If the Democrats were determined to grab the headlines and turn attention back to the Libby indictments, they’ve likely succeeded.  In a press briefing moments ago, Harry Reid is justifying his secret session gambit, calling it a victory for the American people—followed up by a litany of leftist talking points with regard to Iraq:  the President lied about WMD; there were no Al-Qaeda/Iraq connections [an assertion disproved by the last

Harry Reid and Democratic Senators have invoked Rule 21 and closed the Senate, barring C-SPAN, reporters, etc.  Reid claims to be doing this because he is upset that the Senate has refused to hold hearings into the pre-war intelligence lies of Chimpy McHilterburton and his bloodthirsty band of warmongering neocons.  Evidently, the bi-partisan Senate report that already pronounced on such questions isn’t good enough—and, given the recent Libby indictments (which

Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff has an interesting piece in the Daily Standard on the tension between President Bush’s political pragmatism and his pledge to appoint judicial conservatives, who by dint of their judicial conservatism are compelled to eschew the kind of pragmatism that appeared to be evident in Harriet Miers’ judicial philosophy (to the point such a philosophy could be gleaned from her political positions and speeches).  From “The Pledge”: WHEN

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: In picking Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, President Bush gave his right flank what it wanted: a true-blue conservative. The question now is: Is Bush giving the country what it needs? The nomination is troubling in that 1) it’s liable to divide America rather than unite it, 2) it lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the

SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito’s dissent in Casey is becoming the major battleground upon which his nomination is being fought, at least among those vying for a rhetorical upperhand in the battle over defining his ideology and judicial philosophy.  Which is why those of us who support the Alito nomination need to be vigilant and precise in our defense. Two things this morning.  First, Patterico catches the LA Times’ David Savage,

From the Corner: Apparently what Chris Mathews said earlier: “…I’m sitting here holding in my hands a disgusting document, put out not for attribution. But it come from the Democrats, they are circulating it, I can say that. It’s a complaint sheet against judge Alito’s nomination. The first thing they nail about this Italian-American is he failed to win a mob conviction in 1988. they nail him on not putting