Maybe not. Here's why I think that.

1) Despite their best efforts to date, left leaning groups have been unable to gain any traction in negative public opinion of Alito.
2) Several key Senators have elections coming up and may not want an "abortion is all that matters" vote around their necks right now.
3) Obstruction is never viewed positively except by true believers (see Republicans shutting down the governement under Clinton).
4) While Alito will replace an occasionally abortion-friendly vote on the Supreme court, it's likely that President Bush will have an opportunity to replace a much more liberal justice before his term ends. You pick your fights.

There are also a couple of Senators with Presidential ambitions that may take a pass on this one:

Hillary Clinton: If you want to be President, you don't generally go about gutting the President's powers. You complain, you insult, but you don't ruin your own birthday cake.

Russ Feingold: This is one of the most principled politicians I've ever seen. He's got his left credentials firmed up with his consistent anti-war stance, but he has a history of letting the President choose his own nominees (see his vote supporting John Ashcroft - the very vote that ended Jean Carnahan's brief political career).

Throw in Ben Nelson in the very pro-life Nebraska and Louisiana's Landrieux in the now-even-more conservative Louisiana and you begin to see that there is no room for error on a vote that doesn't mean nearly as much as the one for or against the justice that will replace a Stevens (born in 1920) or a Ginsburg. Or even a Breyer or a Kennedy.

Ranting? Cajoling? Bellowing? Yes.
Fillibustering? No.

sharptalk

"Delay steps down, all Washington ethics problems disappear"

"Al Qaeda builds home for unwed mothers"

"Future 2052 Democratic Presidential front-runner aborted"

"George Bush has stroke. Power transfers to Jack Abramoff"

"Iranian leader: 'Oh, crap! Anybody seen the off-switch?'

"Experts say 95% of 100 year-olds are dead"

I have begun to think that the Republicans will lose control of the Senate and the House in the fall elections. The Abramoff scandal will embroil some otherwise safe incumbents - and so be it. Those who have benefitted personally by shoveling our tax dollars to undeserving political parasites should be hurled out of office.

My understanding is that those affected by him are 2 to 1 Republicans (not surprising since they head every committee on Capitol Hill).

Maybe this will force some real reforms that protect us.

sharptalk

Two days ago I posted that the Democrats solution to every problem was to go after President Bush and that it was tying them into some hypocritical knots.

A great and current example of this is the leak of NSA spying.

Following the logic they followed during the Valerie Plame nonsense, since this was a national security leak and put agents at risk, a Special prosecutor must be named and the NY Times reporters who released this information must be jailed until they tell who gave them the information - at which time that person(s) will go to prison for many, many years for treason.

This is dramatically more serious than "outing" a CIA desk agent who walked through the front door every morning and out and back in at lunch in plain view every day.

Just how deep is the dishonesty at the NY Times?

And if they can't be trusted on this then how can they be trusted about anything they print?

sharptalk