FOXNews’ Brian Wilson is reporting that, though some in the anti-Alito contingent may try to delay the confirmation process a bit longer (presumably to allow some of the negative ads to run a longer, their hope being that the American public will suddenly find themselves so outraged by Alito’s personal finger probing of an innocent eleven year old girl that they’ll turn the sound down on “The View” long enough to pen fiery denunciations of the nonimee to their Congressional representatives), the numbers suggest that Alito’s confirmation is a done deal—that Democratic activists and their special interest group puppetmasters will be unable to stop Judge Alito’s ascencion to the High Court.
For some, this statistical abomination presages all the necessary social ingredients for a Margaret Atwood novel; can it really be too long now, they argue, before women are simply relegated to a social role of glorified western Geisha?—whores of the patriarchy whose bodies will be used for reproductive and commodity purposes, much like those of pen-raised poultry?
Others are cool with this, and think an exceptional, intellegent, and thoughtful human—some of whose views they agree with, others with which they disagree—is about to be elevated to a position that requires of him to shed his personal views in favor of reading and interpreting the Constitution, and applying the law (including settled law, and with deference, in most cases, to stare decisis) to the cases that come before him.
For those in the first group, today’s breakfast of waffles and bacon must taste a bit like flavorless, embossed dough with a side of undercooked and clumsily-cut fat-marbled pig; for those in the latter group, it tastes like the Lord Jesus has covered all of Belgium in pure maple syrup and a dusting of confectioner’s sugar, and trimmed the bacon fat in such a way that the crisp pig practically melts in their voracious, imperial, misogynistic maws.
Me, I had some blueberry yogurt and instant coffee—so I’m unprepared at this point to use my breakfast as any kind of fraught or politically-portentious emblem.
Complete coverage at the PJM’s Mondo Alito blog—including Cathy Young’s well-reasoned reservations over Justice Alito’s nomination (none of which, however, rises to the level that demands Alito’s disqualification; the concern, from a libertarian perspective—and mirrored by Jonathan Turley—is that Alito has a history of showing deference to executive power, and an occasional hostility to “individual rights” and civil liberties; my personal opinon on the matter, for what it’s worth, is that Alito’s judicial reasoning seems to me at least quite cogent, consistent, and defensible from a particular non-reactionary legal philosophy—and that the most spirited attacks against him have turned not on substance, but on attempt by his opponents to take short cuts and call into question his character before the electorate by intentionally mischaracterizing certain of his rulings and dissents; in short, it was lazy questioning banking on the power of the soundbite—and it exemplifies one of the major problems with this current public spectacle of “hearings” that are more showcases for Senators than they are examinations of potential SCOTUS justices).
Here’s more, from PJM editor and Nation writer David Corn, whose “Corn Gambitry” knows no bounds—and whose critique of Democratic strategy (though not, of course, on Alito’s fitness for the position, which is still so much partisan paranoia), frighteningly, mirrors my own:
I still don’t know what the Democrats were thinking. It seems to me they had one strategyâ€â€the gotcha strategy. They were hoping to rattle Alito with pointed questions and produce a gaffe-moment that they could then use to define Alito as some sort of crazy-man. But he proved a better hitter than they were pitchers. There were no strikeouts on his part. Moreover, this strategy was rather thin. Even a misstatement or two would not have likely sunk his nomination. (See President Bush.) I’ve become a broken recordâ€â€or do we now say a skipping CD?â€â€on this point, but the Demcorats needed to define the Alito nomination and tell a big story that would have convinced a chunk of Americans (beyond the diehards already with them in opposition to Alito) that Alito’s elevation to the court would be bad for Americans like them.
Admittedly, Corn is coming rather slowly to the realization that the Democratic strategy is paper thin and presumptuous, but to his credit, he does seem on his way to comprehending that, when progressive liberal Democrats, forged in the crucible of countercultural Machiavellianism, surrendered their grassroots pavement-pounding for a lazy, showy strategy of postmodern rhetorical soundbite marketing—one meant to gull the inattentive and disinterested flyover country rubes (I offer no exact date for this strategic shift, though my gut tells me it occurred sometime around the theatrical release of The Paper Chase)—they opened themselves up to a rhetorical counterattack that relies for its force on a new wave of independant-minded populist “media” representatives calmly and repeatedly exposing the weak seams in progressivist attack narratives.
Well, now that you mention it, the sticky bun I had for breakfast this morning was a bit dry.
BECAUSE OF THE PATRIARCHY!!!
Man, I don’t know WTF you just said, but you’re beautiful, man. I mean it, you’re someone special, man. Far out.
Isn’t that Brian Wilson? Or did the NBC guy switch to Fox?
Not trying to be sarcastic, really.
TV (Harry)
TW: decided; maybe Williams decided to come to the dark side?
My breakfast of leftover Hamburger Helper Lasagna was, in fact, fraught.
I think it’s high time that the media began reporting on this important issue!
What did Alito have for breakfast? What is it’s political significance?
And how about Bush? And what about the reporters themselves?
I think we know Teddy had a liquid breakfast, but it might be significant what it was, hmmm?
TW: people,who need people, are the luckiest people in the world…
Reposted from an old thread:
Sing along with your lefty friends
http://tinyurl.com/a7gku
There’s a judge who’ll be confirmed
Alito is his name-OH!
A – L – I-T-O!
A – L – I-T-O!
A – L – I-T-O!
Alito is his name-OH!
None Dare Call it ‘Satire’
That Ted Kennedy quote read from the Princeton Magazine which sought to paint Alito as racist.
continued thus:
God help P.J. O’Rourke if he’s nominated to a position.
God help anyone who’s ever subscribed to any magazine he’s written for.
In my mind, characterizing these hearings as a showcase for senators is akin to describing free prostate screening at the Health Dept. Clinic as a showcase for assholes.
I say “Speak on Teddy!” But take care you don’t paper-cut your hands to ribbons when you have the shakes so bad from holding court last night at Beef O’Brady’s:
“I er ah told Spectah er ah that he ah could er ah kiss my oss! I’d er ah be glod to er ah let you er ah go through my er ah briefs bock in my er ah room.”
Thanks for the link in the last paragraph. Some of the more reasoned arguments with concern about Alito I’ve read so far.
But me…I must be Belgium intolerant. It upsets my stomach. I prefer maple syrup covered Luxembourg myself.
I may never truly enjoy breakfast again.
It would all just seems so pointless now.
– Cuisine eu courtte’ du merde’ Le Senate mon aide de stupede insistamante’ (My dumbass Senate aides make me eat this crap)
– In Kennedrunks case, its said he duct tapes the pig fat directly to his hips so as not to waste any liquid refreshment time. Bon Appitite’
Gee, an attack on executive power in wartime. Anyone wondering why the libertarians are never elected to anything?
Hmmm.
What I thought was curious was that Ted Kennedy was trying to push the idea that he, a wealhty elite, was tring to protect us common “folk” from people just like himself.
A bit odd that.
I decry the comparison by simile of western Geisha to pen-raised poultry. Let’s hear it for free-range chickens, a la Pamela Anderson!
My guess is that the Dems will try to stall the confirmation vote, not as a hail Mary play, but mere ly as a sop to their base. The average American won’t long begrudge their pointless stalling, but their base is one group-therapy meeting away from total meltown and they need constant attention.
Butter: It’s enough to give you a hernia from laughing. Personally, I think Kennedy should give up his job to someone who never got thrown out of Harvard for cheating–or killed anybody.
“Judiciary Committee Democrats that would comment for the record all thought the hearing was a “fair” process”
“On a related note, Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.”
Turley, quoted by Young, is…uh…”framing” pretty hard, too. I’ve seen this ball picked up by libertarian-approval-seeking Democrats, and by Democrat-approval-seeking, Reason-style libertarians (who, to assert my anti-government bona fides, I think are statist stooges who should be, oh, say, third against the wall when the revolution comes). The talking point I keep seeing is that Alito’s sided “with the government” 84% of the timeâ€â€and this is of course a “dangerous” thing the world has seldom seen the like of.
Now, I don’t have a number for civil cases, but last time I bumped into a stat, the Federal court conviction (i.e. government win) rate runs about 85%. Unless whenever Alito hasn’t been with the majority, he’s been heavily disposed to dissent in favor of the government (and this isn’t in evidence), his pro-gov % is…averageâ€â€like everything Bush does.
Alito’s just a typical Republican judge. Definitely not one to side with Kennedy over.
Yes, I gotta agree that the citations of statistics covering Alito’s opinions are about as overwhelming as a kiss from my sister. (For the record, I don’t have a sister.)
Presumably a judge, or a panel in the instance of the Court of Appeals, must favor the litigant with the best argument under the law in question–rather than applying a random draw regarding a predetermined proportionate outcome.
How exactly would we determine the correct proportionate outcome? Flip a coin? The goverment would win 50% of their cases. Is that the “correct” outcome?
Doesn’t sound like justice, it’s a lottery.
How stupid do these people think the rest of us are to accept such meaningless statistical recitations as a substitute for an argument? (Respond at your own peril.)
Waffles? I was so short on time this morning because The Man expected me to show up for work on time, I didn’t even get to touch my Captain Crunch with Crunchberries.
BECAUSE OF THE WORKWEEK!
tw: morning… Go figure.
from SFGate:
Is there something wrong with me? A well-reasoned tilt in favor of prosecutors is one reason I like a more conservative judge.
Alito bit o’dubya on the Bench,
He dinna wanna legislate like da French…
That is because you aren’t nuanced enough to realize who the true victims are.
So is Goodwin Liu saying that BADLY reasoned decisions are those weighted in favor of the defendants?
But the question that needs addressing is, is this strategy an abandonment of Democratic principles, or is it in fact based on as solid a foundation as their fundamental beliefs?
– You’all jus have to remumberrr dat ole Kennefart is an exspurt on “tilt”…. then it all becomes clear…..
TW: Sure glad you brought the car Ted, you’re to drunk to crawl……