The Gang of 14 was put together in an attempt to find a compromise between the Democrats that were filibustering judicial appointments and the Republicans that were threatening to use the nuclear option in response. The nuclear option would change the Senate rules so that judicial nominees would no longer be subject to filibusters. The compromise involved some Democrats agreeing to break the filibusters on several stalled nominees, in exchange for some Republicans agreeing not to support the nuclear option. The motives of the Senators varied. For most of them, the overriding concern was for the traditions of the Senate. There are seven Democrats that are part of the Gang of 14.

* Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut
* Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia
* E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska
* Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
* Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
* Mark Pryor, Arkansas
* Ken Salazar, Colorado

These Senators agreed not to participate in future filibusters of judicial nominees unless there are ‘extraordinary circumstances’. These circumstances are not defined, and at least part of the Democratic strategy for the Alito hearings was/is to elicit or uncover something that these Senators could latch onto to call ‘extraordinary’.

I don’t mean to suggest that Alito’s record doesn’t provide plenty of ammunition. But, the hope was that there would be some sound bite moment that would exemplify and crytallize Alito’s radicalism. Unfortunately, Alito was able to avoid making any glaring blunders and, so far, the Democratic investigators have not been able to turn up anything really juicy.

That leaves the Gang of 14 back where they started. Is Alito’s record, by itself, sufficient to be classified as ‘extraordinary’? I believe it is. But do the seven Democratic senators feel the same way?

The Associated Press reports:

Judiciary Committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein has indicated a filibuster is unlikely and at least one conservative Democrat Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson is leaning toward backing Alito. Nelson said Thursday that he has seen nothing that would disqualify the nominee.

And Raw Story reports:

Despite hopes in liberal circles that Democratic senators will block the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, several Democratic aides to senators on the Judiciary Committee have privately told RAW STORY that such a prospect is highly unlikely.

After Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) remarked that a Democratic filibuster was a “definite possibility” late Wednesday, some liberal blogs championed the possibility that Alito might be stopped. But this scenario is unlikely, aides say.

There’s “not much discussion” of a filibuster, said one veteran Democratic Judiciary Committee aide Thursday, who called the move in which 40 senators block the confirmation of a presidential nominee, “very unlikely.”

The only thing we can do is write letters to the members of the judiciary committee, to our own Senators, and (especially) to the members of the Gang of 14. The hearings are not over and things can still change. The Democrats can win a filibuster if they can convince the members of the Gang to go along with one.

It is still possible that the Republican members of the Gang will respond by going nuclear. That threat may be dissuading some Democrats from participating in a filibuster. But, we might as well call their bluff. If the Democrats cave on Alito, we need to remember which Dems made that cave inevitable.

0 0 votes
Article Rating