Democrats have suggested that they'll be holding up the committee vote on Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination for a week, as apparently they are allowed to do by the rules. Not the hearings, which will start shortly, but the vote itself, which committee chairman Sen. Arlen Spector had hoped to hold on January 17.
I'm having a hard time understanding the advantage of being seen as even more obstructionist, particularly when such obstructionism has become futile. Polls show the American people support the confirmation of Alito, and the ABA recently submitted a letter rating him "well qualified" for the position. That was nearly unanimous, with only one recusal from the vote.
And there's this:
The Supreme Court is in recess until Feb. 21.
So they're not even going to keep him from any of the Supreme Court's remaining work in this session. There can only be one reason they've started to move the chess pieces: they think they'll be able to maintain a filibuster, and want to force Sen. Frist to the "Byrd" or constitutional option.
"I don't think anybody today sees a reason for a filibuster, but they may after the hearing if the answers are troubling to them or they feel they haven't gotten the answers to important questions," said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor.
Democrats contend Alito is too conservative and could undermine some rights if confirmed. Some of their liberal supporters have urged Democrats to do whatever they can to block the nomination, including a filibuster.
It takes 41 votes to sustain a filibuster. With the Senate split with 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one Democratic-voting independent, Democrats could launch a filibuster with no GOP votes.
Democrats have said repeatedly they don't plan to filibuster Alito's nomination, although they also have refused to promise to refrain from the stalling tactic.
The final decision will be made after the hearings, Schumer said. "If he is out of the mainstream and will use his tremendously powerful position as Supreme Court judge to impose his views on the American people, then there's a potential for a filibuster, and no one really knows that until the hearings," Schumer said.
The problem with that statement is that there are a lot of people in government who are "out of the mainstream" and use a "tremendously powerful position" to "impose [their] views on the American people," or try to, at any rate. People like Sen. Schumer and Sen. Kennedy, for instance. Justice Ginsburg could easily be termed "out of the mainstream" given her many opinions in the minority.
Sen. Schumer and other Senate liberals are going to paint Alito as out of the mainstream if his interpretations of law differ from liberal interpretations. Much as the NY Times is not the final arbiter of the need to disclose classified information, liberal senators are not the final arbiters of legal interpretation. Despite their best efforts to characterize it so, being conservative is not an irrational state.
