As I have pointed out in a previous post , even when faced with the reality that her previously stated concerns about the Patriot Act had not been addressed, Senator Cantwell still split with Senator Patty Murray and voted to reauthorize that invasive act.
This brings us to the case of Samuel Alito and his confirmation to a seat on the US Supreme Court. Coming on the heels of John Robert’s confirmation as Chief Justice, it was obvious to even the casual observer that the republican controlled senate was going to rubber stamp any conservative nominee that George W. Bush sent their way and that the only way the Democrats would be able to prevent a radical shift to the right on the court was to exercise their right to filibuster.
As Samuel Alito was going through the motions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was becoming more clear that his judicial philosophy took him well outside the mainstream on issues of privacy rights and, perhaps more relevant to the times, the limits of executive power as it relates to the constitutional separation of powers. It was immediately after these hearings that a number of prominent Democratic senators made it known that they were prepared to launch a filibuster to prevent Alito’s elevation to the bench if indeed he was passed out of the Judiciary Committee.
As is her custom, Senator Cantwell scheduled and held a private meeting with Alito to gain her own insight as to his positions and to determine her own position relative to the vote to confirm. From this meeting, Cantwell released the following statement
”Monday, January 30, 2006
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Monday,
U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) announced that she will vote against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.
As she has with previous potential Supreme Court Justices prior to announcing her position, Cantwell met face-to-face with Judge Alito in her Washington, DC office. During their meeting on Monday afternoon, Cantwell asked Alito about his record and recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Cantwell specifically asked about his positions on the right to privacy, the balance of power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government and the rights of the individual versus the government.
Based on Alito’s record as a jurist and following the answers he gave in response to her questions, Cantwell released the following statement on her decision to vote against Alito’s nomination:
“I am very concerned with Judge Alito’s record regarding an individual’s constitutional right to privacy. (emphasis TLS) While I do not expect any judicial nominee to prejudge future cases, I do expect all nominees to make their positions clear on protecting the most basic rights of individuals and the fundamental structure and foundations of our democracy. In the end, I cannot be sure that Judge Alito would do either.
“Judge Alito has a record of concern when it comes to placing and consolidating the rights of the government over the rights of the individual(emphasis TLS) and he has not provided the answers to adequately reassure the people of our nation. I must conclude that he would neither show due respect for the authority of Congress nor apply a necessary check to the reach of the executive.(emphasis TLS) With great respect for the institution, I cannot vote to confirm Judge Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Now I would say that those are some pretty strong suggestions about the type of harm an Alito confirmation could produce coming from the Supreme Court. However, as I have previously stated, it was widely accepted by all but the most naïve that the only way to prevent this nominee from obtaining a confirmation from this republican controlled body was for Democrats to stand united (especially those who would claim a mantle of leadership) in a filibuster of the confirmation. In fact, such prominent Democrats as John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, Hillary Clinton, and our own Patty Murray stood to encourage their fellow Democrats to join them in such an effort.
In the end, however, Senator Cantwell, who had said that she believed Samuel Alito would “neither show due respect for the authority of Congress nor apply a necessary check to the reach of the executive” joined seventeen Democratic senators (including Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson) to invoke cloture and end any filibuster. True to her word however, when the forgone conclusion (otherwise referred to as the confirmation vote) was reached, Senator Cantwell voted “No”. Unfortunately for those who cherish our civil liberties, the senator was on the losing end as Samuel Alito was confirmed by a vote of 58 to 42.
Sometimes, even in an election year, we ask our representatives to stand on principle. In light of the possible consequences, this was one such time. There will be more opportunities to stand up for our privacy and civil liberties. I have seen where Senator Cantwell stands. I think there is a better choice
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
7 comments:
Too often Democrats have complained that our elected officials do not vote on principles but only vote when "they have the votes".
It's time for us to vote on principle for Mark Wilson - even if we believe he does not "have the votes".
Otherwise, we are no better than the politicians we already have.
Ed Note: The previous comment was deleted as a duplicate entry.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Senator Cantwell voted against Alito and Roberts. To say that that wasn't enough is a cheat. She did her job well. She looked the candidate in the eye and didn't blink.
You persist in supporting someone who has run against Jay Inslee, Patty Murray & now Maria Cantwell. He's never been active as a Democrat, he's only run against Democrats and you insist that we support him??? How does that make any sense?
Mark Wilson doesn't have my vote or Benton County's endorsement because he said in a Tri-Cities Democrats' meeting that nuclear issues, water rights, agriculture and other issues of the East side of the mountains "weren't his issues". In other words, he just didn't care. How can a man who's asking for votes across the state say that he can't be bothered to learn the issues that face us?
No, thank you. Maria isn't perfect, but very apparently neither is Mark. I'll take the candidate who's proved her dedication to the WA State Democratic party and it's ideals and put her time in working on our behalf instead of against our candidates.
BenCoDem,
I applaud your unwavering support for Senator Cantwell. I am sure that she appeciates it as well.
Obviously we have a disagreement as to the level of commitment expected of our elected officials. I believe that when she realized that her "No" vote would be meaningless (in this rubber stamp senate) Cantwell had an obligation to use every method at her disposal to back up her statement of opposition to this appointment. Failing to support the filibuster, in the minds of many, was essentially stepping aside while our Constitution was put at risk. You might re-read what Senator Cantwell said in her statement about Alito.
With the Democratic Party now embracing recent converts from the republican party such as Jim Webb in Virginia and Rodney Toms closer to home in the 48th LD - these are republicans who actually defeated Democrats in elections just two years ago, I will not apologize for supporting someone whose primary platform for the past six years has basically mirrored the Democratic Party's. I am aware of the quotes from 2002 about Captial Gains and Healthcare, however I have stood in many rooms in the past year and heard Mark publicly recant those views and have also heard him make the same statements over the public airwaves on local media and Air America (broadcast nationally). As to your statement, "He's never been active as a Democrat, he's only run against Democrats and you insist that we support him???", I have never insisted that anyone support Mark. I merely state my own support and provide information for others to take or discard as they see fit.
Not having been to the meeting that you mention, I will simply take you at your word that Mark totally walked away from his oft-stated support for new clean nuclear technologies and for the job creation and other economic advantages that investment in renewable energy technologies would provide the eastside in particular.
Finally, you say, "I'll take the candidate who's proved her dedication to the WA State Democratic party and it's ideals..." I would remind you that the State Democratic Platform stands in opposition to the Patriot Act as it exists - Cantwell voted for it twice. The platform states our dedication to the proposition of the individual over corporate power - Cantwell voted to shift class action lawsuits to Federal Court, thus creating a real obstacle to the individual holding corporations libel for wrongdoing. Our platform calls for "Fair Trade based on workers rights and environmental protections - Cantwell voted for both NAFTA and CAFTA (NAFTA has been proved responsible for the loss of some 750,000 familiy wage jobs in this country while contributing directly to the immigration problems we are experiencing by forcing Mexican workers off their family farms and forcing them to this country to work at sub-standard wages and conditions. Did I mention the Democratic position in opposition to pre-emptive war? Even when faced with the overwhelming evidence that the invasion of Iraq was based on faulty or even manipulated intelligence, Senator Cantwell refuses to see her vote for war as being in error. As a matter of fact, her only real criticism appears to be that Bush has F**CK'd it up.
I guess we may also have a disagreement on what constitutes Democratic ideals.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Thanks for bringing this up, because even more than her continuing support for this war (or at the very least, her refusal to take a stand against it, that in the end, is the same thing) this was the vote that pissed me off most (although CAFTA was a doozy too). I was irritated that I didn't know how she was going to vote on cloture until the last minute (she should NOT have been an "undecided" on this) and then I was fully disgusted that she voted for it.
You're right, the vote for cloture was the vote that mattered, I give her no credit for voting against Alito in the confirmation vote, it was already decided by that point and I have no faith that she will help stop the next right-wing nutjob Bush puts up for the Supreme Court. She helped put in place an ideologically extreme Supreme Court that will do damage to this country for generations to come, there should be a price to pay for that.
Maria Cantwell has done little to earn my vote, being good on environmental issues is not enough for me which is why I’ll be voting for Mark Wilson in the primary. He may not have much of a chance, but if I don’t vote him, I deserve the inadequate representation that Maria Cantwell has provided. It would take far less self-esteem than I have to think she’s the best I deserve.
I was not at the Tri-City Democrats Club meeting when Mark showed up, but I did hear from several reliable sources that there was hostility towards Mark from the beginning of the meeting, actually make that 2 meetings (last fall and then a couple months ago) he has been to. At the first meeting he went to, as I have been told, he was not strong on Eastern Washington issues. Since then, he has become stronger.
I have spoken with Mark on many occasions and find him to be extremely knowledgeable on the issues over here in Eastern Washington. He is VERY concerned about agriculture and water, energy from clean energy sources such as the windpower which we do have over here and more are being planned. His knowledge of the nuclear world and the new technologies associated with nuclear was impressive.
This part of Eastern Washington is definitely pro-Maria. I guess I am one of the few who is not pro-Maria. Yes, she has done some good things, but there are some things I am not impressed with.
As for Mark being with the Libertarian (which is a mish mash of Dems/Repub ideology) and Green Party (which is very close to the Democrat platform, maybe a little more to the left), I find it interesting that the BenCoDem writer would hold that against him, because if a Republican, such as Rodney Thom changes to being a Democrat, that is alright with BenCoDem. That means that other Republicans are or may be considering switching parties.
So much for the "Big Tent". So much for trying to encourage people to want to run for office. Because, if someone runs for office that has a "Democrat" in that position, they are not considered a Democrat. Interesting, that a Democrat is running for a position, has been since the first of the year, and here comes the golden boy, Rodney Thom, former Republican, now Democrat. I wonder, if BenCoDem thinks that it is wrong for someone who is a Democrat to run against Tim Sheldon, Democrat, who votes Republican?
That's politics for you.
Post a Comment