Futile Gestures

Ah, what it must be like to be a Democrat these days. Trapped between an extremist, parsecs-out-of-the-mainstream base and the majority of the electorate that base demands they alienate, like the, well, donkey that starved to death between the two bales of hay, Senate Donks are coping with the inevitable confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court by scattering to the four winds in a rousing rendition of "every man for himself" helter-skelter.

Ken Salazar of Colorado was a one-man scattering all by himself, unable to bring himself to back a filibuster (which wouldn't exactly be the platform on which he ran in 2004) and unwilling to disclose how he'll vote (though that seems somewhat less than difficult to deduce), and trying to cover both by sliming Justice Clarence Thomas as an "abomination." Which, of course, will please nobody, not the lib crazoids who would only be interested in impeaching Thomas, and only after Judge Alito was stuffed, and not the rest of us normal people who already have written off Salazar as Kerry with a twang.

Speaking of Mr. French, he advocated, er, "nuking" Alito in a frothing, raaaaahbid floor speech yesterday that was so commital (as in the opposite of non-commital) that you just knew the other shoe would drop post-haste:

From a Senate source: Kerry's call for a filibuster comes after his leadership, that is, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, decided there won't be one. In other words, Kerry was making a brave, Kos-friendly pronouncement in the total confidence that a filibuster will never happen. And now, word is, he is off to Davos to continue what some Republicans are calling a "filibluster."

And to think this man wanted to be president of the United States. And came within eighteen Electoral Votes of succeeding. Brrrrrrr.

Florida's Bill Nelson, not only from a "red" state but up for re-election this fall, couldn't even risk the floor-joist level of candor Senator Salazar mustered, and hence justified his anti-Alito vote by questioning the liklihood of the incoming Justice's voting to overturn the Kelo decision:

I explained how a recent Supreme Court decision has frightened many of our constituents who fear that their homes can now be seized by the government to make way for a private developer's project. And while he expressed sympathy for the parties whose homes had been seized in this personal meeting with him he offered no misgivings about the legal reasoning that led to that outcome.

I'm sure Floridians will be flattered at the level of collective intelligence their senior senator accords to them. As if they're unaware that it was the oligarchist bloc on the SCOTUS that voted for Kelo's rank evisceration of private property rights, and that it was Senator Nelson and his minority party colleagues who depicted Judge Alito as, among other things, a "tool of big business." If you've ever wondered what rigor mortic straw-grasping looks like, Bill Nelson just gave you an el primo demonstration.

Hillary Clinton, tacking toward the neoBolsheviks this week, indulged in the cheeky, ironic projection for which she is infamous in what might be dubbed her "Alito is a radical ideologue" speech. Ed Whelan of Bench Memos has the analysis of it if you're interested. My take is that she's trying to get her estranged left-wingnut groupies, with their utter obtuseness to subtlety, off her back and doesn't have to triangulate to hold on to her senate seat. All of which makes another fine contribution to the PR ammunition dump for 2008. Can't get too much of that, after all, and we're going to need every last round before it's over.

Meanwhile, on the side of sanity emerged South Dakota's Tim Johnson (who looks to have learned from Tom Daschle's debacle) and Robert "Sheets" Byrd, who obviously wants to die in office. Byron Dorgan, another exposed "red"-stater, is also expected to make the right choice.

Byrd seems to have conveniently developed a conscience in his old age:

Many people and including foremost, as I say, the people of West Virginia in most uncertain terms, were, frankly, appalled by the Alito hearings. I don't want to say it but I must. They were appalled. In the reams of correspondence that I received during the Alito hearings, West Virginians — the people I represent — West Virginians who wrote to criticize the way in which the hearings were conducted used the same two words. People with no connection to one another, people of different faiths, different views, different opinions, independently and respectively used the same two words to describe the hearings. They called them an “outrage” and a “disgrace.” . . .

It is especially telling that many who objected to the way in which the Alito hearings were conducted do not support Judge Alito. In fact, it is sorely apparent that even many who oppose Judge Alito's nomination also oppose the seemingly made-for-TV antics that accompanied the hearings. . . .

And then there were the media and the media's contribution to the deterioration of this very important constitutional process. Mr. President, was it really necessary to subject Mrs. Alito to the harsh glare of the television klieg lights as she fled the hearing room in tears? Fighting to maintain her dignity in response to others, with precious little of their own?

Indeed, Byrd may even have started reading that pocket Constitution he's always waving around:

I regret that we have come to a place in our history when both political parties, both political parties exhibit such a take-no prisoners attitude. All sides seek to use the debate over a Supreme Court nominee to air their particular wish list for or against abortion, euthanasia, executive authority, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, corporate greed, and dozens of other subjects.

All of these issues should be debated but the battle line should not be drawn on the Judiciary. It should be debated by the peoples' representatives right here in the legislative branch. However, too many Americans apparently believe that if they cannot get Congress to address an issue then they must take it to the Court. As the saying goes: "if you can't change the law, change the judge."

This kind of thinking represents a gross misinterpretation of the separation of powers. It is the role of the Congress, the role of the legislative branch to make and change the laws. Supreme Court justices exist to interpret laws and be sure that they square with the Constitution and with law. [emphasis added]

Wow. Does Senator Kleagle really believe that? And either way, does this mean that Barack Obama won't be stumping for him on the campaign trail anymore?

Assuming all 55 Republicans vote "yea" (only Snowe, Chaffee, and Stevens haven't publicly committed), Ben Nelson, Johnson, Byrd, and Dorgan would bring Alito's total up to 59, and the anti-filibuster total easily clears the 60 mark. With today's cloture filing by Majority Leader Frist for a cloture vote Monday afternoon and a final floor vote Tuesday morning, it is, quite literally, all over but the shouting.