Washington - Cantwell (D) Yes
West Virginia - Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) Yes
Wisconsin - Kohl (D) Yes
Comments
While many senators did have reservations with Alito I don't think you can use the simple fact that they voted for cloture to be fully telling of the circumstances.
Allito had substantial backing and more than enough support in general to overcome a fillibuster. The "problem" with a fillbuster on Alito is based in the "Gang of 14" - had they never made the pledge to not fillibuster unless "there are extraordinary circumstances" pretty much paved the way for any nominee who could answer all the questions in a vanilla enough fashion.
However, I think the problem goes even further back to Frist and his threat to do away with judicial filibusters. That guy bullied everyone. That is the real issue whose cost we will be paying for a very long time. (perhaps by having Alito on the Bench).
Allito had substantial backing and more than enough support in general to overcome a fillibuster. The "problem" with a fillbuster on Alito is based in the "Gang of 14" - had they never made the pledge to not fillibuster unless "there are extraordinary circumstances" pretty much paved the way for any nominee who could answer all the questions in a vanilla enough fashion.
However, I think the problem goes even further back to Frist and his threat to do away with judicial filibusters. That guy bullied everyone. That is the real issue whose cost we will be paying for a very long time. (perhaps by having Alito on the Bench).
Agreed that the Gang of 14 is a problem in that it really isn't clear under what circumstances they all agree permit a filibuster (and why save it if it cannot be used?). Democrats alone had enough votes to sustain a filibuster, which is why I am willing to call these people out. I would welcome seeing Frist have to try to follow through on his threats (I think it has a huge potential to backfire) and personally believe that Gang of 14 deal was a tactical error. Nonetheless, my point here is that you cannot vote for cloture and at the same time claim you stood up to the Alito nomination regardless of whether the whether the attempt was ultimately successful.
Thanks for the list of responsible Democrats. It seems the others are way out of the mainstream.
Thanks for posting this. It's been almost impossible to find the list of these cowards. I only hope that the true Democrats in this country - the ones who actually believe in a woman's right to choose and who believe in checks and balances will remember these names when they come up for re-election and send them packing, to be replaced by true Democrats.
Rob the list is going around pretty rapidly. I'm not sure I agree with your definition of a "real democrat" but one site that you might find interesting is: http://www.democrats.com/ I don't think it is associated directly with the Democratic Party but it does focus on issues concerning democrats and gives a good rundown of the Gang of 14 and this collection of Democrats.
In the end though I don't think either of those issues defines a true Democrat. I think most people who have seen Byrd's record in West Virginia would agree he is a democrat who is constantly keeping his states interests in mind. Just drive through WV and see how much of it has been named for him because he managed to get the pork for his constituants. However, he voted for Alito. Not only did he vote for cloture but he voted to confirm him as well. For all due purposes it seems that Byrd thinks Alito is a fine candidate.
I'm not trying to defend him - I am just using him as an illustration of a point. I think saying in order to be a true democrat you have to stand for the two ideals Rob mentioned is a bit black and white.
I'd say a truer measure of the two parties is which is more overt in wooing coorporate backing. But maybe that's just the cynic in me.
In the end though I don't think either of those issues defines a true Democrat. I think most people who have seen Byrd's record in West Virginia would agree he is a democrat who is constantly keeping his states interests in mind. Just drive through WV and see how much of it has been named for him because he managed to get the pork for his constituants. However, he voted for Alito. Not only did he vote for cloture but he voted to confirm him as well. For all due purposes it seems that Byrd thinks Alito is a fine candidate.
I'm not trying to defend him - I am just using him as an illustration of a point. I think saying in order to be a true democrat you have to stand for the two ideals Rob mentioned is a bit black and white.
I'd say a truer measure of the two parties is which is more overt in wooing coorporate backing. But maybe that's just the cynic in me.
I too am glad that there are some honest democrats out there in the world today that believe enough in the system to not just sit on their hands and try to filibuster the whole process. Congress is supposed to vote on things and it isn't the minorities responsibility in Congress to pitch a fit if they don't get their way all the time.
There were republicans that actually voted against the nomination as well, so I guess the idiocy isn't entirely limited to the democrats.
There were republicans that actually voted against the nomination as well, so I guess the idiocy isn't entirely limited to the democrats.
I am not even sure how to respond to that Jeff, it is so totally misinformed that it...ugh.
"Congress is supposed to vote on things and it isn't the minorities responsibility in Congress to pitch a fit if they don't get their way all the time."
That statement suggests you may want to return to your high school civics textbook. Really, I am fine if you state that you support the nomination (as some have in previous comments), but don't use your ignorance of how the Senate actually works as a defense.
"Congress is supposed to vote on things and it isn't the minorities responsibility in Congress to pitch a fit if they don't get their way all the time."
That statement suggests you may want to return to your high school civics textbook. Really, I am fine if you state that you support the nomination (as some have in previous comments), but don't use your ignorance of how the Senate actually works as a defense.
I was just stating my opinion. I know that it takes majority of the senate to approve a nominee, but the minority groups can use a filibuster to block the passage of the motion. The core of the democrats were threatening a filibuster on the subject. Like I said, the Senate is supposed to approve nominees by a majority of the vote and I don't think it is the right of those in the minority to try and block that vote by using a filibuster. There should be an up or a down vote after the debate and that is it.