What's New With Alito?
I needed sleep.
This wasn't exactly one of those "facts unbeknownst to me." I took a three-hour nap Saturday afternoon, and thought I had caught up on my beauty slumber. And maybe I had, but then I blew that out by staying up until two the following morning for undiscloseable reasons. But I wasn't feeling notably fatigued even late yesterday afternoon. Finished watching the Seahawks beat up on the perennially woeful Cardinals, caught the day's highlights on NFL Primetime, and settled down on the couch to take in the Eagles-Redskins Sunday night game.
Guess I settled too far down. Next thing I knew it was 11:15. This was a problem, because I lost the ability to sleep in much more than 6-8 hour increments half a lifetime ago. I pictured myself tossing & turning until two or three AM and getting up to watch informercials until sunrise.
Not to worry. Next thing I knew after that the alarm was going off for the third time. So, thirteen hours of shut-eye later, I'm assuming I should be good to go for the week that has just commenced.
All of which is to say that I never finished last week's material, which is perhaps somewhat understandable given all that went on last week. Anyway, this post will cover a goodly chunk of the overflow.
The SCOTUS nomination of Judge Samuel Alito rolled along with Robertseque momentum, so much so that the White House expanded his Capitol Hill visits to moderates outside of the Judiciary Committee roster. Thus does the contrast with the Harriet Miers mistake grow all the more inexplicable. Maybe the President lost a bet or something.
This dovetails nicely with the emerging sentiments of the so-called "Gang of 14":
Technically, with Senators Graham and DeWine already committed to the constitutional option if need be, the filibuster threat is already academic. But the bigger the cushion, the more academic it becomes.
And yet the extreme Left struggles on, denouncing Judge Alito as a "threat" to relative truth, social justice, and People for the American Way, and, of all dishonest non sequiturs, a "draft-dodger."
Maybe the extra few weeks Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter has given to them (Alito's hearings are set to begin January 9th) will be enough to dig up some high school streaking incident or an inappropriate use of gerbils or something. But it seems increasingly clear that "borking" is a considerably more challenging task than it used to be - now that the attempt is no longer without a stiff price.
[Hat tips: CQ twice, PL]
UPDATES: Last week the Los Angeles Times broke ranks with its Extreme Media comrades (which may reflect the more dire condition of its circulation declines) and highlighted the support Judge Alito enjoys across the ideological spectrum [via CQ]:
"Not an ideologue" means Judge Alito doesn't legislate from the bench like the overwhelming majority of left-wing judges, for whom ideology is a raison d'etere. Just as "not extremely conservative" means he is a staunch judicial conservative - or, in other words, a constitutionalist.
The LAT followed up that story today with this one [also via CQ]
Perhaps this is why, despite the strenuous efforts of the left-wing lunatic fringe, not only is the filibuster bluster on the Democrat side of the Senate aisle waning, but even loud-mouthed crap-throwers like Uncle Teddy and Senator Hairplugs are making conciliatory noises.
As I noted above, "borking" is a bit more difficult to pull off when (1) you're in the minority, (2) you don't possess a media monopoly anymore, and (3) the conservative judicial talent pool is so much deeper.
Lefties can comfort themselves with the notion of saving the filibuster for Jon Paul Stevens' replacement (if that happens between now and 2009), but after Judge Alito joins Chief Justice Roberts on Olympus, is that (barring big Dem gains in next year's mid-term elections) really a realistic prospect?
This wasn't exactly one of those "facts unbeknownst to me." I took a three-hour nap Saturday afternoon, and thought I had caught up on my beauty slumber. And maybe I had, but then I blew that out by staying up until two the following morning for undiscloseable reasons. But I wasn't feeling notably fatigued even late yesterday afternoon. Finished watching the Seahawks beat up on the perennially woeful Cardinals, caught the day's highlights on NFL Primetime, and settled down on the couch to take in the Eagles-Redskins Sunday night game.
Guess I settled too far down. Next thing I knew it was 11:15. This was a problem, because I lost the ability to sleep in much more than 6-8 hour increments half a lifetime ago. I pictured myself tossing & turning until two or three AM and getting up to watch informercials until sunrise.
Not to worry. Next thing I knew after that the alarm was going off for the third time. So, thirteen hours of shut-eye later, I'm assuming I should be good to go for the week that has just commenced.
All of which is to say that I never finished last week's material, which is perhaps somewhat understandable given all that went on last week. Anyway, this post will cover a goodly chunk of the overflow.
The SCOTUS nomination of Judge Samuel Alito rolled along with Robertseque momentum, so much so that the White House expanded his Capitol Hill visits to moderates outside of the Judiciary Committee roster. Thus does the contrast with the Harriet Miers mistake grow all the more inexplicable. Maybe the President lost a bet or something.
This dovetails nicely with the emerging sentiments of the so-called "Gang of 14":
Four Republicans and two Democrats have found no "extraordinary circumstances" with the Alito nomination. Although that number is not enough to prevent Democrats from filibustering the nomination, it is enough to employ the [constitutional] option....
Senator Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat, said he isn't aware of any "extraordinary circumstances" and has "not heard any of my Democratic colleagues in the Gang of 14 talk about using the f-word, filibuster."...
Senator Susan Collins, Maine Republican and another group member, was largely positive about the nomination despite her "troubling concerns" about Judge Alito's dissent in a 1991 case in which he said it was not an "undue burden" for a woman to notify her husband before an abortion.
"I do not yet see a basis for invoking extraordinary circumstances," she said. "He clearly has the legal credentials, the professional excellence and the integrity required of a Supreme Court Justice."...
Technically, with Senators Graham and DeWine already committed to the constitutional option if need be, the filibuster threat is already academic. But the bigger the cushion, the more academic it becomes.
And yet the extreme Left struggles on, denouncing Judge Alito as a "threat" to relative truth, social justice, and People for the American Way, and, of all dishonest non sequiturs, a "draft-dodger."
Maybe the extra few weeks Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter has given to them (Alito's hearings are set to begin January 9th) will be enough to dig up some high school streaking incident or an inappropriate use of gerbils or something. But it seems increasingly clear that "borking" is a considerably more challenging task than it used to be - now that the attempt is no longer without a stiff price.
[Hat tips: CQ twice, PL]
UPDATES: Last week the Los Angeles Times broke ranks with its Extreme Media comrades (which may reflect the more dire condition of its circulation declines) and highlighted the support Judge Alito enjoys across the ideological spectrum [via CQ]:
Samuel A. Alito Jr. was quickly branded a hard-core conservative after President Bush announced his nomination, but a surprising number of liberal-leaning judges and ex-clerks say they support his elevation to the Supreme Court.
Those who have worked alongside him say he was neither an ideologue nor a judge with an agenda, conservative or otherwise. They caution against attaching a label to Alito.
Kate Pringle, a New York lawyer who worked last year on Senator John F. Kerry's presidential campaign, describes herself as a left-leaning Democrat and a big fan of Alito's.
She worked for him as a law clerk in 1994, and said she was troubled by the initial reaction to his nomination. "He was not, in my personal experience, an ideologue. He pays attention to the facts of cases and applies the law in a careful way. He is conservative in that sense; his opinions don't demonstrate an ideological slant," she said.
Jeff Wasserstein, a Washington lawyer who clerked for Alito in 1998, echoes her view."I am a Democrat who always voted Democratic, except when I vote for a Green candidate — but Judge Alito was not interested in the ideology of his clerks," he said. "He didn't decide cases based on ideology, and his record was not extremely conservative." [emphasis added]
"Not an ideologue" means Judge Alito doesn't legislate from the bench like the overwhelming majority of left-wing judges, for whom ideology is a raison d'etere. Just as "not extremely conservative" means he is a staunch judicial conservative - or, in other words, a constitutionalist.
The LAT followed up that story today with this one [also via CQ]
Although liberal activists are portraying Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. as a right-wing extremist, his 15 years' worth of legal opinions do not promise fealty to any ideology. Though many of his rulings favor business or prosecutors, they are often narrow — and a sizable number cut the other way. Accordingly, Democrats in the Senate are cautious, and there is little or no talk of a filibuster. ...
• In February, Alito wrote an opinion that reopened the case of a black murder defendant in Pennsylvania because the prosecutor had removed 13 of 14 blacks from the jury pool. This strongly suggests racial bias had infected the trial, Alito said.
• Last fall, overturning a federal judge, Alito ordered a school district to allow an emotionally troubled New Jersey boy to transfer from a school where he was harassed by "bullies" who called him fat and "queer" and threw rocks at him outside class. Alito said school officials had ignored the effect of "the severe and prolonged harassment" on the young man.
• In April, he spoke for the appeals court in reopening the asylum request of a Chinese woman who showed evidence she had been forced to have an abortion before fleeing China.
• In September, Alito ruled for public housing tenants in Philadelphia who said officials had violated their contract by raising their gas rates during the year.
Perhaps this is why, despite the strenuous efforts of the left-wing lunatic fringe, not only is the filibuster bluster on the Democrat side of the Senate aisle waning, but even loud-mouthed crap-throwers like Uncle Teddy and Senator Hairplugs are making conciliatory noises.
As I noted above, "borking" is a bit more difficult to pull off when (1) you're in the minority, (2) you don't possess a media monopoly anymore, and (3) the conservative judicial talent pool is so much deeper.
Lefties can comfort themselves with the notion of saving the filibuster for Jon Paul Stevens' replacement (if that happens between now and 2009), but after Judge Alito joins Chief Justice Roberts on Olympus, is that (barring big Dem gains in next year's mid-term elections) really a realistic prospect?
posted by JASmius at 9:14 AM
<<< Home