Dem Ben Nelson Of Nebraska For Alito

First Dem Senator to come out for Alito - and so it begins.

Comments

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

That bastard. By sounding reasonable, he set the bar too high for the other dems.

Watch for Kos Kidz to crucify Nelson.

[Captain Joe]

I'm sure that Nelson is just aligning his views with the views of his constituents. Nebraska, a red state. He must have a reelection coming up.

[savo]

This is a copy of a letter I just sent to the state's largest paper's letters to the editor section. Unfortunately, I didn't realise he'd come out with a public endorsement already, the jackass.

You're absolutely right, he is up for reelection and he's built his entire career (used to be the guv) on pandering to the reds. Meanwhile, our other sen is Hagel, who I actually respect because he STANDS FOR SOMETHING. They usually both cross party lines and cancel each other out. It's pretty nuts, but that's Neb for you.

The final straw, for me, was when Nelson voted to end the Patriot Act fillibuster the same day the NSA story first broke. That's when I took a personal vow to make him feel some heat, to the extent I could.

I'm new at this, so feel free to send it around if you think it has merit...maybe we can still give him some pain.

Letter follows:

As one of the "gang of 14" supporters of the judicial filibuster truce, Sen. Nelson has received a lot of national press the past several days for his comments on the Alito confirmation. In brief, his most widely quoted statement says:

"So far I have seen nothing ... that I would consider a disqualifying issue against Judge Alito," -- Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.

May I humbly suggest, Mr. Senator, that you take another look?

Granted, for most of us average folk last week's hearings did offer nothing much more than a lot of sound and fury.

Yet one point was consistently and irrefutably clear. Through his statements on Unitary Executive, and Presidential Signing Statements, Judge Alito is clearly revealed as a staunch advocate of the expansion of executive power, who takes a narrow view of the ability of congress or the courts to restrict abuses of that power.

In his view, there are few, if any, mechanisms which limit the president's power.

With the executive and legislative branches already held in lockstep by one party rule, we can ill afford to surrender the only protection remaining against an all-powerful executive. Judge Alito has clearly and consistently demonstrated -- through his writings, through his judicial history, and through his answers during the hearings -- that he will not offer that protection. It is precisely for that reason that he was nominated.

Can you frankly and honestly tell us, Mr. Senator, that approving someone with such views is prudent given this administration's clearly expressed intent to expand the president's authority, seemingly without limit?

The Founders certainly understood the dangers implicit in limitless power in the hands of one individual or faction. In their day they called it Tyranny.
This is why they designed a system of three branches having checks and balances.

Are you the type of man, Senator, who only chooses the battles he can win; who will willingly let the last bulwark fall if the cost of standing in opposition seems too dear?

Or are you a Patriot who is willing to sacrifice all to stand for the principles upon which our Nation was founded?

If not now, Senator, when?

[Bullgator]

Pulllllease!

I think you're confusing President Bush with Emperor Palpatine.

[COLUMBO]

few points:

1) The power of the executive is NOT subjective with respect to which party is in power (translation: if one party controls all branches, then executive's authority should be further restricted-this is nonsense)

2) the expansion of executive authority was granted under a congressional resolution 9/14/2001...98 senate votes-almost unanimous