Alito Debate Blogging

The Alito debate is still going on. I just saw Mark Dayton give a scathing criticism of Bush. His point was that the exemptions Bush has claimed from hundreds of bills that he's signed is blatantly unconstitutional, because nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision for an exemption. The President must either sign or veto a bill. Alito would seek to give more power to the executive, which is unconstitutional. Congress makes the law, it is the President's duty to execute that law. What does it say about a President who nominates someone like that?

I don't know anything about Dayton except that he's retiring, but he was good. Anyone have any info?

Kerry's up now, and slamming Bush and Alito. He's finally got the frames right: this isn't about yes or no, or just a judicial nominee, it's a fight over the future of this country between two competing ideologies. Some might say that it's politically better to wait and vote for Alito, but if we pass on opposition, then what good are we? What good are we doing for this country? The Republican ideology would drive this country backwards. GOPers have been arguing that a justice's duty is to solely interpret the law, but isn't it more important for them to protect every single American? To find that in the law that the weak can be represented against the strong? Alito stands against the weak and those who don't have voices that can compete with the strong. Alito is a replacement for Harriet Miers, and that's really saying something. Alito's interpretation of the unitary executive is narrow and incorrect.

I'm also glad Kerry's been posting on kos. Why do our nominees only get good after they lose?