John Kerry Calls for Filibuster of Alito
CNN

Thursday 26 January 2006

Kerry is trying to gather support for a filibuster of Alito's
nomination.

Washington - Sen. John Kerry will attempt a filibuster to block
the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, CNN has
learned.

Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum,
was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, he told CNN.

Kerry said he told a group of Democratic senators Wednesday, and
urged that they join him. Kerry said he has the support of fellow
Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Some senior Democrats told CNN they are worried that the move
could backfire.

Republicans would need 60 votes to overturn a filibuster - a
procedural move that extends Senate debate indefinitely, effectively
blocking a vote. Senior White House officials said the move would
make the Democrats look bad, and that Republicans believe they have
enough votes to overcome any filibuster attempt.

Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, scheduled a
vote to end debate on the nomination - called a cloture vote - Monday
at 4:30 p.m. If that vote is successful, the final vote would be
Tuesday morning.

Nearly all 55 Republican senators have said they will vote for
Alito. Only three Democrats - Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Sen.
Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota -
have said they will vote for the nominee.

Earlier Thursday, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana said
she would oppose a filibuster.

"Because we have such a full plate of pressing issues before
Congress, a filibuster at this time would be, in my view, very
counterproductive," said Landrieu, who is pushing the Senate to focus
on the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita.

Party Line Vote

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party
lines to send Alito's nomination to the full Senate.

In supporting Alito, the 10 committee Republicans praised his
qualifications and long judicial career.

Democrats have been mostly united in opposition to Alito. The
panel's eight Democrats opposed him, saying he would be too
deferential to presidential authority and would restrict abortion
rights.

Republicans and the White House are pushing to have that vote
before President Bush gives his State of the Union speech January 31,
Senate sources have said.

In the floor debate of Alito's nomination, Democrats have been
highly critical of the nomination, saying he would threaten civil
liberties and fail to act as a check on executive power.

"If an originalist analysis was applied to the Fourteenth
Amendment, women would not be provided equal protection under the
Constitution, interracial marriages could be outlawed, schools could
still be segregated and the principle of one man, one vote would not
govern the way we elect our representatives," said Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, a California Democrat.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's ranking
Democrat, had supported Chief Justice John Roberts' nomination last
fall.

But this time, he said, "I am concerned that if we confirm this
nominee it will further erode the checks and balances" between the
branches of government.

Excerpts from Kerry's Statement Opposing Judge Alito:

President Bush had the opportunity to nominate someone who would
unite the country in a time of extreme divisiveness. He chose not to
do this, and that is his right. But that he didn't and how this
nomination happened tells us a great deal about this presidency and
how politics is driving this process.

Under fire from his conservative base for nominating Harriet
Miers - a woman whose judicial philosophy they mercilessly attacked -
President Bush broke to extreme right-wing demands. This was a coup.
Miers was removed and Alito was installed. The President did not
consult with members of the Senate, as is required by the
Constitution. He gave no thought to what the American people really
wanted - or needed.

Instead, he made this nomination about his political base. He
made it about an ideological shift in the Court. He made it about
unassailable conservative credentials and an unimpeachable
conservative judicial philosophy.

If you need proof, just look at the response of Ann Coulter. Ms.
Coulter is as inflammatory and as conservative as anyone in the
country. She makes her living through character assassination. She
denounced the nomination of John Roberts. She attacked the nomination
of Harriet Miers, calling her completely unqualified and lamenting
that President Bush had 'thrown away a Supreme Court seat.' Yet she
celebrated the nomination of Samuel Alito, stating that Bush gave
Democrats 'a right-hook' with this 'stunningly qualified' nominee.
This from a woman who said that Republicans need to nominate a person
who 'wake[s] up every morning ... chortling about how much his latest
opinion will tick off the left.'

Judge Alito's hostility to individual rights is not limited to
civil rights. He consistently excuses government intrusions into
personal privacy - regardless of how egregious or excessive they are.
In Doe v. Groody, for example, he dissented from an opinion written
by then-Judge Michael Chertoff because he believed that the strip
search of a 10-year old was 'reasonable.' He also thought the
government should not be held accountable for shooting an un-armed
boy trying to escape with a stolen purse, nor for forcibly evicting
farmers from their land in a civil bankruptcy proceeding without any
show of resistance.

This pattern of deference to government power is reinforced by a
speech he gave as a sitting judge to the Federalist Society just five
years ago.

In his speech, Judge Alito 'preach[ed] the gospel' of the Reagan
Administration's Justice Department: the theory of a unitary
executive. Though in the hearings, Judge Alito attempted to downplay
the significance of this theory by saying it did not address the
scope of the power of the executive branch but rather addressed the
question of who controls the executive branch, don't be fooled. The
unitary executive theory has everything to do with the scope of
executive power.

In fact, even Stephen Calabresi, one of the fathers of the
theory, has stated that '[t]he practical consequence of this theory
is dramatic: it renders unconstitutional independent agencies and
counsels.' This means that Congress would lose the power to protect
public safety by creating agencies like the Consumer Product Safety
Commission - which ensures the safety of products on the marketplace
- and the Securities and Exchange Commission - which protects
Americans from corporations like Enron - and the President would gain
it.

Carried to its logical end, the theory goes much further than
invalidating independent agencies. The Bush Administration has used
it to justify both its illegal domestic spying program and its
ability to torture detainees. The Administration seems to view this
theory as a blank check for executive overreaching.

Judge Alito's endorsement of the unitary executive theory is not
my only cause for concern. In 1986, while working in the Justice
Department, Judge Alito endorsed the idea that presidential 'signing
statements' could be used to influence judicial interpretation of
legislation. His premise was that the President's understanding of
legislation was as important as Congress' in determining legislative
intent - startling when you consider that Congress is the legislative
branch.

President Bush has taken the practice of issuing signing
statements to a new level. Most recently, he used a signing statement
to reserve the right to ignore the ban on torture that the Congress
overwhelmingly passed. He also used signing statement to attempt to
apply the law restricting habeas corpus review of enemy combatants
retroactively - despite our understanding in Congress that it would
not affect cases pending before the Supreme Court at the time of
passage.

The implications of President Bush's signing statements are
astounding: his Administration is reserving the right to ignore those
laws it does not like. Only one thing can hold the President
accountable: the Supreme Court. I am not convinced that will happen
if Judge Alito is confirmed.

Reigning in excessive government power matters more today than
ever before as we work to find the balance between protecting our
rights and our safety. As Justice O'Connor said, the war on terror is
not a blank slate for government action. We can - and must - fight it
in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012606Q.shtml

John Kerry Calls for Filibuster of Alito
CNN

Thursday 26 January 2006

Kerry is trying to gather support for a filibuster of Alito's
nomination.

Washington - Sen. John Kerry will attempt a filibuster to block
the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, CNN has
learned.

Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum,
was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, he told CNN.

Kerry said he told a group of Democratic senators Wednesday, and
urged that they join him. Kerry said he has the support of fellow
Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Some senior Democrats told CNN they are worried that the move
could backfire.

Republicans would need 60 votes to overturn a filibuster - a
procedural move that extends Senate debate indefinitely, effectively
blocking a vote. Senior White House officials said the move would
make the Democrats look bad, and that Republicans believe they have
enough votes to overcome any filibuster attempt.

Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, scheduled a
vote to end debate on the nomination - called a cloture vote - Monday
at 4:30 p.m. If that vote is successful, the final vote would be
Tuesday morning.

Nearly all 55 Republican senators have said they will vote for
Alito. Only three Democrats - Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Sen.
Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota -
have said they will vote for the nominee.

Earlier Thursday, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana said
she would oppose a filibuster.

"Because we have such a full plate of pressing issues before
Congress, a filibuster at this time would be, in my view, very
counterproductive," said Landrieu, who is pushing the Senate to focus
on the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita.

Party Line Vote

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party
lines to send Alito's nomination to the full Senate.

In supporting Alito, the 10 committee Republicans praised his
qualifications and long judicial career.

Democrats have been mostly united in opposition to Alito. The
panel's eight Democrats opposed him, saying he would be too
deferential to presidential authority and would restrict abortion
rights.

Republicans and the White House are pushing to have that vote
before President Bush gives his State of the Union speech January 31,
Senate sources have said.

In the floor debate of Alito's nomination, Democrats have been
highly critical of the nomination, saying he would threaten civil
liberties and fail to act as a check on executive power.

"If an originalist analysis was applied to the Fourteenth
Amendment, women would not be provided equal protection under the
Constitution, interracial marriages could be outlawed, schools could
still be segregated and the principle of one man, one vote would not
govern the way we elect our representatives," said Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, a California Democrat.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's ranking
Democrat, had supported Chief Justice John Roberts' nomination last
fall.

But this time, he said, "I am concerned that if we confirm this
nominee it will further erode the checks and balances" between the
branches of government.

Excerpts from Kerry's Statement Opposing Judge Alito:

President Bush had the opportunity to nominate someone who would
unite the country in a time of extreme divisiveness. He chose not to
do this, and that is his right. But that he didn't and how this
nomination happened tells us a great deal about this presidency and
how politics is driving this process.

Under fire from his conservative base for nominating Harriet
Miers - a woman whose judicial philosophy they mercilessly attacked -
President Bush broke to extreme right-wing demands. This was a coup.
Miers was removed and Alito was installed. The President did not
consult with members of the Senate, as is required by the
Constitution. He gave no thought to what the American people really
wanted - or needed.

Instead, he made this nomination about his political base. He
made it about an ideological shift in the Court. He made it about
unassailable conservative credentials and an unimpeachable
conservative judicial philosophy.

If you need proof, just look at the response of Ann Coulter. Ms.
Coulter is as inflammatory and as conservative as anyone in the
country. She makes her living through character assassination. She
denounced the nomination of John Roberts. She attacked the nomination
of Harriet Miers, calling her completely unqualified and lamenting
that President Bush had 'thrown away a Supreme Court seat.' Yet she
celebrated the nomination of Samuel Alito, stating that Bush gave
Democrats 'a right-hook' with this 'stunningly qualified' nominee.
This from a woman who said that Republicans need to nominate a person
who 'wake[s] up every morning ... chortling about how much his latest
opinion will tick off the left.'

Judge Alito's hostility to individual rights is not limited to
civil rights. He consistently excuses government intrusions into
personal privacy - regardless of how egregious or excessive they are.
In Doe v. Groody, for example, he dissented from an opinion written
by then-Judge Michael Chertoff because he believed that the strip
search of a 10-year old was 'reasonable.' He also thought the
government should not be held accountable for shooting an un-armed
boy trying to escape with a stolen purse, nor for forcibly evicting
farmers from their land in a civil bankruptcy proceeding without any
show of resistance.

This pattern of deference to government power is reinforced by a
speech he gave as a sitting judge to the Federalist Society just five
years ago.

In his speech, Judge Alito 'preach[ed] the gospel' of the Reagan
Administration's Justice Department: the theory of a unitary
executive. Though in the hearings, Judge Alito attempted to downplay
the significance of this theory by saying it did not address the
scope of the power of the executive branch but rather addressed the
question of who controls the executive branch, don't be fooled. The
unitary executive theory has everything to do with the scope of
executive power.

In fact, even Stephen Calabresi, one of the fathers of the
theory, has stated that '[t]he practical consequence of this theory
is dramatic: it renders unconstitutional independent agencies and
counsels.' This means that Congress would lose the power to protect
public safety by creating agencies like the Consumer Product Safety
Commission - which ensures the safety of products on the marketplace
- and the Securities and Exchange Commission - which protects
Americans from corporations like Enron - and the President would gain
it.

Carried to its logical end, the theory goes much further than
invalidating independent agencies. The Bush Administration has used
it to justify both its illegal domestic spying program and its
ability to torture detainees. The Administration seems to view this
theory as a blank check for executive overreaching.

Judge Alito's endorsement of the unitary executive theory is not
my only cause for concern. In 1986, while working in the Justice
Department, Judge Alito endorsed the idea that presidential 'signing
statements' could be used to influence judicial interpretation of
legislation. His premise was that the President's understanding of
legislation was as important as Congress' in determining legislative
intent - startling when you consider that Congress is the legislative
branch.

President Bush has taken the practice of issuing signing
statements to a new level. Most recently, he used a signing statement
to reserve the right to ignore the ban on torture that the Congress
overwhelmingly passed. He also used signing statement to attempt to
apply the law restricting habeas corpus review of enemy combatants
retroactively - despite our understanding in Congress that it would
not affect cases pending before the Supreme Court at the time of
passage.

The implications of President Bush's signing statements are
astounding: his Administration is reserving the right to ignore those
laws it does not like. Only one thing can hold the President
accountable: the Supreme Court. I am not convinced that will happen
if Judge Alito is confirmed.

Reigning in excessive government power matters more today than
ever before as we work to find the balance between protecting our
rights and our safety. As Justice O'Connor said, the war on terror is
not a blank slate for government action. We can - and must - fight it
in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012606Q.shtml

John Kerry Calls for Filibuster of Alito
CNN

Thursday 26 January 2006

Kerry is trying to gather support for a filibuster of Alito's
nomination.

Washington - Sen. John Kerry will attempt a filibuster to block
the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, CNN has
learned.

Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum,
was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, he told CNN.

Kerry said he told a group of Democratic senators Wednesday, and
urged that they join him. Kerry said he has the support of fellow
Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Some senior Democrats told CNN they are worried that the move
could backfire.

Republicans would need 60 votes to overturn a filibuster - a
procedural move that extends Senate debate indefinitely, effectively
blocking a vote. Senior White House officials said the move would
make the Democrats look bad, and that Republicans believe they have
enough votes to overcome any filibuster attempt.

Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, scheduled a
vote to end debate on the nomination - called a cloture vote - Monday
at 4:30 p.m. If that vote is successful, the final vote would be
Tuesday morning.

Nearly all 55 Republican senators have said they will vote for
Alito. Only three Democrats - Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Sen.
Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota -
have said they will vote for the nominee.

Earlier Thursday, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana said
she would oppose a filibuster.

"Because we have such a full plate of pressing issues before
Congress, a filibuster at this time would be, in my view, very
counterproductive," said Landrieu, who is pushing the Senate to focus
on the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita.

Party Line Vote

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party
lines to send Alito's nomination to the full Senate.

In supporting Alito, the 10 committee Republicans praised his
qualifications and long judicial career.

Democrats have been mostly united in opposition to Alito. The
panel's eight Democrats opposed him, saying he would be too
deferential to presidential authority and would restrict abortion
rights.

Republicans and the White House are pushing to have that vote
before President Bush gives his State of the Union speech January 31,
Senate sources have said.

In the floor debate of Alito's nomination, Democrats have been
highly critical of the nomination, saying he would threaten civil
liberties and fail to act as a check on executive power.

"If an originalist analysis was applied to the Fourteenth
Amendment, women would not be provided equal protection under the
Constitution, interracial marriages could be outlawed, schools could
still be segregated and the principle of one man, one vote would not
govern the way we elect our representatives," said Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, a California Democrat.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's ranking
Democrat, had supported Chief Justice John Roberts' nomination last
fall.

But this time, he said, "I am concerned that if we confirm this
nominee it will further erode the checks and balances" between the
branches of government.

Excerpts from Kerry's Statement Opposing Judge Alito:

President Bush had the opportunity to nominate someone who would
unite the country in a time of extreme divisiveness. He chose not to
do this, and that is his right. But that he didn't and how this
nomination happened tells us a great deal about this presidency and
how politics is driving this process.

Under fire from his conservative base for nominating Harriet
Miers - a woman whose judicial philosophy they mercilessly attacked -
President Bush broke to extreme right-wing demands. This was a coup.
Miers was removed and Alito was installed. The President did not
consult with members of the Senate, as is required by the
Constitution. He gave no thought to what the American people really
wanted - or needed.

Instead, he made this nomination about his political base. He
made it about an ideological shift in the Court. He made it about
unassailable conservative credentials and an unimpeachable
conservative judicial philosophy.

If you need proof, just look at the response of Ann Coulter. Ms.
Coulter is as inflammatory and as conservative as anyone in the
country. She makes her living through character assassination. She
denounced the nomination of John Roberts. She attacked the nomination
of Harriet Miers, calling her completely unqualified and lamenting
that President Bush had 'thrown away a Supreme Court seat.' Yet she
celebrated the nomination of Samuel Alito, stating that Bush gave
Democrats 'a right-hook' with this 'stunningly qualified' nominee.
This from a woman who said that Republicans need to nominate a person
who 'wake[s] up every morning ... chortling about how much his latest
opinion will tick off the left.'

Judge Alito's hostility to individual rights is not limited to
civil rights. He consistently excuses government intrusions into
personal privacy - regardless of how egregious or excessive they are.
In Doe v. Groody, for example, he dissented from an opinion written
by then-Judge Michael Chertoff because he believed that the strip
search of a 10-year old was 'reasonable.' He also thought the
government should not be held accountable for shooting an un-armed
boy trying to escape with a stolen purse, nor for forcibly evicting
farmers from their land in a civil bankruptcy proceeding without any
show of resistance.

This pattern of deference to government power is reinforced by a
speech he gave as a sitting judge to the Federalist Society just five
years ago.

In his speech, Judge Alito 'preach[ed] the gospel' of the Reagan
Administration's Justice Department: the theory of a unitary
executive. Though in the hearings, Judge Alito attempted to downplay
the significance of this theory by saying it did not address the
scope of the power of the executive branch but rather addressed the
question of who controls the executive branch, don't be fooled. The
unitary executive theory has everything to do with the scope of
executive power.

In fact, even Stephen Calabresi, one of the fathers of the
theory, has stated that '[t]he practical consequence of this theory
is dramatic: it renders unconstitutional independent agencies and
counsels.' This means that Congress would lose the power to protect
public safety by creating agencies like the Consumer Product Safety
Commission - which ensures the safety of products on the marketplace
- and the Securities and Exchange Commission - which protects
Americans from corporations like Enron - and the President would gain
it.

Carried to its logical end, the theory goes much further than
invalidating independent agencies. The Bush Administration has used
it to justify both its illegal domestic spying program and its
ability to torture detainees. The Administration seems to view this
theory as a blank check for executive overreaching.

Judge Alito's endorsement of the unitary executive theory is not
my only cause for concern. In 1986, while working in the Justice
Department, Judge Alito endorsed the idea that presidential 'signing
statements' could be used to influence judicial interpretation of
legislation. His premise was that the President's understanding of
legislation was as important as Congress' in determining legislative
intent - startling when you consider that Congress is the legislative
branch.

President Bush has taken the practice of issuing signing
statements to a new level. Most recently, he used a signing statement
to reserve the right to ignore the ban on torture that the Congress
overwhelmingly passed. He also used signing statement to attempt to
apply the law restricting habeas corpus review of enemy combatants
retroactively - despite our understanding in Congress that it would
not affect cases pending before the Supreme Court at the time of
passage.

The implications of President Bush's signing statements are
astounding: his Administration is reserving the right to ignore those
laws it does not like. Only one thing can hold the President
accountable: the Supreme Court. I am not convinced that will happen
if Judge Alito is confirmed.

Reigning in excessive government power matters more today than
ever before as we work to find the balance between protecting our
rights and our safety. As Justice O'Connor said, the war on terror is
not a blank slate for government action. We can - and must - fight it
in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012606Q.shtml