Dems Play Checkers With Alito

Most efforts at evaluating the nomination of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court have fallen along predictable party lines. By opposing the nomination however, my fellow liberals and I run the real danger of shooting ourselves in our own left foot.

So starts a column in Town Hall by Susan Sullivan, a liberal San Francisco attorney who clerked for Judge Alito.

The Dem's misrepresentations of his record and unfounded personal attacks, all under the careful command of liberal special interest groups, upsets Sullivan. Being intelligent, she looks not at the moment, but at the future:

At this point, Democrats should be playing chess, not checkers. The threat of a filibuster is not only premature, it's short-sighted. Consider this: Democrats' attempts to filibuster Alito prove successful, because some Republicans are reluctant to change the long-standing rules of the Senate. Consequently, Alito's nomination fails. Check! In his place, President Bush then nominates a true conservative ideologue. We Democrats would most certainly and desperately want to filibuster such a choice but would be unable to do so because now those same Republicans who were reluctant to change the rules beforehand, would be frustrated by what they would see as Democrats' serial filibustering, and so they would now exercise the "constitutional" option and change the rules. No filibuster and we liberals end up with a super conservative justice on the court. Check mate! Now that's the really scary outcome.

h/t Betsy