Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate, today conceded that there would probably be no attempt to filibuster Samuel Alito.

Said Feinstein:

I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster. This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the court.

Wow! That is quite a concession from a Democrat like Feinstein! We disagree with him, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the court. Could it be that Feinstein and some other Democrats are finally softening up a little? Or is she merely engaging in damage control and trying to make herself look tolerant since she knows that stopping Alito’s nomination is pretty much a doomed cause already?

Either way, it’s nice to finally see someone actually point that out. As other pundits and commentators have pointed out numerous times, during the Clinton years the Republicans voted en masse for the confirmation of justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, who are both far-left. Democrats have seemed extremely reluctant to return the favor.

I’ve watched the video and it doesn’t appear to be the “shouting match” that MSNBC refers to it as being, but nevertheless, this heated exchange between Senators Arlene Specter and Edward Kennedy at Alito’s confirmation hearing is worth watching. To watch the clip (which is only five minutes long), click on the “launch” button to the right of the story. It’s definitely worth checking out, since we see a clearly ticked-off Specter tell Kennedy basically to shut up and stop being an idiot.

Is there a more insufferable and pompous windbag in the Senate than Edward Kennedy?

On a related note, Ankle Biting Pundits has a performed a “Senatorial Bloviation Statistical Analysis” comparing how much each individual Senator has spoken in comparison to Alito in the Q and A sessions. Here are the results (with number of words included in parenthesis):

Joe Biden 78-22% (DE) (3,673 – 1,013)

Chuck Schumer (NY) 75-25% (3,555-1,165)

Ted Kennedy (MA) 69-31% (3,439-1,539)

Pat Leahy (VT) 60-40% (2,714-1,874)

Russ Feingold (WI) 56-44% (2,976-2,364)

Diane Feinstein (CA) 42-58% (1,912-2,593)

Herb Kohl (WI) 37-63% (1,835-3,094)

(Via Michelle Malkin)

The U.S. Senate is opening confirmation hearings for one Samuel Alito today:

From Yahoo.com:

President Bush urged senators on Monday to give Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito a fair vote, while Democrats told Bush on the opening day of Alito’s confirmation hearings that neither Congress nor the high court should follow the president in lockstep. Executive authority is certain to be a critical issue. The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on Bush’s choice of Alito to be the 110th justice in U.S. history amid a debate over the president’s secret authorization of wiretaps in the terror war.

Hear that? That’s the sound of senators sharpening their swords!

In all seriousness, these hearings will be very interesting to follow. It sounds like issues like abortion may even take a backseat to the recent spying scandal, which is really quite amazing.

Dean Velvel at LewRockwell.com has put together a list of questions he believes Alito should be asked:

Do you believe that the Commander-in-Chief power, contrary to Justice Jackson’s view, gives the President the power to ignore a Congressional statute? If so, in what circumstances?

Do you believe the Commander-in-Chief power gives the President the power to override Constitutional rights? If so, in what circumstances and to what extent?

In regard to questions one and two above: Can the President authorize kidnapping at home or abroad if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?

Can the President order torture at home or abroad if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?
Can the President order warrantless electronic surveillance at home or abroad if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?
Can the President order American citizens to be jailed indefinitely if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?

a. If the President chooses to say that a war on terrorism is continuing, how long can he exercise power that is granted to him by Congressional statute for the purpose of fighting that war? If there are no attacks against us for two years, can he continue exercising the power? What if there are no attacks for five years? Ten years?
Can he continue exercising the power granted by Congress until and unless Congress enacts a bill to withdraw it, even if this takes 20 or 30 years?
(c). What if Congress votes to withdraw it, but the President successfully vetoes the bill withdrawing it and Congress cannot muster the necessary two-thirds in each house to override? Or, what if one house overrides but one-third plus one successfully oppose an override in the other house?

a. Can a President’s intent when signing a law detract from, counterbalance or override Congress’ intent when passing the law?

Does the President’s intent when signing the law have any effect whatever?

More updates will follow as the hearings progress.

AP News and Commentary:

ST Update: The new Square Talk Radio show is up! Tim Sweetman, Alex King and I discuss the Miers downfall on this very exciting show. Click here to download.

Abortion battle looms after Bush names new top court pick

Conservatives enthusiastic about Alito

This morning, praise keeps rolling in from the right side of the isle supporting Alito, while from the lift comes whining and muttered threats of filibuster. Just what a conservative loves to hear on a judicial nominee, cheering Republicans and booing Democrats. And to top it all aff the “gang of 14” or “mod squad” is said to be breaking up. When Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer started throwing out quotes like,”The filibuster’s on the table,” right wing members of the “mod squad” such as Sen. Mike DeWine began to pull out.

“If someone would filibuster … I would be prepared to vote to change the rules,” said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio.
DeWine is one of the 14 centrist senators that Democrats need to sustain a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. Without the group’s seven Republicans, Democrats would not be able to prevent Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., from abolishing judicial filibusters and confirming judges with just the Senate’s 55-member Republican majority.

The Democrats are on a downhill slide and the Republican leadership is getting ready for any desperate actions the liberals might throw at them.

Sen. Bill Frist said he’s ready to move against judicial filibusters, using what Republicans call the “constitutional option,” if Democrats force him to. “If a filibuster comes back, I’m not going to hesitate,” he told “The Tony Snow Show” on Fox News.

What better way to start a day in Washington?

AP News Headlines:

Bush nominates conservative for Supreme Court

“Judge Alito is unquestionably qualified to serve on our nation’s highest court. And on the bench, he has displayed a judicial philosophy marked by judicial restraint and respect for the limited role of the judiciary to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.” – Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

“Unlike (Miers) nomination, which was derailed Thursday by Bush’s conservative allies, Alito faces vocal opposition from Democrats.”

“The nomination of Judge Alito requires an especially long, hard look by the Senate because of what happened last week to Harriet Miers. Conservative activists forced Miers to withdraw from consideration for this same Supreme Court seat because she was not radical enough for them. Now the Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people.” – Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Samuel Alito’s conservative views
earned him nickname ‘Scalito’

Alito has endorsed abortion restrictions

However we must remember that…
A new justice will not make the difference on Roe v. Wade in the court’s present configuration. Besides the moderate O’Connor, five of the eight other justices have endorsed a woman’s right to the procedure.
As an appeals court judge, Alito was required to follow Supreme Court precedent, which he did.
In 2000, for example, Alito was among the judges who ruled that a New Jersey law banning late-term abortions was unconstitutional, following high court precedent.

Just one more pro-life justice can’t overturn Roe v. Wade. We need one or two more to flip that.

Mr. Alito’s Speech following his nomination

Reaction to Alito nomination

Bloggers Reaction:

Powerlineblog:
Alito is a solid choice. Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have already come out against him; another good sign

We’re about to get the fight over Constitutional principles that conservatives have looked forward to for years.

Hugh Hewitt: (no link due to questionable ad)
“Judge Alito is a great nominee, and as a result a great political battle lies ahead.”

Michelle Malkin

“This is a nominee the Right can get behind.”

Sen. Bill Frist on Fox News (via Jason Smith): “If the Democrats are looking for a fight, we’ll be up for the fight. We won’t back down… We’re gonna get an up or down vote on the Senate floor and if the Democrats want a fight, they’ll get one.”

ConfirmThem.com:

“For my own part, I’d also like to thank President Bush. He’s given us a nominee worth fighting for. Before the Miers nomination, one of our bloggers (I believe it was feddie), asked the President to “cowboy up.” He has. And it’s time for us to do the same.”

As well as…

“Dems — filibuster this!”

The Confirm Alito Coalition is up @ GOP Bloggers

Travis’ Comments:
YIPPEE!
This is the kind of justice the U.S. conservative movment has been dreaming of!
Now, let’s get him confirmed!

Square Talk Radio’s comments on Miers downfall should be up today. Look for a new show soon. Also, Virtue Mag is sure to have an article.

For in-depth coverage of the Harriet Miers nomination and confirmation, please visit the Boy Scout Blogger I have posted links to Albert Mohlers comments on Miers as well as thoughts from Jay Sekulow, and my own private commentary. Please have a look.

Note:For even more commentary from the views of several Virtue bloggers (including Travis, Tim, and Alex), be sure to check out their new podcast/radio show, SquareTalk.

Harriet Miers, Esquire – President Bush’s newest nominee to the United States Supreme Court. Sixty years old and the current Whitehouse legal counsel, conservatives aren’t sure what to think of her. She doesn’t have a paper trail. The problem is, the democrats think she’s great. So does the President. One of them is being tricked into a Justice that will undermine their values. The question is; which one of them?

It’ll be discussed in detail over the next few months, but for now, ask yourself this. Who knows Harriet Miers better? Does President Bush? Or do the democrats? Considering she’s worked for the President for many years now, I’d have to say it would be him Granted, this is a very disconcerting way to determine whether a Justice is good or bad, but it’s nearly all we have to go on.

For other views, see La Shawn Barber’s post – she’s got them all!

World Magazine Blog has the following update on the current Supreme Court situation:

With John Roberts on the fast track toward confirmation, speculation now turns to Supreme opening #2. Robert Novak reports that “Republican Senate strategists believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is the only possible Bush nominee to replace O’Connor who would not face a filibuster.” The nomination of Gonzales, though, would break the levee of conservative Bush support.

Here are some highlights from Roberts’ confirmation hearing, as reported by various AP articles:

Early on in his third — and abbreviated — day of testimony, Roberts said Congress has the authority to pass laws barring discrimination based on race, gender and disability, and he defended his record on minority issues.

He said he had argued cases in favor of and against affirmative action and noted that he had participated in a program to assist minority students considering law school.
———————————-

Feinstein asked if Roberts, as a person, believed illegal immigrant children should be educated. Roberts offered legal responses, before saying, “My own view, every child should be educated.”
———————————
Under questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a moderate Pennsylvania Republican, Roberts indicated he may not be the kind of “originalist” conservative that has made Justice Antonin Scalia a pariah to liberals.

Roberts said he took an expansive view of the Constitution’s “liberty” and “due process” protections. He said he believes the Constitution is “alive,” intended by the Founders to “apply to changing conditions.”

. . .

Roberts added, “I depart from some views of original intent, in the sense that those folks—some people view it as meaning just the conditions at that time, just the particular problem. I think you need to look at the words they use, and if the words adopt a broader principle, it applies more broadly.”
———————————-

Roberts also seemed to reassure Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that an act of Congress struck down by the Supreme Court could easily be fixed to pass muster under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Feinstein has expressed strong concern that Roberts might take a narrow view of the Commerce Clause, which Congress has used to expand its legislative reach to anything that affects interstate commerce. She has said a narrow reading could endanger congressional power on many fronts, including environmental protection.
———————————
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he was pleased to hear Roberts unexpectedly agree with him that review of death penalty cases should be granted even if only four justices want to hear the case rather than the needed majority of five.
——————————-

Kennedy and other Democrats have raised concerns based on memos Roberts wrote as an lawyer in the Reagan administration that urged a narrow application of civil rights laws. Roberts said his memos reflected administration policies.

Kennedy asked Roberts: “Do you believe that we (members of Congress) have the authority and the power to pass legislation to free ourselves from the stains of racial discrimination?

“Yes,” Roberts replied.

Kennedy asked Roberts the same question with regard to combating discrimination against women and the disabled and the nominee again responded affirmatively.
——————————-

Judge Roberts did respond to questions on capital punishment, affirmative action, the limits of Congressional power and other legal issues during 10 hours of testimony before the committee’s 18 senators.

He said, for instance, that he agreed with an aspect of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s decision in a recent case that allowed public colleges and universities to take race into account in admissions decisions. The decision took note of the practical consequences for minority applicants.

“You do need to look at the real-world impact in this area,” Judge Roberts said.

——————————-

[Roberts] was less reluctant to talk about his judicial philosophy, so long as the discussion remained relatively abstract. He distanced himself, for instance, from the most conservative members of the current Supreme Court, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who have said they view themselves as bound by the original meaning of the Constitution.
——————————-

And we all know how Roberts’ has refused to answer questions dealing with Roe v. Wade, abortion in general, Bush v. Gore in 2000, and so on and so forth.

Does this sound like the kind of man we want as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

In today’s barrage of updates on John Roberts’ confirmation hearing, a USAToday.com article titled “Roberts displays more moderate views” notes:

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts suggested Wednesday that his views on civil rights were more moderate than those he expressed during his days as a Reagan administration lawyer, and he hinted at a concern for gay men and lesbians who might face discrimination. Roberts, 50, also described several principles that seemed to separate his legal views from those of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the high court’s most conservative members. Roberts said he did not subscribe to a limited view of constitutional liberty, and he suggested that constitutional principles should evolve with the times.

If this is accurate, we might as well throw in the towel on Roberts now. Bush has seemingly broken his promise to the American people during his 2000 campaign, and he has failed conservatives. Again.