Redstate

They are hoping the ads against Alito by NARAL, etc. will sway public opinion in the next week or so, so that they could justify a filibuster. They could also be hoping a skeleton will come out of his closet, one that was somehow never found by the left wing jackals that went over Alito's life and record with a fine toothed comb.

Maybe they are trying to persuade SD OConner to stay.

I am looking forward to seeing Boxer's crocodile tears when she casts her 'no' vote on the floor.

This delay is unwarranted, unnecessary and unacceptable. I hope that GOP leadership stands up to this and does whatever it takes to ensure Alito gets his up or down vote on time. There is one possibility which I have not heard addressed here: the Dem's are trying to set a precedent for delaying a floor vote so if and when Bush gets a 3rd SCOTUS pick they can delay and delay until eventually they can make the argument that Bush's nominee should be withdrawn because his terms is almost up. I know that might sound far fetched but given the Dem's ludicrous statements and excuses that far is it really? WE should not allow them to set a precedent of drawing out these nominations.

"With the weekend announcement of Olympia Snowe that she would not stand for a filibuster of Alito"

Snowe did not say she would be voting for him, did she? Only that she would not allow a fillibuster. Am I wrong?

Big difference. We need to keep our eye on the ball.

I think the Republicans can't do anything about that. It is in the rules. If Bush gets another nominee, we will see if that is the strategy.

I think the Dems dragged this nomination out so they had more time to dig up dirt on Alito.

I am still amazed someone(Alito) can have that clean of a backround. I do worse things everyday than this guy has ever done in his life.

there probably are enough votes to confirm him, the question is the nuclear option, and all they need is 50 votes for that, and there are enough senators on board now to change the senate rules so that a fillibuster can't prevent a confirmation.

the delay is more an attempt to just delay, than an intent to fillibuster.

The longer they keep Alito off the court, who they view as unfriendly to their causes, they can keep O'Conner on it, who while isn't totally friendly to their causes, is viewed as friendlier than Alito would be.

to determine how many days each nomination took that Congress was in session (data that would exclude weekends and holidays when nothing is happening)?  Not to quibble, but I think that would be a more interesting comparison.

The filibuster gives cover. Without it, many red state dems should come over, as well as generally reasonable people.

Still, Snowe should not be counted as a Yeah just from her comment.

. . . Arlen Specter set the hearing date, not Pat Leahy. Right?

would've been confirmed much faster, according to your list. A sad comment to make on MLKJ day.

When Specter and Leahy announced the schedule back in November, the rationale for delaying the start of the hearings from the 2nd to the 9th was to "front-end" the one week of procedural delay to which the Democrats were entitled. This was done at Leahy's insistence, and with a good faith understanding that only an extraordinary circumstance would justify another delay.

This is an example of Reid undercutting Leahy's credibility on the Judiciary committee -- if Specter's anger is genuine, this may be a tough session for Democrats on the JC, given that Specter is usually quite cooperative with those across the aisle.

I can't imagine what benefit they hope to derive from it (More time for Reid to twist arms? Time to scour closets for skeleton dust? Enough time for an Ayotte ruling to be handed down?), but here's hoping there's an associated cost.

Leahy's assertion that it would be "simply impossible" to do the research necessary to hold the hearings before the Christmas break (despite the fact that the nomination was announced 10/31). Again, as TPetey has already pointed out, Arlen agreed to set the date for 1/9 instead of 1/2 based on an agreement with Leahy that this would incorporate the week of delay that the Dems are entitled to. Now, Leahy/Reid have reneged upon that and are forcing the week at this time.

There's no telling what Boxer-ish holds (a la Bolton) await us after committee vote.

And, at this point, it would be virtually impossible for me to re-create days in session for, say, 1986 or 1987. However, given that Kennedy's confirmation also included the holiday break, I think it should prove instructive.

well your nickname is Captain TOKE

This is a disgrace--it's apparently not so much about stirring up opposition to Alito as it is keeping the anti-Alito ads running in OH RI and PA for another week--those nice, Soros-funded unregulated moveon.org ads...

From what I hear, Dems are always doing this to the Republicans. There is a report on the Clinton administration's use of the IRS and other gov't agencies for political purposes(Barrit report, Beckitt report, Backet report, something like that). From my understanding, Carl Levin and other Dems tricked some Republicans into voting for or against something that would redact all the important information in the report, the info that would show the Clinton corruption.

They don't instinctively distrust or suspect the Dems? I, as a layman, would know to check into anything I would vote on, especially if a Democrat wanted me to vote a certain way.

If I was Arlen Specter, I would have made the Dems wait till Jan 2nd and then make the Dems formally invoke their week extension. I remember Leahy and Specter setting the date when Alito was nominated. I thought the week extension from the 2nd to the 9th was binding to the Dems (that was their one week extension).

Well I hope Specter is re-evaluating his friends on the Left, especially after the way Ted Kennedy acted this week and the week extension trick. The Republicans are in charge, if the Dems want to act like children, treat them like children.

Hey--I didn't see that you bumped that diary, so no need to suck up your comments.  Thanks, Leon.

At this point, it's obvious even to the most die-hards on the other side of the aisle that Alito will not only get an up and down vote, but will probably be seated before Easter.

So, the delay is obvious. With Alito being a primary chunk on the news cycle across the Mass Media, Democrats know they will have countless opprotunities to expound on their talking points against the current nomination. Though they have taken a week off from the actual committee, expect the usual suspect of talking heads to make repeated appearances on TV and in print.

It may just be sour grapes, but this week delay will allow them bring in the whole harvest, and we all know America hates sore losers. It is political theater at it's finest, but we all know what the final act will bring:

Alito sitting with Roberts, and may we never speak of Meirs again. Still not sure what the adminstration was thinking on Harriet. But you have to give them credit from learning from that mistake quickly and have given us a nomination that is not only unduely qualified, but who served up a stunning performance to a baffled Democrat opposition. And he did it with a smile.

Classic.

Seeing how it seems the Senate has descended to a somewhat petty level on some committee level technical rules on setting the confirmation vote date, and they're indicating similar shenanigans for the full vote, and they'd clearly like to keep this issue running longer than this sentence, I've got a reciprocal pettiness question.

Could the POTUS recess appoint Judge Alito to the court today? Without having done the exact research necessary, I recall the recess appointment rule to involve the fact that congress is not in session. Does this weekend meet that requirement?

Aside from not wanting to match pettiness for pettiness, what grounds are there for making Justice O'Connor wait any longer? She has indicated her preference to spend more time with her family (cue references to spouse, children and grandchildren) and if the left is justifiable concerned about celebrating the MLK weekend, and attendant festivities, what is the argument in favor of denying Justice O'Connor another precious day of her deserved retirement?

Appoint him now, hold the vote at the Senate's leisure.

and decided not to hear any legislation until there is an up or down vote...time will tell.

From my understanding, Carl Levin and other Dems tricked some Republicans into voting for or against something that would redact all the important information in the report, the info that would show the Clinton corruption.

Got any more information on this, like who the offenders are? This really ticks me off. I guess 1/4 of the thing is redacted.

who grew up in the days before Political Correctness used to say "White man fool Indian once, shame on White man. White man fool Indian twice, shame on Indian."

By my count this makes the 427,328th time the the Dems have "tricked" the Republicans. This has long since stopped being dishonesty and a failure of the Democrats.

It'll be before Valentine's Day.

I think Charles Grassly was real angry about it and he was going to do what he could, but I don't think he could do much.

If this was a corruption report about Bush, the Left would be screaming and the media would be all over it. Since Republicans don't have the media or a vocal nutty wing, conservatives rely on their representatives, and they get hornswaggled.

Just cuz they are supposed to have the values of a farm boy doesn't mean they have to go to Washington and let them 'cityslicker Democrats' swindle them.

Specter thought he had an agreement with Leahy that they would not invoke this rule and so delayed the start of hearings a week with that schedule in mind.

I hope that he is pissed and learned just how much Leahy's word is really worth.

I said Easter because it is a conservative estimate, and well, I am a conservative.

After Alito gets out of committee, expect a lot of grand standing on both sides of the asile. Which brings us to the filibuster.

I personally would like to see one, because then all of the snakes will be out of the grass. Unless they plan to filibuster for about 2 years, it will not be anything but sound bites for the 2006 midterms. Everyone will break out their campaign slogans under the guise of performing the Constitutional duties as senators. And after they have trotted out their tired and old talking points, the people (remember the people are who matter here, Ie the Base) will see them for what they are: Self servering politicans who can't stay away from the camera. The Republicans should sit back and just give them rope, they will take care of the rest.

This might take a month, which is why I said Easter. The real reason I see for the delay is an attempt to parlay the NSA Spying issue into the Alito nomination. While absurd, you can bet your bottom dollar that will be their last straw.

The Dems are busy preparing that fake Coke can with Alito's pubic hair on it.

for a second, I though at first your post said that Snowe would not stand for reelection !

Senator Frist also reminded us Judge Alito has answered over 700 questions over the course of eighteen hours.  Add that to a fifteen year paper trail on the 3rd Circuit, a previous unanimous confirmation and I'd say after almost three months its time for a Committee vote.

Leahy's credibility on the Judiciary committee -- if Specter's anger is genuine, this may be a tough session for Democrats on the JC

I'm absolutely delighted the Democrats broke their promise to Specter by using their procedural right to delay the Alito vote a week, a right they agreed to not exercise in return for his starting the hearings a week later than planned. Like Kennedy's threats to tie up the hearing with repeated votes on executive session, I think this will get Specter PO'd and determined to show those guys they can't push him around.

In a comment in another thread on How much to trust Specter, I expressed the hope that for his own reasons Specter would effectively use his Judiciary chairman position to get Bush's court nominees through, despite the nominees being to the right of his own preference and party loyalty not ranking high in Specter's motivations.

I was originally apprehensive about the Judiciary chairmanship passing from Orrin Hatch to Arlen Specter, but it may actually be an improvement. Hatch's judicial view is much closer to mine than Specter's, and his gracious personality makes him a lot more likeable than Arlen. Unfortunateley Hatch's commitment to bipartisan comity was too blind to see that Leahy was playing him for a fool, and comity only works when it's reciprocal.

Specter may be better suited than Hatch to deal with the Democrats' street fighting approach to the Judicary. His eqo will make him push back where it counts, designed to show the Democrats that when they jerk him around they won't benefit from it. This latest Democratic antic won't stop Alito, but will be one more entry in Arlen's payback ledger.

Specter wasn't in on it from the start.

since Specter seemed pretty POed that Leahy first hinted at this when they were together in front of the TV cameras last Friday afternoon. I would think Specter is NOT a happy camper right now. Better for him to be mad the Dems than at Bush or the nominee.

If she votes to kill the filibuster, but decides to vote against him on the floor.  The key at that point would be to kill the filibuster, and without her and Linc Chafee, there's still 54 votes (given Ben Nelson's announcement).

Without the filibuster, that is enough for confirmation.