Redstate

It is an excellent choice by the President and is confirmable. The Democrats will try to make political upheaval, but in the end it will be to no avail because Judge Alito is so eminently qualified that Schumer and Company will have no choice to shelve their filibuster threat. Judge Alito will unite the Conservatives behind the President.

that whole Harriet Miers thing never happened?  

What Harriet Miers thing?

harm themselves, if they try to turn Alito into an extremist that must be fillibustered.

I just don't think the average Joe Voter is going to go for it.

NARAL, the ACLU et al of course will be there trying to turn him into Bork, but I don't see how fillibustering Alito helps the dems with the average voter-it might make the base happy, but not the average voter.

Bush just saved the remainder of his term with this one.

Bush got his Base back with this pick. Good one, too. This helps to form a "textualist" bloc on the court. Now if only Roberts can work on Kennedy....

will eat the crap they tried to make Bush swallow!!!!!

... does anyone know how the White House determines who might have the potential to "grow" in the Supreme Court?

I doubt there will be a "firestorm" over this nominee. A small fight may surface, but nothing like this past spring. They'll be tough on them, but no filibuster. We'll see if I'll have to eat my words. Alito does seem like a mainstream conservative.

Let us see them try. We will give them a fight!!!!

Unlike Roberts, Alito has a long line of written opinions that can be dragged out, spun and used against him.  Given that he has been on the short-list for years, I imagine that the interest groups have well honed talking points for him.  As for whether the American people will buy it, time will tell.

LOL ROFL if you want a good laugh click here

(Warning: profanity in the first comment, which is why I don't copy and paste it here).

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/31/63127/768

This is a fantastic pick.

Please, PLEASE Democrats, try to filibuster Judge Alito. It will be over in a heartbeat, and Republicans will not only emerge united and stronger than before .... they will have broken the judicial filibuster for good, which will allow the president to spend the next three years stocking the courts with our people.

I shall now skip off to law school. What a great day this is going to be.

although I think it is interesting that they seem to think the average voter would love to see a fillibuster of this guy, and if they fillibuster they will "win" but my opinion is the exact opposite.

Guess we will see who is right.

so you may see that you demies have bitten more than you can chew. Reid, Leahy, Chucky, let us see if you have the balls to follow through.

Here's the political problem:  With Alito's dissent in Casey dems are simply going to cast this as an up or down vote on Roe.  That's what Republicans have tried to avoid for over twenty years.

They do so with good reason:  Overturning Roe gets a plurality in exactly one state:  Utah.  The rest of the country, while possibly uneasy with it, basically wants the issue to stay settled.  Republicans get a lot of Pro-choice votes in the suburbs and therefore have tried to send a mixed message to voters.  On the one hand they say "we're the pro-life party committed to overturn Roe" on the other they say "but that's never going to happen."  The latter part of that message is in danger here and will create political opportunity for dems.

A battle over Alito will force endangered moderates like Lincoln Chafee (who was endorsed by NARAL) to either vote against him, or lose his seat.

That said, I think Alito will be confirmed but it will get ugly.

the argument has been used before that appointment, even if unanimous, to a lower

court does not mean automatic qualification for the SCOTUS.  So I expect those

you note from the other side who voted yea before may be quite the nasty critters

this time.

I would have personally preferred McConnel but from what I know of Alito he's ok,

but I do have serious concerns that he may be an Eagles fan and not a Giants

fan.

Come on, man! Where is the rhythm in that? Where is the catchiness? Why dabble with a synonym for mediocre?

Go with "Alito is Neat-o!"

Hahahaha, if he's a Cowboys fan he's got my support!

The High Priestess of the Supreme Court, Nina Totenberg, had three stand out comments on the nomination of Samuel Alito during this morning's coverage.

First, she called him "filibuster bait."

Next she said, very dramatically, that if Judge Alito is confirmed, the Supreme Court would move, "dramatically, dramaaaaaaticaaaaaly, to the right."

Lastly, and most importantly, she opined that if Democrats in the Senate had fought to save the filibuster for anything, Alito's nomination was it.

Next came Cokie Roberts who reported that a senior Democrat in the Senate had described Judge Alito to her as, "a right wing wacko."

This is going to be the fight we have all been waiting for.

out there is only concerned about what the guy is rooting for, i am quite happy. Its comforting that he is on our team.

Because it means he's not "extraordinary" and thus the "gang of 14" will not allow a filibuster on him.

I wholeheartedly endorse the fact that Alito is Neat-o.

 Let us see if the Demies has a cure for Alitosis:))

South Dakota legislature passed an abortion ban in their state last year:

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2004/bills/HB1191p.htm

There are a hole bunch of red states right smack in the middle of the USA that would have no trouble with this at all. Which is why the Federalist way is the only way on this issue.

I dont care what she has to say, I only care about Katrina VanderHeuvel over on NPR.  She is so pretty I can just stare at her and not hear a word she's saying.

I just hope she never sees this post because wacko feminists have a tendency to have their heads explode if a guy calls them pretty.

if we didn't just get a taste of Rove-a-dope ourselves.

<rank speculation>

The one missing piece in all of the Miers-related stuff we talked about was Miers herself.  If there's one thing that lawyers hold in awe, it's a SCOTUS seat.  Nonlawyers might not understand fully, but athletes might -- being named to the SCOTUS might be akin to being named to the Hall of Fame.  Now, consider the following:

*Miers had to have known that she wasn't likely to pass muster, that there were dozens of people ahead of her in the line, as it were (since she headed up the President's judge search task).

*She is fiercely loyal to the president.

*She has shown a willingness to take menial tasks for this president -- going from the CEO (effectively) of a large successful law firm to a secretary, even if it's in the White House.

*She has no husband, children, close political allies, etc. to embarrass.

*She does not appear to have had any major judicial ambitions; if she did, she probably could have gotten Bush to name her to a Fed Dist court, or Solicitor General's office, or DOJ, or some such far earlier.

So why did she say Yes?  Why did she not say, "Mr. President, thank you for the honor, but really, I can't -- this is a mistake, and you should go with someone else."

Perhaps the White House, during the Roberts nomination, felt that there wasn't adequate unity by various conservative factions around any nominee who wasn't Roberts.  Perhaps Rove felt that the way to galvanize the conservatives into truly throwing their support behind who the president picks was to electrify them with a pick that they were sure to oppose.  Who would be loyal enough to be the bait like that?  Who but Miers?  That might explain why she said Yes to getting the nod.

It's reminiscent of a friend of mine in high school who got busted for smoking and had to take a note home to his parents to get signed.  He started off by confessing to heroin use, then after his parents were completely freaked out, told them actually, he wasn't doing heroin -- he was just smoking Marlboro's in the boy's bathroom.

</rank speculation&gt

Either way, one thing seems clear.  Sam Alito is going to get a level of support from the conservatives of all stripes that he may not have received had he been named outright.  And since we must gear up for an ideological battle with the forces of judicial tyranny (i.e., liberals), it's good that we have unity behind this pick.

-TS

My first thought about this nominee is that he is boring, but then I remembered what Clinton did after his fiasco of trying to nominate Bobby Inman as Sec. of Defence - when that didn't work he went with a tried and true nomination.  As a staffer said at the time "We tried interesting and that didn't work out so well."

Hopefully when Justice Stephens steps down, they can try interesting again - just a different type of interesting.

to the elected representatives and not the wishes of those 7 black robed kings.  Reversing Roe DOES NOT OUTLAW ABORTION.  Put the morality/feelings about abortion itself aside, Roe is bad law, something that did not exist in the Constitution and was an act of judicial activism.

Judges are unelected and unaccountable which is besides the whole, following the Constitution, the reason why judges cannot act as a super legislature.  The people cannot seek a reversal of a direction at the polls.

Wow! Such melodrama.  The site only lacks a "Lord of the Rings" sound track.  They're pounding their Volvos and Starbucks travel mugs into swords and spears.

To paraphrase the Coke exec after the "New Coke" debacle let to improved market share with "Coke Classic":

Some say we didn't know anything, which is why the new product launch went so badly.  Others say we planned this all along.  Well...we're not that stupid and we're not that smart.

Heuvel is indeed gorgeous (see comment above) ...

Actually, though, I have a culture war question.  Is this guy a Catholic?  Will that make for five Catholics on the court?

I'm a Roman Catholic myself, so I'm not at all uncomfortable with the idea of the court being majority Papist, but I'm also aware that my particular sect is not in the mainstream of cultural   values in a country where the majority of people are Protestants.

For example, we do not believe in the death penalty.  We also don't believe in contraception.  Our church political hierarchy strongly opposed the Iraq War.

Any idea about whether or not this will become part of the dialogue?

Either the Dems let though a solid conservative or they try to filibuster a clearly qualified Judge and lose the filibuster for all time on judges.

If so, this opens up a huge slew of possibilities with Bush's next round of nominations for CCAs which will come in February.

Judges like John Yoo for the 9th circuit court would not be out of the question.

Hopefully, conservatives will also be energized to come out and vote in virginia and new jersey.

the South Dakota law is null and void, and the legislators knew it would be. It was a of "feel good" law that would have no practical consequence and as such would have no more political effect than voting in favor of sunny days and cuddly puppies.

I hope all the Miers bashers are happy. (none / 1)

Scalito is close to worst case.

by cityduck on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 06:16:59 AM PDT

Erm (none / 1)

Do you think this is Red State? Do you think anyone's bashing here made a difference?

The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

by Armando on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 06:17:57 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

---------------------------------------

Although I think he meant Confirm Them

Is the commentary about the need to keep both this nomination and the Libby indictment frothing together. It's like watching a speed freak play Whack-a-mole. Oooh - there's another!

Was the Edsel of Presidential Supreme Court nominations.  In retrospect, it really seems like the best comparison to make.  She was close to the leader of the company in sentiment and in fact, she was purported to be someone everyone would love and buy into because she had so many options and so many interesting specifications and unique features, and yet some strangely mysterious qualities, she was designed to appeal to everyone but in fact wound up alienating many, and yet the Administration doggedly insisted  that after a lot of slick advertising she would skyrocket:

In the case of the car that was named in his honor long after his untimely death, though, all the planets seemed to align to produce the worst possible result. So, in the panoply of the Greatest Cars of All Time, the Edsel checks in as the greatest failure, a car line that didn't live up to its over-optimistic expectations on a colossal scale.

Ford tried very hard to get this car to make this car a smashing success and win the public's heart, but it just wasn't to be:

More than anything Edsel seemed star-crossed. When Ford paid big bucks to pre-empt The Ed Sullivan Show with a one-hour special called The Edsel Show, ratings were huge, but as Frank Sinatra tried to open a shiny Edsel's huge front door on the show the handle came off in his hand. Sadly, it wasn't a fluke. The Edsel program had been thrown together very rapidly and the build quality of the early Edsels was often abysmal. It is said that factory workers, confused by the complications of building Fords, Edsels and Mercurys on the same assembly lines, frequently left parts off the Edsels or didn't attach them properly.

"Arise, arise, Riders of Théoden!

Fell deeds awake: fire and slaughter!

spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered,

a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!

Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!"

Mayhap Théoden has risen tall in his stirrups again!

"Ooooh!  We need to fight!!" Like it matters.  The gang of 14 was very clear that simply being a conservative is not cause for them to reunite.  This is over before it starts.

As Adam points out here, there's just no basis for a fight.

That said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do have to say that one thing in that thread made me think "hmmmmmm".  It is a little interesting how the change of nominees framed the Libby indictment. Best job of changing the subject for the better that you're ever going to see.

Bush is up five points in the polls two days after Plamegate.

If there was really a commitment to overturning Roe in this country, an amendment could be passed. As least on a national level, no such commitment exists.

I see people posting the number 5, with nothing else.  What does that mean???  

and decided that Bush is probably too classy to have asked Miers to do that.

I think that, even after all the speculation, if we were actually to have been present in the deliberations, we would still be surprised.

The left leaning websites (PFAW, et al) are very organized over Alito.  They were obviously prepared for this and the liberal blogs/commentators are all saying "WAR!"

BTW, this is my first blogpost, dipping my toes in the water finally.

"exceptional post" or, sometimes, "I agree strongly."  

can protect himself by babbling incoherently about the meaning of life, the republicans can help themselves by stressing parental consent,the democrats by stressing the inalienable rights of thirteen yr old girls, McCain will be troubled and will help himself to a photo session with the NY Times, his basketball shaped head prominently displayed.

Like your metaphore.  Much wit.  Good symmetry.

One more though on "New Coke."  

"New Coke" was really just a reformulation to make Coke more like Pepsi.  The "Pepsi Challenge" (head to head taste tests in which Pepsi really did tend to win) was erroding Coke's market advantage.  

They "moved to the middle" if you will, alienated their base and failed to win over Pepsi fans.  Why "change" to what you already have?  

As the Dems have famously quipped: Give the country a choice between a Republican and a Republican and they'll choose a Repiblican every time.  

Alito provides a Coke Classic contrast I hope Americans favor.  

To the comment rating system, which is currently switched off here on RedState, but used to allow users to rank each other's posts on a scale from 0 to 5, a-la Daily Kos.  Unfortunately, it proved to be more trouble than it was worth -- especially on contentious issues, it almost inevitably encouraged a degeneration into a rating war that took more away from the discussion than it added, and led to a lot of unnecessarily hurt feelings.  I think the editors decided that if you can't rebut a post with a cogent argument, you shouldn't just be able to downrate it and skip off.  Now, when people read something they think is a really excellent point, they give it a 5 (nt).  Personally, I also use SQRT(-1) (nt) sometimes, which is geek-speak for the square root of (-1), the imaginary number "i," indicating my complete agreement, but that's just me.

Was the Harriet Miers ordeal just an elaborate plan to have a new judicial appointment ready immediatley after the Fitzmas indictment?

Was Rove trying to give his boss a way of moving the debate in case he was indicited?

Did Miers who is loyal to Bush volunteer for the fake appointment?

Did Miers do poorly in the meetings with Senators and on the questions provided to her on purpose?

Did she turn it in late on purpose?

The questions could go on. I doubt the Miers appointment was part of a grand plan, but the timing could not have been more perfect.

Once again thanks to Harriet Miers for having the interests of her President and country ahead of her own.    

REVERSING ROE DOES NOT MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL!!

Unfortunately, 95 percent of the American public does not realize that. The MSM has convinced Joe Voter that Roe's reversal would outlaw abortion tomorrow. THAT IS SIMPLY FALSE!!

Reversing Roe would just mean that state legislatures in New York, California, Vermont, Maryland, Illinois (insert Blue state and many red states here) would immediately convene midnight session to legalize abortion in their states. End of discussion.

Conservatives salivate over a knock down, drag out public battle over judicial philosophy in order to educate the populace. Including this important point should be atop our agenda.

He seems lukewarm on Alito. There's also an interesting struggle among the Republicans introducing him at the Senate about timing - Specter saying there is lots of cases to go through, lots of additional paperwork and on the other side Stevens saying we must respect SDO wanting to retire. I wonder who when the hearings will be held.

It's somewhat misleading to state that Catholic dogma automatically is the view for the majority of US Catholics. In fact most American catholics are just as pro-death penalty as the rest of US. You should check the gallup stats on that.

And contraception is a non-issue.

The reason most non-Catholic conservatives have no problem with supporting Catholic conservatives is because they personally ARE in the mainstream of US cultural values.

I think this SC pick is just as perfectly energizing for our side! Fight is on and Alito has to be confirmed.

Is it me or does FoxNews like to focus their camera on Alito's pretty daughter?

Of using the comment rating system on a Scoop-based blog (which both RedState and DKos are) is that when a user rates someone else's post, the blog software takes the input and then re-serves the page in order to calculate a running total for the post.  I believe this has the effect of artificially inflating the site's statistics.  If you look at DKos' statistics, you see that their number of visitors is much higher, but stats for visitors and pageviews is much higher than RedState's, but that the average visitor only stays on the site for 2 seconds, which is an absurdly small amount of time.  RedState's average visit is ten times as long in terms of its duration.  Although it's not the sole reason for the discrepancy, their use of the comment rating system may make them seem more popular than they actually are, a fact which their advertisers may wish to consider when they pay good money to have ads placed there.  

And gas is down 55 cents since Labor Day.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/31/news/economy/gas_prices/index.htm

RS nation is very well informed.  I wish more were as well informed.  Most people IMHO tend to be moved in their opinions by less sublime matters.

The "Don't know" on Miers was still pretty high.

Fox Polls showed it still at about 25% on the 27th.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173711,00.html

Baseless...well..."not proven" characterization of Spector.

McCain- Wants to be pres.  S. Carolina in '00 taught him that the base will require allegiance to a conservative like Alito.

Graham-A conservative who will not support Gang of 14 when Ideoligy is the issue.

DeWine-His history shows yes.

Obviously the key will be the Lieberman type Dems. If one to two come out with lukewarm support, I argue Mr. Reid will not unleash his only tool (Filibuster) that he has. Heartlanders (Read Iowa, WI) do not listen to the Kennedy's and Schumers of the senate. As always, when looking at signs of trouble/hope, its the moderates that matter.

Conservative Catholic organizations have been very forward in presenting the idea that you cannot be a "cafeteria Catholic" and still regard yourself as a member of the church in good standing.

This includes abortion, the death penalty, contraception and things like "economic and social justice."  The Catholic Church also finds evolution compatible with church doctrine, although evolution itself is not doctrinal unless you believe -- as I do -- that it operates under the influence of divine Will.

The Catholic stance on abortion meshes very well with "social Conservatism."  The other stances do not.

There is not a prohibition of the death penalty in Catholic dogma.

It is true that Pope John Paul II, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and many other Catholic figures have come out against the death penalty in various and numerous ways, asking for clemency, leniency, or whatever.  But the Churhc has not changed dogma or canon or catechism to prohibit the death penalty or equate it to abortion.

Here's the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

So to be a Catholic does not prohibit you from agreeing with the death penalty, either as an individual or a judge.

Laurie Dhue

I think we have to let red state dems know our opinion on Alito. I know Bill Nelson (FL) eventually came out in support of Estrada against the majority of dems. And he's up for reelection in '06 and is definitely vulnerable.

One of the problems with maintaining Roe is that pro-Roe judges are likely to be of a mindset or philosophy that leads them to support similarly bad decisions on other subjects.  O'Connor and Kennedy are two examples.  Is Roe worth maintaining if the price is more bad jurisprudence on other issues?

I know many think Roberts will be a new type of judge who will refrain from overturning past bad decisions like Roe out of respect for precedent and stability, but who will also refrain from establishing bad precedent through constitutionally-unfounded decisions on other matters that come before the High Court.  If so, he will be unique.  

is that it is a good thing the "Harriet Miers thing"  happened.  There are Republican Senators that might not have fought for Alito one month ago, but will feel compelled to do so now.  The message sent by the base over the last few weeks was not just to the President, but to the Congress as well.

Regards:

This includes abortion, the death penalty, contraception and things like "economic and social justice."

and

The Catholic stance on abortion meshes very well with "social Conservatism."  The other stances do not.

I'm not sure that there is much conflict at all with regards to the "economic and social justice" point.  The conflict may arise as to what is the vehicle by which we best care for the poor and the disadvantaged - be it government or individuals.  While some Catholics - and perhaps even the Church leadership - believe this should be achieved through government, there is very little in Catholic doctrine which states that it should so be.  In fact, there is plenty of doctrine to suggest that it is the individual Communicant's responsibility to do the heavy lifting, and that pushing it off on others (i.e.: government) earns you nothing in the grander scheme.

Again, I have a feeling that I'm participating in a threadjack here, but I find this to be a very, very interesting topic and would be very interested in pursuing it somewhere more appropriate.

Cheers.

There will be a giant firestorm over this nominee.  It has less to do with his conservative views, and more to do with the fact that his views are conservative.

It upsets the balance of a governing body that, by design, should be balanced.  Otherwise it cannot be impartial.

to get the red state dem senators in line is to make sure that the left's fury about the  'misogeny' of the Casey ruling gets plenty of play.

Whatever the legal merits of requiring a wife to notify her husband about an abortion, it will play like parental notification and the partial birth ban with red state voters- something that is so common sense that the left looks absurd when they oppose it, and there is no way that Nelson, Lincoln, Conrad, Dorgan etc are going to look reasonable to their voters pointing to this as cause to filibuster.

Hopefully Mr. Rove & Co. will make sure the Dems get plenty of rope to hang themselves with on Casey.

From First Things:

Saclia on the morality of capital punishment - "God's Justice and Ours"

Sorry to contribute to the threadjack. Seems like an excellent place to point this out though.

Was not my intent!  I'd like to converse somewhere on this as well.  I've learned a few new things here, well, more like nuances maybe.

Just obstruction. I've been of the opinion that the Dem's won't fight as they have the most to lose. The filibuster is their 'doomsday weapon' in discussion and dissent... if they lose that by provoking the filibuster and then losing it... what will they have left but Teddy K bloaviating and the new shilling for them?

They are all bark and no bite... if they get into a fight which takes away their bark... that will be one sad puppy. They can't afford to not be able to have their most powerful words taken away "We're going to Filibuster!".

Lovely (none / 0)

The nomination is less than an hour old and we're already fighting among ourselves. Hello, Justice Alito.

So much for the organized resistance. They are fighting over him being Italian for t-sakes. Typical racists. Next in line is his being a man and then Catholic. Sexism and atheism being next in line (of course).

In addition to be Italian... he's also White!

Does this have anyone else a little concerned?

I understand that the officers had technically done everything correctly to execute the warrant, but there was a minor "oversight".  (Even whether or not it was an oversight is in question.)

But as someone who thinks limited and specific police powers are important, I'm a little put off by Alito's attitude that is was "obvious" what was meant by the warrant and affidavit.  It was pretty obvious, but nevertheless the warrant should have referenced the affidavit explicitly in the "persons to be searched" section.

The officers countered that the box to write the information in was simply too small.  I would find this a laughable excuse at best, if I didn't find it so disturbing instead.

There is a system in place to protect people from the government for good reason.  Allowing police much interpretation and leeway in that system will just lead to abuse.

(Any time police make a ten year old girl raise her shirt and drop her pants for a search, they'd better have all their ducks in a very well-defined row, in my opinion.)

SCOTUS makes decisions concerning police powers all the time.  I think it's important to examine this piece of information very closely.

This is worse than being a Crony!

An Eagles fan on the court could sway the SC decisions in favor of abandoning the running game, crybaby superstar recievers and pretending your quarterback is great and doesn't have an accuracy problem.

This nominee must be Undermiered!

I know "threadjack" is a nasty word (as it should be), but sometimes it just happens.  I meant no ill-will - sorry if that's how it sounded.

I just do not believe we should continue this discussion in a thread that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I'll see if I can get a diary up in the next day or so (or maybe perhaps one of our distinguished fellow 'jackers can save me the trouble) to continue the discussion if you desire.  There are several serious, hard-core Catholics on this site (I'm a babe in the proverbial woods compared to Thomas, for example) who could probably provide some keen and learned insights.

Cheers.

So if the nuke gets pushed this time around over Alito, does the President name Janice Rogers Brown when Stevens steps down :)

... people figure that if you can manage to follow the edicts of the Catholic church.. you can certainly follow the rule of law elsewhere.

The reason most non-Catholic conservatives have no problem with supporting Catholic conservatives is because they personally ARE in the mainstream of US cultural values.

Just heard him speak. He sounds confident and has an easy smooth relaxed speaking voice... this is over.

In 1987, Alito became United States Attorney in New Jersey. In that capacity, he was responsible for all federal prosecutions in New Jersey for three years (including the successful prosecution of a Libyan-sponsored terrorist who planned to attack various New York targets). And for the past 15 years, Alito has served with great distinction on the Third Circuit.

Bench Memos NRO

Halfwit - I think you are actually a wit and a half. And you should get at least minimum wage!

Don't believe for one second that Senators haven't recognized that the number 1, numero uno, grand enchilada issue for the conservative base is the reining in of our legislating courts.

...to quote that old song by The Fall.  Here's one moderate Republican/judicial conservative who was absolutely despondent over Miers (the complete betrayal of much of what I'd fought for in '04), but absolutely PUMPED about Alito.  I want to fight hard for this guy, and here at the University of Chicago (it's amazing - the faculty here has a reputation for being right wing/libertarian, but the student body is WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY more right wing than that, in terms of critical mass) everybody's suddenly enthusiastic again.

I think somebody upthread made a great comment by a Coke executive in the wake of the post-New Coke reintroduction of Coke Classic, which actually GAINED them market share.  Somebody asked hey, was that whole New Coke debacle really as stupid as it looked, or was it a clever plot to increase Coke Classic's popularity once you brought it back?  He said "well, we're not that stupid, but also we're not that smart."  

Similarly, I don't think the Miers mess was some sort of brilliant Roveian meisterstroke, but it's had the effect of instantaneously uniting the base once again.  Even the guys like me, who were THIS CLOSE to just throwing their hands up in the air and writing the Administration off forever, are now back in the fold, punchdrunk and ready to brawl for Alito if need be.

Bring on the filibuster, baby.  

On April 27th, 1990. Page S5281. A unanimous consent vote with many other nominees, including, gasp, Souter.

THE JUDICIARY

Raymond C. Clevenger III, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. circuit judge for the Federal Circuit.

David H. Souter, of New Hampshire, to be United States circuit judge for the First Circuit.

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. of New Jersey, to be U.S. circuit judge for the Third Circuit.

Joseph M. Hood, of Kentucky, to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

James F. McClure, Jr., of Pennsylvania to be U.S. district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Lawrence M. McKenna, of New York, to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York.

Robert E. Jones, of Oregon, to be U.S. district judge for the District of Oregon.

D. Brock Hornby, of Maine, to be U.S. district judge for the District of Maine.

So the circumstances of his 1990 confirmation vote don't persuade me...not that I needed persuasion.

Much better would have been a roll call vote, with all the Democratic senators voting yea.

Lautenberg loved him, though!

STATEMENT ON THE NOMINATION OF SAMUEL ALITO

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Samuel Alito, Jr. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Sam Alito is an accomplished and distinguished lawyer. He has dedicated himself to Government service and he has excelled.

He is a graduate of Princeton University. He was a member of phi beta kappa. He attended the Yale Law School, where he contributed to the Law Journal.

He served in the Army Reserves after law school, and then worked briefly in private practice. He then clerked for Judge Leonard Garth, whom he would join on the third circuit.

Sam Alito has extensive experience as an appellate litigator. He served for almost 4 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. He went on to the prestigious office of the Solicitor General.

He served in the Office of Legal Counsel as a Deputy Assistant to the Attorney General. He then returned to New Jersey, as U.S. attorney in 1987. I supported his nomination for that position.

As Chief Federal Prosecutor for one of the largest districts in the country, he has led the effort to fight bigtime drug rings and organized crime. He has made environmental crimes a high priority.

He has the respect of the bar in our State. The ABA panel that reviewed his nomination rated him `well qualified.'

Mr. President, I note for the Record that for virtually all of his professional career, Sam Alito has had just one client--the Government of the United States. He has represented his client with skill and integrity. He has been a strong and effective advocate.

As a judge, Sam Alito will have to make an important transition. He will have to shed the loyalties he's had to the office he led. When the law and the facts demand it, he will need the strength to rule against the Government.

Casey is about parental and spousal notifications, waiting periods, that sort of thing.

That's a winning issue everywhere from Hawaii to Maine.  If the democrats want to fight on this, let 'em.  More rope, gentlemen?

Courtesy Human Events

"Fifteen years ago, I supported Samuel Alito to be a judge based on his record as the United States Attorney for New Jersey, but his tenure on the appeals court has been marked by troubling decisions.  Judge Alito has demonstrated a hostility to fundamental civil rights, and his record on the bench must be closely scrutinized by the Senate.

"New Jersey has a proud tradition of producing great judges, most notably former Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan.  Justice Brennan was chosen for the Supreme Court based on his legal knowledge and wisdom, unlike what we see today, in which nominees are chosen based on litmus tests that cater to narrow ideological groups."

requires 2/3 of the congress and 38 states passes it to become law.  saying that an amendment could be passed is the country was against abortion is giving light thought to the subject.

Whether all abortion should be illegal, who knows what the numbers would be.  But if you want to talk about partial birth abortion, and many abortions being nothing more than a birth control method for people who do not care about responsible behavior.

Also, the abortion decisions of the SCOTUS are much more broad than the original Roe which envisioned abortion as being rare and narrowly used.

Assuming all the publicly available information is accurate, even I, a registered Dem, would confirm this guy...(lots of note worthy Dems thought he was a mighty nice guy when he came up for confirmation to the Third Circuit)

I'm betting the "story" will focus on that dissenting opinion in the PA case, concerning the notification of husbands.

The "left" may try and ignore the fact that he didn't try to strike down a ban on partial-birth abortion.

Does he personally believe abortion is correct? I don't think it matters. He seems to believe in the law, as opposed to political mechinations.

If an existing law can be proven to be constitutional,  then he'll uphold it. If not, he'll vote against it.

Is Roe v. Wade unconstitutional?

I can't claim to have read it line for line, or be a highly qualified legal scholar -- if Alito were to vote against it, I'd be willing to bet there was something wrong with the law -- not necessarily that abortion per se is unconstitutional -- but that Roe v. Wade is a weak defense for it.

If that's true, then perhaps it's time for a better case.

how about calling a constitutional convention?

actually, i guess there's support lacking there too.

I misspoke -- I was trying to point out that Alito

recognized that a New Jersey law banning "partial-birth abortions" was unconstititional (New Jersey v. Farmer), but that the "liberal" watch-dogs may try an ignore that...

What???

Mechinations in THIS Wahite House????

NEVER!!!

I'm always amazed that the TB's on either side of the aisle can't fathom that the manipulation/manufacturing of perception is the cornerstone of politics...

By this logic, anything the Supreme Court does is the will of the people, as long as its not overturned by a constitutional amendment.

Yesss.  Dred Scott was the will of the people.

This is a very interesting concept.  If intentional, the "scheme" was/is quite creative, if nothing else.

<the count>

Nine!  I see Nine Black Robed Kings!

Ha ha ha!

</the count&gt

That is true. But the point I was making was that there are several states where the majority of people want Roe to be overturned.

"Volvos & Starbucks"! That's priceless...

As I've said, I'm a registered Dem (I'd register indy, but I like voting in primary elections, so sue me!) -- and the only thing I hate more than an ignorant Republican (the key word is "ignorant", not Republican) is ignorant liberals...