Crosspostings at tpmcafe

Me from tpmcafe:

With Miers out, the broadly accepted view is that Bush will nominate an outspoken conservative who has a clear record of supporting right-wing causes. The extreme wing of the Republican party won the battle to have Miers withdrawn, and now Bush must pay up for their support in the elections.

That's fine. The question is what are we going to do about it.

Virtually every conservative I've seen on the news in the past couple days has stated that they want a fight with the Democrats in the Senate--that they want to fight about Roe, about Lawrence, about the 10 Commandments and other social issues.

This is a fight they think they can win.

I disagree, and I would like to see the Democrats show that they have the heart to pick up this fight on substance, and to win it.

The truth is that a solid 60% of this country does not want Roe v. Wade to be overturned. http://www.pollingreprt.com/abortion.htm

The confirmation fight of Bush's next nominee, if the nominee is someone who will threaten constitutional rights, will be an opportunity for Democrats to show that they have strong principles--it will be an opportunity to stand up and to rally people to the party.

So, if the right wing wants a fight, we need to provide just that. It's something we can win.

and,

No, it's not beside the point. The point is that the people in this country want the Supreme Court to maintain specific constitutional rights that are under attack by the Republicans.

We have to remember, and remind everyone, that the Senate is not a representative body. It is not designed to reflect the opinion of the majority of the country--it was designed to reflect the majority of the states.

The Senate was originally designed to ensure that states with smaller populations were respected by the national government since regional factionalism was a strong concern of the founders. Two hundred years, a couple amendments (notably the 14th and the 17th), one Civil War, and one Civil Rights movement later, the Senate is acting like a representative body and the national government is the prime protector of civil rights.

Because the national government has taken on a role that wasn't initially assigned it--protecting civil rights--the Senate, with it's reflection of regional opinions rather than national opinions, is poorly situated to judge what the majority of Americans think is best in areas regarding civil rights.

In the 2004 election, in Senate races, Republicans won a total of 39.9 million votes while Democrats won a total of 44 million votes--but the Republicans gained 4 seats at the expense of the Democrats.

The Republican majority in the Senate does not reflect the beliefs of most Americans.

We have to remind everyone of that--having a majority in a governmental body does not make you right.

A little later, and in response to other commenters, I said:

We have to be prepared to lose this confirmation fight.

In the end, despite the whatever fight Democrats may put up, the Republicans may have the votes in the Senate to push Bush's next nominee onto the Court. But we have to make it a referendum on the policies of that nominee in preparation for the 2006 elections.

I personally believe that Roe was correctly decided. And Lawrence and Griswold and Pierce and Skinner and Meyer. Nonetheless, if this nominee gets on the Court, in time, all that may be gone.

Democrats have to be prepared to start winning elections--both nationally and locally--to ensure that even if we lose the Court, we can protect those rights we believe in though legislation.

That's also why the statistic I quoted is not irrelevant. This is a crucial moment for Democrats to stand up, not just because we can protect the Court, but because we can prepare to win the legislatures.