Alitosis rampant in Senate

I checked my last post on the subject of the Alito nomination to SCOTUS, and it didn't promise it would be my last. So, this one to flog upon our nation's blogs, occasioned by the Senate Judiciary's confirmation of him by a straight party-line vote.

From a theoretical point of view, I might have suggested that one or more of the Democratic Senators on the Committee vote for him in the Committee, simultaneously announcing they would oppose him on the floor. This makes the clear positional statement that the Committee's job is to parse a nominee's decisions, judge upon his or her qualification for the job, and verify the presumably-asserted lack of glaring violations of judicial ethics or public morals. Then, it is the job of the whole Senate to make an overtly political decision--in the case of a senior federal judge or, more obviously, for a Supreme Court position--whether this person's fundamental political outlook makes him, her, or it (for example, Caligula's horse, to refer to an analogous prior Senate nominee) suitable for the lifetime appointment proposed.

I understand, though, why this didn't happen: 1) the respective roles of the committee and the Senate as a body are not formally laid out. I would argue further the roles are not clearly understood by any of the participants in today's process, giving it an ad hoc nature that can be exploited by the Nukular-minded;
2) the Democrats are having a terrible time holding together their forces (in the face of bad poll numbers), and the leadership can hardly tolerate any lack of discipline in such dire straits; and
3) there were enough question marks (possible crypto-fascism and/or crypto-racism, along with a systematic pattern of evasion of any relevant topics, a latter-day Catch-22 situation) for any Democratic Senator to give the nomination a comprehensive rejection.

These combined to enunciate the Democrats' position to date, which I would voice as being, "We will stop him by any means possible, but if we don't have the votes it will be futile." Now, we go to the floor, and the indisputably political strategy and tactics of the numbers and rules which apply to a divided Senate (i.e., one where the motion to approve can not proceed on a simple basis of unanimous consent) take center stage.

I have given some consideration to the point I alluded to in my chat excerpt below, namely, the assertion that Alito's confirmation vote must be completed before the State of the Union address. My suggestion to Harry Reid is that Democratic leadership accede to a debate under the following rules:
1) The "Two-Speech Rule" will prevail for Democrats, which means that Frist can expect each Democratic Senator to have the opportunity hold forth, without time limitation on the Senator's speech, on two occasions before he or she will vote in favor of cloture. This is a venerable tradition which provides for extended consideration, response to other debate arguments, yet without the connotations of excess delay suggested by an all-out filibuster;
2) The Senate would interrupt its debate by unanimous consent to allow the President to speak at the appointed time. The Eponymous Bushite would no doubt take advantage of the Senate's "failure" to approve his nominee within the timing he wanted and make some negative comments, but those (approval, and with the timing specified) are not Constitutional obligations of the Senate, and ill words from "TEB" may well echo in the Democrats' favor in November.

I would call this proposal "extended, but limited, debate", and not a filibuster at all. Just the consideration (and, please, some good PR, so that some impression will remain in voters' minds except the faulty one that those "nasty Democrats made the Justice's wife cry"--it was actually the sarcasm of Republican Sen. Graham) which is due to a political nomination of great import.

The Extra Notch on the Right-Wing Bed Post which will be known as "Justice Alito" was always due to be incised since 2004, was destined to be ugly, and it would be too much to hope that it won't be a long-term one. No more notches can be allowed, of course: the next makes five. To the Wall for the Stevens/Ginsburg replacement, caso mai.

And perhaps we need to take steps to protect against Justice Kennedy becoming too much of a Bram. An operation, perhaps: what's the opposite of an "ectomy"? You know, instead of taking something out, they add something? Like a pair of balls?