Senate Democrats Repeatedly Filibustered Judicial Nominees:

A Majority Of Senate Democrats Blocked 10 Appellate Court Judicial Nominees With A Total Of 22 Filibusters. (Estrada Nomination, CQ Vote #40: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03; Estrada Nomination, CQ Vote #53: Motion Rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03; Estrada Nomination, CQ Vote #56: Motion Rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03; Estrada Nomination, CQ Vote #114: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03; Owen Nomination, CQ Vote #137: Motion Rejected 52-44: R 50-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 5/1/03; Estrada Nomination, CQ Vote #140: Motion Rejected 52-39: R 49-0; D 3-38; I 0-1, 5/5/03; Estrada Nomination, CQ Vote #143: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 50-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 5/8/03; Owen Nomination, CQ Vote #144: Motion Rejected 52-45: R 50-0; D 2-44; I 0-1, 5/8/03; Owen Nomination, CQ Vote #308: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 7/29/03; Estrada Nomination, CQ Vote #312: Motion Rejected 55-43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03; Pryor Nomination, CQ Vote #316: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-44; I 0-0, 7/31/03; Pickering Nomination, CQ Vote #419: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 1-0, 10/30/03; Pryor Nomination, CQ Vote #441: Motion Rejected 51-43: R 49-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/6/03; Owen Nomination, CQ Vote #450: Motion Rejected 53-42: R 51-0; D 2-41; I 0-1, 11/14/03; Kuhl Nomination, CQ Vote #451: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03; Brown Nomination, CQ Vote #452: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03; Myers Nomination, CQ Vote #158: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 7/20/04; Saad Nomination, CQ Vote #160: Motion Rejected 52-46: R 51-0; D 1-45; I 0-1, 7/22/04; Griffin Nomination, CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 51-0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/22/04; McKeague Nomination, CQ Vote #162: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 50-0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/22/04; Brown Nomination, CQ Vote #130: Motion Agreed To 65-32: R 55-0; D 10-32, 6/7/05; Pryor Nomination, CQ Vote #132: Motion Agreed To 67-32: R 55-0; D 12-32, 6/8/05)

Some Qualified Judges Forced To Withdraw Their Names From Consideration:

“During The Past Two Years, A Minority Group Of Democrats Has Lodged Filibusters Against 10 Of Mr. Bush’s Nominees To The Federal Bench, Three Of Whom Withdrew Their Names From Consideration As The Partisan Struggle Dragged On.” (Charles Hurt, “Support Falters For The ‘Nuclear Option,’” The Washington Times, 3/23/05)

“Kuhl Is The Third Of The 10 To Withdraw, After Washington Attorney And D.C. Circuit Nominee Miguel Estrada And Fifth Circuit Recess Appointee Judge Charles Pickering Sr.”  (“Kuhl Withdraws Bid For Federal Appeals Court Brown Among 20 To Be Renominated To U.S. Bench When Congress Returns,” Metropolitan News Enterprise [Los Angeles, CA], 12/24/04)

Filibuster Fanatic Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Would Chair The Judiciary Committee:

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Would Chair The Senate Judiciary Committee. (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Website, www.judiciary.senate.gov, Accessed 3/8/06)

Sen. Leahy Voted Against The Nomination Of Samuel A. Alito To The U.S. Supreme Court. (Alito Nomination, CQ Vote #2: Confirmed 58-42: R 54-1; D 4-40; I 0-1, 1/31/06, Leahy Voted Nay)

• Sen. Leahy Even Voted To Filibuster Alito’s Nomination. (Alito Nomination, CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed To 72-25: R 53-0; D 19-24; I 0-1, 1/30/06, Leahy Voted Nay)

• Sen. Leahy On Samuel Alito: “I’m concerned about documents that show an eager and early partisan in the ranks of ideological activists in his party’s extreme right wing.” (Charles Hurt, “Alito Papers Evince A Conservative,” The Washington Times, 11/15/05)

“[L]eahy Has Conspired With Leftwing Groups In An Effort To Derail The President’s Appellate-Court Nominees For The Last Four Years, Including Through The Use Of Unprecedented And Unconstitutional Filibusters.” (Mark R. Levin, “Judgment Day,” National Review, 7/12/05)

• As Chairman, Sen. Leahy Spent “18 Months Bottling Up Dozens Of Judicial Nominations In 2001 And 2002, Including Key Appellate-Court Appointments. Altogether, 28 Judicial Nominees Failed To Get Votes In Mr. Leahy’s Committee.” (Editorial, “And The Chairmanships At Stake,” The Washington Times, 3/26/06)

• Sen. Leahy Blocked 10 Appellate Court Judicial Nominees With A Total Of 22 Filibusters. (Estrada Nomination, CQ Vote #40: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Estrada Nomination, CQ Vote #53: Motion Rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Estrada Nomination, CQ Vote #56: Motion Rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Estrada Nomination, CQ Vote #114: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Owen Nomination, CQ Vote #137: Motion Rejected 52-44: R 50-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 5/1/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Estrada Nomination, CQ Vote #140: Motion Rejected 52-39: R 49-0; D 3-38; I 0-1, 5/5/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Estrada Nomination, CQ Vote #143: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 50-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 5/8/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Owen Nomination, CQ Vote #144: Motion Rejected 52-45: R 50-0; D 2-44; I 0-1, 5/8/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Owen Nomination, CQ Vote #308: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 7/29/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Estrada Nomination, CQ Vote #312: Motion Rejected 55-43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Pryor Nomination, CQ Vote #316: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-44; I 0-0, 7/31/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Pickering Nomination, CQ Vote #419: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 1-0, 10/30/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Pryor Nomination, CQ Vote #441: Motion Rejected 51-43: R 49-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/6/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Owen Nomination, CQ Vote #450: Motion Rejected 53-42: R 51-0; D 2-41; I 0-1, 11/14/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Kuhl Nomination, CQ Vote #451: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Brown Nomination, CQ Vote #452: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03, Leahy Voted Nay; Myers Nomination, CQ Vote #158: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 7/20/04, Leahy Voted Nay; Saad Nomination, CQ Vote #160: Motion Rejected 52-46: R 51-0; D 1-45; I 0-1, 7/22/04, Leahy Voted Nay; Griffin Nomination, CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 51-0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/22/04, Leahy Voted Nay; McKeague Nomination, CQ Vote #162: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 50-0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/22/04, Leahy Voted Nay; Brown Nomination, CQ Vote #130: Motion Agreed To 65-32: R 55-0; D 10-32, 6/7/05, Leahy Voted Nay; Pryor Nomination, CQ Vote #132: Motion Agreed To 67-32: R 55-0; D 12-32, 6/8/05, Leahy Voted Nay)

Sen. Leahy Applies Abortion Litmus Test To Nominees:

Sen. Leahy Declared An Abortion Litmus Test For Judge John G. Roberts’ Nomination To The Supreme Court.  “Sen. Patrick Leahy said on a radio call-in show that he would not vote to confirm John Roberts for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court if the appeals court judge does not proclaim his support for the landmark Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling …” (“Leahy Says He Won’t Vote For Roberts Without Support For Roe,” The Associated Press, 7/27/05)

Sen. Leahy Said Opposition To Roe v. Wade Would “Disqualify” A Nominee. Jan Crawford Greenburg, Chicago Tribune: “[I]f there were a nominee who had impeccable credentials and the right judicial temperament but from the writings you could see that he or she would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, would you vote for that nominee?” Sen. Leahy: “Well, if we’re going to have somebody who’s willing to set aside what is settled law, they might as well set aside Brown vs. Board of Education. And I think that that would be something that would disqualify … a person if they’re going to set aside settled law.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 7/10/05)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) Would Be Majority Leader:

Sen. Reid Promised To “Screw Things Up” For Senate Republicans. “If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this [change Senate rules on filibusters], it’s not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back … I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up.” (Helen Dewar and Mike Allen, “GOP May Target Use Of Filibuster,” The Washington Post, 12/13/04)

• Reid Has Said Only Complaint Was That Democrats Had Not Held Up More Judicial Nominees. “Noting that the only complaint he has heard from fellow Democrats is that not enough of Bush’s judicial nominees were blocked in the past four years, Reid said he is prepared ‘to go behind the pool hall and see who wins this one.’” (“Washington In Brief,” The Washington Post, 2/2/05)  

“Reid And Company Have Used The Senate Filibuster Rule To Permanently Deny Votes To Nominees With Clear Majority Support. That’s Never Been Done Before.” (David Reinhard, Op-Ed, “Judge Not Lest Ye Be … Filibustered,” The Oregonian, 3/17/05)

• But In 2001, Reid Said, “[I] Think We Should Have Up-Or-Down Votes In The Committee And On The Floor [On Nominees].” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 6/9/01)

“Minority Leader Harry Reid Strayed From His Prepared Remarks On The Senate Floor Yesterday And Promised To Continue Opposing One Of President Bush’s Judicial Nominees Based On ‘A Problem’ He Said Is In The Nominee’s ‘Confidential Report From The FBI.’” (Charles Hurt, “Reid Cites FBI File On Judicial Pick,” The Washington Times, 5/13/05)

• “Those Highly Confidential Reports Are Filed On All Judicial Nominees, And Severe Sanctions Apply To Anyone Who Discloses Their Contents. Less Clear Is Whether A Senator Could Face Sanctions For Characterizing The Content Of Such Files.” (Charles Hurt, “Reid Cites FBI File On Judicial Pick,” The Washington Times, 5/13/05)

Sen. Reid Voted Against John G. Roberts’ Nomination To Be Chief Justice Of The U.S. Supreme Court. (CQ Vote #245: Confirmed 78-22: R 55-0; D 22-22; I 1-0, 9/29/05, Reid Voted Nay)

Sen. Reid Voted Against Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Nomination To Be An Associate Justice Of The U.S. Supreme Court. (Alito Nomination, CQ Vote #2: Confirmed 58-42: R 54-1; D 4-40; I 0-1, 1/31/06, Reid Voted Nay)

• Sen. Reid Voted To Filibuster Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (Alito Nomination, CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed To 72-25: R 53-0; D 19-24; I 0-1, 1/30/06, Reid Voted Nay)

Sen. Reid Blocked 10 Appellate Court Judicial Nominees With A Total Of 22 Filibusters. (CQ Vote #40: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #53: Motion Rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #56: Motion Rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #114: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #137: Motion Rejected 52-44: R 50-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 5/1/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #140: Motion Rejected 52-39: R 49-0; D 3-38; I 0-1, 5/5/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #143: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 50-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 5/8/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #144: Motion Rejected 52-45: R 50-0; D 2-44; I 0-1, 5/8/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #308: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 7/29/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #312: Motion Rejected 55-43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #316: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-44; I 0-0, 7/31/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #419: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 1-0, 10/30/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #441: Motion Rejected 51-43: R 49-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/6/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #450: Motion Rejected 53-42: R 51-0; D 2-41; I 0-1, 11/14/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #451: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #452: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #158: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 7/20/04, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #160: Motion Rejected 52-46: R 51-0; D 1-45; I 0-1, 7/22/04, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 51-0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/22/04, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #162: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 50-0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/22/04, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #130: Motion Agreed To 65-32: R 55-0; D 10-32, 6/7/05, Reid Voted Nay; CQ Vote #132: Motion Agreed To 67-32: R 55-0; D 12-32, 6/8/05, Reid Voted Nay)

The Democrat Senate Leadership Vowed To Block Up-Or-Down Votes For Judicial Nominees.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): Asserted That Requiring Up-Or-Down Votes On Judicial Nominees Is “Improper.” “And while it is good to talk about this up-or-down vote, the fact is if we move forward as contemplated by the majority, it is moving toward breaking the rules to change the rules. That is improper. It will change the Senate forever and that is not good.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 5/18/05, p. S5375)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): Claimed That Demanding Up-Or-Down Votes Turns The Senate Into A “Rubberstamp.” “[The Constitutional Option] undercuts the rights of the minority in the Senate, it undermines the role of the Senate as a check on the executive, and it leads to a Republican rubberstamp on a less independent judiciary.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 5/18/05, p. S5383)

Democrats Have Threatened To Shut Down Senate:

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “[N]o Senate right is more fundamental than the right to debate. Should the majority choose to break the rules that give us that right, the majority should not expect to receive cooperation from the minority in the conduct of Senate business.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Letter To Sen. Bill Frist, 3/15/05)

• UPI Headline: “Senate Dems Vow To Shut Down Body Over Judges.” “Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid warned ... he would shut down Congress if GOP leaders attempt to block the filibuster of judicial nominees.” (“Senate Dems Vow To Shut Down Body Over Judges,” UPI, 3/15/05) 

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Threatened To Shut Down The Senate If Judicial Nominees Receive Up-Or-Down Votes. “Democrats also are threatening to slow the Senate to a snail’s pace if Republicans cut off their ability to filibuster. Durbin said Democrats would insist that the Senate abide by all of its rules, eliminating procedural short cuts. ‘You just can’t assault the Constitution and 200 years of tradition and not have consequences,’ Durbin said”  (Jill Zuckman, “Filibuster Fight Boils In Senate,” Chicago Tribune, 4/22/05)

“[D]emocrats Have Vowed To ‘Close Down The Senate,’ Delaying Action On All Measures Not Involving National Security Or ‘Critical Government Services.’” (Morton M. Kondracke, Op-Ed, “Before Firing ‘Nukes,’ Senate Should Debate Bush’s Judicial Picks,” Roll Call, 4/18/05)

DNC Chair Howard Dean Has Warned Of Unprecedented Filibuster Of Supreme Court Nominee:

“In An Interview, [DNC Chairman Howard] Dean Said Democratic Unity Is Essential In The Upcoming Battle And That The Party ‘Absolutely’ Should Be Prepared To Filibuster – Holding Unlimited Debate And Preventing An Up-Or-Down Vote – Bush’s Next High Court Nominee, If He Taps Someone They Find Unacceptably Ideological.” (Dan Balz and Amy Goldstein, “Filibuster Showdown Looms In Senate,” The Washington Post, 9/28/05)

• Dean: “A fight to the death is a filibuster, which is the only way we can reject an unqualified nominee – because the Republicans don’t seem to have any qualms about putting unqualified people in all manner of positions all over the government.” (Dan Balz and Amy Goldstein, “Filibuster Showdown Looms In Senate,” The Washington Post, 9/28/05)

Democrats Make Outrageous Statements About Judicial Nominees:

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Described Owen “As The ‘Most Conservative Judge On A Conservative Court, Standing Out For Her Extremist Decision–Making’ On Issues Such As Employee Rights And Abortion Rights.” (Kathy Kiely, “Senate On Brink Of ‘Nuclear’ Filibuster War,” USA Today, 4/15/05)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “But what has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president of the United States for any court, federal court in The United States.” (CNN’s, “Live Today,” 11/14/03)

• Sen. Kennedy Calls Nominees “Right-Wing Turkey[s]” And “Neanderthals.”  “During jubilant post-debate comments, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) told reporters that the debate had failed to dent the resolve of Democrats to resist any ‘right-wing turkey’ or ‘Neanderthal that is nominated by the president for any federal court.’” (Andrew Mollison, “Democrats Block 3 Bush Nominees,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11/15/03)

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY): “The issue is these judges are so extreme, they want to take away people’s rights that we’ve had for 100 years, working people’s rights, environmental rights, all these civil rights, you name it.” (NBC’s “News Forum,” 4/17/05)

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): “[Owen, Kuhl, and Brown] do not reflect the voters of this country in their decisions … and they would be dangerous.” (Jim Puzzanghera, “Talk-A-Thon Changed Nothing,” San Jose [CA] Mercury News, 11/15/03)

Democrats Attacked Supreme Court Nominee Judge John Roberts:

When DNC Chairman Howard Dean Was Asked If The Senate Should Reject Judge Roberts’ Confirmation, He Responded “Based On What I Know Now, Absolutely Yes.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 9/9/05)

• Dean: “I’m not sure [Roberts] loves the American people.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 9/9/05)  

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “This is really a leap of faith, isn’t it? ... There are those that took the leap in terms of the war, there were those who took the leap in terms of taxes and now they are being invited to take the leap again in terms of Judge Roberts. And I don’t think I’m going to be among them.” (Steven Thomma, “Senate Democratic Leader Will Oppose Roberts’ Confirmation,” Knight Ridder, 9/21/05)

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY): “[T]he nominee in the early ‘80s showed a great deal of hostility, really, to moving civil rights law forward. … I’m troubled by what he said then …” (Sen. Charles Schumer, Remarks To The American Constitution Society, Washington, DC, 9/1/05)

Democrats’ Reasoning In Opposing Judge Roberts Questioned By Major Newspapers:

The Washington Post: “[D]uring those six years [when Republicans controlled the Senate], the Senate confirmed 245 of President Bill Clinton’s judges. If Republicans had been applying Mr. Reid’s Standard, they would have been within their rights to reject them all.” (Editorial, “Words That Will Haunt,” The Washington Post, 9/21/05)

• The Washington Post: “Do Democrats really want the American confirmation system to move in that direction? ... Is it now okay for [Republicans] to vote against a person who – as Mr. Reid put it of Judge Roberts – is ‘an excellent lawyer’ and ‘a thoughtful, mainstream judge’ who may make ‘a fine Supreme Court Justice’ simply because the nominee doesn’t represent their ideal?” (Editorial, “Words That Will Haunt,” The Washington Post, 9/21/05)

Los Angeles Times: “It will be a damning indictment of petty partisanship in Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next chief justice of the United States.” (Editorial, “Confirm Roberts,” Los Angeles Times, 9/20/05)

• Los Angeles Times: “If a majority of Democrats in the Senate vote against Roberts, they will reveal themselves as nothing more than self-defeating obstructionists.” (Editorial, “Confirm Roberts,” Los Angeles Times, 9/20/05)

Senate Democrats Attacked The Once Unanimously Confirmed Judge Alito:

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “After stating that he believed in a diverse bench, President Bush took the nation a step backwards today. Apparently, he couldn’t find a woman or minority or a mainstream nominee that meets the litmus tests of the right wing, and instead put forth a nominee with a troubling record on the rights and freedoms important to America’s families.” (Sen. Edward Kennedy, “Kennedy Statement On Nomination Of Judge Samuel Alito To Supreme Court,” Press Release, 10/31/05)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “Has the right wing now forced a weakened president to nominate a divisive justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia?” (Todd S. Purdum, “Potentially, The First Shot In An All-Out Ideological War,” The New York Times, 11/1/05)

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): “I’m looking at his record – I’m very concerned. … you look at his rulings … for minorities, for women, for the disabled, it comes out on the far right against America’s families. So of course, I’m concerned. I’m very worried, I’m very disappointed, and I’m sad about it …” (MSNBC’s “Right Now,” 10/31/05)

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT): “I’m disappointed that it appears President Bush chose to nominate a top choice of the extreme right …” (Charles Babington, “As Democrats Lead Opposition, GOP Moderates May Control Vote,” The Washington Post, 11/1/05)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “[E]ven at this early stage, I have a number of significant concerns I want to share with my colleagues.”  (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 11/16/05, p. S12874)

Democrats Attacked Qualified Nominee To The U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia, Brett Kavanaugh:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY): “[Kavanaugh’s] experience has been most notable not so much for your blue chip credentials but for the undeniable political nature of your assignments … It feeds an impression of partisanship that is, to put it mildly, not ideal for a nominee to a critically important lifetime post.” (Laurie Kellman, “Kavanaugh Says He Had No Role In White House Detainee, Wiretapping Policies,” The Associated Press, 5/9/06)

• Sen. Schumer: “If there was a right-wing political fight that needed an ideological soldier, Brett Kavanaugh was there.” (Neil A. Lewis, “Senators Renew Jousting Over Court Pick,” The New York Times,5/10/06) 

“[Sen. Harry] Reid Criticized Kavanaugh For His Lack Of Courtroom Experience And Alleged Involvement In Helping Shape The Administration’s Torture Policy ...” (CNN’s “The Morning Grind,” 5/3/06)

• “[Sen. Reid] Called Kavanaugh’s Experience ‘Non-Existent.’” (Erin P. Billings, “‘Gang’ Set To Meet On Judges,” Roll Call, 5/3/06)

Liberal Leader Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) And His Staff Meet And Rely On Alliance For Justice Officials For Research And Strategy:

The Alliance For Justice And Other Liberal Groups Are Joining Forces With Ted Kennedy To Build A United Front Against President Bush’s Judicial Nominees. “Liberal groups such as the Alliance for Justice say they have begun informal strategy talks with Kennedy staffers about prospective high court picks. ‘Our main job is building on the research,’ said one liberal advocacy group senior staffer. ‘You are only as credible as the research you can generate on these potential picks. Research is a very important part of it all.’” (Andrew Miga, “Supreme Battle Looms For Rehnquist Successor,” The Boston Herald, 12/20/04)

“In Ted Kennedy’s Senate Office – Where No Lobbying Is Needed – (Alliance For Justice’s Nan) Aron, Lobbyist Richard Woodruff And [Seth] Rosenthal Sit Down With An Aide To See How The Alliance Can Help.” (Marcia Davis, “Her Idea of Justice: Absolutely Not Alito,” The Washington Post, 11/9/05)

• “‘Just Keep Sending Us Research,’ The Aide Tells Them.” (Marcia Davis, “Her Idea of Justice: Absolutely Not Alito,” The Washington Post, 11/9/05)

Alliance For Justice Believed The Court Should “Create New Rights” And Boasted “You Name It, We’ll Do It” To Oppose Alito. (NPR’s “Fresh Air,” 2/16/05; Jim Drinkard, Judy Keen and Kathy Kiely, “Bush Nominates Alito For Supreme Court,” USA Today, 11/1/05)

Democrats Were Pushed By Liberal Groups To Oppose Judge Roberts:

“The Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid Of Nevada, Said … That He Would Oppose The Confirmation Of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. As Chief Justice, Surprising Both The White House And Fellow Democrats Still Conflicted About How To Vote.” (Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David D. Kirkpatrick, “Top Democrat Says He’ll Vote No On Roberts,” The New York Times, 9/21/05)

• “‘He Got The Message Loud And Clear, Didn’t He?’ Kim Gandy, President Of The National Organization For Women, Said Of Mr. Reid On Tuesday.” (Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David D. Kirkpatrick, “Top Democrat Says He’ll Vote No On Roberts,” The New York Times, 9/21/05)

• “[R]eid Moved [To Oppose Roberts] Under Pressure From Liberal Activists, Who Were Demanding The Democratic Leadership Take A Strong Stand Against Roberts.” (“Reid Says He Will Vote Against Roberts On Senate Floor,” The Frontrunner, 9/21/05)

“[T]wo Of Reid’s Top Lieutenants, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) And Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Received A Sharp Rebuke At A Weekend Meeting In Los Angeles From Wealthy Activists Such As Television Producer Norman Lear Over Roberts’ Glide Path To Confirmation.” (Paul Kane, “Reid: Roberts Will Join The Court,” Roll Call, 9/21/05)

• “Schumer, Chairman Of The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Confirmed That The Event Included A ‘Frank Discussion’ Between Activists And The Senators.” (Paul Kane, “Reid: Roberts Will Join The Court,” Roll Call, 9/21/05)

Democrats Taking Their Cues From MoveOn, PFAW, NARAL, And Other Left-Wing Groups:

“After Representatives Of Several Liberal Advocacy Groups Complained ... About What They Regarded As A Flaccid Strategy, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), The Party’s Longtime Liberal Leader, And Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), The Ranking Democrat On The Judiciary Committee, Issued Blistering Statements Criticizing Roberts’s Record.” (Dan Balz, “Roberts Battle Adds To Democrats’ Divide,” The Washington Post, 8/18/05)
                                       
The Wall Street Journal:“It’s no news flash that organizations like the Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way and MoveOn.org are influencing Democrats’ attack on Judge Roberts. But the rapidity with which Senators Pat Leahy and Ted Kennedy jumped to follow the groups’ orders is nonetheless remarkable, and politically revealing.” (Editorial, “Leahy Follows Orders,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/18/05)

• Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Those papers that we have received paint a picture of John Roberts as an eager and aggressive advocate of policies that are deeply tinged with the ideology of the far right wing of his party then, and now.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, “Sen. Patrick Leahy Issues Statement On The Recent Documents Relating To Judge Roberts Nomination To The Supreme Court,” Press Release, 8/16/05) 

• “[S]enator Edward M. Kennedy Of Massachusetts, Said Judge Roberts Was ‘On Or Beyond The Outer Fringe Of That Extreme Group.’” (David D. Kirkpatrick, “Senate Democrats Increase Resistance To Roberts,” The New York Times, 8/17/05)

Sen. Harry Reid In “Near Daily Contact” With Far Left Blogs And Pleaded To MoveOn Crowd For Help:

“[M]inority Leader Reid … Has Worked Closely With Liberal Internet Community Sites Like Dailykos.Com – His Office Is In Near Daily Contact With Kos – And Other Web Logs, Internet Forum Sites And News Services To Build A Grassroots Base.” (“The Friday Buzz,” CongressDaily PM, 5/27/05)

Reid Told A MoveOn Rally That His Caucus Is Depending On MoveOn Activists. “We are depending on you, we are depending on you to make sure this country stands for what we learned many years ago when Mr. Smith went to Washington.” (Senator Harry Reid, MoveOn.org PAC Rally, Washington, DC, 3/16/05)

Reid Met With Liberal Organizations To Discuss Judge Alito. “A coalition of liberal organizations, including Mr. Neas’s Group [People for the American Way], is set to meet … with the Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, to discuss the nomination ...” (Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David D. Kirkpatrick, “Nominee Plays Down Remarks On Quotas And Abortion,” The New York Times, 11/16/05)

Papers Call Out Dems On Their Puppet Politics:

[New York] Daily News: “[T]he wackadoo wing is now the puppeteer pulling the strings on U.S. senators.” (Michael Goodwin, Op-Ed, “Dems’ Wacky Puppeteers Pull The Strings,” [New York] Daily News, 1/22/06)

The Wall Street Journal: “Liberal interest groups are becoming frustrated as they realize they won’t be able to defeat Judge Alito over abortion or civil rights or anything of judicial substance. But they’re more determined than ever to take him down. ‘You name it, we’ll do it,’ declared Nan Aron, head of The Alliance for Justice that works hand-in-glove with Senate Democrats. But that doesn’t mean the rest of us should believe any of it.” (Editorial, “Alito’s Sock Drawer,” The Wall Street Journal, 11/14/05)

Liberal Leader Nan Aron Declared “You Name It, We’ll Do It” To Oppose Judge Alito:

Nan Aron, President Of The Alliance For Justice: “You Name It, We’ll Do It” To Oppose Alito. (Jim Drinkard, Judy Keen And Kathy Kiely, “Bush Nominates Alito For Supreme Court,” USA Today, 11/1/05)

• “E-Mail And Letter-Writing Campaigns Are In The Works, As Well As Television Ad Campaigns, With The Focus On States With Moderate Senators From Both Parties Who Have Been Supportive On Issues Such As Abortion Rights.”  (Jim Drinkard, Judy Keen And Kathy Kiely, “Bush Nominates Alito For Supreme Court,” USA Today, 11/1/05)

Within 4 Hours Of Alito’s Nomination, Aron’s Alliance For Justice E-Mail Declared: “Alliance For Justice Opposes The Nomination Of Judge Alito.” (Alliance For Justice Email, “Alliance For Justice Opposes The Nomination Of Judge Alito,” 10/31/05)

• Aron’s Alliance For Justice Took 42 Days To Officially Oppose Chief Justice Roberts. (Alliance For Justice Email, “Alliance For Justice Opposes The Nomination Of John Roberts,” 8/30/05)

People For The American Way Had Petition To Stop Alito Within Two Hours Of Nomination:

PFAW Email: “Sign our petition urging your senators to oppose Alito’s nomination to be Associate Justice of The Supreme Court.” (People For The American Way Email, “Bush Nominates Alito For Supreme Court,” 10/31/05)

PFAW Launched Ad Campaign Against Alito Less Than One Week After His Nomination. “Starting with [the 11/6/05] Meet the Press, People For the American Way is launching aggressive ads nationally and in key media markets to help tell all Americans that Samuel Alito is part of the radical right’s dream team -- and what it will mean if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court.” (People For The American Way Email, “The Court Belongs To All Americans,” 11/7/05)

NARAL’s Choice – Immediately Attack:

NARAL Email: “George W. Bush has once again caved to the demands of the far right by nominating staunchly anti-choice Samuel Alito to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court.” (NARAL Email, “Bush Announces Samuel Alito, Far Right Gets Its Wish,” 10/31/05)

MoveOn.Org Just Can’t Move On:

MoveOn Attacked Judge Roberts “Another Right-Wing Crony.” (William Schneider, “De-Escalation,” The National Journal, 7/30/05)

• MoveOn.Org Launched Petition Drive Same Day As Alito Was Nominated. (MoveOn.Org Email, “Emergency Petition To Stop Alito,” 10/31/05)

Americans For Democratic Action (ADA) Attack Judge Alito Day One:

“Americans For Democratic Action (ADA), The Nation’s Leading Independent Liberal Political Organization, Views The Nomination Of Judge Samuel Alito To The Supreme Court As A Monumental Threat To Basic Civil Rights And Civil Liberties.” (Americans For Democratic Action, “Trick But No Treat: Judge Samuel Alito: Latest Bush Nominee’s Philosophy Is Ghoulish,” Press Release, 10/31/05)

DNC Even Provided Guide To Liberal Third Parties To Stop Judge Alito?:

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “[I]’m sitting here holding in my hands, a pretty disgusting document, this is put out not for attribution. But it comes from the Democrats, they’re circulating it. I can say that.” (MSNBC’s “MSNBC Live,” 10/31/05)

• Matthews: “[T]hen their complaint sheet against Judge Alito’s nomination. The first thing they nail about this Italian American is he failed to win a mob conviction in a trial 20 years ago, or something way back in ‘88.” (MSNBC’s “MSNBC Live,” 10/31/05)

• Matthews: “In other words, they nail him on not putting some Italian mobsters in jail from the [Lucchese]Family. Why would they bring up this ethnically charged issue as the first item they raise against Judge Alito?” (MSNBC’s “MSNBC Live,” 10/31/05)

• Matthews: “This is either a very bad coincidence or very bad politics. Either way its gonna hurt them. This document: not abortion rights, not civil rights but that he failed to nail some mobsters in 1988. This is the top of their list of what they’ve got against this guy. Amazingly bad politics.” (MSNBC’s “MSNBC Live,” 10/31/05)

“[R]ight-Wing Blogs Were Buzzing For At Least A Few Days Last Week When An Unsigned Microsoft Word Document Was Circulated By The Democratic National Committee.” (Tom Zeller Jr., “Beware Your Trail Of Digital Fingerprints,” The New York Times, 11/7/05)

• “The Metadata Also Coughed Up A File Creation Date Of July 7, 2005, Which The Detectives At Redstate.Org Identified As Being ‘Just After O’Connor Resigned.’” (Tom Zeller Jr., “Beware Your Trail Of Digital Fingerprints,” The New York Times, 11/7/05)