My Opposition to Alito

There are a host of reasons to oppose Alito as a SCOTUS justice. However, one thing stands out for me as, in itself, sufficient to oppose his nomination. He has taken the position that

Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress,...

to argue for the value of presidential signing statements and how the court should consider them as equal to legislative intent. Anyone this ignorant of the actual US Constitution should not sit on the highest court. The US Constitution clearly states in Article I section 7

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

If the President fails to sign the bill it becomes law "in like manner as if he had signed it", his signature, his approval is unnecessary so long as congress stays in session for 10 more days. Even if he disapprove's congress may overrule him. Alito's claim that "the President's approval is just as important as the House or Senate" is nonsense. The President's approval is completely unnecessary, Congress's approval is essential. These are not equal.

Fight

Steve Gilliard absolutely gets it. It is vitally important that we Democrats be willing to fight for positions we believe in, even if victory is unlikely. This insistence from some quarters that we cannot afford to fight the Alito nomination because we probably won't win is stunningly foolish. The Democratic party fought against the fighting the first Gulf war, lost, and was shown to be wrong. They won the next election. The Democratic Party fought for Clinton's Health Care Plan and lost. They won the next election. Since we've adopted the policy of making sure that we take no stands that might result in failure, we have consistently lost elections. Holy mother of Christ what does it take to drive home the point that winning every fight is not the way to promote electoral success.

Furthermore, the public expect their leaders to stand for something, by which we mean that they will take a firm position on some issues, even if those issues are loosers. These same Democrats who argue that we cannot afford to fight over the Alito nomination are also seen puzzling over why the Democrats are seen as so week on national defense. Look, people expect their commander-in-chief to be willing to fight for them even if victory is not assured. If the Democrats insist on projecting the attitude that they will not fight unless victory is assured, people will see them as week on defense. Loosing is indeed bad, however, refusing to fight is even worse.

Finally, if there are any issues on which the Democrats should be willing to fight, whether victory is assured or not, Sam Alito represents all the things we should fight against: loss of individual rights, corporations over people, lack of integrity and honesty, support for an imperial president. At the very least, every Democrat needs to vote against this nominee. If the party wants electoral victory it should also attempt the filibuster. If it fails, we at least fought the good fight.

Republicans and Women

Follow the link from Hunter at daily Kos to see one of the latest Republican talking points from Drudge. Basically because the Democrats oppose Alito they must have a racist bias against Italian Americans. Now that reasoning is absurd, however, if the Republicans truly believe that then surely the reasoning applies them. Otherwise, we can conclude that they are just being dishonest. So if the reasoning applies we can confidently conclude that the Republicans do have an inherent bias against women, given their opposition to Harriet Miers.

Mark is Right

Mark is right. Fight Alito and fight hard, but use every opportunity to link the scandals. Cheney and Plame is a good one during the Alito fight.

Also, keep in mind that there is still the distinct possibility of other indictments. The Plame issue will come back up, even during the Alito fight, if another indictment comes down. The Democrats need to show that they are willing to fight even if they are not certain about the situation. Refusing to fight on Alito out of fear of loosing the Plame issue and never getting it back is, I believe, exactly the kind of thing which leaves people seeing the Democrats as weak.

Final point on loosing the Plame issue. How many times so far has the Plame issue gone off, and come back on, to the front page. It may well do so again.