Letter to Mark Dayton regarding Samuel Alito

[richardf8]

I sent this to Senator Dayton today, via his web form.

I expect senate Democrats to fillibuster this nomination. The purpose of an opposition party is to defend the people of this nation from the tyranny of a grasping Majority.

The decisions of Samuel Alito on every court on which he sat betray a consistent elevation of corporate and government power over individual freedom, on topics ranging from the FMLA to discrimination to abortion. His ascendancy to the Supreme Court would eliminate the last, wafer thin, barrier between the US as a Constitutional Republic and the US as a Corporate Feudal State.

If the Democrats Fillibuster, and the Republicans exercise the so called "Nuclear Option," so be it. It would demonstrate the barefaced brutality of the current regime.

However, if the Democrats do not Fillibuster, then we will find that we have already surrendered to a one party state in which elections are as meaningful as they were in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. There will be no reason to vote any more.


Finally, note that Sandra Day O'Connor has agreed to serve until a replacement is found. Her willingness to prevent an actual Vacancy implies a wish on her part that a Justice more reflective of her values than of Bush's replace her.

Do not fail her.
And do not fail the people of this nation.

Do not vote to end debate on this nomination.

Comments

[kevinjdog.livejournal.com]

I revised the wording a little and sent it to Boxer and Feinstein as well.

[debg.livejournal.com]

I've already called and told DiFi and Boxer.

That's a beautiful letter.

[richardf8]

Thank you! Feinstein's been worrying me a little. I think she's letting herself be cowed by the "Nuclear Option." I think that actually going there, especially with half their leadership indicted, would probably cost them the senate in '06. God willing.

[loquaciousnut.livejournal.com]

Great stuff. Been watching the developments regarding this matter from afar (Australia) and hoping for the best.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

Alas, I'm still a DC resident.

[visservoldemort.livejournal.com]

However, if the Democrats do not Fillibuster, then we will find that we have already surrendered to a one party state in which elections are as meaningful as they were in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. There will be no reason to vote any more.

That's taking things a bit too far. Implying that we live under dictatorship is an insult to those who really do suffer through those conditions. George Bush was elected, regardless of whether or not one approves of him, by the majority of the voting electorate and the opposition (the Democrats) was elected by their portion of the electorate as well. If the American people choose to elect leaders or opposition figures that can not effectively do their jobs, that does not lessen our status as a democracy. It merely implies something about the effectiveness of our political system.

[richardf8]

He LIVES! I was wondering where you had gotten to!

We do not yet live under a dictatorship, though frankly I think our political system is exhibiting the kind of decay that leads there. Democracies become dictatorships when the opposition stands idly by. Considering that my purpose is to warn my Senator that I perceive this to be the case, I stand by the shrillness with which I call upon him to represent me.

[visservoldemort.livejournal.com]

*laughs* To be frank, I've been meaning to tell you something for quite some time .I've taken an idea you gave me and ran with it, to great results so far. But until I could figure out how to put it (I'm bad at writing e-mails) I thought I'd just wait till I got something published in enough detail to explain it. I'll send you an e-mail with details shortly. Sorry about the delay.

Oh, plus college applications were taking up a lot of time. ;) I'm finally done with those though!

Now for the response...
The problem is that shrillness and hyperbole of that type cheapen the call to action when those situations really do occur. In my mind, it's not only a betrayal of the real freedoms we do enjoy in our system to make those claims but a betrayal of those who do need those calls to action.

I agree. The opposition does need to get its act in gear. The utter lack of coherent principled positions and the willingness to allow the lunatic fringe define the whole party was the reason I "went over to the dark side" and left the Democrats in the first place. That and the sheer level of instinctive attacks for the most ridiculous of reasons ("You're a warmongering fascist!" "Republicans are all corporate shills!" "You're a Republican? But you seem so nice!") that I saw rained down on the other side of the line led me to doubt the moral superiority of my position. Having said that, I still stay the heck away from the Fundies. *shudders*

But you should take into account the importance of precise and well chosen language in these things. Failing to do so co-opts your position and hurts your message.

[richardf8]

Well, I'm most definitely intrigued.

Where are you applying?

The problem is that shrillness and hyperbole of that type cheapen the call to action when those situations really do occur. In my mind, it's not only a betrayal of the real freedoms we do enjoy in our system to make those claims but a betrayal of those who do need those calls to action.

I can certainly see what your saying here. The problem is that my party's been asleep since 1994 or so, and they've slept through the polite beeping of the alarm clock, they've slept through the fire engines racing down the street, and it seems like getting them to pay attention needs me to be jusmping up and down on their chests, banging pots and pans and screaming loudly.

Maybe its because political rhetoric has, in general, become so binary, so polar, that there seems only to be lethargy and panic left. Maybe I'm just so burned out that the only way I can muster the energy for the fight any more is on the rush of pure adrenaline.

Bush's victory in 2004 really shook my faith in America, and Americans. It was inconceivable that a man who had made such a botch of it all could win, and it seemed to me that he won largely of the Gay Marriage issue. That troubled me more deeply than anything because it said to me that an awful lot of my countrymen were willing to accept Bush's domestic policies, most of which are worker-hostile to the nth degree, if it meant that they could interfere with the lives of strangers.

[visservoldemort.livejournal.com]

You'll find out. I'll send you an e-mail as soon as I get a chance (although with We the People State Competition, midterms, Mock Trial competition and Debate Club Competition all in the next three weeks, that may be difficult...my life is a bit of a roller coaster right now). I think you're going to like this though. Maybe even enough to join my efforts.

Early Action: UMBC (got in, full scholarship), Fordham (got in), Rutgers (got in), Drew (got in)
Regular Decision: TCNJ, NYU, JHU, GWU, American, Columbia

I think that one of the biggest problems in American politics is that polarism, the lack of compromise. If we lose that, then we lose what made representative democracy work in the first place, what made it possible to avoid the 'tyranny of the majority' that made the democratic experiment more than dangerous sectarian warfare.

George W. Bush is not the anti-Christ (as a young Jewish male with plans for world domination I retain hopes of claiming that title) and his victory should be no more ominous to a member of the opposition than any other victory for an opposition figure has been before. Presidents come and go. These things are cyclical. The democrats will resurface, and if they don't then in a decade or two the Republicans will split into two parties or a new opposition force will arise or some other thing will occur to restore balance to the political system.

Politics is a somewhat organic system and while Marx may have gotten his economics all wrong, he wasn't bad at understanding the cycle of history. Ideas feud till one wins and splits into opposing factions, which feud once more. The rise of a new opposition is almost inevitable in our system, as long as it stays intact. Even if your Democrats are doomed, it hardly means an end to an opposition in America. As for Gay Marriage, it isn't the first time the American people (...I hate the way that phrase is usually used...) have fallen for a cheap political trick and it won't be the last. You win some and you lose some. It's the exact same on my side of the spectrum. Polarizing the political discourse even further won't help that and it stands a damn good chance of proving the real threat to democracy in this country.