A Stand to Protect the Future: Too Few Senators Filibuster Alito

After a year of buildup, tonight was the night of the test.

Remember how, in the Spring of 2005, Democratic Senators let a number of wildly extreme Bush nominees become confirmed as federal judges because they said they needed to spare all their ammunition for the upcoming fight that really mattered, over the next Supreme Court nominee? Remember how, in the late Summer and early Fall of 2005, Democratic Senators let John Roberts onto the Supreme Court because, OK, well really now, they said they needed to spare all their ammunition for the next Supreme Court nominee, because that nominee, no, not this one, the next one, would really have to be stopped? Remember how it wasn’t the Democrats who torpedoed the Harriet Miers nomination, but rather some fortunately squabbling Republicans, since a number of Democrats said gosh, let’s hold off on this one, too, and save our dear, sweet holy ammunition for another day?

This, friends, is the bizarre political theory under which too many Democratic Party politicians seem to be operating: the Ammunition Theory. Their argument is that a politician in office can only stand up to majority sentiment — by voting “No,” by supporting a filibuster, or by exercising legitimate legislative rules — so many times. These politicians seem to think that if they exercise their full rights as members of Congress too often, why, why… er…

…um…

…well, what? What will happen if they actually use their Congressional powers and prerogatives more than once in a long while? They never say. Will little bunny Foo Foo scoop them up like field mice and bop them on the head? Will they lose frequent flier miles? Will God send a hurricane to their home state or district? Of course not. What’s more likely is that Republican spinmeisters will talk negatively about them and call them names. That’s it. That’s all that can happen if Democratic members of Congress actually use their “ammunition,” their power as sitting officeholders, to actually do something. It’s not as if it’s really ammunition Senators have at their disposal, after all. It’s not as if members of Congress only have a limited number of “Vote No” bullets, for Pete’s sake. But having given in to fear of being cussed at once, having gotten used to playing “safe” (as if anybody’s going to get slapped in the Rotunda), too many Democrats have retreated to cowed acquiescence as a default position.

Well, here we are again today, friends, with another test of the Democrats’ spine. Senator John Kerry called on his colleagues to stand together and mount a filibuster against extremist lifetime nominee Samuel Alito. Today was a chance for the Senate Democrats to show their mettle. But no. A number of Democrats in the United States Senate decided to “save their ammunition” today, too, because they just can’t stand to be called names. Had all Democrats stood together in the filibuster organized by Senator John Kerry, Samuel Alito would not have been able to ascend to a lifetime term to the Supreme Court. Some Senate Democrats passed the test of courage and, even knowing that they probably wouldn’t prevail, mounted a filibuster attempt nonetheless. Congratulations to the following Senators for choosing principle over comfort:

Evan Bayh of Indiana
Joseph Biden of Delaware
Barbara Boxer of California
Hillary Clinton of New York
Mark Dayton of Minnesota
Chris Dodd of Connecticut
Dick Durbin of Illinois
Russell Feingold of Wisconsin
Dianne Feinstein of California
Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts
John Kerry of Massachusetts
Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey
Patrick Leahy of Vermont
Carl Levin of Michigan
Bob Menendez of New Jersey
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
Patty Murray of Washington
Barack Obama of Illinois
Jack Reed of Rhode Island
Paul Sarbanes of Maryland
Chuck Schumer of New York
Debbie Stabenow of Michigan
Ron Wyden of Oregon

To these, add Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont, an independent. Thanks to you, too, Senator Jeffords. We’ll miss you when you retire this year.

The above Senators had the guts to make a public stand for what they felt was right. That’s good, but count ‘em: there aren’t forty, and forty brave souls were needed to make the filibuster stick.

Who let us down? Well, the Republicans let us down of course, but we already knew you can’t count on a Republican politician to do the right thing. Not a single, solitary Republican aided the filibuster effort. Even the so-called “moderates” (John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter) showed the deep extent of their political extremism today when they let the Alito nomination slide on by. So let’s forget the Republicans, who we can now take for lost as a group when it comes to the common-sense defense of liberty in America.

But a Democrat, I say in my heart, a Democrat should know better than to let slide by a lifetime nominee who has said outright that the Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to an abortion.

A Democrat should know better than to let slide by a nominee who compares the legal standing of women to that of children.

A Democrat should know better than to let a Supreme Court nominee get away with asserting the right of presidents to sail above the law.

A Democrat should know better than to let a lifetime nominee slide into the Supreme Court when he defends the strip-searching of completely innocent, non-suspect ten year old girls, who treats little girls like pliable objects to be frisked by the government like it’s no big deal.

So what do we say about the following Democrats? Have they abandoned their values? Are they morally bankrupt? Or are they just cowards?

For the benefit of Google historians ten years from now, let me spell out the unsavory alternatives one by one. (And no, I’m not linking to these sorry souls; let them flap in a miserable, lonely, unhyperlinked wind. Gosh, I’m angry.) Here they are. Consider:

Is Daniel Akaka morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Max Baucus morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Jeff Bingaman morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Robert Byrd morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Maria Cantwell morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Thomas Carper morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Kent Conrad morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Byron Dorgan morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Daniel Inouye morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Tim Johnson morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Herbert Kohl morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Mary Landrieu morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Joseph Lieberman morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Blanche Lincoln morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Bill Nelson morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Ben Nelson morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Mark Pryor morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is John Rockefeller morally bankrupt, or just a coward?
Is Ken Salazar morally bankrupt, or just a coward?

Which is it? Or what, are these Senators just too old, tired, and jaded to give a shit anymore?

What about the rest of us who voted these decrepit souls into office? Will we vote them back in? Personally, I think it’s high time to send a message that moral bankruptcy, tactical cowardice and tired inaction are out of style. It’s time to clean house. It’s time to find a replacement for these pampered veterans. It’s time to throw these bums out.