[Mb-civic] Filibuster Bush, Impeach Alito
ean at sbcglobal.net
ean at sbcglobal.net
Mon Jan 16 21:37:19 PST 2006
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0115-23.htm
Published on Sunday, January 15, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Filibuster Bush, Impeach Alito
by Paul Rogat Loeb
In the wake of the Alito hearings, mainline pundits are calling his
nomination a done deal. Alito didn't spew obscenities or green bile. He
didn't admit that he'd reverse Roe v. Wade or vow to proclaim George
Bush Lord Emperor. Rehearsed and coached by committee member
Lindsay Graham (and by some of the same lawyers who justified
Bush's NSA wiretaps), he instead spoke deferentially and humbly
about respecting legal precedent and separation of powers, while
Republican committee members made him out to be a mix of Solomon
and Mother Teresa. Much like Clarence Thomas during his hearings,
Alito dodged the tough questions with evasions and platitudes,
suffered convenient memory lapses on areas he couldn't dodge, and
justified controversial past stands by saying he was just trying to be a
team player. We know little more about him than before--except about
his capacity to dissemble.
Meanwhile, in a galaxy far away, former Congresswoman Liz
Holtzman, who sat on Nixon's impeachment committee, just wrote that
Bush's defiance of the law through illegal wiretapping, lying about the
reasons for going to war, and condoning of violation of US law about
detainee abuse constitute grounds for impeachment. Holtzman said
impeachment should never be undertaken lightly. She found "voting for
[Nixon's] impeachment to be one of the most sobering and unpleasant
tasks I ever had to undertake." But she said it was necessary in
Nixon's case, and merited in Bush's as well. A Zogby poll taken last
November, just before the wiretap scandal broke, found that 53
percent of those questioned favored impeachment of President Bush if
he lied about the war in Iraq.
If there's a chance to stop Alito, much less reclaim our democracy, we
need to bring these realities together. The filibuster just might be the
vehicle to do that, as Senators could spell out the links between link
runaway executive power and a nominee who has consistently ruled
and spoken in favor of the unaccountable expansion of that power.
Suppose the Democratic Senators actually used a filibuster to talk
about the Alito nomination in its broadest context. They wouldn't read
the phone book. They wouldn't get lost in an endless maze of legal
rhetoric about stare decisis. They could talk about how they'd have
readily accepted a more moderate nominee, much as Clinton
nominated Steven Breyer and Ruth Ginzberg in part because Orrin
Hatch said he'd accept them as preferable to other proposed justices.
They'd use the filibuster to educate as well as impede.
However they label their actions, suppose the Democrats started
debating the nomination, and didn't stop, in the process addressing the
real roots of why Alito would be so destructive. They could read from
articles and books about this administration's abuse of presidential
power. They could talk about whether we really want government
officials to be able to strip us of our rights at will, listen in on our phone
and email conversations without a court order, and infiltrate the citizen
groups through which we gather peacefully to express our beliefs.
They could talk about the choices women were forced to make when
abortion was illegal, what it's like to be discriminated against, then told
you don't meet an impossible burden of proof, and whether police
should be able to shoot unarmed 15-year-olds who flee after stealing
$10. They could talk about the Sago mine disaster, and the fruits of a
politics where unions are busted and regulations gutted at every turn.
They could tell the stories that bring seemingly abstract issues of
jurisdiction and constitutional interpretation to life, and make clear their
real-world consequences.
In the process they could remind America that this president, with this
track record of lies, deceptions, and favors for the most destructive
private interests, deserves no presumption of deference. And that
when he nominates someone, like Alito, who will only further his
abuses of power, Senators have a moral responsibility to oppose him
however they can. The wink-and-nod games of the hearings were
designed to obscure Alito's record and frame him as genial and
reasonable. If the Democrats accept this, or even quietly vote against
him without further protest, they further the lie that this is an ordinary
nomination in an ordinary time. If they filibuster and stand firm, there's
a chance that the now politically weakened Republicans will back down
and not risk putting themselves on the line for destroying nearly 200
years of Senate tradition for the naked goal of increasing their power.
But Democrats have to take the risk of standing strong, and we as
ordinary citizens have to do all we can to convince them to do so.
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little
While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3
political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book
Association, and winner of the Nautilus Award for best social change
book of the year. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living
With Conviction in a Cynical Time.
###
--
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list,
option D (up to 3 emails/day). To be removed, or to switch options
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D -
up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know! If someone forwarded you
this email and you want to be on our list, send an email to
ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.
"A war of aggression is the supreme international crime." -- Robert Jackson,
former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice and Nuremberg prosecutor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060116/c2524d0d/attachment.htm
More information about the Mb-civic
mailing list