Redstate

Kennedy is like a child throwing a tantrum. I am glad Specter put him in his place.

"like" a child throwing a tantrum?

Did you guys see the funny Scrappleface from yesterday?  I laughed out loud at the caption under the picture of Alito.

because this isn't about the hearings...

Can anyone give me a clue about how to change a .pdf file?  I have a release form and I need to change some contact info on it--do I need to make a whole new one?  Is there a quick way to do this?

wow... just wow. Specter did a good job.  "I won't deal with your threats. I am the chairman of this committee and I won't have you running this committee. We're in the middle of a hearing, this is the first time I've heard this request from you, and you'll just wait."

Way to act like a 5yr old Teddy!

When Alito gets on will that be the end of Roe V Wade?

the point of making something .pdf, so users can't change it.

The tool to create (and modify) pdf files is Adobe Acrobat, which is not free, but at their home site you can get a 30-day try for free.

That will be 4 of the 5 justices required.  And that's assuming that stealth nominee Justice Roberts would actually vote to overturn, and I am not totally convinced of that.

For certain we need one more moonbat to retire while we still have a GOP president and Senate.

Alito does seem to be very personable and persuasive. I wonder if he could sweet-talk Justice Kennedy into voting for unborn babies?

As for the liberals retiring...Stevens is getting old, and the other liberals weren't exactly born yesterday.

A good reason to work toward having a pro-life President beyond 2008. NOT Rudy Giuliani.  

I love Specter pointing out that first Durbin and later Leahy that their posturing is cutting into his lunch time.  My predictions are that Arlen will still be able to finish a #3 (supersized), but will have to go without the apple pie.

Even with the Acrobat App, if the file is password protected, which it should be, you can't change it. You may be able to OCR it into a text doc and edit but it may be faster to retype.

Just as I figured, 10 of 12 Republican nominated justices are still not enough!

I'm beginning to realize that Republicans have no interest in over turning Roe V Wade......they realize that if they did then the votes that they rely on from Roe V Wade haters would be in the balance and the other side would be much more motivated.

So it's all just a game to make us think that they are trying to overturn Roe V Wade.

Most children haven't left a girlfriend to die at the bottom of a river.

A pro-life president to overturn Roe. Even a pro-choice republican like Rudy would put a judge on the court that would vote to overturn Roe on the basis that Roe vs. Wade is BAD LAW  

Go here http://www.nonags.com/nonags/texted32.html

and download Elfima Notepad (freeware). Author says

"Elfima Notepad is a text editor to create PDF, HTML, XML, and SVG documents.

With Elfima Notepad you can also reimport and modify your PDF documents.

With a PDF file size optimisation, Elfima Notepad is the most efficient solution to create quickly and easily PDF documents."

This is the best freeware site I have found.

While Giuliani is a pro-choice Republican, I heard him on Hannity yesterday, quite matter-of-factly make a reference to getting Constitutional-interpreting justices onto SCOTUS.  And in the context, it sounded like he would not be looking for pro-Roe judges, were he in the Captain's chair.

I've been hearing that for 32 years and dozens of Republican nominations.....face it, actually overturning RVW would be political suicide for Republicans.

Almost every argument I've heard for overturning Roe v. Wade states that it's "bad law". Lets say it does get overturned and goes back to being a state law. What exactly does this accomplish? If someone wants to have an abortion, they'll simply go to one of the states that does allow it.

[Note: I don't have a problem with Roe v. Wade]

it would do the exact opposite, it would force the dems to debate the issues, since the abortion issue would be relegated back to state politics  

Over turning R v W accomplishes nothing but better weekend tourism for NYC and an absolute slaughter at the polls for Republicans.

That is why I'm telling you that Rove's evangelical pandering is complete nonsense. The last thing Rove would want would be to overturn the red meat that gets Republican's voted despite the fact that Republican's continually show that they are corrupt, self serving, and couldn't manage an economy even if it came with a set of instructions.

he NEEDS pie! Not to mention Prozac and a polo mallet.

How do you figure that out when most of the Nation is in favor of legal abortion?

Despite the polls the Republican's get more votes because they are fighting to overturn (what they view as injustice). Make it legal and then the majority are fighting to overturn (what they view as injustice).

The issue would not go away....it would be bigger and Republicans would be in the minority and defending rather than in the minority and attacking (or so they would have you believe).

Is having a supreme court that interrupts the constitution and holding up the founders intent instead of making it up as we go or finding so-called rights were none exist!

I've always believed the ultimate goal was to have abortion banned entirely.

Now you're claiming it is about the sanctity of the Constitution.....you are aware that President  is wiping his backside with the Fourth Amendment right?

Were you able to accomplish anything in such a breif visit?

and dont let the door hit you on the way out.

If you want a forum to insult republicans this is not it. you can cry and moan at dkos with your comrades.

The majority of republicans and Americans in general rate national security, the economy, or fiscal responsibility over the abortion issue

That's because abortion is legal.

Once illegal watch how it jumps up in the rankings.....Rove knows this I'm surprised you don't.

When you need him?

This particular Troll needs to go off the bridge.

As I have some time, but you're kidding right?

The powers given to the executive by the congress and in war time have little to do with this argument  

Thank you for your reasoned commentary and thoughtful analysis.

Go back to the rock you've slithered out from and amuse yourself with your witticisms, we're bored with it.

most of the Nation is in favor of legal abortion.  Not true.  Cite me some polls or some authoritative source that is not the NYT.

I think you are a troll, because you seem to exist here solly for the purpose of advancing a single point which is this:  that the GOP establishment is only pretending to oppose abortion because it gets them votes.

Then you defend that by saying that most Americans are in favor of legal abortion.  That's a non sequitur, friend.

So for starters, I'd like you to tell me where you got the idea that 'most' Americans are in favor of legal abortion.  Who is 'most'?

I have a feeling your going to be looking up at us from his pile.

its were all good trolls go...

Good day to you sir!

Declaring war is certainly a convenient way of usurping the Seperation of Power. And while it is necessary to consolidate power in the executive branch in a nation threatening war are we there in this case? Are we saying that Iraq or even terrorism pose an actual threat to the survivability of the Republic?

Was the "War" on drugs a reason to elevate the Exucutive branch above the other branches and even the Constitution? Was the "War" on poverty?

R v. W is "bad law" because it was nothing more than result oriented policy making with dubious constitutional underpinnings. A group of unelected unaccountable judges set policy for an entire

nation. Having said that, I am reasonably sure that first trimester abortion will always be legal in most, if not all, states. You have to change attitudes before you can expect any meaningful change in the law. There is little support for an absolute ban on abortion. When a 14 y.o.a. child is impregnated by her dad, a sociopath or a heroin addict, most folks want that option on the table.  In our lifetimes we will probably be able to eliminate partial birth abortion. Even most libs I know recoil at the procedure. You may also see second trimester abortions limited to situations of rape, incest, serious birth defects, etc. I'm afraid the most you can hope for is "baby steps".   I think it best that we not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  

Pollingreport.com is a convenient place to get your polling information.

Last week's Gallup Poll on abortion was 53% Pro Choice 42% Pro life.

administration used this same tactic (not during a time of war) against Aldrich Ames, NOT ONE Republican made a fuss.  It was in the best interest of the nation and security.  Thankfully for our nation, your reasoning is why liberals will not win national elections.

There have been requests for a couple days to ban this one.

to you (and the other two folks) for the info.  I really appreciate it.  One question: what does OCR mean?

most of the Nation is in favor of legal abortion

That's one poll of one week, and 53% in that one poll in one week does not constitute 'most of the Nation'.

If you are going to make a point and defend it, I suggest you hurry up and get to it.

Of Course you are fully aware that the wire tapping of Aldrich Ames was warranted by FISA!

The GWB question is.....do we want one person to be able to listen in and never have a record of that invasion of privacy? Recall that such a limitation is not limiting in terms of security because 72 hours after the fact is certainly acceptable. If not, let's extend it to a year or whatever, but at some point I want someone else in the country to know that my conversation was secretly listened to. Remember GWB will not always be the President do you really want Hillary with that kind of unchecked power?

GWB's actions are not traceable and that is not a "seperation" of power.

OCR = (something like) Object Character Recognition.  In human terms, it means scanning it (via the 'scanners' attached to alot of printers, or stand-alone scanners), where you choose as your destination some kind of text or MW Word file.  I.e., rather than grabbing it as a photocopier would, it tries to 'read' the text and render that into either a text file or a MW Word file.

This is a last resort, if none of the pdf-editing routes are possible.

Do you plan on spouting this nonsense all day?

does Raid work on Maggots?

I gave you the link but you have no interest in finding out what the coutry's opinion is.

So since your so lazy

Aug 2005 - 54 to 38

July 05 - 51 to 42

May 05 - 48 to 44

October 04 - 52 to 41

If you want further back you'll have to go to that website I gave you or pretty much any polling website.

It's Optical Character Recognition.

The Congress, through the Authorization to Use Military Force,  empowered the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 1 1, 2001. In Hamdi v . Rumsfeld, 42 U.S. 507 (2004), 5 Justices of the Supreme Court held that the AUMF is nothing less than a declaration of war. This is not the first time that a war has been fought, at least in part, on American soil. The President took an oath to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Therefore, if the President reasonably believed that an Al Quaeda cell was occupying a particular house in Florida, he could lawfully order a bomb delivered via the chimney. Monitoring electronic communications between residents of the U.S. and states that sponsor terrorism seems somewhat less intrusive.

The gathering of intelligence is a fundamental incident of waging war. It can certainly be argued that communications between Al Quaeda suspects have no more privacy protection than radio transmissions between enemy tank and aircraft commanders engaged in an invasion of the U.S. mainland. The 4th Amendment is simply not applicable to this situation. Even if it were, the remedy for a 4th Amendment violation, is the exclusion of the evidence from a criminal trial. No crime occurs unless criminal intent is shown or unauthorized dissemination  of the information occurs. The 4th Amendment proscribes only  unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court has therefore sanctioned countless exceptions to the warrant requirement. If you take a hostage, even in your own home, the police need not seek a warrant before they enter your castle to deal with the situation. When the matter is life or death, all manner of Constitutional protections can be abrogated. As is often stated, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. In 2002 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review stated that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority." Ergo, as long as one of the parties targeted is an "agent of a foreign power", the application of FISA is questionable.  

Those who cast blame on the administration for failing to "connect the dots", now want to circumscribe his authority to collect the dots. If the President has abused his authority, by spying on mere political opponents, such as Michael Moore, he deserves to be impeached. If he is telling the truth, and his sole goal was to protect the citizenry, the President is owed the benefit of the doubt.

Overturning Roe v Wade wouldn't hurt the GOP in the short term.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, as several posters have pointed out, the issue goes back to the individual states.

Some state legislatures have strong pro-life majorities that have been waiting all these years just because they're afraid the Supreme Court (or some lower court) would strike down an anti-abortion law. Even the current national law against partial-birth abortion (passed by both houses of Congress, including many Democrats) was supposedly struck down by a judge in Nebraska.

Public opinion for/against abortion is divided, and not evenly distributed. Nationwide, only about 20% want abortion outlawed entirely, but polls show that majorities of 60-65% would favor laws that would ban abortion except for cases of rape or incest, or danger to life of the mother.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, a few states would outlaw abortion entirely, a few states (probably NY, NJ, MA, CT, RI, VT, CA, WA, and maybe a few others) would allow all abortions, and most states would pass abortion restriction laws, which would allow abortion only in cases of rape or incest. In these states, there would be far fewer abortions than now, because a woman seeking an abortion would have to accuse the child's father of rape or incest! Abortion mills would concentrate in states where all abortion remained legal.

Politically, there would be a renewed effort on the state level to restrict abortions, and religious conservatives in blue states (who do have GOP House members in red districts) might still try to work for a national law banning abortions except in cases of rape and incest. The issue would probably not go away for several years after Roe v. Wade was overturned, since people would then realize that the states would still need to decide.

Over the long term, there would be a mixed political effect. In states where abortion was totally or partially restricted, abortion supporters would be having more babies than they would if abortion were legal, and if children follow the voting habits of their parents, these states would start trending Democratic about 18 years after abortion was restricted. In states where abortion remained legal, pro-life people would continue having more babies than pro-abortion people, and these states would continue trending more Republican. It would take at least a generation for these trends to work themselves through the system.

Even a partial restriction of abortion in some states could have a political effect. If more children are born, they become consumers of specific goods, such as food, clothing, toys, games, and educational supplies. This could stimulate the economies of pro-life states relative to pro-abortion states, and professions that cater to children (day care, teachers,  etc.) would migrate to the pro-life states where their services are in demand. As the extra babies entered the work force, pro-life states would find it much easier to balance their budgets than pro-abortion states, and lawmakers in the pro-abortion states might start wondering if their economic woes were due to a "birth dearth" and start re-thinking their position on abortion...

In light of the demographic changes anticipated by even a partial restriction on abortion, the GOP would be short-sighted to imagine that overturning Roe v. Wade would lose them votes.

Watching trolls go passing by

It ain't the latest thing

I'm just standing in a doorway

I'm just trying to make some sense

Out of these trolls go passing by

The tales they tell of men

I'm waiting on a Leon

I'm just waiting on The Blam™

(my apologies to the Rolling Stones)

R's won't ever actually overturn Roe v. Wade, because the promise to do so keeps getting them elected - and if they do it, since most of the country supports abortion, they will lose big electorally.  Hmmm.  So promising to do something that most of the country does not support, and will cause siginificant electoral backlash, gets R's elected.  Merely promising to do something that will kill you electorally will actually get you elected, as long as you do not actually do it.  Yeah, sorry, no matter how I word it, it makes no sense whatsoever.  Just go right on believing that.  I hope you are typical of all Dems.  If you are, I suspect that Republicans will remain in control for most, if not all, of the rest of my lifetime...

and if no warrant need ever be applied for (even after the fact), how is the citizenry ever going to know whether the tap was on your phone or on an AQ suspects phone?

the label "Troll" is just too nice.

Every "neutral" poll I can find consistently shows more people supporting pro-choice.

but I'm not sure a majority of the country agrees with me. Not just based on poll numbers that are cited, but on the reports that over 80% of unborn babies that prescreen for down syndrome are aborted.

The link gives some indication that maybe doctors' biases are influencing this, but it has concerned me that maybe the reality is that while many people have a negative view of abortion in theory, when push comes to shove and it is a matter of their own personal situation, many of those people who claim to be opposed to it are in fact willing to opt for abortion.

I hope that's not the case but I don't know how else to view the data on abortions of unborn children with down syndrome and other health conditions. An 80% rate means its not only happening in NY and SF.

Are you completely delusional?

Take a look at which President's have nominated the Supreme Court judges since 1973 and tell me if the Republican establishment is really for overturning R v W!

Of course not. Now try and figure out why not.

And even if your analysis were right.....don't you think that your states where abortion was legal would attract disproportionate amounts of migrating women as a place to live and enjoy their rights? Do you think that the states where women are leving will really have faster population growth rates?

Then why do you suppose it is that abortion is propped up by a supreme court decision that even pro-abortion legal scholars admit is shaky at best?

Surely if most Americans agree that abortion is, as a c-span caller declared last night, is "the most fundamental right that a human being has", they could get federal legislation passed to legalize it, right?  Why do you feel it is that this hasn't come to pass, that instead Americans keep electing these pesky pro-life Republicans?

And surely in an America without Roe all 50 states would legalize it at the state level, right?  So why are you so worried?

So I'll keep this simple. I know hoosierteacher will be disappointed.

Blam.

Now.

Leon went snickersnack.

"Hey mouse. Say cheese.

With a dry cool wit like that I could be an action star." - Bart

Your arrival has been anticipated with much pleasure.

It was beautiful as it was.

a Senator asks a long, tedious question and when Alito begins to answer, said Senator looks down and starts studying his next question or writing.

Alito is expected to sit and listen respectfully, yet our illustrious leaders seem to believe that they are royalty, unfettered by simple manners.

I knew mine sounded a little off.

def., n. Democratic Party Senator over the age of 60. Likely to be found sitting on Judiciary committee. Also see Lautenberg, Byrd, etc.

...whether the buffoonosaurus was intelligently designed?

what he says... they aren't listening anyway. They'll just repeat themselves, interrupt him, and act like rude college-kids rather than potentionally having their views challenged. We can't have that, now can we?!

I saw the link.  I am just asking you to defend your statement with some vigor.  The 'here's my link' tactic requires no thought.  The numbers 54,51, 48, and 52, do not demonstrate that  'most of the Nation is in favor of legal abortion'.  And it's still a Gallup poll.

Now, junior, let me show you how to argue a point using facts.

This is the Gallup poll question:  With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?

For starters, while that is related to the question of how many in the nation 'favor legalized abortion', it is not the same thing, nor would the numbers necessarily be close.

With data from the last ten years in this Gallup poll question, using the very link you provided, the pro-choice answer has hovered around 50%, with a high of 55% and a low of 46%.  How you extrapolate that to show that most of the Nation is in favor of legal abortion would be something I'm very curious about.

And considering that the courts have to deal with some new state statute or federal law practically every term, one might extrapolate from that that there is a popular movement afoot, controlling more than 50% of some state houses, to thwart Roe v Wade.  

of all this nonsense?

At least for Alito?  When can we expect a committe vote and then a vote for the rank and file.  

This is excrutiating.

gratias ago vos!!

Thanks, guys, for letting us play with our food for awhile this time (good kitty, now go ahead and eat that mouse...).

Sometimes you guys are pretty quick with the swatter, which we understand.  But watching the fact-challenged mouse looking to talk himself out of his self-created mess, well, that's just fun.

Specter is calling for a vote next Tuesday (Jan 17)... however, any member of Judiciary committee can hold postpone the vote for up to a week for any reason they want.

Short answer: earliest date for a Committee vote is next Tuesday. Latest... probably the week after that.

I'm afraid that's just what he has to say to get elected. If he were president, I'm willing to bet that his first nomination would be Maureen Mahoney (which will be tempting to many a future GOP president because she would be relatively easy to get confirmed.) We could certainly do worse because she is absolutely brilliant by all accounts, but I think that she'd be a little bit too deferential to stare decisis (much more so than Alito or Roberts) and much more inclined to adopt Breyer's "Active Liberty" stance when it suits her (i.e. affirmative action and probably Roe).

I think she'd be much like Sandra Day O'Connor in that she'd frustrate conservatives to no end on these important social issues - even though I think that she'd be much more consistent in her application of the law; after all, it would be difficult for anybody to drive the law in the drunken sailor fashion that O'Connor wielded it.

I will be completely comfortable with Mahoney on the court once we get Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones, Miguel Estrada, Michael McConnell, and Viet Dinh on there FIRST. LOL. I mean, how much damage could she do at that point, right? :-)

During the exchange between the 2 senators how badly Senator Kennedy's hands shook. What's the deal with that?

the Shakes....nothing a nip won't take care of

I like the cruelty. Meoooooooow!

(purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr)

applied a splash of Dewars in the morning rather than Old Spice, he could get himself much gentler treatment from certain senators.

Alito speaking to Sen. Sessions said something along the lines of, "I think that your position on policy is far more important than what any Supreme Court justice has to say since you're elected to make policy and justices are appointed to interpret and apply the law."

Intepretation: Breyer can take his "active liberty" and shove it.

Alito speaking about what role the rulings of foreign courts should have on American courts interpreting United State law said that they have absolutely no bearing on American law.

Interpretation: Ginsberg can look for enlightenment wherever she wants - but when she is making proclamations about American law, she can take those foreign opinions and SHOVE THEM!

He also seems antagonistic to Kelo. Unfortunately, O'Connor was already on our side on that one.

This guy is GREAT!

I had to share this, it is from an article in the NY Daily News by Michael Goodwin:

"Still, that didn't stop Kennedy from putting on another shameless performance. He huffed and puffed about how Alito had not initially recused himself from a case involving a mutual fund company where he owned shares, as though an innocent young woman drowned. Never mind that he twisted or ignored the key facts, as Alito convincingly demonstrated when another senator let him finish his answers. You know Dems are in trouble when Kennedy takes the lead on ethics issues."

I'll grant you that previous GOP Presidents have had a mixed record appointing pro-life SCOTUS justices.

Ford gave us Stevens, but Ford was so weakened by the Watergate scandal, that he couldn't have forced a conservative through the Democrat Senate, and Roe v. Wade was fairly new then.

Reagan gave us Scalia (and promoted Rehnquist), but also O'Connor and Kennedy, who turned out to be very lukewarm conservatives.

Bush 41 gave us Thomas, but also Souter. I believe that Souter was a vetting problem, recommended to him by Sununu as a "conservative" without enough checking into his true background.

It's possible that during the Reagan/Bush 41 years, both Presidents were paying more attention to the economy and foreign policy than to SCOTUS justices, although Reagan did hire both Roberts and Alito, who declared themselves pro-life at the time.

Times have changed since the Reagan/Bush 41 years. Fighting the Soviet Union has disappeared as an issue, and even Bill Clinton campaigned on "it's the economy, stupid", until his numerous scandals drove religious conservatives back toward the GOP.

Legislating from the bench has become an increasingly volatile issue for religious conservatives, not only regarding abortion, but also regarding gay marriage, pro-sodomy rulings, and courts banning crosses and religious displays in public. Bush 43 was frustrated by the Dem majority in his first two years, and by filibusters in his second two years, and actively (and successfully) campaigned for Republican Senate candiates. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not, in itself, drive these people back to the Democrats.

As for "women migrating to live and enjoy their rights"--which women? Mostly single women, who don't want to care for a baby. What about when they decide to marry and have children? Will they have to migrate back to find men who want to marry and have children, because men in pro-abortion states would have less incentive to marry? Married women, who normally want to keep their babies, will probably tend to stay put (in whatever state they live) and raise their children with their husbands.

Once Kennedy's subpoena flyer went up in flames, it looks like the Dems gave up.  Biden, Feinstein, and now Feingold have been much tamer in their questioning of Alito this round.  I think Schumer and Durbin will still put up a fight, but for the most part, its all but over.  I predict a very short third round, 10 minutes per senator with few Republicans asking questions.

Alito's performance has been every bit as good as Roberts', perhaps even better given the mischaracterizations of him coming into the hearings.

Jameson Irish Whiskey...A Kennedy favorite

Most people favor pro-Life positions and that has continued to grow as more are educated about what the Pro-Death camp really wants.

(of Holland).

Go, Alito!

According to Kennedy, if you are a member of the NRA you are accountable for everything written in the NRA magazines or literature.

A word to Ted's family, it is time for an intervention.

I liked Cornyn's quoting from Sunstein about Alito's reserve and respect.  I note that he didn't quote from this op-ed:

"It is possible, of course, for both supporters and critics to spin any record as extensive as Alito's. When the law is clear, Alito follows it. In his massive record, his supporters can undoubtedly find cases in which Alito's votes did disappoint conservatives. But if his judicial record is analyzed in the aggregate, and with an emphasis on the cases that existing law left open, his predilections are unmistakable--and far more linked to political commitments than those shown by the judicial records of other recent Supreme Court appointees (including Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg and Breyer).

How should the Senate react to this evidence? Reasonable people can differ. Alito is anything but lawless, and his care, caution, and experience do him great credit. The real question about Alito involves the disturbingly close link, in so many cases, between his political convictions and his legal conclusions. "

Leaves open the question as to whether he's a good or bad find for conservatives.  Perhaps now, he could be good.  What happens when he starts drifting left, and his rulings still adhere to his politics?

Although in any fishing expedition, there's a chance you might catch something...

That's what this forum is for.

Here it is.

You're giving Sunstein's opinion much more weight than it deserves.

In this op-ed piece, Sunstein muses on the study recently released by law professors Stephen Choi and G. Mitu Gulati, finding Alito one of the more "neutral" judges in the United States. He agrees with the finding, but adds an anecdotal caveat:

To measure neutrality, Choi and Gulati ask whether a judge is as likely to disagree with Republican appointees as with Democratic appointees. With this measure, they find that Alito is quite neutral, or independent, because he frequently disagrees with Republican appointees. With my own data, I reach the same general conclusion--but only because Alito is so often more conservative than fellow Republican appointees. To a striking extent, Alito's judicial conclusions track identifiable political commitments.

This assessment depends, of course, on Sunstein's ability to distinguish between two forms of conservative jurisprudence: that which conservatively and narrowly follows the applicable text and precedent, and that which seeks a "conservative" outcome. Sunstein doesn't make that important distinction in the op-ed, and, considering his native liberal outlook, I hardly think his recognition of the difference should be considered reliable -- if he acknowledges one to exist -- and shouldn't influence anyone's opinion but his own.

No one can predict if or how Alito will "grow" on the court, but I think his long experience on the bench gives him a foundation solid enough to quieten conservatives' Souter-mares.

It is time he is held accountable for all the rubbish written by that august body.

I wish we had subpoenaed papers of the ACLU when Ruth Buzzi Bader was in day 2.

If the designer was intelligent, he was making a joke.

And I'm not disputing that.  Their rudeness just drives me insane.  I don't like to listen to the long stories of my Uncle D., but I don't sit and scratch out my grocery list when he is talking to me.

If my kids did that, I'd have them by the short hairs in about two seconds.

Oh, wouldn't that be a sight:  Me sitting there at that table snarling at Sen. DeWine, "You'd better look at me when I'm talking to you, Mister!!"  Pay. Per. View.

The non-partisan New York Times was granted access by Mr. Rusher and went over them with a fine tooth comb, finding...nothing.

in the senate. All of the dem leadership in the senate and the judiciary commitee signed off on this attack.

We have got to deny the msm and rank and file dems to pretend that the problem is a few scapegoats. Its not. What spitz, moore, dean, etc say bluntly, the leaders say in equivocal language and aquiesce in thru silence. The dem party is scum and the gop senators need to quit referring to them as their honorable colleagues.

Where is our favorite dem moral giant Joe Lieberman?

As a former dem party official for 20 years until 2000, I know these people and I loathe them I know the depths of their moral bancruptcy in private which is fast approaching what they reveal in public.

Congress is kept informed on what was being done.  Now they can claim they didn't take the time to review it or the updates were not provided often enough (both problems Congress could have solved) but there was others in the loop

The unbiased CSPAN commentator just asked a caller:

...did you come into the hearings supporting Judge Alito, or with an open mind?

Wow.

He's trying this one without the booze to see what its like, but its not helping.

I'm especially cheered by Alito's rejection of foreign law.