The Democrats "Whig" Out: Epilogue

Again, in no particular order....

~ ~ ~

The Donk grassroots reacted to Mrs. Alito's emotional distress at the verbal gang beating of her husband as you might have expected:

Speaking of endless smears, reader David A. points to the Daily Kos miscreants accusing Mrs. Alito of "staging" her tears.

But of course - because that's something they would have done. A psychological projection as loathsome as ever.

And equally as profane:

Says one commenter: "She should go fuck herself."

Here's some more projection:

Says another: "I'm GLAD she was reduced to tears. These hyper-pampered Stepford wives have never endured anything more stressful than making it to Saks Fifth Avenue before it closes. If seeing her poor widdle hubby getting caught in an avalanche of lies about his not-exactly-concealed racism triggers the weeping-willow response, I'd venture to say Martha needs to get out a little more. Maybe visit a black neighborhood or two and get acquainted with a few strong women who DON'T burst into tears while DAILY dealing with hardships that Martha's fragile, feeble mind could not even conceive of. What a phony, fraudulent, sheltered twit."

And maybe Mrs. Alito should have gotten enraged instead, charged the podium, and throttled Ted Kennedy until his eyeballs turned inside out. Sure would have been satisfying to witness. But what did happen was so much more effective in exposing him and his other seven colleagues for the disgusting pricks they are.

Still, you have to love the "Stepford wives" crack for its stratospheric irony. John Podhoretz appreciated the real contrast:

A Kennedy who has never known a moment's worry about money is now grilling a lifelong middle-class public servant with no family fortune from New Jersey about the public servant's mutual fund - which, if memory serves, was and is the world's most popular mutual fund, currently serving more than 18 million investors. Teddy Kennedy, by contrast, is showered with money from his family trust. Have you no shame, Senator, at long last?

If the Massachusetts Manatee had any shame, his surname wouldn't be "Kennedy".

Another delightful contrast was the testimony of a sizeable group of witnesses who testified on Judge Alito's behalf: his fellow Third Circuit appellate court judges, including the ones the Dems cited as disagreeing with some of his written opinions:

It was powerful stuff. First, this group is extremely well situated to know what kind of Justice the nominee would be. The Senate Dems never tired of pointing to cases where other Third Circuit judges had disagreed with Alito's opinions. But if his colleagues nonetheless hold him in high regard, the fact that they sometimes disagree with him is irrelevant. Second, some of the judges who testified were female or African-American. The Dems had tried to paint Alito as anti-black and anti-female, or at least as unsympathetic to members of these groups. Judges Lewis and Barry helped refute that notion.

And brother, did they ever:

One of the witnesses is Judge Timothy Lewis, an African-American, "pro-choice" judge appointed by President Clinton. Judge Lewis testified about Judge Alito's “intellectual honesty,” stating “I cannot recall one instance when Judge Alito displayed anything remotely approaching an ideological bent.” Senator Coburn asked Judge Lewis and his colleague Judge Marianne Trump Barry (also a Clinton appointee) if they had ever seen anything that would lead them to believe Alito would be hostile to the rights of women or minorities. Both testified that they would not even be in this hearing room if they had.

But it was another Alito colleague, Judge Ruggeri Aldisert, gave Uncle Teddy particular reason to cringe:

When I first testified before this committee in 1968, I was seeking confirmation of my own nomination to the federal circuit court. I speak now as the I speak now as the most senior judge on the 3rd circuit.

And I begin my brief testimony with some personal background.

In May 1960, I campaigned with John F. Kennedy in the critical presidential primaries of West Virginia. The next year, I ran for judge, as was indicated, and I was on the Democratic ticket, and I served eight years as a state trial judge. And as the chairman indicated, Senator Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania was my chief sponsor when President Lyndon Johnson nominated me to the Court of Appeals, and Senator Robert F. Kennedy from New York was one of my key supporters.

Now, why do I say this? I make this as a point that political loyalties become irrelevant when I became a judge. The same has been true in the case of Judge Alito, who served honorably in two Republican administrations before he was appointed to our court.

Judicial independence is simply incompatible with political loyalties, and Judge Alito's judicial record on our court bears witness to this fundamental truth.

I have been a judge for 45 of my 86 years. And based on my experience, I can represent to this committee that Judge Alito has to be included among the first rank of the 44 judges with whom I have served on the 3rd Circuit, and including another 50 judges on five other courts of appeals on which I have sat since taking senior status. [emphasis added]

I'm sure the official Senate wino would have been cringing too - if he or the remainder of his cowardly cohorts, with the exception of Dianne Feinstein, had remained in the hearing room to face Judge Aldisert and the rest of Judge Alito's bench colleagues. What a, well, "profile in courage."

Not that they didn't put their collective absence to diligently detestable use. Added Brother Meringoff:

Senators Leahy and Feingold went so far as to suggest that the Third Circuit judges were acting unethically by testifying. They argued that, since Alito might review their decisions as a Supreme Court Justice, the judges could be seen as currying favor through their testimony.

Whereas if even one of the Third Circuit judges had testified that Judge Alito molests little boys on alternate Tuesdays, that person would have been, as Brother Hinderaker observed, "a 'whistle blower.' A[nd] a 'whistle blower' is anyone who says something that Democrats want to hear."

Something the Democrats did not want to hear is that the Republicans are ready, willing, and eager to trigger the ban on confirmation filibusters should Harry Reid be so foolish as to "go nuclear":

Sources tell us that Senator Harry Reid is being heavily pressured by Senators Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy to do everything in his power to help them delay the final vote on Judge Alito to the Supreme Court into early February. Reid and Frist discussed such an option yesterday, or should we say that Reid mentioned the idea and Frist told him to go pound sand.

Senior Republican Senate aides expect that Reid will once again approach the GOP leadership with the same proposal today. We are told that Senator Frist before Christmas asked his senior staff to prepare for use of the "Constitutional Option" in the Alito vote. They are ready to go, have a war room prepared and we wouldn't be surprised if they have a big red button for Frist to push at the moment that he wants to launch his first salvo in the fight to put Alito on the bench.

One Judiciary Committee Donk is reading the handwriting on the wall from which Dirty Harry, Leaky, Chucky, and Uncle Teddy are petulantly averting their bloodshot eyes:

A Democrat who plans to vote against Samuel Alito sided on Sunday with a Republican colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee in cautioning against a filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee.

"I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."

She said she will not vote to confirm the appeals court judge, based on his conservative record. But she acknowledged that nothing emerged during last
week's hearings to justify any organized action by Democrats to stall the nomination.

"If there's a filibuster of this man based on his qualifications, there would be a huge backlash in this country," said Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC.

Even the Washington Post, which has been at the forefront of media attempts to destroy the Alito nomination with one vicious mendacity after another, pulled back from the "nuclear" brink this morning:

The Washington Post, in an editorial Sunday, said Alito is "undeniably a conservative" but that nominees should not be opposed on ideology alone.

"To go down that road is to believe that there exists a Democratic law and a Republican law _ which is repugnant to the ideal of the rule of law," the newspaper said. "While we harbor some anxiety about the direction he may push the court, we would be more alarmed at the long-term implications of denying him a seat."

Yeah - like losing the filibuster option for when Justice Stevens or Justice Ginsberg call it quits, or losing more senate seats next fall to where the Dems won't even have the numbers to mount filibusters anymore.

It's like I reasoned clear back last summer when Justice O'Connor announced her retirement: the worst that could happen for the Left is that the SCOTUS alignment of 4 oligarchists, 3 constitutionalists, and 2 "moderates" would become four, four, and one, and more than likely push Jusice Kennedy to make his turn to the Dark Side complete, preserving a 5-4 lib majority on the High Court.

Pulling the trigger on an unwinnable, unsustainable filibuster of Judge Alito would endanger that precarious balance more assuredly than anything else the Democrats could do. But it remains to be seen whether even the reason of clear-eyed self-interest still exists in that party, or if that last fraying strand of political sanity will snap for good.

UPDATE 1/16: The Los Angeles Times makes a visit to the reality-based community as well....(h/t CQ)