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.
See
www.paulloeb.org To receive his monthly articles email
sympa@onenw.org
with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles
