Redstate

... he answered all of the questions I was going to ask. There is just a little too much inconsistency.

I guess he must have answered them wrong.

If the Dems don't filibuster and Alito is confirmed with less than 60 votes, then the Dems nutbase will go, well, nuts ... "You had enough votes to stop him but you didn't do it!!!!!", blah, blah, blah.

To some extent its in the Dems interest to get Alito to 60 so they can say "filibuster wouldn't have worked anyway, so lay off."

I agree with this. I would have pegged Baucus as the 3rd or 4th most likely Dem to support Alito, so 60 votes looks doubtful at present. I do however think it's a strategic blunder for the Dems for Baucus to vote against Alito though (assuming, as I also agree, that they can't filibuster and they can't win). A pro-Alito vote I think could have made Montanans more willing to dump Burns. This improves his chances IMHO, provided the Abramoff thing dies down some.

There must be real calculation about the Burns- Baucus interplay in Montana. I cannot believe they'll be filibustering here, considering how that gives the GOP another campaign season of judges as an issue.

This also may be a small action of trying to conflate the judicial nomination process with the "culture of corruption" meme. That doesn't seem like a useful strategy, and the focus on local effects (Ohio and RI as noted) also seems very small potatoes for such blunt activity. It still seems likely this is just the beginning few drips of declaration in the typical week or two before the confirm vote.

I'm thinking he will get confirmed with well over 60 votes. If I had to put money down on a number, I would say 68.

The reason being that if their votes are meaningless (and they are), they are free to vote however they want. Voting for the nominee will help the red state Democrats who are up for reelection in 06. They need to be in faux-moderate mode as much as possible right now.

I don't think voting for cloture hurts Chafee. Only the rabid left really loves these judicial fillibusters. And they aren't voting for Chafee anyway. I don't think voting for cloture ever hurts a candidates chances with moderates, even if they tried to make it a campaign issue... which they won't. It is too complicated and obscure for a 30 second spot.

You know, I'd love it if that happened, but I think that's a mite realistic. If Baucus is not on board, who are your 13?

in any filibuster attempt is public opinion.  If Reid calls for a fillibuster and that proves to be unpopular, then he actually hurts the Democrats chances of picking up vulnerable in PA or OH, where the issue of the judicial appointments ties in with general opposition to abortion in those states. Casey, in particular, may lose support in the red portions of PA in spite of his popularity and well-known pro-life views, if the red portion of the state perceives that he will have to toe the line on the President's judicial picks.

I'd have to ask, then, if Baucus is not on board, what five Democrats are?

agree that voting for cloture probably helps him, even if - especially if? - he votes no on confirmation.

agree with Leon though, that 68 is impossible - and was impossible even with Baucus. it's hard to see him getting more than 60 without him.

Best analysis I've ever read on RedState.  Really, the only thing I quibble with is the question of what Reid knows when it comes to who is staunchly behind him.  I think the delay exists because if he knew, he wouldn't need to delay.  In other words, he's still got people that he's not sure of, and is looking to cement them.  

I just based it on the Roberts vote. Alito could lose 5 Democrats that voted for Roberts and hit 68. There are an awful lot of Democrats that voted for Roberts that I never expected to. It is a purely political calculation in the end... I just don't think the calulation has changed that much in less than 6 months.

Of course, the flipside is the guys that did vote for Roberts have more cover to vote against Alito. So that could mean more nays.

"I can't see how a filibuster doesn't make tacti(c)al sense for the Democrats at this point"...

But like in the military, they might win the battle and lose the war when it comes to the 2006 congressional elections.  The GOP will have a field day with "obstructionist" ads.  Especially since Alito aquitted himself well in the hearings with the public, and the voters saw the Senate Democrats taking their marching orders from the moonbats on the left.

Nelson and Pryor seem the only self bets if Baucus is a no. That puts us at 57 IF we hold all our own, no sure thing. I could see several others that could make up the 3 point deficit, though none I would have put up against Baucus on their own.

Johnson (SD)

Conrad (ND) and Byrd (WV) - red state dems facing reelection in 06, though I think Byrd is less likely (I still imagine him waving his pocket constitution and making some idiotic speech about wiretapping and the abuse of presedential power nd voting no).

Lautenberg and Menendez (NJ) - home state boy and newbie status for Menendez to consider

Lieberman (CT) - would seem likely but may have to vote no for his own political considerations.

Salazar (CO) - weasel, but I don't think his Roberts vote will cover him and his broken promises from an anti-Alito vote. a pro-Alito vote, hoever, probably does give him cover for a no vote against a 3rd nominee

Kohl (WI) and Bingaman (NM) - purple staters up for reelection. I tend to think they're pretty safe either way, and while I doubt either votes yes, neither would surprise me, either.

can't imagine any others even possible. and if Baucus is a no, I still agree it's unlikely to pick up even 3 of these 9 (or at best no more than 50-50)

I dunno. There were hints about Lieberman, and I suppose Menendez (NJ?) is in an odd spot - (Lautenberg introducing the NJ native Alito), and Kean is a stiff opponent, and maybe some of the red state dem senators other than Max.

It just seems a stretch, and a complete disregard for the hearings in favor of this week's perception about W, if the democrats exercise very visibly partisan discipline on this.

Don't get me wrong - they certainly could do it, but at the price of sending a huge charge into the GOP base to just as campaign season is about to start. They've proven and essentially admitted they have no strategy, but this is even a marginal tactic - wrong time, wrong place, wrong issue. Now, when JRB is nominated or Libby's charges are dropped, or some such - then pounce, but this is just another dumb petty move.

     I think the analysis is correct, that the Dems would benefit from a filibuster. They would have everything to gain and little to lose. The problem for Reid, I suspect, is that he just doesn't have the votes to prevent cloture from being invoked. Four of the seven moderate dem gangsters will stick to the deal--there is no extraordinary circumstance to justify breaking it.

Byrd is, I think, a non-starter. Similarly, since Hoeven declined to enter the race, Conrad is under no real pressure at all. Conrad's continued existence (and popularity) in a state with which he's clearly out of touch (politically speaking) is something that mystifies me beyond anything else in modern politics, but it is a reality.

Lieberman is already facing the prospect of a stiff primary at home, he may not want to risk a vote here. Besides which, while Lieberman is one of the most hawkish Dems, people have a tendency to forget that he is among the most liberal when it comes to social issues.

I'd trust Salazar about as far as I can throw my car. He revealed during the Roberts confirmation that he will pretty much never vote for a Republican nominee, period.

Kohl and Bingaman are pretty much safe, so I agree that there's not much pressure. Still, I have some dim hope for Kohl.

However, what we need to be asking is - if Reid decides to bring the hammer down, how many of these people will dare to defy him, out of their own political self-interest? My guess at this point is: only Nelson and Pryor. Perhaps Lieberman. I don't see that there's any way it gets to 60, but I could be wrong.

Even the WaPo has endorsed Alito.  The LA Times has endorsed an up or down vote.  From the sounds coming from the Democratic caucus, no one is even considering a filibuster.  The debate is how to manage the fallout of failing to stop another nominee and mitigate the benefit of a "Republican victory."  Even the NYT has been running articles about how the Ds miscalculated.

Remember that the partisans are not the only ones watching SC nominations.  This isn't like the early filibusters that were under the radar to most of the public.  If the Ds try to filibuster, it will correctly be called an unprecedented, partisan obstruction of a majority-supported nominee.  All Rs will condemn it.  Most major newspapers (except maybe the NYT) will condemn it.  It will backfire worse than the Clinton impeachment proceedings did.  And the Senate Ds know it.  That's why it isn't actually an option.

As Taranto over on OpinionJournal and I have pointed out, "The Deal" has ended the judicial filibuster for this Congress.  There is no phyrric victory for Ds to filibuster and lose.  The Rs have to play up the unprecedented nature of the obsturction.  After a week or two of "negotiating" to end the filibuster, they can throw up their hands and say they have to stop the Ds from abusing the filibuster for partisan purposes.  I severely doubt it will come anywhere near that because the Ds and the Rs know who will win the battle.

The people I actually feel somewhat sorry for are the leftist activists.  They have been misled by their leaders from Kos to Reid into believing that the filibuster is actually an option in judicial proceedings.  Thus they avoided trying to convince R Senators to vote no.  They put their eggs in a basket that didn't exit and it's too late for them to change their strategy.  So while no serious commentator thinks a filibuster will actually work, the leftist activists are ready to use it as a litmus test of their party's leadership.  The irresponsible actions of Armando and the others has raised expectations far too high for those on the left and their party has no hope of delivering what they want.  A filibuster against any Bush-appointed nominee.  As if Bush appointing someone is automatically an "extraordinary circumstance."

My guess 62-47.

I don't think voting for cloture hurts Chafee.

I think it does, to this extent: if Alito is confirmed without filibuster, this is a non-story for the rest of the year. If there is a filibuster, this is suddenly front-page news, probably for a long time. It will cause average voters to become much more aware, and to scrutinize their Senator's votes - and for Chafee, that's a bad thing either way.

And I might add that although the 300 million of us who aren't part of the "Gang of 14" may not see it this way, they made a personal deal that undercut their leadership for the purpose of returning the filibuster to its rightful position: the case of extraordinary circumstances.  While Leon, the vast majority of readers here, and the vast majority of readers at Kos don't trust many of those 14 to keep their word, the 14 do expect that of one another.  That's how people like Byrd, Lieberman, and DeWine ended up in the group.  They meant what they agreed to.  This is not an extraordinary circumstance.  Thus, it isn't Reid making the decision.

I have 25-1 on no filibuster.

In a way, Lieberman and Chaffee are opposites. Joe could probably switch parties and gain votes, not that he ever would, but I sense that a primary challenge from his left would actually help him, particularly if corruption is a theme - he remains the anti-Clinton in many ways, and he compares favorably with popular gov. Rell.

Chaffee, OTOH, is probably toast, and the dems. probably want him to win the primary so they don't face an actual issues opponent in the election - everyone knows Chaffee. his support and standing are set, and if it's an open race, Laffey has all sorts of issues he could throw out.

What this means for their Alito votes in anyone's guess, but if Chaffee votes no, I wonder if that is a lethal blow in the primary and worthless for his general anyway.

Joe could do pretty much anything, and would use the ethnic card as needed.

Still - I cannot see Alito getting above 65, and I thought Roberts would be in the 80's.

PS - Off this topic - the Redhot post on Whitman should become a story!

First, I would be interested to hear your list of 7 Democrats that would support Alito (or 8, if Chafee bolts). Myself, I'm having trouble coming up with 4.

Remember that the partisans are not the only ones watching SC nominations.  This isn't like the early filibusters that were under the radar to most of the public.  If the Ds try to filibuster, it will correctly be called an unprecedented, partisan obstruction of a majority-supported nominee.  All Rs will condemn it.  Most major newspapers (except maybe the NYT) will condemn it.  It will backfire worse than the Clinton impeachment proceedings did.  And the Senate Ds know it.  That's why it isn't actually an option.

That's not really how I remember the media handling the filibusters of JRB, Owen, et al. Seems to me that they ranted and raved about the Republicans trying to mess with the rules of the Senate.

As far as the public perception - even if Reid knows that he doesn't have the votes, he can still pull the trigger on this filibuster and keep it in the news. If the GOP is forced to go nuclear, I really do believe that's bad news for Santorum, DeWine, and most especially Chafee. If it's not, I'd love to hear how.

As Taranto over on OpinionJournal and I have pointed out, "The Deal" has ended the judicial filibuster for this Congress.  There is no phyrric victory for Ds to filibuster and lose.  The Rs have to play up the unprecedented nature of the obsturction.  After a week or two of "negotiating" to end the filibuster, they can throw up their hands and say they have to stop the Ds from abusing the filibuster for partisan purposes.

We did that already. The result was not the end of the filibuster, but this deal. Also, the sacrifice of two qualified judicial nominees.

The people I actually feel somewhat sorry for are the leftist activists.  They have been misled by their leaders from Kos to Reid into believing that the filibuster is actually an option in judicial proceedings.

That's because, thanks to The Deal, it is.

Thus they avoided trying to convince R Senators to vote no.

Aside from Chafee and perhaps Collins, I don't see that there was much chance of that to begin with.

So while no serious commentator thinks a filibuster will actually work, the leftist activists are ready to use it as a litmus test of their party's leadership.

Yes, and this is exactly why Reid must do it. Let's suppose that Reid polls the caucus, and finds out that Alito has 51 votes for the Constitutional Option, 57 "yea" votes, and 61 votes for cloture. Does he dare to not filibuster, and face the wrath of his fundraising machine for failing to filibuster a candidate who didn't have 60 votes? I don't think that he does.

A filibuster against any Bush-appointed nominee.  As if Bush appointing someone is automatically an "extraordinary circumstance."

The smart Democrats gave themselves cover by voting in reasonable numbers for Roberts.

It's true, they may do this again, in hopes of saving this blast for the next nominee, but I doubt they have the courage, and I doubt their base has the patience.

The only number that matters in the Senate (when your party has the vice president) is 50.  

Chafee rarely votes with the Republicans, so his loss is - no loss at all.  He would simply be replaced by a Democrat that wouldn't vote much differently.  

Besides, I think there's a good chance for a Republican pickup in Maryland with Steele.

Or that he found the nominee extreme ?                                     I dont think that he did, and I have yet to hear a Dem say he should be fillibustered.  I think the Dem's are too spooked to fillibuster over the his abortion views.  They have lost three straight elections, and I doubt they want to put their Red State and Purple State Senators on record fillibustering a SCOTUS nominee.  

I think Michael Barone was the one (I'll have to go digging for the link) who pointed out that it's the filibuster which essentially bankrolls the Senate - each member has such massive individual power (along with other individual pre-rogatives - holds, blue slips, etc.) unlike house members, and thus can demand and receive financial largesse far exceeding plebian reps.

Even House committee chairman sometimes cannot control the legislative flow as well as the most obscure senator can affect the least important procedure.

The gang's cover PR notwithstanding, what they were voting for was to preserve their individual power over any and all matters rather than seeing a high profile loss of it over the comparatively narrow though important confirmation process votes.

Was not a member of the "Gang of 14" and thus is not bound to the "extreme circumstances" language. He consistently voted against cloture for all of the Bush filibustered nominees. There is no evidence for (and quite a bit of evidence against) the proposition that Baucus is willing to separate a "no" vote from a vote against cloture.

the Redhot post on Whitman should become a story!

I don't have the energy to write it tonight - why not do a diary?

Let's see if any other bloggers pick it up - I'll check tomorrow.

I think this is overthought.

This is a matter of simpler issues....basically, the Dems hurt themselves during the confirmation hearings. The general feeling is the guy should be confirmed at this point. Combine that with enough statements from the gang of 14 that a filibuster would not stand, and this is an easy choice for Reid.

Does he want to take this stand, and play again into GOP hands over obstruction, etc? Their precious issue this year is the "culture of corruption", and doing this will focus the attention on 2 losers for the Dems: Obstructionism and judicial activism.

No...there won't be a filibuster, not even a call for one.

fillibustering a SCOTUS nom. and a nominee to the Federal Court of Appeals.  Nobody noticed when Estrada was being fillibustered.  With all the press this nomination has received and his positive polling numbers, the Dem's dont want this to be the headline for the next number of weeks.  They would rather banter on about the "culture of corruption" and the "Iraq mess".  This will be a political loser for them and I think they know it

McCain Deserves Our Admiration and Respect

Reid is in such a hurry to filibuster. Nevada is a pretty darned conservative state. The Dems need to pick up votes from the center if they want to gain the Oval Office and  pick up seats in Congress. I don't think filibustering this nominee is the way go about doing that. They haven't been able to convince people that it needs to be done.

How about Landrieu, Harken, Lincoln, Lieberman, Nelson(FL) and Prior?

the others no way.

Harkin supported Howard freaking Dean, didn't he?

Nelson (FL) has already made signs of a no vote if he hasn't already said it, and I would have been shocked by a yes even before that

And NOW, NARAL, and company would destroy Landrieu and Lincoln if they voted yes. So much for liberating women.

squeaked by in her last election. Louisiana is a very conservative state. They're a lot like Mississippi in a lot of ways.

I think we are coming at this through totally different frameworks so it will be hard to debate too fruitfully.  But I really see no signs that the Ds are even considering filibustering.  When the WaPo is not only opposing a filibuster but outright endorsing a nominee because "we would be more alarmed at the long-term implications of denying him a seat. No president should be denied the prerogative of putting a person as qualified as Judge Alito on the Supreme Court."

I have a hard time believing that moderates, independents, and non-leftists will stand for this level of obstructionism.  Articles about how the Dems in the "Gang of 14" broke their promise to reserve the filibuster will be on front pages, etc.

More importantly, it won't come to that.  Maybe the Constitutional/Nuclear Option would hurt the Rs.  But there is virtually no chance that it will come anywhere near needing that.  That is why "The Deal" has worked out so well.  We don't have to risk the backlash, but the Ds don't really have the filibuster this term.

I think if Ds had been smarter about the advice they were taking, they would have abandoned the Call All R Nominee's Racist strategy and tried to win over moderate Rs to vote no.  Bork lost a few R votes.  Thomas lost a few.  It is not unreasonable that Ds could have won over Specter (a useful ally in this effort) and enough other Rs to down an extreme nominee.  But they didn't get an extreme nominee and thus they had no way to stop him.

Finally, focusing on Reid is a mistake just as it has been since the Deal was made.  The whole point of the Deal is that it took the power away from Senators Reid and Frist.  Explaining a no vote to MT, ND, WV, FL, NV, etc may not be too difficult, but explaining an possibly unconstitutional filibuster against a qualified and ethical nominee is going to be a hard sell.  

Botton line.  No one that matters wants a filibuster.  Only the misled leftist activists have been pushing for it.  It ain't gonna happen.  If it does, I'll give you a front page post pointing out how right you were and how wrong I was.

I had discounted the likelihood of a filibuster against Alito until I read your post. You've persuaded me that a failed filibuster would be the smart political strategy for the Democrats. Lately though, I've begun to wonder if the Dems are almost as dumb on politics as they are on policy, so maybe they won't see what you see.

I disagree on a vote against cloture hurting Chafee if he votes No on the confirmation vote. I think virtually all the Delaware voters who are rabid enough to insist on filibustering Alioto, as opposed to voting against him but accepting small "d" democratic majority vote on confirmation, are already going to vote against Chafee just because he's a Republican. I suppose that in an extremely close election, with a margin in the low hundreds, there might be enough voters who decide based on Chafee's cloture vote; perhaps such a remote possibility weighs enough to matter in Democratic calculations.

I will add another reason why a failed filibuster is wise Democratic strategy. For Democratic members of the Gang of 14 who vote to sustain cloture but vote against the confirmation, that provides cover for voting against cloture if say a Ginsberg replacement comes up this year. They can say "See, I voted against filibuster even though I opposed Alito, but THIS nominee really is an extraordinary circumstance."

 

when discussing the politics of Judge Alito's nomination.  You seem to be forgetting how many Italains live along the East Coast. Samuel Alito will get all 55 republican's votes for confirmation(he should or Chafee's toast). I also think he will get 10 democrats to vote for him.  They don't ALL WORSHIP at the alter of the abortion lobby. Abortion politics is changing.  The last O'Connor ruling (9-0) proves this.

I agree, there will be no filibuster.  All bets are off if for some God forsaken reason they try it.  

The Constitutional option as planned was only going to eliminate the filibuster on judges, not for legislation.

So, that seems to undercut the whole power-preservation argument.

... I think Adam's right.  Baucus was a mild surprise, but I think mainly a result of the Burns situation.  I was saying 65, now I predict the final number will be 64.  Here are 13 Dems, pick 9:

Nelson (NE), Nelson (FL), Lautenberg, Lieberman, Pryor, Johnson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Kohl, Bingaman, Dorgan, Carper, Dodd (yes, Dodd).

I think that the most likely number is 61. The reason I think that is that it will be a stage managed vote.

Harry Reid knows he doesn't have the votes to vote Alito down. And there's too many people watching on a Supreme Court nomination for a filibuster to work. The problem is that the moonbat left will scream if he doesn't filibuster and there are less than 60 votes for Alito.

Therefore Harry will allow (possibly prevail upon) a small number of Democrats to vote 'YES' on Alito. That will bring the total vote to slightly out of reach of a filibuster. Then Harry can address the moonbat left with a straight face and say that he used every tool at his disposal, but it just couldn't be done.

of the nuke option. Dems would want it limited to SC nominees, but the same Article of the Constitution covers judges and other appointments (e.g. John Bolton for UN Ambassador). Would the gang of 14 have the cajones to make the nuclear option broad? If nuking saves one SC nominee but leaves everything else gridlocked that would be a shame.

Absolutely, but I think the point was simply unmasking the notion that the filibuster is wholly a creation of Senate rules, and not particularly longstanding, traditional, set in stone, or "hallowed", is akin to revealing the Wizard behind the curtain.

Making a show of it helps preserve it as much as possible.

Modifying it here starts tearing the whole thing down, which, come to think of it, would be a real reform, in case any of the senators start commenting uselessly on House reform issues. Hope someone asks Harry Reid that question. And maybe about one-man-one-vote while they're at it.

Yeah, I picture Democratic Senate Campaign Committee strategists urging Baucus to vote against Alito to heighten the distinctions between him and Burns. Burns is vulnerable this election, a little out-of-state money goes a long way in Montana, and the Dems don't want to annoy potential Democratic contributors with a pro-Alito vote from Baucus.

If it were an election year for Baucus, you could be sure support Alito.

The Senate rules have two methods of operations: the Executive Calender and the Legislative calendar.  All nominations that require Senate confirmation (Supreme Court, other judges, cabinet, ambassadors, agencies, military) go through the Executive Calendar.  The Constitutional option would only change the rules that apply to the Executive Calendar and make it impermissable to require additional votes beyond a simple majority (i.e., filibuster) for any and all nominations.  The rules for the Legislative Calendar would remain unchanged and filibusters on legislation would remain as an option.

The logic is that for a nomination there is no potential for compromise, it's a yes or a no.  You can't change Alito's DNA or philosophy, so it's either a yes or a no on him.  With legislation, there's quite a bit of room for compromise or haggling.  You don't like this provision, but you can filibuster until it is dropped or they add something you like.  Legislation is rarely black or white, so you can always negotiate to get something in return for dropping the filibuster.

I'd not heard that one before, but for all I know there are some Senators who like that rule change or that reason.

The reasoning  I'd heard before, is that the rule change is needed because the filibuster of an appointment (yes, I was apparently wrong before when I said Judges, I should have written that more broadly) prevents the Senate from fulfilling its Constitutional advise and consent role.

Either way, it's a good change to make no matter who's President.

3 weeks ago, I said 62.  My reasoning was simple:

It has to be over 60, or else Alito would be filibustered.

It can't be much higher than that, or else it'd be a major Democratic revolt on abortion.

Once you're at 61, then one more vote won't hurt, so a Democrat in an anti-abortion state can take cover.

So, I came up with 62, but 61 makes sense, too, if Democrats in Republican states have nothing to fear, thanks to the RSCC having a lousy year.

Yeah, what exactly is NOW going to do?

Will they challenge Landrieu with a San Francisco Democrat in her next primary?  The way Louisiana Senate elections work, pulling the Democratic primary leftward might give the election to the Republican outright.

Will they refuse to help her if she gets in trouble in the runoff, and watch as she loses the seat to a conservative Republican?

Where Landrieu is, I just don't see what the radical left groups can do to her.

Diane Feinstein has already said that she doesn't think a filibuster would be justified but that she will vote "No".  Of course she could changed her mind, but why should she?  Her California Senate seat is totally safe from both a primary challenge and a Republican challenge.  She's never going to become President of Vice-President (those opportunities have passed her by, and she's getting old).  So she can pretty much do as she pleases.

Feinstein is also smart enough to know that it's far better to preserve the filibuster for 2007 and beyond.  If Democrats pick up two or three seats in 2006 (a far more likely scenario than picking up six seats to regain Senate control), the nuclear option goes away.  Then Dems will be able to filibuster a conservative replacement for a liberal USSC seat.

There will be no filibuster or even an attempt at one.  I agree with the analysis that Alito will get 62 votes, so that Reid can tell his moonbat base that there was no possibility of sustaining a filibuster.  And it will be 62 votes rather than 61 or 60 because that gives each Democrat who votes for Alito the breathing room to explain to his far-left constituents that changing his vote (even to the extent of opposing cloture) couldn't have effected the outcome.  If three Democrats would have had to switch votes, then the far-left has a difficult time painting it as a knive-edge result that could have been altered with more pressure from activists.

Forcing the Constitutional option would be a clear sign the Republicans have decided to "totally abandon rules that do not suit them".  That could be tied into Abramoff pretty easily.  All they have to do is hang their hat on the recusal issues they brought up during the hearings.

NOW and NARAL can't do anything to her in Louisiana.  After the hurriacane it's only going to become an even more Republican state.  You can put money down that Blanco will be thrown out of office in the nest cycle and Landrieu doesn't want to be kicked out.  My prediction is her, Nelson (NE), Johnson, and Pryor vote for Alito.  59-41.  

It always amazes me how liberal some of the senators from red states are.  There are a few true moderates, but Baucus, Lincoln, Rockefeller, Evan Bayh are really quite liberal.  Yet not only do they keep getting elected, they most have high approval ratings.  Even with the local media behind them, I don't understand how this is.

is up in 2008. She won 2002 with 52% of the vote,

but only won in 1996 with 50%(about 12,000 votes)

so she doesn't need this to drive another nail in her political coffin. The main part of the election in 2008 will probably hinge on how well Louisiana deals with the Katrina aftermath.

The filibuster of Samuel Alito does have some risk of backlash for Democrats. The Republicans picked up seats in the Senate in 2004 after Bush campaigned in open-seat states (and SD against Daschle) against judicial filibusters. Democrats from red and purple states know this, and may want to play this issue both ways--vote FOR cloture in order to placate moderates and conservative voters and claim they were for "fairness" and "majority rule", then vote AGAINST confirmation to placate liberal voters. They could then claim that "I was against Alito personally, but I didn't want to tie up the Senate".

Alito needs either 60 votes for cloture, or 50 votes for the nuke option. In a cloture vote, Alito gets all 55 Reps (Chafee will vote cloture, otherwise he would face a GOP primary opponent), and needs 5 Dems. Nelson (NE) is already on board. Among the Gang members, Pryor (AR) and Salazar (CO) both promised during their campaigns not to have a litmus test on judicial nominees. Landrieu (LA) has probably caught a lot of flak back home over Katrina, and doesn't want to attract more negative attention to herself. Lieberman is a wild card...he's like the McCain of the Democrats. He is a liberal, but seems to respect the "principle" of majority-rule, so he might vote for cloture while voting against Alito on the floor vote. Byrd (WV) and Akaka (HI) will probably vote against cloture, deeming this to be an "extraordinary circumstance".

With Nelson (NE), Pryor, Salazar, Landrieu, and possibly Lieberman, Alito would have 60 votes for cloture. A few other red-state Democrats might also decide not to filibuster, although they will vote against him on the floor of the Senate. Alito might also get a cloture vote from Frank Lautenberg (NJ), who introduced Alito to the Judiciary Committee.

Filibustering a SCOTUS nominee, unlike simply voting against him, or filibustering an appellate court nominee is a high-profile decision, and more people probably watched the Alito hearings than the hearings on appellate nominees. Probably, more than a few Democrat Senators want to avoid aligning themselves with the knee-jerk pro-abortion crowd and being called obstructionists, when many moderate voters would consider Alito to be a fair-minded and reasonable judge. A vote against confirmation, in the minority, can pass under the radar, but voting for a filibuster has political risk.

Filibustering the Alito nomination also brings a risk for liberal Democrats--if the nuke option passes for Alito, this would give President Bush free rein to renominate all the appellate judges that have been stalled in the Senate, who would be quickly confirmed by 50-something votes, since they've already had hearings. Do the filibuster-ers want to fight a losing battle, and consequently lose other battles they've already won, and give Bush the advantage of the judicial nomination vs. obstructionist issue?

Somehow, it would seem like good strategy for the Democrats to NOT filibuster Alito and save the filibuster for the next nominee (which could be the fifth anti-Roe vote if nominated by Bush or a future GOP President).  

Ken Salazar released a statement that he will vote against Alito

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4399968,
00.html

It's like a chess game where Reid has nothing but pawns left, while the Republicans have already queened a couple of theirs.

First queening: when the New England RINOs (sounds like a good name for an arena football team) came out against a filibuster.

Second queening: Nelson (NE) announces that he will vote to confirm, only a couple of days after Reid asks all Democrats to stay mum for a week.

Even if we lose Chaffee and McCain (depending on whom he's pandering to this week), Alito should be able to exceed Clarence Thomas' total of 52 votes.

Reid is only trying to delay the inevitable.

This also may be a small action of trying to conflate the judicial nomination process with the "culture of corruption" meme.

I think, Cadwalj, you have hit the nail on the head.  The Dems just may want the Constitutional option to be triggered because they see it as an abuse of power rather than the legitimate parliamentary tactic it is.  So legitimate that it was employed by Sen. Byrd no less than four times when he was Senate Majority Leader.  They would definitely lump it in with the Abramoff and DeLay incidents in an attmept to paint Republicans as drunk on power and build a case for change for change's sake.

Personally I don't think it is the smart move politically.  But, then again I don't think much of the Dems political strategizing lately.

"Would Reid be willing to face a world without judicial filibuster in which Bush nominated Emilio Garza to replace Justice Stevens? "

What use is the filibuster against Justice Garza in that scenario, should he "save" it?

The filibuster is only useful against Alito. If he doesn't use it for fear of the nuclear option, then the same logic applies to any other appointee.  

This is all about Roe.  And even if (and I think its a big if) Roberts and Alito vote to overturn, there are only 4 seats.  If there are no openings until after the 2006 election, then a 45-48 D Senate could filibuster a Stevens or Ginsberg replacement that could theoretically overturn Roe.

But don't ask me, I don't think the filibuster is even on the D table right now.

The flaw in this analysis (of the main post) is the argument that a Democrat US Senator can not vote for cloture and against confirmation.  

That's exactly what Dianne Feinstein is likely to do and many other Democrats will join her.  

Here are the Democrats I see as voting for cloture (though not guaranteed to vote for confirmation):

Nelson (Nebraska) -- will vote to confirm Alito

Feinstein

Pryor

Lambert

Landreau

Lieberman

Carper

Johnson

Byrd

Conrad

It is apparent that you did not read the main post - as I specifically said that I thought Alito did not have 60 "yea" votes, but treated the issue of votes for cloture separately.

ok, Roberts I can see possibly not overturning Roe, even though his vote on the recent case directly contradicted his promises and statements of philosophy.

But you seriously think Alito won't vote to overturn Roe? I assume this is a minority opinion amongst RedStaters who find Alito more preferable to Miers.

real ez.  Start by showing Salazars promises to CO in his campaign and end by showing how he goes to DC and becomes a liberal puppet run by Reid, Kennedy, et al.

He runs those ads in Redstate PA and runs ads congratulating Casey Jr on being pro-life in Bluestate PA and I say Casey Jr is now in the box.  

He's already announced he's voting against.  Though he might vote for cloture and against confirmation.

I agree with much of the rest.  Filibustering Alito, after those non-event hearings, would make them look awful.  

Don't be surprised if (of all people) Diane Feinstein votes for.

Might be a pain in the butt on tax cuts and campaign finance "reform" (gutting the First Amendment), but on judicial nominations, he's been rock-solid.

I figure that only Chafee votes no, but that is nowhere near a given.

Nelson is in favor.  Feinstein has already announced she will vote no, but does not see grounds for a filibuster.

That leaves the GOP three short in terms of cloture, but they have the Constitutional option.  The question is, will the Democrats paint that as part of the GOP's "culture of corruption" (maybe with a line of, "The Republicans ignore or change rules that do not suit them.").

I'm getting the feeling that something is up?