Redstate

a bit, but I have a hunch that Biden votes with us here - in committee and on the floor. Lots of Italian-American voters in Penn/Jersey who he`s going to need in the primaries were watching yesterday. Distancing himself early from the TedFeinStein left-wing trash machine is good politics, I would think.

that something as simple as an open thread is going to help ME get my thoughts together.

You gravely underestimate the state of my brain.

I was pretty well committed to the conventional wisdom that Kohl was the only possible Democrat vote in committee, but JoeBi has very carefully distanced himself from the joint attempt to paint Alito as ethically challenged. Didn't he pointedly call those accusations "malarkey"? The self-deprecating wearing of the Princeton ball cap is another indication that he's trying to separate himself from the attack.

I think there's a real chance he'll vote with the majority (at least in committee, since that's the most visible vote). Not that it matters, really -- bit I think he helps himself more with independents and moderates than he hurts himself with the hard left if he does.

After all the mud Kennedy, Schumer, etc. threw at Alito, I heard Ted Kennedy belonged to a eating or social club at Harvard that did not allow women to join until the 1980s.

would be simply shocking! :-)

He was on the Today Show today and indicated to Katie he would probably be voting against Alito

One thing that's impressed me about Alito is his very obvious answers to questions.  It struck me watching Leahy question him this morning (9:10 a.m.).  And it's something that makes me think he will get more than Kohl and Biden as Dem votes.  

He will begin an answer with a statement no one can dispute - "Racial segregation of schools is terrible" for instance.  Or when asked about whether an innocent person can be executed, as Leahy is asking right now, he calmly lays out the obvious processes in place to prevent that from happening.

Before you scroll down or kick me out, stick with me here.  These questions are asked to suggest either systemic problems or political agendas.  In Leahy's case he opposes the death penalty so he wants to paint the system as flawed to undercut the legitimacy of the death penalty.

Alito's approach to questions like these has been to calmly outline the processes and precedent already in place to disprove the assumption of the questioner.  In this death penalty case, he discusses whether the case was in federal or state courts, the different procedures involved in those courts.  In other words, he's saying "well, there isn't really a systemic problem here, what exactly are you getting at Senator?"

That brings me to my point.  Alito's plain-spoken  manner, his unwillingness to take the bait in discussing these ridiculous theories of systemic injustice, and trust in the rule of law make him an attractive candidate for the Supreme Court to both sides of the aisle.  

I predict his candor and lack of posturing is compelling enough to get him three Dem votes on the committee - Biden, Kohl, and Feingold.

Say what you want about Specter's views, he has handled himself very well in these SC confirmation hearings.  Smacking down Kennedy, intervening to allow the nominees to fully answer questions, being considerate to the Dems but not letting them drag the hearings on ad infinitum, Specter's done a good job.  I don't even think he dirtied up the nominees on Roe too much.  I'm still skeptical that he'll vote for Alito in the full senate, but I am no longer skeptical that he'll be a yes vote in committee.

Specter opened the hearing today by reading a memo provided by committee staff detailing the results of the staff's research into the Rusher papers.  Specter reported that Alito's name appeared in no correspondence, minutes, articles, lists, or documentation of any kind found in the file.  A vindication for the Judge for sure and something, I suspect, Specter did not have to do.  It was essentially another smackdown of Kennedy.

I'm thinking a little differently about Specter the person after these hearings, even if I do continue to disagree with Specter the senator.

Leahy thinks trying to keep Terry Shiavo alive was a disgrace, but he thinks it is noble to fight for the rights of death row inmates. He also indicated euthanasia needs to be discussed and considered.

Kill babies and the infirmed, but not cold blooded killers!

but I think Arlen will fall in line here both on the committee vote and the full senate vote.

Alito is a decent man and a sharp legal mind.  Remember, Republicans (even those in name only), tend to stay away from the pathetic politics the dems are playing, for the most part.  There is simply no reason to reject this man.  Arlen knows this and will do the right thing.  

Guilt by Association didn't work I gather,especially so in that there was no association worth mentioning.  Kennedy and the libs will probably have to lift another man hole cover and climb down another sewer.

I predict we will hear alot about Shiavo today, the libs are trying to keep it fresh in the mind of voters. I think the Democratic Senators know Alito will be confirmed, so they will use this national stage for campaigning against Republicans.

I don't think the Democrats realize that Shiavo will not be a factor, but they are desperate.

Specter started the hearing summarizing that Kennedy's people found ZERO about Alito in the Rusher docs. Then he asked Leahy for comments and I sort of thought he was thinking Leahy would offer an apology for all the CAP bashing yesterday from his side. He did not do that of course.

Now I'm waiting for Kennedy to start out with: "Judge Alito, we have found no reference to you in the papers that we were finally able to see yesterday. Were you LYING on your 1985 job application?"

but I'm fascinated by the hearings.  I'm fascinated by the fencing.  Alito is a master at parrying, and the riposte.  He is not as flamboyant as his inquisitors, but his answers are either deflecting their attacks, or turning them around and making them look foolish.  It is like a game of chess that is being called by a referee, rather than being dependant on whether the king is taken or not.  

You want some boring?  Watch the Ginsburg hearings.  She is the originator of simply refusing to answer questions on the grounds that it may affect cases that come before the court.  

In terms of advice and consent, this is a slam dunk.  In terms of politics, I hope this goes to the mat, and both sides pull out all the stops.  I'm hoping for an unconstitutional filibuster, and a quick rebuke from both the SC and Congress.  

Now I'm waiting for Kennedy to start out with: "Judge Alito, we have found no reference to you in the papers that we were finally able to see yesterday. Were you LYING on your 1985 job application?"

We're just a little over a month away from pitchers and catchers reporting to spring training.

The more cruel they are to Alito in these hearings, the more this fine man will remember their antics and never be tempted to drift to the other side. The wife in tears on national television yesterday means a lifetime of payback from Alito to the left.

Treatment does have a lingering effect. Clarence Thomas has been a fiercly loyal conservative mainly due to his unwavering principles and solid common sense. But one can't help but wonder if the vicious attacks he endured at his confirmation hearings have had a role in keeping him true.

Harry Blackmun, author of Roe v Wade, was a Nixon appointee in 1970 who started out as a conservative. But post-Roe he was so savagely attacked by conservatives, he moved to the left.

Human beings react to how they are treated. Simple.

for reminding us of what's truly important.

• Who will play CF for the Red Sox?
  
• Does Sutter belong in the Hall?
  
• Whither Clemens?

apologize to the other side?  Clinton had to do it twice to the electorate before he got it right, and then only because his creators in the media pushed him into it.  Rancor bars the way to a minimal civility.

In response to the confimation of Samuel Alito and the embarrasment that Ted Kennedy has become during these hearings, the Collective Professorate™ at our nation's college campuses will deny more vigorously than ever that bias exists in higher education and that anything should be done about it.  Leftism on campus will become more entrenched, not less.  

A heads up:  Not to be forgotten during the Alito hearings are some things going on in Pennsylvania regarding academic freedom.

• How will the Brewers get Bill Hall plenty of plate appearances now that Corey Koskie has been acquired?
• Where will Corey Hart be playing?
• Will Doug Davis and Ned Yost sign extensions?

I think there should be term limits on Congress... but I'm not sure how I feel about term limits on Federal courts. I guess I haven't does enough research into both sides of the issue to come to any intelligent conclusion.

Feelings on term limits from my fellow Open Threaders?

It occurred to me last night that even though the Dems. in general and Kennedy in particular have been even more nauseating than usual during these hearings, in a way they're acting completely in character.  For in my experience, just as it is unthinkable for them that Samuel Alito be confirmed to replace Justice O'Connor on the Supreme Court, it would have been similarly impossible for him to be selected as Dean of the law school I used to work for.  

It's important to think about the bias in legal academia (and academia in general) while the Alito hearings are still underway, and so I'd like to give everyone a reminder of the actual sentiment that exists there where Republicans and Conservatives are concerned:

...I would rather be flayed alive, drawn and quartered, and the pieces eaten by fire ants than vote for a Republican.  At least moderate Democrats DO exist.  Republicans are hard-line right-wing, intolerant and convinced they have "the word" from Above.  Especially W.

-- Teree E. Foster, former Dean of DePaul University College of Law, March 2, 2004, in an email to me.

I've seen.  And very funny too.  I especially like the part about Biden using his teeth as punctuation marks:

... He says interesting things, from time to time. I think he makes a fair point here and there. He was correct, for example, that Congress needed to have a real deabte over the war. I think he has some obvious verbal intelligence. But, again, what's fascinating -- and what might be distracting some folks from seeing his underlying-yet-occassional smarts -- is that he lets his ego and vanity get in the way. The man loves his voice so much, you'd expect him to be following it around in a grey Buick, in defiance of a restraining order, as it walks home from school. He seems to think his teeth are some kind of hypnotic punctuation marks which can momentarily disorient the listener and absolve him from any of Western civilization's usual imperatives to stop talking. Listening to him speechify is like playing an intellectual game of whack-a-mole where every now and then the fuzzy head of a good point pops up from the tundra but before you can pin it down, he starts talking about how he went to the store and saw a squirrel on the way and it was brown which brings to mind Brown V. Board of Ed which most people don't understand because [TEETH FLASH] he taught Brown in his law school course and [TEETH FLASH] Mr. Chairman I'm going to get right to it and besides these aren't the droids you're looking for....

Leahy and Schumer were on C-SPAN.  

Leahy was trying to paint Alito as a right wing extremist becuase he supposedly wouldn't state outright that Congress does not have the power to restict the courts' jurisdiction.  He somehow tried to claim this meant that free speech, press, religion were at risk if Alito is confirmed.

Schumer decryed the Miers withdrawl under pressure from "extreme groups who are now happy with Judge Alito."  Schumer complained that Judge Aliot hasn't distanced himself from any of the controversial writings and statements he made in the past, except for the unitary executive theory.

I know they have to say these things for the special interest groups, and to justify their no votes to America.  Clearly, these guys have not been watching the same hearing that America has.  And America will notice.

I wonder if he sticks :-) somewhere in every sentence.

these same Dems who are deifying her would be saying Bush was trying to push through an unqualified token woman crony who had too much background protected by privilege so she could help protect Bush from all the KnownFacts™ that the administration would be facing through the legal system.

In concept, I think it would be a good idea.  If there are 9 members of the SCOTUS, and each one was appointed to a single 18 year term, then in theory, each President would get 2 appointments.  In theory, this could reduce the power of the justices to deliberately time their resignations for political or ideological benefit, reduce the perceived need for Presidents to appoint younger justices (just so they can stay on the bench longer), and perhaps reduce some of the rancor in appointing justices (since every President would get an equal chance to appoint judges).  Yet by having one term that is very long, you preserve the independence of the judiciary that our founding fathers saw as important.

Of course, this would require a Constitutional Amendment.  And one would have to think carefully about how to transition from our current system to the new system.  And you would have the problem of how to deal with the situation where a justice dies or retires before the end of his term (would you appoint someone just for the balance of that term, and would that person be eligible to serve an additional full term or not?)

One would have to also consider whether it is advisable to have term limits for lower court judges as well.

I think it would be a good idea, but I just don't see sufficient political will from either side of the isle to even consider something like this, so I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

You know that the Dems are grasping at straws when they are complaining about his views on the unitary executive!

Does America understand?  Does America care?  How stupid do they look when they make this a major reason why they are voting against him?

As a matter of fact, I am an enormous fan of Roberts, but now I believe that Alito may be better.  It's a happy day in this house.

By the way, does he make any of you guys feel really really stupid?  I can barely remember that phone number from the time it took me to look up from the phone book to dial it, and he can remember the case, the year, the ruling, vote, the author of majority opinion, what they said, and the arguments of the dissenters in every single SC case (and many appellate cases) back into the 1700's...with no notes.  (Maybe I exaggerated a little, but not much.)

The shapes of our heads is remarkably similar, considering the vast differences in capabilities held within.

While I find him the most respectable, and respectably behaved, of the democrats on the committee, did I just hear him state that, in essence, he's troubled that Judge Alito has had advice and preparation for his appearence before the committee?

I'm overstating for effect, but this argument seems to have no purpose. Guilt by association is one thing, and questioning your views is part of that, and seeking your opinions of various individuals acts and opinions is yet another line of inquiry - but what is the point of emphasizing the fact that Judge Alito prepared for these hearings?

Would the senator prefer ill-prepared ignorance and confused hedging?

PS - Senator Feingold remains "troubled" and "concerned", which by comparison with the antics of his peers, is wonderfully restrained, and downright senatorial!

at Senate Ds who were slandering him in all possible ways, knowing that there was no chance he could respond in any meaningful way, I wondered if he wasn't developing a deep and abiding dislike of these same men...and Feingold.

and that was a condescending "i'm sorry you are too stupid to understand what I am saying" type of apology.

http://www.conservativefriends.com/files/moran.wmv

The Dems didn't go for Schumer's line of attack - and instead went for the line of attack they chose.  They could have really used the attacks of some conservatives on Miers against Alito - and those would have probably made the confirmation battle a lot more difficult.

When Specter turned to him for his last round of questioning, he led with a joke that wne something like:  "In accordance with our prior conversation, Senator, these are going to be new questions, right?"

Schumer, rather defensively answered to the effect of:  "These are new questions, but some of my earlier questions concern me and they should concern you, too."

Poor Schumer.

yup! He's "troubled" and "concerned" that Alito was prepared by the persons whom he was prepared BY, specficially. The people Feingold named from Alito's prep list are persons whom the dem senators are blaming for spying on Americans, Meirs, and torture. So yeah, he's "troubled" and "concerned."

He's also "troubled" and "concerned" that members of Alito's court and coming to testify before the committee about Alito's time on the 3rd circuit. Yeesh! If I was as "troubled" and "concerned" as Feingold is all the time, I'd have an ulcer from worrying so much!

or a habius corpus case?

Also, what does MEME mean? I have seen it here and other places and it seems like it refers to talking points, but I am not sure.

Chuckie has issues. Starting with being a career politician (graduated from Harvard Law in '74, NYS assembly from '74-'80, Congress from '80-'98, Senate from '98 to now). He doesn't know what the real world is... he's never lived in it.

And his law degree is nothing but theory and books--- meaning his "well, I understand but I don't agree" answers are all based on what he learned from books and lefty profs at Harvard Law. There is nothing practical about Mr. Schumer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus

now, my question: What does "5" mean?

Is a legal concept regarding the treatment of prisoners and ensuring that their rights are protected.  During the Revolutionary War (or I guess prior to it) the English violated the rights of the accused to hold them inappropriately, indefinitely, or to extract illegal or spurious fines in excess of the legal penalties already established as law, hence its inclusion in our own Constitution.

Meme is a term that means a theme or common concept adopted by people.  The standing liberal meme is that government knows best, the standing conservative meme is that the individual knows best (unless that individual is a Democrat member of the Judiciary Committee, then they are idiots and shouldn't be allowed out of the house without adult supervision, but I digress).

FILIBUSTER!

!:(=)

"Senator Kennedy, could you do us all a favor and sober up enough to pronounce my name correctly?"

Habeas Corpus (or a writ of Habeas Corpus) basically is a legal piece of paper (judicial mandate) to a prison official that order that the prison official bring an inmate to the court so the court can hold a hearing and determine whether or not the inmate is imprisoned lawfully or whether the inmate should be released.

Basically, it's a petition for the release of a prisoner (it can also be used for release of information... but that's complicated. If you want more info, email me).

I enjoyed the slickness of Chief Justice Roberts, but Alito's been even better.  He's been more forthcoming than Roberts and his answers have taught me more about the way a judge thinks.

""hiccup"" erra, I don't know! staff? staff? -bring me a scotch and watta...

I just wanted a basic definition so I understood what they were talking about. Thanks

Feingold asked Alito if he would recuse himself from SC cases that are referred up from one of the judges coming to testify on his behalf.  Just now Durbin asked if it was Alito's idea to have the judges come testify!

You can't make this stuff up.

find it under the table in Kennedy's spot?

"Alito Took The Fifth!"

Hopefully he took it away from Senator Kennedy...

"5" is a remnant of RedState's comment rating system. Comments here (I gather) at one time could be rated by other commenters on a scale from 0 or 1 to 5, 1 meaning something akin to "really worthless" and 5 meaning "Kudos to you for saying such a wonderful thing".

Out Loud.  Her characterization of Biden was sooo funny:

The great thing about Joe Biden during the Alito hearings, the reason he is, to me, actually endearing, is that as he speaks, as he goes on and on and spins his long statements, hypotheticals, and free associations--as he demonstrates yet again, as he did in the Roberts hearings and even the Thomas hearings, that he is incapable of staying on the river of a thought, and is constantly lured down tributaries from which he can never quite work his way back--you can see him batting the little paddles of his mind against the weeds, trying desperately to return to the river but not remembering where it is, or where it was going. I love him. He's human, like a garrulous uncle after a drink.

She goes on with him later:

But what interests me most is Judge Alito, and his ability to just sit there and listen. To show nothing, like a stunned ox, or, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein put in on CNN, like a person with clear judicial demeanor.

How does he do it? This wonderful look of enforced blandness. It's a low affect tour de force.

And it cannot be easy. When Mr. Biden says things like, "Try to follow me, Judge Alito," as he goes on one of his long, sterile journeys, I wonder if Judge Alito has to control himself with an act of will. I wonder if he has an inner Regis Philbin, and wants to throw out his arms and say, "Follow you? If I follow you, we'll both wind up lost!" When Mr. Biden says, "Now this is a somewhat subtle point," I wonder if Judge Alito wants to say, "Joe, if it were a subtle point you wouldn't be making it!"

This is the authentic sound, though not the authentic words, of Joe Biden, and this is what Judge Alito has to discipline himself not to respond to:

What if a fella--I'm just hypothesizing here, Judge Alito--what if a fella said, "Well I don't want to hire you because I don't like the kind of eyeglasses you wear," or something like that. Follow my thinking here. Or what if he says "I won't hire you because I don't like it that you wear black silk stockings and a garter belt. And your name is Fred." Strike that--just joking, trying to lighten this thing up, we can all be too serious. Every 10 years when you see me at one of these hearings I am different from every other member of Judiciary in that I have more hair than the last time. You know why? It's all the activity in my brain! It breaks through my skull and nourishes my follicles with exciting nutrients! Try to follow me.

How does Judge Alito put up with this?

How does any nominee?

Isn't she hilarious?

This should be good. I am looking forward to hearing the NARAL, NOW, NAACP, MoveOn, etc. propaganda. It should be interesting.

I think Judge Alito handed the Democrats their a**. They didn't touch him.

She had me http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20877 "> laughing out loud  to this

Here's a sample:

" It doesn't matter. Liberals are being routed. They can change the lineup, the manager, the coach, but the losing streak never ends. By and large, Republicans aren't even bothering to send in their A team anymore. Alito can start wearing his iPod to the hearings. By the end of the hearings, he'll be addressing the senators as "dude."

For fun, we ought to replace all the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee with "American Idol" contestants (assuming they wouldn't object to serving on a committee that includes a degenerate like Teddy Kennedy). Democrats would still not be able to persuade a single normal American that Sam Alito is "out of the mainstream."

She went on to say:

"In the history of the nation, there has never been a political party so ridiculous as today's Democrats. It's as if all the brain-damaged people in America got together and formed a voting bloc.

The Federalists drafted the greatest political philosophy ever written by man and created the first constitutional republic. The anti-Federalists - or "pre-Democrats," as I call them -were formed to oppose the Constitution, which, to a great extent, remains their position today.

Andrew Jackson, the father of the Democratic Party, may have had some unpalatable goals, but at least they were big ideas. Wipe out the Indians, kill off the national bank and institute a spoils system. Love him or hate him, he never said, "I'll be announcing my platform sometime early next year." The Whigs were formed in opposition to everything Jackson stood for.

The Republican Party emerged from the Whigs when the Whigs waffled on slavery. (They were "pro-choice" on slavery.) The Republican Party was founded expressly as the anti-slavery party, which to a great extent remains their position today."

that the fact he went to Princeton as a conservative probably helped train him in that great poker face of his.

-TS

I see! Now it all makes sense.

I wonder if anyone has ever gotten the Spinal Tap "6"!

Since it only went to 5 if you want to award even more you have to resort to exponents (5^2), 25 :-)

I laughed as well.

8 points for style, only a 2 for difficulty.

Stumping Moran on serious matters of national policy is like stumping your third grader on the details of quantum physics.

The Judiciary Republicans damned-well better ask every single circuit court panelist if they have seen or implied any bigoted opinion, comment or behavior on the part of Judge Alito.

That should read  "seen or inferred."

Compose. Preview. Submit. Repeat as necessary.

While I still have no answer, that's helpful :)

I don't have a much confidence in Arlen Specter's heartfelt support for Alito or any other Supreme Court nominee I would like, but I think Specter's view of his own self interest will make him a reliable ally for the foreseeable future. The Judiciary Committe Democrats' obnoxious conduct like Kennedy's reinforces that, getting Specter's back up.

First of all, here's my cynical assessment of what motivates Specter, in what I think is his order of priorities.

1. He dearly loves being Chairman of the Judiciary committee. Besides the status of the title "Chairman" among his Senate peers during his last term before retirement, I think he actually has a wonkish enjoyment in the kind of less publicized work of the committee




2. He enjoys flexing his muscles, establishing that crossing him will cost you. Age and illness haven't trimmed his ego or testosterone count.




3. He would prefer judges more to the left (less constrained by the Constitution's text) than people like Roberts or Alito, and he wants the approval of the liberal media. (OK, really two motivations here, but both pushing in the same direction)

Motivation 1, retaining the Chairmanship, guarantees that he won't become the outright opponent he was with Bork, since he knows that would spur the Senate Republican caucus to replace him as Chairman. It also gives him a strong interest in not hurting the party nationally, since a Democratic Senate majority costs him his Chairmanship - I expect him to do everything in his power to help Santorum's tough reelection fight.

However I don't think the Chairmanship alone is enough to motivate Specter to maximum effort to win the nomination fights. He knows that we wouldn't strip his chairmanship without a major provocation: see motivation 2, we know that losing his position would make payback Specter's central preoccupation, and the Senate Republican's functional majority is too thin to afford his de facto defection to the Democrat's side.

Specter could retain his Judiciary chairman position by just putting in the minimum effort for our side while indulging his motivation #3, giving us minor to medium headaches that get him praise from the media leftists as a "maverick".

I think it's motivation #2, being a force to be reckoned with, that will make him work hard for our side. When he opposed Bork, he was "a force to be reckoned with"; his opposition was instrumental in defeating Bork, and he was on the winning side. Now with his Chairmanship held hostage, he can't afford to openly oppose a Bush nominee; the most he can afford to stray is Hagel/McCain style furrowed brow deep concern, etc. If that enables the Democrats to defeat the nominee, Specter is just shown as weak, not the victorious maverick he was in the Bork fight.

Democratic antics like Kennedy's threats about subpoenaing the CAP documents reinforce Specter's motivation to seriously work for our side. One of my main disappointments with Orin Hatch as Chairman was how he allowed himself to get rolled by the Democrats; he was so concerned with proving his own good faith, he just refused to see how the Democrats were abusing his courtesy. In contrast, when the Democrats try to play Specter for a fool, he'll want to slap them down hard to show what a tough guy he is.

just hit the question on the head.

Will Nomar Garciaparra get hurt again?

Will J.D. Drew get hurt again?

Will Eric Gagné recover well from his surgery again?

Will Cesar Izturis get hurt again?

Will Brad Penny get hurt again?

etc. etc.

How much do you want to bet Goodwin Liu gave to the Kerry campaign.

He was 'puzzled', just like Biden.

He gave $250 to the Howard Dean campaign.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=liu%2C
+goodwin&txtState=%28all+states%29&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCa
nd=&txt2004=Y&Order=N

I think you've got a great idea.

Trouble is, it WOULD take a Constitutional Amendment, with a 2/3 vote in each House of Congress, before ratification by 3/4 of the State Legislatures.

I wouldn't count on the Senate Democrats passing something like that until at least 2009. They would want to get a Dem in the White House first, then have him (or HER, God forbid!) nominate two Justices per term. Even with the current Senate, we would need 12 Democrats to vote for the Amendment. Won't happen!

In that case, would the GOP Senators pass something like that to see a quick parade of liberal nominees going to SCOTUS? That wouldn't happen either!

The party NOT in the White House would always prefer to wait until a Justice retires or drops dead, unless one party gets 67 seats in the Senate!

Good idea in theory, but politically impossible!

Eventually, Arlen will betray us when the all-important next vacancy occurs.  Then his pro-abortion convictions will override his party loyalty.

Buerhle, Garland, Garcia, and Contreras are set, but do we start Vasquez or the phenom McCarthy?  We've got too much quality starting pitching.  Oh, darn.

basketball performance, the woeful SEC and mainly beacuse baseball is better!!

of course, this BRAVES fan is worried that the METS have bought the East. However, I am not happy with the Rent-eria deal nor with the deals we made last year that combined have given up two hard throwers, and  a SS from the minors.

I dont care if we keep the streak going.

Dont you think that one of the keys to playoff success is having the hard throwers? We won only one WS with  Maddux and Glavine and now Hudson that pick spots. We need pitchers whose mistakes cant be hit in a short series.

that we've allowed the Democrats to control the tempo.  I hate it when we play down to the level of our competition.

What I mean by that is the Dems have completely controlled the agenda.  Then our guys are forced to spend all their time rebutting what the Dems have said instead of spending their time issuing ringing endorsements of this solid nominee.

What would happen if the GOP guys ignored the Dem talking points and just praised this guy and allowed him to speak for himself without having to be on the defensive the whole time.  By acknowledging the controversy, our guys are giving it legitimacy.  The "old media" doesn't cover our guys anyway.  Our guys should let Rush and Sean rebut all that stuff the dems are saying and spend the time praising this guy to high heaven.

Will Scott Rolen ever earn his 90 million dollar salary?

Where did I ever suggest I was counting on any party loyalty from Specter? I'm counting on him looking after what's good for Arlen, and being smart enough to know which side his bread is buttered.

Of course none of us really know what goes on inside his head, and can only speculate. If the Democrats regained the Senate majority, and thus Specter no longer had his Judiciary chairmanship at stake, I'd fully expect him to sell us out for media praise and favors from the Democratic majority.

Here's another reason it won't pass in our lifetime:  

As Steve Z pointed out, the Dems certainly wouldn't agree unless they had a Dem in the White House and were assured that their President would get 2 appointments per term.  The only way to make that assured is to force retirement of the current justices, in the order of their tenure on the SCOTUS.  Guess who that would include?  Scalia! (He has a longer tenure now than any other justice except Stevens, but he's still relatively young.)  There's no way the Republicans would agree to something that would replace Scalia with a Democrat.

The only other way the Dems might possibly agree would be if there were a very strong, and very young, conservative majority on the court (for example, suppose the two oldest members of the court (Stevens and Ginsburg) were replaced with two young conservative justices -- giving the conservative block a clear 6/3 majority (plus a Kennedy swing vote)?  The Dems might see that there was very little to lose at that point, and might even agree to such an amendment, even with a Republican in the White House (on the theory that Scalia would still be the next to go, and it might be worth it in the long run, just to get rid of Scalia and Thomas before they die).  Of course, if that were to happen, I'm not sure what the Republican's incentive would be to agree to such an amendment.

So the bottom line is that it would take a very strange turn of events to ever create a situation in which both parties would have the incentive to look beyond short-term political issues to support such an amendment -- thus it is unlikely to happen.