"Cindy Sheehan to Dianne Feinstein: Fillibuster [sic] Alito or I’ll Challenge Your Senate Seat." That's the headline of a press release just issued by Ms. Sheehan. The text begins:
Caracas, Venezuela – Gold star mother Cindy Sheehan has decided to run against California Senator Diane Feinstein if Feinstein does not filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. While in Venezuela attending the World Social Forum, Sheehan learned that several Democratic Senators had announced their plans for a filibuster but that Senator Feinstein, who’s up for re-election in November, had stated she would vote against the nomination but not filibuster it. “I’m appalled that Diane Feinstein wouldn’t recognize how dangerous Alito’s nomination is to upholding the values of our constitution and restricting the usurpation of presidential powers, for which I’ve already paid the ultimate price,” Sheehan said.In a September 11, 2005, essay, Ms. Sheehan said that Senator Feinstein "will also go on our Hall of Shame" because Senator Feinstein has rebuffed three requests by Ms. Sheehan for a personal meeting.
Last fall, Ms. Sheehan dismissed rumors that she might offer herself as a candidate against the re-election bid of Senator Hillary Clinton, whom Sheehan called "a political animal who believes she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys" and "the leader of the pack" of "the pro-war Democrats." UPDATE: Some commenters were wondering about Ms. Sheehan's reasons for opposing Alito, so here is the rest of the press release:
Sheehan is the grieving military mother whose vigil outside President Bush’s ranch in Crawford last summer focused the nation’s attention on the human cost of the Iraq war. Her son Casey was killed in Iraq in April 2004.Judge Alito has an extensive paper trail documenting the right-wing political agenda that he has actively advanced, not only as a high-ranking official in the Reagan Administration, but also as a judge. He has publicly supported the "Unitary Executive" theory, a radical notion that the President holds exclusive and inherent authority to execute all federal law. He has supported efforts to curtail privacy rights, including not only privacy from government surveillance and arbitrary arrest, but also other constitutional rights based on privacy, such as reproductive liberty for women. Alito has outspokenly sought to restrict Congress' power, limiting the scope of the Commerce Clause of Article I of the Constitution. In addition, he has consistently applied his discretion as a judge in favor of certain interests and against others. He rarely votes against big business, police or prosecutors.
Sheehan is available for interviews from Venezuela through the contact people listed above. [DK: I have omitted the contact info from this posting.] She returns to the United States on Monday morning and will travel to Washington, DC on Tuesday to participate in an alternative State of the Union event.
I wonder what her feelings are about the "unitary executive theory," stare decisis, or the extent of the words "advise and consent."
Apparently the undesirability of having a personal meeting with Cindy Sheehan is now a matter of bipartisan consensus.
Her claim makes no sense, even if you grant (1) that the Iraqi war was all a big mistake, and (2) that all of the other presidential acts in dispute re war on terror or war anywhere -- surveillance, rendering, detaining Hamdi, prisoner treatment, whatever -- were indeed all unconsitutional presidential power-grabs. That's because the Iraqi War was the one thing that WAS approved by Congress, whatever the debate about surveillance or anything else. So how is that a presidential over-reach? Indeed, her other criticize Hillary Clinton and other Dems for going along with the war vote. So how, then, can the Iraqi War -- again, EVEN IF a bad policy choice -- be fairly described as presidential "usurpation." ??
I didn't pay much attention to this woman when she was in the headlines before, but this suggests that she is competing with Michael Moore for the title of Lefty Whack-job Who Makes It Harder For Truly Thoughtful Critics Of Bush To Be Taken Seriously.
I agree that Sheehan's statements are laughable but Feinstein does not rely on the leftist wing to get elected in CA. She has tons of independent/moderate republican support here. She has a reputation for being a moderate and bipartisan outreach. I would love to see Sheehan run against Feinstein. She'd get a few hippies here in SF to vote for her and that's about it. Then the idiot wing of the party will be silenced once and for all.
I was one of those moderate Republicans who supported Senator Feinstein.
No more.
If for no other reason than the Republicans in California always stand a decent chance of putting up the right-wing versions of Cindy Sheehan as their standard-bearers (e.g. Bill Simon).
Eric Muller -- I know, I am so happy that David Kopel has the guts to really take on Cindy Sheehan. Rather than engage in the issue of whether this President majorly messed up in Iraq, whether this President has violated federal law by spying on Americans without warrant or oversight, whether this President has violated the Constitution by imprisoning American citizens without charge or opportunity to be heard for four years, whether this President has turned us all into perpetual debtors as a result of his out-of-control spending, whether this President has ruined the good name of the United States by torturing people uselessly and for no reason, whether this President pursuant to his "Commander in Chief" power can basically do anything so long as he determines it's somehow part of the "war on terra" . .. etc.
But hey Cindy Sheehan is stupid, and Michael Moore is fat. Yeee haw! Those are the talking points.
There, I said it, and yes I have the uniform to back it up.
If you find anything admirable or justifiable in Cindy Sheehan's activities since the death of her son then you're a coward, an idiot, or an outright traitor.
"The American soldier [is] a paper tiger and after a few blows [tuns] in defeat." -Osama Bin Laden
My wife's message to Cindy: Stop giving them excuses to send my husband to the same place they sent your son.
Odd. Kopel simply (and solely) quotes some comments from Ms. Sheehan, and this is characterized as "taking her on."
Because of the loss of her son in Iraq we're not only not allowed to criticize her views but now we're forbidden to even cite those opinions?
SMG
I'm one of the many liberals who has little to no respect for Cindy Sheehan. And frankly, my respect for Michael Moore isn't great. But there is just no comparison between the two. Sheehan is a complete nut-job. Michael Moore is an intelligent person who far, far too often goes overboard in what he's saying.
Simon wasn't a good candidate, however. Anyway, Feinstein is the most popular politician in California and won't lose to anyone in the primary or the general election. She'll be a California senator as long as she is alive.
I see nothing objectionable about this statement. I did appreciate the irony, though, of Greedy Clerk accusing others of using "talking points", particularly in light of the preceeding paragraph.
I guess "decent person" means people who don't believe in the right of people to have birth control. Such is the right.
Chris P, please inform me where I used talking points, because I did not. Furthermore, I dare you to respond to any of what I said on the merits.
The entire paragraph preceeding your accusation of someone else using "talking points" just oozes it.
Oh no, we don't need to respond to arguments on their merits anymore. We can simply label them as "talking points", and they magically go away. We have you to thank for that.
Though I agree with the thought that Bill Simon was far right. I really didn't like him. He would have been a Far Right version, on the Left Coast, of John Kerry. Both seem a little awkward being human.
Are you a UPS delivery person? A candy striper? A teenage girl at a Catholic school?
Do tell.
What merits?
Those are heavy accusations, can you back it up, or are you yella?
She's suffered a terrible loss.
We're not all the mirror image of this:
Cindy Sheehan [...] is personally responsible for more combat fatalities than President Bush.
Mr. Jarhead: Can you please offer more evidence for your assertion than your attire? I'd like to respond, but without some supporting evidence or at least narrative, it is very difficult.
Boy oh boy.
Jarhead is certainly better able to respond than I but I think the argument goes that the terrorists have stated their aims are to cause political upheaval, forcing the US troops out. They cannot win militarily, so they manipulate the press through public terror, and kill in order to foment political rebellion in the United States.
This has made the curious situation where, it can be argued, those most vehemently against the prolongation of our being in Iraq are the most responsible for our still needing to be there. Had there been unanimity against the terrorists in Iraq, they would have felt no hope or purpose in their attacks, and would have gone somewhere else.
The fierce, and widely publicized, opposition against US involvement gives the terrorists hope they still have a chance to win by political means here.
Indeed, if one pushed this point, they could say had there been no philosophy of American political frailty arising from the Vietnam era, once major combat operations had ended, there would have been no impetus for the terrorists to move in. With this in mind, then, combat deaths for the last couple of years can be attributed to the people who feel they are obligated to protest the war. Such people are within the stated strategy of the present terrorists.
This is an arguable point to be sure, but one which can be made.
Note, this isn't an argument against free speech, but just a comment on how the terrorist fully want to manipulate some of our greatest rights for their own unrighteous actions.
So then you support abortion rights to abort "babies" when, say, a black woman has been raped by a white man since she will be insuring that she doesn't have a mocha baby?
Could you tell me what the score is so I will know whether we are winning against "the terrorists"?
I mean Rumsfield confirmed that we have had a series of meetings with representative of the various factions opposing the US Iraq and since we all know that we don't negotiate with terrorists, I don't know who you are talking about.
Under that logic, Paddy O, you can say that since many Klan members and neo-Nazis carry confederate flags at rallies, anyone who has a Confederate flag is a Klan member or Neo-Nazi.
The argument is that terrorists cannot win militarily so their strategy is to encourage political rebellion at home. This is a stated aim. The terrorists want US troops out, and the method they use is to continue until it is politically unfeasible.
This is not the aim of the Americans who want troops home, but an argument can be made that their passion for what they feel is right is feeding the hopes of the those who kill Americans.
It is a perverse argument of course. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.
As far as your analogy, some do make that argument as well. However, Klan members do not see carrying the Confederate flag as being equivalent to being a Klan member. The key is not our perception, but how the terrorists view the political discontent here.
From what I read in the newspaper, a number of these terrorists also believe that if they get popped while fighting us infidels that they will go straight to heaven where 17 virgins dripping in honey will be waiting for them.
So we are supposed to tailor our national policy according to how the "terrorists" view things?
You tailor a military victory by responding to how your enemy thinks. He responds to how you think.
The national policy is that we are in Iraq. The military situation urges us to do what is best to get us out of their the quickest, so we can have new policies put into place.
If we could get Muslim theologians to declare suicide evil, and the virgin thing silly, then that too would be a way to victory.
With this thought in mind, the most effective strategy for getting troops home isn't necessarily the most noisy. The best strategy would be to offer quiet support, end the terrorists hopes for political wins, and then vote everyone who you think started this war in the first place out of office at the first possible chance.
If you oppose a war, this doesn't at all mean you are pro-terrorist, though one should realize the terrorists use this opposition for their own aims. You can hate terrorists with an absolute passion and still do that which helps their cause. Bad generals have done such help for the enemy throughout the centuries.
No, that’s just blatantly partisan demagoguery; guess nothing’s changed. Even if Alito was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to be an opponent of Roe/Casey, it still wouldn't justify a complete cessation of the democratic process by a seemingly one-issue Democratic minority (I wonder how they would have recieved Byron White?). But since we are apparently obsessing over polls now, would you care to point out what Alito’s numbers look like?
However, when I read her description of the unitary executive, it seems she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. That does render her criticisms unpersuasive and it's blindingly obvious that the death of her son does nothing to make her criticisms more persuasive. It is ironic that people who are perfectly ready to criticize those who criticize *her* on an ad hominem basis are equally as ready to hold up her son's death as some grantor of legitimacy or persuasiveness (a classic argument from authority, equally unpersuasive as the ad hominem).
I agree with one previous comment though: this is LGF or Kos fodder more than something substantive. If it were a comment, I'd call it trolling.
Gimme a bruckin' fake. Ho hum. Been there. Done that.
Hey, put me at the top of the list, cannon fodder!
It's just too bad it isn't getting the same kind of press coverage as her original protest.
Sheehan really has just derailed. I don't blame her, I've never lost a child so I can't imagine the stresses that come with that, but it is sad to watch:
George W. Bush put Charles Pickering on the appellate court as a recess appointment, and Pickering is a raving loon. He wasn't opposed by liberals because he was a Christian, he was opposed because he showed systematic disregard for the role of precedent and a thoroughgoing misunderstanding of the rule of law. As a district judge, Pickering was reversed fifteen times for ignoring well-settled points of law, and that was in
the wild and wacky Ninth Circuit in Sanfrancalifriscooh, no, wait a minute ... the Fifth Circuit, down in Nawlins. And yet it was only by filibuster that this man was kept from being approved onto the Appeals Court by an up-or-down vote supposedly on his qualifications. Heck, even Michael Brown got an up-or-down vote on his qualifications by the whole Senate! Can you imagine what trouble Bush would be in today if Brownie had been a recess appointment??I'm a liberal, and I said publicly that I would support Eugene Volokh for Supreme Court long beforeHarriet Miers. I say the same in reference to the present nominee.
Oh, and about the whole "Concerned Alumni of Princeton" thing, I can tell you this with absolute certainty: the fact that Alito bragged about his membership in CAP on a job application in 1985 can only be interpreted in two possible ways: (1) Alito was aware of CAP's reputation (well-deserved, at least by some of its members) for hostility towards women, minorities, homosexuals, and worst of all, public-school students on academic scholarships, and chose knowingly to take the risk of being viewed as an idiotic bigot. (2) Alito was culpably negligent in listing something as a qualification on his employment application without doing due diligence as to the associations his association with that association might engender. It's not quite to the level of inappropriateness of "Oh, I only joined the KKK for the marshmallow roasts over an open crossfire," but it's far worse than "I went to 73 different Star Trek conventions because I thought the Klingons were really cool." I mean, really, I was the vice-president of the Dungeons & Dragons Club in high school, but I wouldn't brag about that on a job application at DOJ.
I'm a Democrat, and I endorsed John Roberts on the record in public and I also e-mailed both of my Senators. I'm not ready to endorse Sam Alito, and I don't appreciate being rushed.
I have lots more to say about lots of things, on my blog.
— Lincoln Madison,
San Francisco, U.S.A.
that she has a sexy voice..much better than that old witch
Diane Feinstein. I had a heinous highschool teacher who
could pass for Di-Fis evil twin. Everytime I hear that
voice I have terrible flashbacks to 1977. Given that
Californias senators are going to be socialists, I'll take
the one with the sensuous voice.
The only difference, for her, will be whether she can look at herself in the mirror at the end of her life and be proud of herself that she did all that she could to prevent religious fundamentalists from using the state to tell American women what they can and can't do with their uterus (and, in the process, stay true to her previous comments saying she would do so). If Cindy Sheehan wants to point this out, I don't see the problem.
-dk
"When Alito puts the chain and lock on your wife's vagina, I am Yes, yes, "far left." "
Do you really think anyone is attempting such a thing?
Really?
This woman is insane. She goes to Venezuela to praise CHavez who is everything (and more) that she accuses Bush of being.
Sheehan gives the enemy hope by demanding our surrender and retreat. President Bush puts the fear of me (basically) in them by telling them to "bring it on."
One of the two is encouraging more suicide attacks, and the other is encouraging the "insurgents" to try politics instead. You figure it out.
Like anyone's paying attention anymore.
Some commenters suggest that Feinstein's vote against cloture means that she is joining a filibuster. You, on the other hand, insist that she believes that there is something more to discuss. Feinstein's press release claims that she has done a "thorough analysis," which at least hints that she's made up her mind, not that she has more questions.
It's not perfectly clear, but I think it's more likely than not that Feinstein's vote against cloture is a proxy for a no vote and an attempt to subject Alito to a supermajority requirement, not that she genuinely believes that there is more to discuss.
You're forgetting that the current administration has made a science out of narrowly splitting the vote and then pushing for maximal expansion of their role. I really do weep for the country; the Democrats almost have to resort to the same tactics - this is a political war of escalation. And at this rate, it will tear the country apart.
Mr. Jarhead:
A jarhead is a US Marine. You figure it out.
I got that part, thanks. Contrary to rumors, some of us with opposing viewpoints actually do have some familiarity with the military. For reference, I have a relative in Iraq (4th Brigade).
One of the two is encouraging more suicide attacks, and the other is encouraging the "insurgents" to try politics instead. You figure it out.
That's twice you've said that. And twice you've made a bald assertion with no supporting evidence. If this is argumentation, here is my rebuttal:
There. I've stated my position with no supporting evidence, too.
And, of course, I'm aware of the impedence mismatch. That's what fuels most of the friction between viewpoints. I simply do not accept the notion that, once committed to war, everyone who thinks the decision was a bad idea has to shut up for the greater good. It is funny how Burkean reasoning takes a back seat to Rousseau when "conservatives" are in power.
Like anyone's paying attention anymore.
On the contrary, I think many, many people are watching.
No, I vote for candy striper or cubscout or something.
No marine I know would get all puffed up by taking cheap shots at a mom who'd lost a son in war. The marines I know have more class than that.
Indeed, as Jarhead is quoting his wife's concerns in this instance, I dare say her moral authority in worrying about her husband is worth a great deal of consideration. Those who are risking even more than Cindy Sheehan did, have a right to criticize her actions, even if we disagree.
I think it's unlikely that Sheehan will oppose Feinstein in the primary. All she'd do is guarantee Feinstein's re-election by letting her distance herself from the crazy left.
I don't believe for a second that the poser is bona fide.
Like I said, just not a class thing to do.
The jarhead has a point, Al Qaeda knows they can't defeat us militarily, there only hope is turning public opinion against the war in Iraq, and the war on terror in general. Cindy Sheehan and the attention she gets gives them hope to keep on fighting. If this were a more of a life or death national struggle, I'd be more concerned than about her movement than I am. If Jarhead is bonafide, and I see no reason (other than this being the internet) to doubt him, why shouldn't he take exception to remarks he sees as encouraging those who are shooting at him and his buddies? I don't blame Sheehan though, she is at least temporarily insane.
I do blame those like John Kerry, and John Edwards that voted for the war only because they thought it was politically advantagous, then started critisizing the war because it was how they really felt, and it was percieved as politically advantagous, then called for more troops, and then less all because they thought they could personally benefit. I don't have any animosity toward Ms. Clinton, or Joe Lieberman who have been much more consistent, or Feingold and Kennedy for that matter who have been consistent on the other side.
I've met Cindy Sheehan and spoken to her personally, and she is many things, but crazy isn't one of them. Saying that we should get our troops out of a free-fire zone is not giving aid and comfort to their enemies, it is simple common sense. The choice isn't between "cut and run" and "press on to victory"; it's between tactical retreat and being on the wrong end of target practice.
If Jarhead is a bonafide Semper Fi, then he should understand, just as the many jarheads who joined us under the tents at Camp Casey and on the Mall in Washington understood, that Cindy Sheehan stands opposed to squandering the sacrifice of the lives and limbs of our armed forces on a fool's errand. That is the ultimate support for the troops, not in any way a betrayal.
Furthermore, I won't pretend to speak for Cindy Sheehan on this point, but I see the war in Iraq as in direct conflict with the war on terror, not as its central front. Iraq was a problem, but it was a problem in a little box; the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan were a problem that we let get away from us, instead of hunting down and killing. Now we have two problems loose and running around. Are we safer?
I also blame the political opportunists who ignored their consciences and voted for the war in Iraq because it was popular, but even moreso I blame the administration for manipulating the situation to place them into that position.
Anyone who believes that George W. Bush is a better friend to the grunt on the ground in al Anbar than Cindy Sheehan, is just plain delusional.
First of all, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court should be subject to a supermajority requirement, whether it's a Democratic or Republican Senate, and whether it's a D or R in the White House. That is why the filibuster has existed throughout the entire history of the Senate: controversial measures of lasting importance should not be forced through on a party-line vote.
What remains to be discussed is, why are you willing to force a nominee on such a substantial minority that is so vehemently opposed to him? If you support him so strongly, why don't you try to persuade us instead of trying to push to a vote the moment you have a majority?
Feinstein had already announced that she would vote against Alito; she had previously said that she would not support a filibuster, but she now says she will not support cloture. A filibuster only works if the 40+ have greater patience and greater commitment to their cause than the narrow majority. If the Republicans can't persuade more than a couple of the Democrats to support a nominee, they need to make a stronger case or else give it up and try again with a new nominee. And yes, I do believe that Clarence Thomas should have been kept off the Court, too.
Hard luck for Brandeis...
But if you really believe that collaboration between the different enemy factions in Iraq is increasing, instead of decreasing (and turning ever more bloody, IMHO), I would be interested in your original sources for this.
...that's completely different from saying that Feinstein opposes cloture out of a good faith belief that there's more to discuss.
As for the merits of the filibuster, I don't know what to think, other than that the Democrats would have much less need to worry about the composition of the federal judiciary or the debate rules in the Senate if they could win a few elections.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that a Supreme Court nominee should be able to get at least a few votes from the other side of the aisle before being confirmed, but I think that that's more of a complaint with the current situation than a worthwhile general principle. It only matters right now because the Senate majority is of the same party as the President. I can easily imagine a situation in which there are 53 Dems in the Senate, a Democrat in the White House, and every Democrat with a word processor complaining that the GOP's "lockstep party discipline" is obstructing the President's prerogative to staff the federal courts.
If the Dems are in the minority, presumptively that means that the people have spoken and aren't sufficiently interested in their platform. Changing the minds of the people is a much more legitimate tactic than quibbling about Senate procedural rules or filing "public interest" lawsuits in the courts.
As for the spectre of a Democratic Senate majority and a Democratic President trying to force through a Supreme Court nominee on similarly thin margins, just look at history. How many nominees in the last century have been elevated to the Court with less than 60% of the full Senate voting in favor? I believe that would be Clarence Thomas. Both of Clinton's nominees had single-digit no votes. The three Justices currently serving who were appointed by Ford or Reagan were all approved unanimously.
However, the central point is that a nomination that splits along strict party lines is intrinsically flawed, and that is something I think needs to be discussed.
For whatever reason, the climate in Washington surrounding judicial nominations has gotten ugly.
The Dems may say that it's because the nature of the candidates has changed and that the President is trying harder to push "extremists" through.
The Republicans may say that it's because the Dems are taking cues from the interest groups who only care about single issues and have no interest in what judges are supposed to do generally.
I think most of it has to do with the escalating fight over abortion and Roe v. Wade.
I think that if Clarence Thomas were nominated today, he'd get confirmed by less than 60 votes. The Bork and Thomas nominations were test cases for ugly confirmation battles. The fact that Alito may pass by a slimmer margin than Thomas doesn't show that he's more extreme, only that confirmation battles have gotten uglier or at least that the Senate is paying more attention.
Thomas also had the added benefit of having Ted Kennedy stay silent. When the strongest critic of Republican judicial nominees can't criticize Uday Hussein from a position of moral superiority, the party is in trouble.