MIB's available. Anyone wanna nominate him? Might be a good way to get him off Outsports.

A moderate Repub... I realize there's only about five left...

Looks like someone's been reading a little too much Zell Miller.

Where's the love here? I think I may be hurt by that last sentence.

Lemme check...

Well, ain't this a hoot! It turns out the Prospect articles to which Senator Womanslaughter and you referred turned out to be satire! Wow.

Wooosh! That sound is the wind being sucked right out of your guys' sails.

How macabre.

In accusing Judge Alito of misrepresenting Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Casey is accurately understood, Laurence Tribe says, to have “split the baby in half.” eek!

Given the foundation that Casey laid for Stenberg v. Carhart, invalidating Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortion, this is an interesting choice of words.

Did this guy even realize what he just said?

We have wondered that many times about you Judge/Jedi Warrior Princess.

Well, surprise, surprise. Democrats delay Alito vote, reneging on an agreement they made with Republicans in November 2005.

While they do retain the right to delay without reason for one week the committee's vote, such tactic hasn't been used since 1971.

The committeee vote will now be January 24th, with the full vote as early as January 27th and as late as January 31st.

Imagine if the Republicans had gone back on their word. The Leftists would be having hissy fits.

So they delayed it a week. Worry not, my little neo-con friend...he'll get in come hell or high water. By the way, Republicans have gone back on their word before. They're humans (I think) just like Democrats.

shawnq, nope not reading too much Z Miller here; I don't really like his world or national views on a host of subjects -let alone the UN, China, the welfare system or unchecked military expenditures.

But was that Z Miller reference on your part an attempt to discredit my opinion that the Party is too closely identified with leaders like Kennedy, Dean, Boxer, Biden and others? Because if it was, why not just state that instead of pulling a page from Sen Kennedy's Big Book of Political Sleaze Bag Tactics by using guilt via association?

I sometimes wonder whether the intolerant, bigoted Left in our gay community ever look into their own mirror instead of trying to determine what politically correct "image" is right for others. Take a look in that mirror sometime.

We don't have the WH. We don't have either chamber in Congress. We're losing the federal judiciary by leaps and bounds. We've lost key state governorships, legislatures, and given rise to serious competition from the Right to important societal institutions we used to dominate.

Every poll indicates we're losing on economic issues, values, and security issues with American voters. We can't just win with the radical Left turning out on Election Day... we need the mainstream voters.

Look in the mirror in the morning sometime. You'll see the face of a loser and someone consigning every Democrat to minority political status. That's why the Party needs to renounce the radical Left and return to its mainstream, average person, middle class issues.

Weasel, play nice or fairly soon you'll only have wild-eyed, politically impotent folks in this Board like yourself to play pocket hockey with. Why guys like you prefer to diminish debate rather than welcome it is a mystery.

Oh girl, don't be so presumptuous. You don't know me or anything about me. Get over yourself.

Weaz, no offense but it's you that's gotta get the life and that glass bubble you've been in burst a long time ago, sister three snaps. Come on, dude. You have over 450+ posts on the board... are you that dense that you think you're still a mystery? LOL. Your as transparent as the glass bubble you think you're living in.

My injuncture was more to the point of why do you take pains to make others feel unwanted here and try to shrill up or dumb down the debate? I know political impotency breeds anger but you should try to keep it in check in public.

"presumptuous" is it? I think you have to get the clue, Weaz. It's fair to infer from your blandishments here and elsewhere. Anyone can read your posts: you aren't exactly "a hard book to comprehend".

This is quite amusing. If I'm so "transparent" with 450+ posts, then please summarize my political leanings and philosophy, and throw in a bit about how I'm politically impotent. Be more specific than making vague references to "guys like you". I'm anxiously awaiting your astute observations.

As for "taking pains to make others feel unwanted and shrill up or dumb down the debate", that's even funnier. I make a tongue in cheek comment about nominating our favorite ex-federal judge to get rid of him (who didn't even take offense to it) and you get your thong all twisted up and accuse me of being shrill and/or dumbing down the debate. Have you looked at your posts? Talk about being shrill and dumb.

Actually, Democrats are doing quite well in the governor's races. In the previous cycle, they gained the governorships of a number of red states, including Kansas and Montana.

Then, last year, an anti-death penalty, pro-choice Democrat won the governorship of Virginia. An ultraliberal--that's Jon Corzine, no other way to describe a multimillionaire who quotes Das Kapital--won the governorship of New Jersey over a moderate Republican. Democrats who show conviction and don't mimic the GOP's talking points can and do win, and are winning. Democrats gained seats in Virginia's legislature, they gained seats in the New York Assembly, the gained seats in New Jersey's assembly, and outside of Ohio, did VERY well. Part of this was due to the sinking popularity of George W. Bush and his failed policies, but it was also the result of Democrats not trying to be namby-pamby and follow the DLC playbook.

At this point, the Democrats could filibuster ScAlito if they wanted to, and if the Republicans decided to pull their "nuclear option," as Trent Lott originally named it, they might be very sorry, because if the Democrats retook the Senate in November, there'd be NO WAY for Republicans to get anything done. They'd create a mirror of the House, which has given us such disasters as the prescription drug plan (which Billy Tauzin wrote write before becoming a lobbyist for Big Pharma). W has zero credibility and less than 40% approval ratings these days. That's called almost no capital left in the bank.

I am in complete agreement here with Sen. Lahey of Vermont who says he cannot vote for Alito because he is convinced as am I, that Judge Alito will not provide any check and balance as far as Shrubs power grab goes. I still think it appears Alito will be confirmed, but it will be interesting to see what the other Dems. have to say about this now.

If you really believe Leahy is voting against Alito because of the power grab/checks and balances issue, I've got a bridge to sell you. That is NOT the reason Leahy is voting no. There is one reason and one reason only why Democrats like Leahy and Senator Flipper et. al. would vote against Alito. Don't be fooled into thinking otherwise. Hint: It's the most asinine and silliest thing I've ever heard in the Senate re. judicial nominations: "super precedent."

Must. Be. Able. To. Kill. Babies.

Sick, sick, sick.

Jude Alito's own words, much of which addresses Leahy's comments. (Note: Yes, this is from the Senate Republicans, so I'm sure fantomas will automatically dismiss this.)

Ted Kennedy's apologia yesterday afternoon for his upcoming vote against Judge Alito should be welcomed--yes, embraced--by Republicans, moderate Democrats, proponents of self-government, and all fair-minded Americans because it crystallizes the choice Senators now face.

It's always a welcome day when the American people are presented with clear choices. Senator Kennedy's announcement today demonstrates once again the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the opposition to Judge Alito. The character assassins of the Left have the perfect spokesman in Senator Kennedy. Not content with his embarrassing display of intemperance, ignorance and generally boorish behavior during hearing week, Senator Kennedy summarized his opposition to Judge Alito by claiming Judge Alito was not "committed to equal justice under law."

This is a despicable charge to level at a sitting federal judge. And it's obvious to anyone who watched the hearings that in the case of Judge Alito, nothing could be more false. But that is what America has come to expect from Senator Kennedy. That is why we should welcome his announced opposition. The choice is clear.

The ABA--no conservative organization--and his fellow judges and former law clerks, including many Democrats, all sing the highest praises for this good man and his decision making as a judge. Most major newspapers around the country, even liberal ones like the Washington Post and L.A. Times, have endorsed Judge Alito. It is only the Ted Kennedy-ACLU wing of the Democratic Party that persists in opposing him. Senator Kennedy's Democrat colleagues now need to make their choice.

Oh, please, please, Senate Democrats, please attempt a filibuster of Samuel Alito. We'll see if you can last a week against polls that will run 60-80 percent in favor of giving Alito an up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The filibuster works only if it can be done on matters that don't receive a huge amount of press attention. An effort to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee will be the biggest political story of that week (and break a longstanding agreement Democrats made to always allow a SCOTUS nominee a floor vote, but hey, what's a Democratic promise worth nowadays anyway?). It won't be necessary for Republicans to invoke the nuclear option and end the filibuster altogether. Democrats would crumble after four days as they attempt to explain why it's acceptable to prevent a fair vote of a majority of Senators. Go right ahead, Harry Reid. Give it a shot, buddy. Make judicial nominations a big issue in 2006 even as you lose your effort to keep the obviously qualified Alito off the court.

Certainly no one would ever level it at you.

If more of the holier-than-thou would adopt,
there would be. less. dead. babies.

Word is that Democrats will stage a talk-a-thon on the Alito nomination when it reaches the Senate floor. The nomination is expected to be approved by the Judiciary Committee this morning, and Majority Leader Bill Frist is expected to move it quickly to the floor. But now it is also expected that Democrats will push for extended debate on the issue, with every Democratic member taking the floor to stretch out debate in what will amount to a non-filibuster filibuster.

But one Republican source says this morning that the GOP plans to "accommodate them without delaying the vote." By that, the source means that Frist will likely keep the Senate open very late to allow Democrats to talk into the night. And then Frist will file for cloture, and unless Democrats choose to filibuster the nomination, which seems highly unlikely, there will be a vote. "Judge Alito will be Justice Alito" before the president's State of the Union address next Tuesday, the source says.

They can talk all they want, but not many will listen. The Demos showed their hand in today's committee wrap-up, which they generally used as a pulpit to bully up on Bush. Alito's a done deal; let's get him sworn in so the Court can get back to business and Justice O'Connor can retire in peace.

Your last sentence is very important, my friend, because it touches upon something hardly discussed here or elsewhere. O'Connor submitted her retirement last year because she wanted to be with her ailing husband, who has not been doing well at all. Because of the Harriet Miers mess, partly created by the Democrats, which was followed by the Dems delaying the Alito hearings to January then the vote till now, O'Connor has been unable to fulfill her desire to be with her husband as she originally wanted.

Worse, left-wing wackos (an admittedly redundant term) had been mounting a campaign to convince O'Connor to not retire and to stay on the bench. Democratic senators also held the same opinion or took the same approach. Never was their concern for anything except their selfish desires. They weren't concerned about O'Connor's husband or her needs and desires; no, all they cared about was not losing a pro-Roe vote on the Court (of course, there's no guarantee Roberts or Alito is anti-Roe).

This just further proves the shallowness of their ridiculous arguments and of themselves as well. It also further cements the argument that a case like Roe should never have been and never should be in the courts period. Because they realize they cannot win in the court of the People, they are growing more extreme in their defense of something indenfensible. It's almost like a wounded animal that becomes more dangerous the worse off its condition gets.

An American icon of truth? Please. It's quite fascinating how you neglect to mention the role Rehnquist's death played in the delay of O'Connor's retirement or Bush's culpability in the Miers debacle. The truth is so much more interesting than your revisionary tactics.

I mentioned the Miers debacle. The point is how the Left is so selfish, not giving a rat's ass about this woman. And this from the party that preaches...aw, the hell with it.

Oh! The hypocrisy!

Oh the hypocrisy! The left is selfish? Oh, MIB, what have you been smoking? Can I have some? If only I could be as delusional as you. I hope O'Conner does what she said she would do and hold off on retirement until a SUITABLE replacement is found. Alito, my friend, is NOT suitable.

Why? Because he actually believes the judiciary shouldn't be making social policy? It wouldn't have mattered which conservative Bush put up, you and your fellow left-wing Kool Aid drinkers would be reciting the same thing.

For the first time in 90 years, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted right along party lines on a SCOTUS nominee, which tells us that the Democrats are just out of touch and so childishly partisan. Even the Republicans confirmed Justice Ginsburg--an ACLU attorney of all things--to the bench, on a committee and floor vote that no conservative would ever get. (It's as if Democrats believe no conservative should ever get a spot on the Court.) This woman was much more extreme left than anyone has been right, yet Republicans didn't let partisanship affect their judgment. They would have been more than justified to vote against her because of her judgment and belief that the courts legislate policy from the bench. But guess what? They don't. The GOP doesn't want that. Americans don't want that.

The courts have become the last refuge for liberals' attempts to enact their dangerous and warped minority views. They see this slowly and thankfully slipping away, and they will stop at nothing to halt this.

[ January 25, 2006, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Some more random thoughts and observations (for my friend gmg et. al.)...

I'm pretty sure Dick Durbin (a.k.a. Senator Flipper) wrote his committee speech for yesterday on the day that Harriet Miers dropped out of the running. He's ranting on about the right-wing litmus test that killed her nomination, then goes right into his own abortion litmus test. Typical.

An excellent editorial by Notre Dame law professor Richard Garnett

Okay, Cornyn's a hack. But I'll give Rendell some credit here. Let's put Alito on the court if the Republicans are so determined to have him on there. Let's put him on the court, and let's see how he rules. So far, Roberts's first concurrence wasn't heartening, but let's see what these two, in conjunction with Thomas and Scalia, can come up with. Kennedy, thankfully, has moved leftwards, but he's still a lifelong Republican Catholic.

On Monday, Santorum and others were celebrating the imminent overthrow of Roe v. Wade. If it happens, not one of us can say we weren't warned. We knew about Scalia, and especially about Thomas. The Democrats who voted for him now claim they had no clue. They're fools. The moderate Republicans supporting Alito will be looking in that same mirror.

We get what we ask for--or acquiesce to.

Cornyn a hack? Hardly. There are worse GOP senators than him. As far as the "imminent" overthrow of Roe v. Wade, even a reasonably intelligent person like you knows it was a horrible constitutional decision and one that shouldn't be in the courts at all. Let the states decide it.

Really? Name a couple.

Frist, Chafee...need I go on?

MIB, I don't get the argument from the right that the courts aren't a fair place to wage political battles like RvW. I think that's what the Dem Senators should have harped on. I appreciate stare decisis, precedent -even super precedent; but come on, there are lots of big decisions from the court that are political compromises dressed up as legal opinions. It's always been; it will continue.

The courts are part of the democratic process. If RvW-like issues are decided in the courts rather than the ballot box, so what? It's still part of the democratic process. Is the "peoples' will" less relevant or impressive because a judge decides it rather than a bureaucrat, president or the legislature? Not to me. Is the interpertation of the peoples' will any less credible because the judge wasn't elected by a simple majority of voters who chose to show up at the polls on a particular day?

I don't know; I think not. Most of the federal judges I know are pretty reasonable men adn women, are pulled by their political convictions day-in and day-out in the court, and view society from the special partisan prism that delivered them to office.

I still think Alito should be confirmed as he is the Pres's choice.

I wish there was a Democrat president making that decision right now, but the truth is the Court isn't automatically shifting to Alito on RvW decisions now... it's more like shifting to Justice Kennedy rather than O Connor. That's all.

And that's not a lot.

First of all, the Constitution has a provision for dealing with issues that it in no way mentions--the 9th and 10th Amendments, which SCOTUS has all too often ignored or trumped.

The Founders believed that political issues should be reserved to the People and not the courts, for the latter are not elected and not held accountable. Furthermore, those issues deemed the most political, in today's times Roe would be one example, were the issues the Founders most believed should be left to the People. Discussion and debate enrich a society. Judicial dictates that are actually legislative edicts from the bench do not.

The Court went way too far in Roe.

Judge, thanks for the run of cliches but it doesn't get it -with all due respect.

The truth of the matter is the courts make lots of political decisions in a comprimising fashion, dress them up as legal opinions, and trust the parties will abide by the long standing precedent of deferring to the courts. The strict constructionist judges will do it, just as the activist judges have done it. The funny part is watching the machinations needed by the strict constructionists to get them to a point of reaching the opposite conclusion of the activist judges --but still doing the same thing: reaching.

So it was with RvW, Brown, and other sea-change decisions.

Popular political will, as represented by the elected representatives or the president, isn't any more or less credible than a judge's or bank of judges' opinion setting a different course for America. The judges are just as good at understanding popular will as are legislative leaders or representatives --maybe even more so because the are insulated from direct political consequences.

Finding a right to privacy in the Constitution where one doesn't reside is a simple example. We could provide a laundry list.

No, I think the Founding Fathers --for whatever they're worth-- set in place an experiment. It's evolving. The courts are just getting a little reminder that at this point in time --in order to have strong popular support for their decisions, they need to stay out of the business of guessing what's right for America and continue to mask their retreat in terms acceptable to the right or constructionist side of the aisle --which is in control these days.

Whenever I hear someone reference the Founding Fathers or their collective wisdom (like we can find that somewhere) I always think of Jefferson or Monore on horseback running from the British troops, Hamilton lining his pockets with money from the US Treasury and thinking we needed a king, or Adams inciting New England states to leave the Union because the Virgina oligarchy's pushing of restrictive commerce laws and aligning with France.

The Founding Fathers didn't have a lock on democracy. Popular will gets expressed in differing ways. Advocacy groups securing protections in court decisions is no less credible than getting a law passed. In the end, it still effects the change in public policy the group sought.

Using the courts to effect political change is as old as the Founding Fathers you so warmly accept as determinants.

Then perhaps the originalists ought to not use the Court in the manner the liberals do, that being some venue from which to employ their social policy. If it's wrong for liberal justices to do it, it's wrong for conservative ones to do it. Regardless, the Court is NOT the place to hash out political battles for several reasons, one of the most important being that unlike in Congress or state legislatures, the Court's word is essentially final. There is effectively no recourse (save for the very difficult amendment process or removal of authority process).

Something politically charged by its very nature ought to remain in an arena that allows for change preceded by debate and discussion. The Court is not this arena.

It may be an experiment, but if so, it has proved itself quite successful. However, I take issue with the implication that the Constitution is "evolving," if that was to what you were referring. The Constitution doesn't and cannot change with the times unless it is amended. To believe otherwise emasculates that great document and renders it impotent, for if it is supposed to change and adapt to the times via judicial decisionmaking, then how can its credibility be maintained? We'd have people wondering why it should be taken seriously when one year it "means" this then 50 years later it "means" the opposite. A hundred years later it now "means" something else.

No one, including myself, ever said the Founders were sinless, perfect men. Hell, they're human like the rest of us; but I do believe they were truly gifted individuals with rare insight and fortitude, among other qualities. They were individuals who fully understood that what they were creating, a Constitution and republican form of government, could be modified by the People if and when they chose to do so. This is why that the Constitution does, indeed, change when it is amended to reflect new societal views and trends (slavery, prohibition and its repeal, suffrage, etc.)

[ January 26, 2006, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Just got done reading another outstanding editorial on Alito by Sideny Blumenthal from my " Pacific Northwest Inlander". It sums up the argument against him quite well:

"as a Judge he has ruled consistently for employers against indivdual and civil rights, and for unbridled executive and police power. Against the majority of his court and six other federal courts, he argued that regulation of machine guns by the federal government was unconstitutional. He approved the strip search of a mother and her 10 year old daughter although they were not named in a warrant, a decision denounced by then federal Judge Michael Chertoff, now Secretary of Homeland Security, as a "cliche rubber stamp."

Alito ruled in favor of a law requiring women to notify husbands if they plan an abortion, which was overturned by the Supreme Court on the vote of Justice Sandra Day O' Connor, who stated, " A State may not give to a man, the kind of dominion over a wife that parents exercise over their children."

Alito's decisions and dissents predictably flow from his politics. On the Supreme Court, as O' Connor's replacement, he will codify the authoritarianism of the Bush presidency, even after its gone."

[ January 26, 2006, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

Too bad that article from Blumey was filled with inaccuracies, coincidentally the same ones used by the Democrats at the hearings. Perhaps if Blumey would have had all the background facts he wouldn't be so quick to judge. BTW, a solid majority of Americans support spousal notification.

[ January 26, 2006, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Senator Leahy addressed some of Blumenthal's points in a floor speech. The few sentences that do address Alito’s record are packed with lies.

Leahy first falsely claims that "we know that Samuel Alito sought to justify absolute immunity for President Nixon’s Attorney General John Mitchell from lawsuits for wiretapping Americans." In fact, as was explained earlier, Alito, while serving in the Solicitor General’s office, was making the case against arguing for absolute immunity. He did mention in one passing sentence that he did not question the position that the Department of Justice had taken since the Carter Administration on absolute immunity. But he was certainly not seeking to justify that long-established position.

Leahy then asserts that "we know that as a judge Samuel Alito was willing to go further than even Michael Chertoff, the former head of the Ashcroft criminal justice division, in excusing government agents for searches not authorised by judicial warrants" and "we know Judge Alito would have excused the strip search of a ten-year-old girl even though the search warrant did not authorize that." This is a gross distortion of Alito’s dissent in Doe v. Groody, in which Alito determined that the warrant should be read to incorporate the attached affidavit and thus did authorize the search (and that the police officers in any event acted reasonably and were therefore entitled not to be personally liable for the search, especially since drug dealers often use children on which to hide their drugs).
-----------------------------

The editorial in the New York Times today, advocating a filibuster against Samuel Alito even though it acknowledges said filibuster would fail, is a watershed moment. Of course the Times editorial page has positioned itself firmly on the Left, and of course it has become an intellectual embarrassment ever since Gail Collins became its editor (Collins is quite possibly the dumbest person ever to run a major editorial page in this country). But its decision yesterday to take an editorial position that could have been a dailykos diary entry -- the editorial is titled "Spineless Senators," to give you a sense of its tone -- should thrill all of us who think America will be better off with a less influential New York Times. How can it stand as the spokesman of the Establishment when it is expressly advocating quixotic and pointless obstructionism?
---------------------------

I see that Senators Byrd (D - W.V.) and Johnson (D - S.D.) have said they will vote for Alito.

[ January 26, 2006, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

I also know that my Senator, Patty Murray will also oppose Alito. It sounds like it will be all along party lines, but unfortunately, he will be voted in.

What scares the hell out of me...

and it is a topic NO ONE will ever touch because it is just too HOT, are his religious views and his ties to the Christian reconstruction movement.

Those epeople scare the living crap out of me; but you can hardly call him on his private religious views.

R

The Democrats continue to be beyond parody.

According to CNN, John Kerry is now urging a filibuster of the Alito nomination. I thought his floor statement showed that he had come unhinged. This would seem to prove it.

Kerry must be one of the few people in the country who pays attention to New York Times editorials. Is he really so delusional that he thinks that even Democrats would want him as their candidate in 2008?

Kerry's call for a filibuster comes after his leadership, that is, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, decided there won't be one. In other words, Kerry was making a brave, Kos-friendly pronouncement in the total confidence that a filibuster will never happen. And now, word is, he is off to Davos to continue what some Republicans are calling a "filibluster."


Senator Byrd’s floor statement explaining why he would vote to confirm Judge Alito to the Supreme Court has a number of noteworthy passages. Although he also offered general criticism of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, his criticism seems aimed especially at his fellow Democrats—Teddy Kennedy, in particular:

Senator Byrd has also been perhaps the only Democrat to show that he understands the proper role of the courts in our system of government:

And Senator Byrd, as vigorous a defender of Congress’s prerogatives as anyone, declined to embrace his colleagues’ rank distortions of the unitary executive and accurately stated Judge Alito’s views on the issue.

Let’s see if this helps put an end to all the anti-Alito nonsense.

[ January 26, 2006, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

I just saw that crawling across my TV screen. Can't he just go away and be quiet already? I'm sure he does some good work there in the Senate, but he's not scoring any points by taking this stand. I don't even think the Democrats have enough votes to filibuster, so what the hell is he talking about?

A solid majority of Americans supports Alito's confirmation and opposes a filibuster. Several common sense Democrats oppose a filibuster. Apparently Kerry-Heinz and his fellow MA. Senator Womanslaughter are the ones driving a filibuster.

This will kill Kerry if he even attempts to run for president in 2008, and it will hurt those Democrats who support it. Don't they grasp this?

Agree - a stupid move by John Kerry. There is an interesting article about him in this month's GQ. John Kerry - please exit center stage.

Agree with you 100% mdphl. Its time to put a period in this and move on. This does not appear to be winnable, and the Dems. I should think would go along ways toward getting more repsect from the masses, if we started re-energizing the base, getting a backbone, and some fresh new ideas, and speaking out now, as we head into the off term elections this November. Something, that in my ever optimistic opinion, we can do! All the polls I keep seeing and hearing about are encouraging towards change, and a different direction. Lets start talking about it NOW!

[ January 27, 2006, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

Well, it looks like no filibuster. What are the Dems doing to us!!?? :mad:


buzzflash link

He means "spineless Republican-enablers."