I'm just wondering who convinced John Kerry that heading up a lost-cause filibuster against Alito would make him look Presidential.

I suppose the real scenario was Kate Michelman telling him that was the way to raise money from the looney Left. Still. He should be listening to Dick Morris instead.

Hillary will vote for Alito. Her political advisor actually made it to the White House.

UPDATE 2-1: For some reason, the update note I put in here earlier this week that Hillary intended to vote against Alito got lost in cyberspace. In fact, she did vote against him. I did think that she might vote for him as part of her Hillary-the-Moderate campaign. But clearly the raising-money-from-lefty-radicals imperative trumped all.

Posted at 11:21 PM | Permalink
Comments (6)

Milling around during a break in the hearings on Wednesday, just after Mrs. Alito left in tears
I took a few pictures on Wednesday when I had the opportunity to sit in on the Alito hearings, and I've been thinking of how best to describe the atmosphere inside the wood-panelled walls.

The room is much smaller than it appears on television. Dominated by the marble-covered wall behind the Senators, it is a cold, yet oddly intimate room. Television also elongates the distance between the Senators and the nominee. They are, in fact, quite close to each other. The short distance between them filled with camera-men.

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)
The room is aesthetically discordant, reeking of the Hart Building's '70's era decor, surrounded by the stately architecture of the other Capitol Hill buildings. On either side of the main hearing room, the wood paneling rolls up to reveal side-rooms where the media line up their cameras.

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)
Directly behind the nominee are the long card-tables where the print media plug in their lap-tops. When one of the Senators referred to an article written that morning by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, complete with a posterboard-sized reproduction of a quote from his story, I saw several of his female collegues poke Dana laughingly.

What was it that I was watching? I wondered. A return to the ancient forum, the air scented with blood-lust? Maybe. But that doesn't quite capture the sense of high-stakes strategy represented by the chairs behind each Senator crowded with high-octane attorney-advisors. Politics ain't bean-bag. Some have been calling it a Star Chamber, but with all the cameras rolling, this is open warfare, strategic manuevering for a nation to follow. A fellow watcher murmurs the observation that it apears to be a chess game. Maybe. But, as one commenter here noted, this is far more than a game.

Finally, I woke this morning thinking of a book that I had enjoyed very much initially, but never finished. The main story line was gripping, but the author spent so much time wandering off into the sub-stories, that I lost interest.

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE)
The Democratic strategy in the Alito hearings strikes me much the same way. There is a gripping central story of an impressive and formidable nominee -- a man of character and integrity, admired by his colleagues, respected by acquaintances, liked by his friends and clearly loved by his family.

But the Democrats are determined to pursue, and develop in the public's perception, sub-stories in an attempt to diminish him. CAP, Vanguard, strip-searches and privacy rights. . .

Later in the week, we hear that the excerpt from a CAP-published article that Senator Kennedy has been berating Judge Alito with was actually a sophomoric attempt at satire. Kennedy doesn't care; he's just throwing the spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)
And then, the hearings draw to a close and the Democrats start pushing their stall tactic. Chairman Specter and Senator Leahy toss back and forth at one another, bitingly, over next week's schedule. Until, at last, Leahy says to Specter: "You and I will talk about it over the weekend."

The cameras, whirring and clicking, memorializing the slightest movements of the protagonists, are the key. The real horse-trading will be done "over the weekend" over dinner, behind closed doors. These hearings in front of the cameras are about something else entirely: this is political performance art.

At its finest. And worst.

The Witness Returns: Judge Alito seated in the center; Mrs. Alito just behind in the tweed jacket

Cross-posted at frcblog.com.

Posted at 11:47 PM | Permalink
Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Ian at the Political Teen has the video of Mrs. Alito's tears today. It will break your heart to watch her try to hold tears back as Senator Graham talks about the ordeal their family has gone through. I think it's a good thing for a little humanity to break through these bloodless proceedings.

Even if the Democrats don't have the common decency to realize that they have gone too far in their political game, they should have the political sense to realize that the cruelty of the Kabuki dance they have been subjecting the Alito's to isn't going to sit well with the American people.

Posted at 10:02 PM | Permalink
Comments (7)

Tim Petty of the RSC and Scott Johnson of Powerline

Spent the day today at Blogger Row up on Capitol Hill, covering the Alito hearings, courtesy of the Senate Republican Conference -- who've caught the blogging vision big-time. They brought so many Senators by to see us that it was hard to get blog posts up -- I've got some great quotes coming up for you from Senators Hatch, Brownback and Kyl and Congressman Trent Franks.

Anyway, the real fun, of course was the bloggers! I got to spend the day sitting with Scott Johnson of Powerline, Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters and his First Mate Marcia, Ian Schwartz from Political Teen, Tim Chapman from Townhall.com, Rob Bluey frmo Human Events and Alitoblog.com, Patrick Cleary of National Association of Manufacturers -- they have a blog! -- and Flip from Suitably Flip.

They've all got great coverage of the day.

Posted at 09:35 PM | Permalink
Comments (1)

Jim Goneia and Susan Sullivan met while clerking for Judge Alito in 1990-91. They are now married, with two children. Their 9-year-old son says, "I like Judge Alito. If it weren't for him, I wouldn't exist."

Both Jim and Susan describe themselves as "social progressives" and they are both "pro-choice." But they adamantly support Judge Alito. And it's not just because of their son's existence, as good a reason as that might be.

Here's what Susan says about her support for Judge Alito:

I am a social progressive; I am a pro-choice advocate; I support Planned Parenthood and many organizations that have taken a stance against Judge Alito. Which I believe is unwarranted. I have nothing but the utmost respect for him as a jurist and as a man. As a liberal, progressive, I have no fear of seeing him on the Supreme Court.

One other thing I would say is that the assertion that the judge in any way would discriminate against women or minorities is personally offensive. It denigrates the whole process that you have to resort to those tactics. [Dredging up the CAP allegations.] Any one who knows him would agree that that's just offensive.

If I hadn't known him I might have had the same skepticism, because I don't trust this administration. It's very clear to me that the Senators all have constituents and are intent on furthering their own agenda.

So why did Susan decide to come forward and support Alito so publicly?

There's a real dilemma as a progressive if it appears that you have adopted a conservative agenda. I had to be comfortable that it [going public] was the honorable thing to do. So first I came out here and met with Senators privately. But when you see so much thrown out there that is incredibly inaccurate and misleading. . . .

Jim felt the same way -- that it was the misrepresentations about Alito's character that forced him to come forward:

I voted for Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein -- the most striking thing to me I feel that it's no longer a search for the truth, but a way to discredit a man whose integrity is unassailable. That smacks of desperation to me, and I find it embarrassing to watch that process.

The judge as a man can't stand up and defend himself in this forum; he needs other people to say that for him. That's one of the reasons I got involved.

The suggestion that Judge Alito would be involved actively, [with CAP] or in any other way, is so offensive, that it's really hard to sit and watch that take place. It's simply so .. . it's a terrible attempt to mistate the character of this man in front of millions of people that is really difficult to watch.

I asked them both how they would feel, as self-described pro-choice advocates, if Alito turns out to be part of a bloc on the court that overturns Roe v. Wade.

They both served with Alito during the Casey decision. And Susan replied that she would feel the same way if Roe is overturned that she did when she read Alito's dissent in Casey: she didn't agree, but she respected the process he went through to arrive at his decision.

She added that while on the 3rd Circuit, Judge Alito has both affirmed and applied Roe. . . so she doesn't believe anyone knows how he will rule in a specific case. And the fact that he has written opinions that are popular with some, and decisions that are popular with others shows his impartiality.

Posted at 05:28 PM | Permalink
Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Over the course of a 15-year career on the bench, Judge Alito now has a group of 54 former clerks. Remarkably, this group has come out unanimously supporting the judge.

I'm on Capitol Hill today reporting on the hearings and I've just met three of the judge's former clerks, all sporting jaunty red "Former Alito Clerk" buttons.

From left to right: David Moore, now a law professor at the University of Kentucky; Jeffrey Wasserstein and Keith Levenberg, both now in private practice.

All three agreed that they did not recognize the caricature being presented of Judge Alito as a political ideologue. Jeffrey, in particular, spoke fervently about the judge's lack of political bias. He told the story that the professor who recommended him to the judge for his clerkship told Alito: "By the way, Jeff's a flaming liberal."

Alito's response? "So what?"

Jeff added:

I consider myself a fairly liberal Democrat -- but we came out at the same place 95% of the time. Where we disagreed, it was probably because he's a lot smarter. I did not see the ideologue -- [Judge Alito] is an incredibly fair person.

Jeff described a process of decision-making that Alito uses that is exactly like what the judge recounted to the Senators -- he reviews all the facts and precedents that are relevant before making up his mind.

Keith responded that, while Alito certainly participated in casual lunches and conversations outside his chambers, that the judge took the judicial process very seriously. Recalling the story that Ronald Reagan did not take his jacket off in the Oval Office, Keith said that Alito "thought it was inappropriate to bring politics into the judicial chambers." They all agreed that they had seen "an approach to juding that was apolitical."

They also said, "unfortunately, you got the three white guys" among the Former Alito Clerks. They wanted to emphasize that Alito had many female clerks -- including several from Princeton (which counters the claim that his CAP membership indicates an antithesis to women at Princeton) and many minorities.

Lastly, the picture they painted of the judge was one of a really nice person. David told the story of a young clerk becoming seriously ill in chambers . . . and Judge Alito held the trashcan while he threw up!

Cross-posted at FRCBlog.com.

Posted at 12:30 PM | Permalink

Here's what three of the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee had to say today about Judge Alito's performance during the hearings. . .

Senator Leahy:

You strike me as a very cautious and careful person. And I say that with admiration, because a judge should be that.

Senator Biden:

I don't think anybody thinks you are a man lacking in integrity. I don't think anybody thinks that you are a person who's not independent.

and again:

The people I've spoken to on your court -- and it's my circuit -- have a very high regard for you. And I think you're a man of integrity.

and Biden again:

I appreciate [Judge Alito] being responsive.

Senator Durbin:

I think it's been interesting. I think he's made a good presentation . . . .

Sounds like good reasons to vote against someone. . . they all will.

Posted at 07:16 PM | Permalink

On Fox News Sunday, Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) reupped the political swagger, threatening an Alito filibuster.

I still say the political math holds: they don't have the numbers.

(Tip: Drudge.)

Posted at 10:23 AM | Permalink
Comments (2)

Quick question: Who wanted Judge Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court? And who was it who blocked her?

Let's refresh our memory. Supporters of this highly qualified woman-who-happens-to-be-black were conservatives. Opponents were liberal Democrats.

And yet. Comes today Colbert King, writing in the Washington Post:

Thus sayeth the high priests of far-right conservatism: To be worthy of appointment to the Supreme Court, a nominee must be scholarly, a great intellect and a possessor of sterling conservative credentials. In addition, the nominee should come equipped with a well-established constitutional philosophy, experience in constitutional law and the ability to divine what the Constitution means through analysis of its words and structure. In addition, they say, the nominee must have a proven ability to write clearly, argue incisively and have well-known opinions on judicial philosophy.

Okay. . . And the problem with that is. . . ? Colbert continues:

Unspoken, but well understood, is that to be short-listed it certainly doesn't hurt to be white, male and straight. . .

That is an absolute slander. Shame on you Colbert King.

Just take a look at the poll I ran here on this blog. Rogers was the number one pick.

King then goes on to assert that we need people with the right "values" serving on the Supreme Court. In the process he brings us the Caring Constitution:

Missing from the litany of legal virtues approved by the high priests is any expression of values, any awareness of the court's leavening role in society, any recognition of the court as a bulwark against the majority's worst instincts. They seem to think it wrong for a judge to search for a constitutional way to "to help, or at least protect, those [who] have a moral claim on the society" . . .

This all sounds good. The problem is that it is intellectually soft and corrupts the role of the courts. This paragraph cited above is a bald articulation of judicial activism.

There is no need for a judge to wander the highways and byways looking for a way to protect the needy -- that path is already set out for them through careful interpretation of the Constitution itself.

* * *

Hat tip to Captain Ed for his excellent dissection of King's piece.

Posted at 09:18 PM | Permalink
Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Samuel Alito

Looking for Alito's opinion on, well, just about anything? It's all right here.

And I do mean "all." The University of Michigan has been compiling Alito's opinions and it's a full page of links. Very helpful.

Posted at 06:47 PM | Permalink

Reader Robert Freedland commented on the post below about spousal notification and abortion. I wanted to respond to his question here:

Charmaine,

Do you actually think women need to ask permission from their spouses prior to obtaining an abortion? Perhaps what you mean to say is that you are opposed to abortion and that if a spouse can stop a woman who desires an abortion, then that would be a good thing in your view.

Actually, Robert, I have a really bad habit of coming right out and saying exactly what I mean. I won't leave you wondering.

My Daughter's Eyes

See these blue eyes? They belong to my dreamer-girl. If you meet her in real life, it's one of the first things you notice about her. They are piercingly blue.

My eyes are hazel.

Those are her dad's eyes. From the recessive gene.

So here's what I "actually think." I don't think the question of spousal notification is an issue of "permission."

It's a question of courtesy. At least. I'll go further and call it a question of justice.

Men in America today have no rights when it comes to abortion. Even husbands. None.

Despite the fact that the living human being the pregnant woman can unilaterally choose to kill "terminate" might have his eyes.

* * *

Glenn Reynolds with some important points on "spousal autonomy."

Stop by Open Post at Mudville Gazette. . .

. . .and at Stop the ACLU. . . and the Political Teen.

Posted at 06:45 PM | Permalink
Comments (6)

Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito is coming under fire from abortion rights supporters for his dissent in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. Differing from his colleagues on the Third Circuit, Alito supported the right of the Pennsylvania state legislature to pass a spousal notification requirement for women prior to an abortion.

The Left is working to paint Alito's decision as outside the mainstream of American opinion.

But is it?

Reporting in today's Roll Call,[subscription required] Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute writes that the vast majority of American people support requiring spousal notification before an abortion:

In 1992, when Gallup asked people whether they favored or opposed a law requiring that the husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to have an abortion, 73 percent said they were in favor. In 1996, 70 percent were in favor, and in 2003, 72 percent were. In each survey, about a quarter were opposed.

* * *

Posted at 12:56 PM | Permalink
Comments (5)

The Washington Times focuses today on the Gang of 14 -- "the Mod(erate) Squad."

Filibuster possibility is Topic A -- but I still haven't seen anyone laying out a plausible scenario that beats .the Political Math and makes filibuster a viable strategy for the Democrats.

In fact, Michael Barone, the master vote counter, laid out yesterday why the filibuster would be a very bad plan.

That doesn't mean they won't do it though.

"They're in a mood to fight and, if possible, to filibuster," said Barone.

Sometimes mood rules.

Posted at 10:43 AM | Permalink
Comments (1)

The thing about politics is that, in the end, it's all about the math: either you have the votes, or you don't.

The rhetoric coming from the Left today has been apocalyptic. I got an email from Ellie Smeal, President of the Feminist Minority, today saying, "Only a massive outpouring of opposition can stop this disastrous choice for our nation."

This afternoon, I was preceded on ABC News Now by Kate Michelman, former head of NARAL, the abortion-rights group, who called explicitly for the Democrats to filibuster.

That's the question everyone is discussing: Will they filibuster? And more importantly, if they do, what then?

Let's look at the numbers. The Republicans have 55 Members; the Democrats have 44. Plus one Independent. Let's call that 45 Dems for simplicity.

However, the Republicans need 60 votes in order to cut off a filibuster if the Democrats decided to really go to war. Hence the political impasse.

Earlier this year, faced with Democrats blocking judicial nominations with filibusters, Republicans began talking about exercising the "nuclear option" or what became known as the "Constitutional option" -- this would involve changing Senate rules to lower the bar for cutting off a filibuster of judicial nominees to 51, a simple majority.

Enter the "Gang of 14." 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats came to a side agreement -- the Republicans wouldn't support the Constitutional option, and the Democrats would filibuster only under "exceptional circumstances."

The Gang of Fourteen

Where does that leave us? With all eyes on the Republican 7. The GOP needs only two of them to break the pact (the Vice President votes to break a tie) to give them a majority that would enable them to change the rules and break a Democratic filibuster.

And Lindsey Graham has already gone on record: no filibuster this time around.

And then, here's Mike DeWine (via Polipundit):

I can't believe anyone would believe this is a nominee that could be filibustered or that it would rise to the level of 'extraordinary circumstances.' If someone would filibuster, though, I would be prepared to vote to change the rules.

That's 50. That's the coup de grace.

Keep sending those emails, Ellie. Call for the filibuster, Kate.

In the end, Alito is confirmed. That's the political math.

* * *

Lorie Byrd did the math, dividing Senators by support for abortion. She still comes up with the same result.

John at Americablog says the Dems are 'fraidy cats if they back away from the filibuster. I'm kidding. Actually, he quotes Bismarck: "You can do everything with bayonets, but you are not able to sit on them."

TUESDAY UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt has a great post on preempting the filibuster, with phone numbers for the GOP Seven.

Posted at 08:59 AM | Permalink
| TrackBacks (3)

Thanks to everyone who participated!

Posted at 10:54 PM | Permalink
| TrackBacks (2)

The President with Judge Alito
AP Photo

The President nominated Judge Samuel Alito for the vacancy on the Supreme Court at 8:00 this morning.

Americablog already has a post up that says "It's War." Then Rob asks: "Ready for hand-to-hand combat?"

That's the subject of my next post: what does it mean to go to war politically? Coming up shortly.

Posted at 08:42 AM | Permalink

So says Red State.

(JRB still ahead here at Reasoned Audacity -- Be sure to VOTE in the poll on the left side-bar!)

LATE-AFTERNOON SCUTTLEBUT UPDATE: Luttig gaining. With some Chris Cox thrown in for good measure.

JRB still way out ahead here, though, with almostover 1,000 votes now cast.

Posted at 01:20 PM | Permalink
Comments (4)

NOTE: Updates added, please scroll.

Who's next? Take a minute and VOTE! Look left (on the sidebar); Vote right.

Ironically, the President this next time needs to nominate a divisive figure: someone, that is, who is drawing fire from the right quarters.

Or actually the Left quarters.

Someone whose name is not anywhere near Harry Reid's short list.

Janice Rogers Brown
Someone like Judge Janice Rogers Brown. People for the American Way hate her. Need I say more? This would be what someone referred to as a "bench-clearing fight." Bring it on.

Ted Olson
Or, someone like Ted Olson. I sat next to Ted at a luncheon honoring his wife, Barbara, shortly after she died on 9/11. He is such a gracious gentleman. I realize that has little to do with qualifications for the Supreme Court. (Or does it?) But there's plenty more that does. The Left hates him too.

Edith Jones
Or, someone like Edith Jones. "I am hopeful that with the debacles of the twentieth century ... we can recover the original intentions of the founders of the Constitution," Jones said in a speech at the University of Texas. She thinks Roe v. Wade was an exercise in "raw judicial power."

More coming. . .

Or someone like Alice Batchelder.

Alice Batchelder

Not sure who she is? Christopher Flannery, from Claremont, makes the case for her.

Michael Luttig

Or, Michael Luttig. Graduated from UVA, worked for Reagan and clerked for Scalia. A triple-threat. And upheld the constitutionality of a partial-birth abortion ban. [corrected] That should be a no-brainer, but in these judicial times, that makes you pretty gutsy.

Michael McConnell

And Michael McConnell. Talk about guts -- and intellectual honesty: he's on the record calling Roe "an embarrassment to those who take consitutional law seriously." PFAW hates "strongly opposes" him too. Still, like John Roberts, even many on the Left concede that he is "one of America's most distinguished constitutional scholars."

Samuel Alito

And finally, Samuel Alito. Another Reaganite who is on the Left's hit list for a ruling in an abortion case. Alito was the sole dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in the Third Circuit, arguing in favor of a Pennsylvania law that required wives to notify their husband's prior to an abortion. Again, not exactly, a wild-eyed idea, but enough to get him in trouble.

* * *

UPDATE: For the POLL, use the comments, or email me, with your write-in candidates. . . I will tally and add these in with a final report.

FRIDAY UPDATE: Welcome Powerline readers (Thanks John!) And welcome Captain's Quarters readers; thanks Ed.

Chris Cox

Lowell Brown wrote and reminded me of Chris Cox. At the Hedgehog Blog Lowell makes the case for Chris. As does Quin Hilyer at NRO.

Lee Jenkins writes in with Karen Williams.

MORE WRITE-INS: (The complete list -- links to follow)
Chris Cox



Maureen Mahoney (Background post from law-blogger, A3G)


Karen Williams


Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit (1995 George magazine profile, via A3G)
Judge Roy Moore
Miguel Estrada


Diane Sykes, 7th Circuit
Richard Posner (A blogger on the Supreme Court!)
Emilio Garza, 5th Circuit
. . . and John Cornyn

And note to the White House: the ultimate stealth strategy is floated in the comments -- both Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham are attorneys. Turn one of them loose on the Judiciary Committee.

* * *

Here are profiles of Samuel Alito, Janice Rogers Brown and others from WaPo.

Confirm Them has profile links down the right sidebar.

Thanks to Mudville's Open Post. Hey, milbloggers: take a minute and VOTE!

Captain Ed says this is "No Time to Celebrate." He also has a whole post on Maureen Mahoney -- the Drill Sergeant brings up her name in the comments below as well.

GOPUSA did an overnight poll, Bobby Eberle at the Loft reports, of 1,000 conservative Republicans and found the majority felt the Miers withdrawal was the right thing. Who did they want as the next nominee? Janice Rogers Brown.

The Washington Post has an overview of possible candidates this morning.

Posted at 10:47 AM | Permalink
Comments (33) | TrackBacks (10)