Kennedy wasn't mentioned much in your blurb. He is as involved with this filibuster as Kerry is.

In addition it seems that this last ditch effort by democrats is rapidly losing steam and simply will not amount to much. They are having a very difficult time gathering party support for the said filibuster and at this point they need nearly the entire democratic senate to stand in unison. This is obviously not going to happen.

An agreement yesterday to schedule the final roll call for Jan. 31 came as Democrats led by Massachusetts Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry forced leaders to schedule a separate vote a day earlier to stop debate on Alito's nomination to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Democrats acknowledged that the filibuster was doomed to fail.

You can find a 57 minute old update to the scenario at

bloomberg.com.

[Edited on Jan 27, 2006 2:14PM]

For some reason...this makes the Democratic party look worse in my eyes.

Probably because the only thing this could accomplish is having the republican government use it as an excuse to change the rules on filibusters. There is no chance of them blocking him because not nearly enough voters actually give a shit who is on the supreme court.
Plus it comes of as whining.

[Edited on Jan 27, 2006 by MrStitches]

No reason to have a well planned out strategy; let's just throw something half-assed together at the last minute. As Will Rogers said "I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

Gee instead of fighting loosing battles which only panders to the hardcord left base. How about comming up with sensible plans and laws that have a chance of getting passed?

Kerry needs to stop whining. The precedent is pretty much set, as long as the guy's not a raving lunatic the White House has pretty much carte blanche on who gets put on the Supreme Court. And Bush's choice, although a wingnut, is incredibly qualified for the position. If he had won he could've put whoever he wanted on there, but he didn't. To the victor goes the spoils, as they say.

Also, it's not a monumental shift in the Supreme Court. The two recent apointees are roughly the same on the political spectrum as the last two deaths/retirees.

Well, Rehnquist and Roberts are generally equal. But Alito's rigid, textualist style of jurisprudence is drastically different than O'Connor's preference for balancing tests and reasonable interpretations. Alito and O'Connor's actual politics may not be that drastically different, but his appointment would relatively dramatically change the methodology the Court uses to form their opinions.

I don't mind the filibuster; it's the cluster-fuck way it's being put together. If you take a look at polling numbers (granted they can't always be trusted but they're all we got) the majority of the people polled were against Alito if his appointment resulted in overturning Roe v Wade and the majority was also in favor of appointing an independent counsel to investigate Bush's spying program whereas Alito seems to be for giving the Executive branch carte blanche to do whatever they want. Filibustering Alito wouldn't necessarily have been a political loser if the Dems had gotten their shit together but this last minute effort by the gang that couldn't shoot straight is doomed.

Well if that is the truth then that is still be a better act of defiance.

[Edited on Jan 27, 2006 by hadees]

Actually, I meant Rehnquist was similar to Alito, and Roberts was similar to O'Connor.

Honestly, I think Dems in congress are having trouble putting together an opposition to Alito because he's just... not that bad. I consider myself a democrat, though perhaps I'm much more conservative than most who say so. I hate the fundamentalist bent the Republicans have taken and generally dislike them. Even so, I read what Alito had to say in his decisions and found it hard to disagree.

I kind of find myself laughing when people bitch about how he's going to support some restrictions on abortion. I laugh because people claim that this view of his puts him outside the mainstream. Surveys have found consistently that while a large majority of americans back abortion, a large majority also backs restrictions on abortion such as parental notification or even spousal notification. Even New Hampshire, a liberal's liberal sort of place, has a majority on the side of parental notification.

I give Roe v. Wade 2 years and it will be overturned. Wingnuts are already introducing lawsuits in the lower courts in Indiana (and perhaps other states) so they can get the case before the Supreme Court as soon as possible.

Love the fetus, hate the child!

Is it inconceivable to think that the reason there is no legitimate chance of blocking Alito is because there is no compelling reason to block him. Why chalk it up to voter apathy just because you may not agree with Alito's stance?

I don't want to see Roe overturned...but I also don't want to see ultra-conservatives gain a foothold because Dems can't pick a good fight...or come up with too little too late.