It’s Alito

17 thoughts on “It’s Alito”

1. I read over at The Daily Eudemon that, if confirmed, Alito will be the fifth Catholic on the Court.
   Will critics be able to resist the complaint that this threatens the delicate balance of Church/State?
   I suppose that being Catholic would be okay with most of them, as long as one were not devoutly committed.
   I mean as long as one admitted that ALL MORAL JUDGEMENTS are equal, and that all faiths are equally cute in their own way.
   The implication is that in the world of political High Fashion, religion is to be worn only as an accessory.

2. I can see the headline now: Supreme Court Catholic Majority Upholds “Partial Birth” Abortion Ban

3. Has the rebellion has called a truce?
   What a week for Dubya… Looks like a fight is looming with the left over this guy. After the civil war over Miers, this could be just what the doctor ordered to bring the right back together; especially if the left goes to war to stop Alito. With everything else that’s going on though, the failure of this nomination could be the backbreaker for Bush. He needs a win. Badly.

4. That is assuming that the PBA ban gets upheld. That would require four things:
   1) Alito to be confirmed.
   2) Both CJ Roberts and Alito to turn out good.
   3) Alito and not O’Connor to vote on the PBA case.
   4) Kennedy not to get cold feet and switch sides (he dissented in Carhart — the decision that struck down Nebraska’s PBA ban — even though he voted in 1992 to uphold Roe).

5. That is assuming that the PBA ban gets upheld.
   I was referring to my own post, not Steve’s.

6. With everything else that’s going on though, the failure of this nomination could be the backbreaker for Bush. He needs a win. Badly.
   I doubt the Dems will actually go through with a filibuster. Even if they do, I think the GOP will go nuclear (which is one reason I don’t think the Democrats will filibuster). Alito is just stealthy enough to give the RINOs some cover while still really exciting the base. The GOP has 55 votes in the Senate: Alito will be confirmed (barring scandal of course).

7. … not that I think a Bush win is the most important factor here. If Alito turns out to be weak, then he should be opposed as well.
   I don’t think that’ll happen though.

8. “I doubt the Dems will actually go through with a filibuster. Even if they do, I think the GOP will go nuclear”
   I think you’re right. The democrats have nothing to gain by losing the filibuster. Even if the democrats regain the senate majority, there is little evidence to suggest that the republicans will use the filibuster for judges (Ginsburg et al.) It’s a democrat-only tool that they must use carefully – or lose it. I don’t think this case fits the bill for the dems.

9. Here are some possible scenarios of what might happen next:
   1) Dems decide not to fillibuster Alito after much complaining and labeling him an extremist. I don’t think this very likely because they would get nothing out of it. But although the Republicans are stupid the Democrats have never been accused of being rocket scientists either.
   2) Dems decide not to fillibuster Alito after much complaining and labeling him an extremist but some sort of agreement is made on future Surpreme Court nominations that binds both the Stupid Party and Evil Party to not fillibustering on nominations Surpreme Court nominations effective now or starting in 2009. Both parties roll the dice hoping that they have the executive branch in 2009 and lasting for eight years. Hillary may be key in this negotiation since she is the front runner for the nomination. Being a professional lawyer for quite some time, judicial nominations would be key for her, yet she knows she’ll have to deal with the Stupid Party. There might be some qualifications, the nominee would have to be an existing federal court judge having no voted in the minority more x percentage of time and so forth. Both sides will say this is a way of making sure that “moderate” judges are nominated to the Surpeme Court.
   3) Dems decide not to fillibuster Alito after much complaining and labeling him an extremist but they work out a deal about the war, requiring Bush to admit that it was a mistake, having Rumsfield resign or appoint a special prosecutor to find out the true source of the WMD fiasco. The WMD fiasco is key because both Kerry and Hillary voted to go to war and they want make sure that everybody knows that that wouldn’t have happened if “the adminstration had been honest”.
   4) Dems decide not to fillibuster Alito after much complaining and labeling him an extremist but they work for a balanced budget (including war expenditures), requiring Bush to balance the budget by end of 2007. They are willing to send the economy in a tailspin because Bush will be seen as doing it. They will gain the credit being fiscally responsible but Bush will be blamed for cutting popular programs and probably pulling out of Iraq early. A recession would be a great time to run a Democrat to overturn a Republican administration (we want jobs, we want jobs).
   5) Dems filibuster Alito but approve the next nominee fairly quickly in a behind the scenes prearranged deal. They made their point and got their pound of flesh and now it is time to move on. Republican’s wont enforce the nuclear option if a prearranged deal is made for the next nominee. But once the Dems filibuster they allow the Republican’s to use the same technique and Hillary won’t like that overhanging her administration. I think the Dems see 2008 as the year the Republican’s loose it all. They see Bush’s approval ratings and all they can see is controling both the legislative AND executive branches.
   6. Dems try to filibuster Alito and Republican’s rewrite the rules (the Nuclear Option) after Alito withdrawls. Republican’s know that the threat of filibuster may be the only way that have negotiating strength if they loose it all in 2008 (which is a distinct possibility).
   Guessing on what would happen (just my opinion) in order of likelihood:
   2,3,1,5,6,4

10. Anyone know how seriously Judge Alito takes his Catholicism? What Church does he attend? Who is his priest?

11. 5 Catholics, 2 Jews, 2 who knows what on the S. Court.
    How about an evangelical?

12. Hey check this out from a WaPo chat:
    “Ithaca, N.Y.: In your judgment, who are the three most desirable persons that Bush should consider nominating to fill the Supreme Court vacancy?
    Robert Bork: I haven’t got a list of three, I’ve got a list of about eight and I can’t very well pick three from that group. Ted Olson, Raymond Randolph, a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Frank Easterbrook (also a Court of Appeals judge), Michael Luttig, Jay Harvey Wilkinson, Edith Clement, and Edith Jones. There’s also Samuel Alito.”

13. How about an evangelical?
    You guys can have Anthony Kennedy if you’re willing to take him off our hands (just kidding folks!).

14. Okay — on a lighter note — and don’t we all need one — check out “The Amazing Dancing Alito” on the Curt Jester’s blog.

15. I hadn’t thought of this before, but I’ll bet there will be conspiracy theorists claiming that the reason Miers’ nomination was pulled was because she was not Catholic.
    Ya know, the Pope of Rome got a clandestine message to Bush, ordering him to withdraw Miers name (on account of her fallen-away Catholic status) and replace her with Alito. If Bush did not obey, the Pope threatened to expose him as a cat-sacrificing Satan worshipper!

16. If Bush did not obey, the Pope threatened to expose him as a cat-sacrificing Satan worshipper!
    Or sic the albino monks on him.

17. Kennedy is Catholic in anemonly. Roberts may well be the same.
    Even if Alito is a faithful Catholic, three Catholics vs the six others is a recipe more of the same.

Comments are closed.