There Is No Team Behind This Duo ...

Though I am not a football fan, I am willing to make this analogy. When a team takes the field through the tunnel, is it not traditional for the whole team to follow? That is a question that should be asked of the Democrats before they decide to filibuster Samuel Alito, Mary Katherine Ham, Hugh Hewitt's astute guest-blogger makes a similar analogy, and points to this story from Reuters.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid admitted on Friday he and fellow Democrats lack the votes to block President George W. Bush's nomination of conservative appeals judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Everyone knows there is not enough votes to support a filibuster," Reid said, referring to the procedural roadblock that some Democrats said should be used to put off a vote on Alito.

The Nevada Democrat said, however, he would vote for such a measure to at least send a message of opposition to the nominee. That vote will come on Monday with final confirmation set for Tuesday.

"I think it is an opportunity for people to express their opinion as to what a bad choice it was to replace (retiring Justice) Sandra Day O'Connor" with Alito, Reid told reporters after a speech at a Washington hotel.

Alito, a federal appeals judge since 1990, could push the nine-member high court to the right. O'Connor, a moderate conservative, often has been the swing vote on the court on abortion, civil rights and other social issues.

Even Reid admits that there is not enough votes, despite the call from Kerry and Kennedy, and the ridiculous op-ed from the New York Times that called for the Democrats to locate their spines, and filibuster Judge Alito. Indeed, the final paragraph from that editorial reads:

A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news for the New York Times, but filibustering Judge Alito would be equal to political suicide. And it is an easy thing for the Times to call for. They answer to no one. There is no one who elects them to their jobs, nor do they feel accountable to those who read their rag. But they are demanding that the Democrats do this. The Democrats, despite their over enthusiastic dimness much of the time, are not this stupid. If they carry out a filibuster--and I doubt that the Times even comprehends this--Frist and his associates will execute the Constitutional Option, and forever deny either party of the ability to filibuster a nominee based on extraordinary circumstances again.

So, if the Democrats are actually "Dimocrats," then so be it. Filibuster. Pull that trigger, and see what the reaction from the GOP and their constituents will end up being. I can assure them it will not be pretty, and when the dust settles they will be in a far worse position in the Seante than they already are.

The Bunny ;)

ADDENDUM: I don't normally add anything to Marcie's posts, but she missed this when she finished this post. But Capt. Ed has an update on this situation.

Long-smoldering Democratic dissension flared openly Friday as liberals sought support for a last-minute filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito against the advice of leaders worried about a backlash in the 2006 elections.

"I reject those notions that there ought to somehow be some political calculus about the future. ... The choice is now," said Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential candidate and a White House hopeful for 2008. He said it was imperative to fight for "those people who count on us to stand up and protect them."

Two of the party's Senate leaders, Harry Reid of Nevada and Charles Schumer of New York, privately made clear their unhappiness with the strategy, even though they, too, oppose Alito's confirmation. And Rep. Harold Ford, seeking a Senate seat in Republican-leaning Tennessee, dismissed the filibuster approach openly.

"It does not appear that there is any reason to hold up a vote. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will move quickly to bring this process to a dignified end," he said.

Despite a decision by Kerry, Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and others to try to block a final vote, leaders of both parties agreed that Alito's confirmation was assured for Tuesday. The 55-year-old appeals court judge would replace Sandra Day O'Connor who has cast deciding votes in recent years in 5-4 rulings on controversial issues such as abortion rights, affirmative action and the death penalty.

Democrats fear he would shift the court rightward on those and other issues.

Because of moves by Kerry, Kennedy and others, supporters of Alito's nomination must produce 60 votes on Monday to advance his nomination — and an Associated Press tally shows at least 62.

That would clear the way for a final vote on Tuesday. The AP tally shows at least 53 Republicans and three Democrats intend to vote to confirm Alito, well over the required majority.

Reid announced he would side with Alito's critics on Monday, though on Thursday he had made clear his unhappiness with their strategy. "There has been adequate time for people to debate," he had said Thursday. "I hope this matter will be resolved without too much more talking."

Those remarks drew a pointed rebuttal from the NAACP and People for The American Way, two organizations that often work closely with Democrats in Congress. "With just two days of debate having passed, this must rank among the shortest debates for a controversial Supreme Court nomination in modern times," they said in a written statement.

Democrats have been arguing for several days whether to attempt a filibuster designed to keep Alito off the bench, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.

This is either a serious effort, or a vocal flirtation; a way for them to flex to their constituents, and make them believe they're going to "fight the good fight." If it's the latter, they'll be okay, and we'll all know their just nuts.

But, if it's the former, they really need to think about this, and think it through. It's not a smart move to tempt a GOP that will most assuredly--this time especially--have the votes to break the filibuster, and finally pull the trigger on the Con Option. Over Alito, I just can't see it. Marcie was right to call this political suicide. It's a lose-lose scenario however you look at it.

They filibuster, Frist executes the Con Option. The move from the floor, and a vote over the move, and the Democrat's final threat is broken. Without a way to stop an "extreme" nominee, the president could put whomever he wants on the Supreme Court; their absolute worst nightmare. And it's a sure thing the list of nightmares that could come will plague the Democrats.

J. Michael Luttig
Priscilla Owen
Janice Rogers Brown
Henry Saad
Miguel Estrada
Emilio Garza
Alice Batchelder
Edith Jones
Edith Clement

They really have a conundrum to figure out on this. Cut off their nose to spite their face, or simply face defeat like adults, and move on. If they make this move, when Justice Stevens, Kennedy, or Ginsburg step down, they'll have no way of preventing any of the above, extremely qualified individuals. Wouldn't they like to keep that for just a little while longer? If I were the party out of power, I'd want to so that I have every weapon in my arsenal at my disposal. Too bad that I'm giving them more credit than what they deserve.

Publius II