Fox News reports:
To more effectively oppose Supreme Court nominees in the future, Democrats need to convince the public “their values are at stake” rather than use stalling tactics to try to thwart the president, said a senator who opposes Samuel Alito’s confirmation.
“We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that, if we’re going to oppose a nominee that we’ve got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake,” Obama said….
“There is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers,” he told ABC’s “This Week.”…
“There’s one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values. And that’s to win elections,” Obama said.
When you have filibusters being called from a Senator not even in the Senate at the time, but in Switzerland, you realize that Democrats see the filibuster not as a tool to be used in rare circumstances, but as one of any other tool to enforce their ‘no to everything’ party platform.
Hi HP - In fact, if we believe that our country rests on separation of powers and that the executive branch is not the imperial presidency with unchecked powers, then our values are truly at stake with Alito’s ascendancy to the Supreme Court.
I respect your concerns, but Republicans had very valid concerns when Democrats nominated Ginsberg and Breyer, yet we didn’t filibuster them.
All Republicans want is the same respect.
If it got to that point, should republicans have fillibustered Miers?
Miers was not qualified, that is not the case with Alito, or Ginsberg, or Breyer.
WHy didnt Miers get a “fair” up or down vote?
Because she should have never been nominated in the first place, she was not qualified. Qualified is something not in question with Alito, Ginsberg, and Breyer.
The truth is conservatives were unsure of her politics and didn’t want to chance it. She was qualified. It was a case of the Conservative element of society politicizing the judicial branch of government.
No, actually, if you read the conservative arguments against her, we were more sure of her politics than about her legal qualifications.
Clearly Bush wasn’t going to nominate someone who he has known for more than 20 years, who works in his inner circle, and who continues to be a close friend, if he wasn’t atleast sure of how she would vote. It’s the qualifications, and her standing in the legal community, that was most at issue.
I tend to think, yes she was qualified, but not ready and not really wanted. I think the Pressident was making a point that you want a woman to replace a woman? here you go. Any qualified woman can fill that bill. If you want a justice then I can do that too. I think he knew she would not go to hearing. I think he knew the end result.
The President has been underestimated time and time again. This NSA thing is a perfect example of that. Alberto Gonzales would have been agreat pick but his job as AG has yet to get off the ground. The President needed him where he is. Hell we need him where he is.