To Filibuster or Not to Filibuster

I was all ready to write a post about supporting a filibuster against Alito--there's not much point in holding on to it in case someone really conservative gets nominated for the next vacancy. While the Bushies never fail to go farther than I expect thy can get away with, I think Alito's plenty bad all by himself. His credentials as a jurist may be fine, but his credentials as an ideologue more than disqualify him for a seat on the nation's highest court. He's written against a woman's right to an abortion (although he also essentially told us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, so maybe he's changed his mind), and his rulings support expansive executive and state power. He also strongly implied that, in the past at least, he's been more than willing to say whatever he needs to in order to land a position he wants, so we can't necessarily trust anything he's had to say. He's broken promises to Congress before, so what's a little white lie about the right to privacy among friends?

No, I've got no problem with the idea of using the filibuster to prevent him from joining the court. But then I read a post by John Aravosis, in which he argues that a filibuster without a strong campaign behind it will be counterproductive. I've already complained about the Democrats' neglect in preparing the groundwork for effective opposition to Alito. The Democrats don't seem to have a clue on how to go about being an opposition party. Harry Reid has some good ideas from time to time, but he hasn't been successful in organizing a consistent message or in rallying the troops. But it doesn't end with Reid. John Kerry's supposedly spearheading the current effort for a filibuster, and in a diary at Daily Kos, he tells us why. Unfortunately, he also tells us that he and Ted Kennedy have to do more than "just preach to our own choir." They're so insular up there on Capital Hill now that they apparently believe writing on Daily Kos is getting them beyond the choir.

Still, Alito will take us backwards, not just on abortion but on a wide variety of rights that we've come to take for granted. An attempt to stop his nomination, even through a filibuster that's destined to fail, is a worthy goal. Even if it doesn't pay in the short term, who knows what it can deliver down the road. If Alito turns out to be everything we fear, perhaps in 2008 (or even 2006, if he's really bad) voters will remember who put up a fight to stop him. I say, let's mount the filibuster. And if Dems can get the votes they need and Frist pulls out the "nuclear option," maybe the Repubs will miss having the filibuster at their disposal when they're in the minority again.