In 2004, after narrowly defeating John Kerry, President Bush boasted he had earned political capital and he intended to spend it.

What political capital, then, have Democrats just earned?

The dust has settled, most of the results are now in, and for Republicans, the results are not good. Democrats have taken solid control of the House, capturing 27 Republican-held seats and leading in two other races. They are on the verge of taking the Senate as well, with Democratic wins in Virginia and Montana likely, although not yet certain.

Ultimately, one can point to two things that cost Republicans this election: Mark Foley and Iraq. Exit polls indicated many voters were unhappy with Bush, with the war in Iraq, and with what they perceived to be corruption in Congress.

The jury is still out on the corruption—that issue will undoubtedly come up again and again in the not so distant future—but clearly Iraq is not going to go away anytime soon. To paraphrase an old saying: Republicans made their own bed on that one, and now they have to lie in it.

The “good” news for conservatives? We’ve essentially been operating with a Democratic-controlled Congress since Bush became president. Republicans technically controlled Congress, but the result was out of control government spending and big government policies. Maybe now that they’re no longer the party in power, Republicans will make some sort of attempt to return to their fiscally conservative roots.

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.

For those of us who are Star Wars fans:

Actor Michael Sheard, who played Admiral Ozzel in The Empire Strikes Back, has died of cancer at the age of 65.

Sheard also appeared in Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade, where he played the role of Adolph Hitler. Sheard played Hitler a total of five times in his acting career.

More on Sheard can be found here.

In Star Wars, he was memorably choked by Darth Vader – and said George Lucas told him it was “the best screen death I’ve ever seen”.

At the time, Star Wars was “just another part in a very busy actor’s career”, he said, but it has secured him a place in the hearts of Star Wars fans and an Admiral Ozzel action figure came out last year.

Current TV debuted today. Not like anybody really cares…but thought you should know. ;) Anyway, on to the real purpose of this blog entry: Bush appointed Bolton to be the permanent US ambassador to the UN via recess appointment today! Wow. Progress. Even though I’d much rather see professional demolitionists stringing yellow tape around the UN building, this might be the next best thing. Maybe Bolton can actually get something done there. We shall see.

Bush said that John Bolton was denied the vote due to partisan politics. He is right, and the liberals have steam coming out of their ears. Kofi Annan, using his very unique voice, responded, saying that Bolton would make a fine ambassador and that he looked forward to working with him on many issues. Uh, yeah, sure. Just wait until Bolton ‘works’ with you, Mr. Annan. Advice to Japan: don’t become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Please.

And now, various obscenities from the liberals:

Harry Reid:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Bolton was a “seriously flawed and weakened candidate.” He said Bush “chose to stonewall the Senate” by using a recess appointment.

At a time when we need to reassert our diplomatic power in the world, President Bush has decided to send a seriously flawed and weakened candidate to the United Nations. It’s an unnecessary result, and the latest abuse of power by the Bush White House. ... Bolton arrives at the United Nations with a cloud hanging over his head.

Uncle Keg:

he abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues. ... It’s a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton’s credibility at the U.N.

George Voinovich of Ohio (*cough* R ):

I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton’s baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations.

Ms. Feinstein:

John Bolton has placed his faith in a unilateral, go-it-alone foreign policy that has stretched our military thin, and I believe his inability to be an effective and constructive ambassador could produce dire consequences for American foreign policy.

Osama Bin Laden:

John Bolton is the wrong person for the job and the decision to appoint him today will not serve American foreign policy well at all. ... His history of inflammatory statements about the U.N. will also make it difficult for him to effectively advance U.S. security interests in New York and bring about necessary reforms to that institution.

Last Year’s Loser:

The president has the right to make this recess appointment, but it’s the wrong decision. It only diminishes John Bolton’s validity and leverage to secure America’s goals at the U.N. John Bolton has been rejected twice by the Senate to serve as our Ambassador to the United Nations. This is not the way to fill our most important diplomatic jobs.

Rockefeller:

He is exactly the wrong person to send to the United Nations at a time when we are trying to rebuild our credibility around the world. ... I now fear that we have lost an important opportunity to help re-establish the United States’ global role as a moral and responsible leader.

No word from Former President Bill Clinton on how he used recess appointments over 140 different times for various positions.