Samuel Alito's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee is over. Samuel Alito won. Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, and company lost. While the Republicans on the committee represent a fair cross-section of the GOP, moderate Democrats are nowhere to be found (conservative Democrats, at least in the Senate, have gone extinct). One can't help but wonder if the liberal composition of the Democratic caucus on the Senate Judiciary Committee is by design. If so, the plan has backfired. Sure, Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, Feinstein, Kohl, Feingold, Durbin, and Schumer will stand guard against conservative nominees in a way that, say, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Robert Byrd, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Tim Johnson, Harry Reid, and Joe Lieberman never would. But they're also more likely to appear more obnoxiously partisan, and liberal, than nearly every other compilation of eight Senate Democrats. They're not fairminded, and when one is demanding fairmindedness in a judge it helps to exibit that trait oneself. In a popularity contest with the American people, everyone (excluding Scott Peterson, Omarossa, and Jack Abramoff) wins standing between Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer. When you stand before and below the likes of Kennedy and Biden, as they sit in judgment, you'll almost always come out on top. That's what happened this week. Samuel Alito's moral and intellectual inferiors sat in judgment upon him, and the judged naturally came off better than his judges.

It will be interesting to see how conservative the new conservative bloc is (viz., Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy).

I expect many (most?) of the 5-4 decisions to break in the right direction.

And I am fairly confident that Alito would overturn Roe, but unsure about Roberts. Nevermind that Kennedy would not, so even with Roberts we'd still be a vote down.

I wonder if Stevens (85) will step down before 2008. That would make for some great entertainment.

I'm glad that the Democratic party chooses to advertise their lunatic fringe at these high profile nationally observed proceedings.

This helps to expedite the demise of the party and to convince the American people that they can't be trusted with power or authority.

You are pretty close on the choice of Dems on that committee. However, Feinstein is not that terribly far left. They could have picked Boxer. Boxer, of course, howls at the moon, while Diane is just very liberal. Boxer would make it even clearer that Dems want their agenda, not the rule by Constitution.

Webster: I was thinking the same thing about Boxer, that if they substituted her for Biden or Feinstein, the committee could go even further left. Boxer was the sole motivation for writing that the judiciary eight were more liberal "than nearly every other compilation of eight Senate Democrats." Perhaps maybe if they substituted Boxer for Feinstein and Kerry for Biden, the committee would be worse. But it's pretty hard to design a committee even more liberal than the one that exists.

Ralph: I think you're forecast is probably correct, with Alito and Roberts probably being a small net-plus over Rehnquist and O'Connor. Roberts's canvass, however, is still mostly blank. Alito, on the other hand, seems a solid pick. Are any of those "conservatives" who cried over conservatives not going along with the Miers nomination still wishing that Harriet Miers and not Sam Alito was the nominee?

ASDF: Your statement, "I'm glad that the Democratic party chooses to advertise their lunatic fringe at these high profile nationally observed proceedings," applies to presidential primary battles and conventions as well the judiciary committee. While the liberal wing of the party competes in primaries--think Kerry, Dean, Hillary--the more moderate Democrats, who still exist--don't even bother to make an attempt. As you rightly point out, this face of the Democratic Party, which gets the most camera time, serves to paint the party with an even more extreme brush. Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy aren't the only Democrats in the Senate, but you might not know this from watching television.

"Things that work for millions of people offer little to the left, and ultimately the left is about the left, not about the people they claim to want to lift out of poverty."

So concludes Thomas Sowell's last article. I thought this appropos given Webster's observation: "Boxer would make it even clearer that Dems want their agenda, not the rule by Constitution."

Who was it that said the issue is not the issue?

Herman,
having listened to the Democrats and the left-winged lawyers (I assume they are doomed to fly in clockwise circles until they perish from exhaustion), I have come to the conclusion that they believe Alito is like them, ignoring the Constitution for their own purposes, but with a right-wing agenda. They apparently cannot conceive of rulings that are based on the Constitution, and they certainly have no conception of Alito as a judge who will make just such rulings.

Too much Koolaid, especially Kennedy (with rum).

Good point, Webster.

LOL at (with rum).

The only group that won during these hearings was the pro-abortion consortium. I thought for sure that people like Mr. Flynn and Ann Coulter would be able to see Roberts and Alito for what they are, neo-Souters and neo-Kennedys that will bend to the will of the dominant judicial establishment, whether governmental or educational, that is overwhelmingly liberal. To have to watch Bush destroy our federal budget, make a mockery of foreign policy, and now fritter away his chance to change the court has left me permanently soured towards Republicans. I will never support a political candidate running under the Republican banner.

It was a shame to see Alito with his tail between his legs, disavowing the factual statements he made with regard to Roe and Judge Bork. I'll shove a loaded gun up my ass and pull the trigger if Roberts and Alito vote to overrule the precedent set by Roe. It's not happening. Even Charles Fried, Reagan's Solicitor General 1985-1989, stated during the hearings that neither Roberts nor Alito would challenge Roe. We've lost yet another generation to the base and animalistic judicial left.

PMA,

We won't know until it happens. Granted it would be more reassuring to hear Aliton say that there is no constitutional basis for the federal judiciary to protect abortion, he did not say the reverse. Had he reasserted his view an absolute circus would have ensued, the outcome of which is uncertain. There is comfort in his not sounding like Justice Ruth. We'll see before too long. I am not a big fan of either party. Their natures, and the nature of politics in general, run to compromise and power holding at all costs. But Alito may surprise you, and it shouldn't be so great a surprise that you'd need to "shove a loaded gun up [your] ass and pull the trigger." We'll see.

Ditto.

Alito had to actually get nominated, and what not. From what I saw of the hearings, I think he'll be much more conservative than Souter or Kennedy.