"A Wretched Hive Of Scum And Villainy": Part Ten--The Time Has Come For All Good Men To Come To The Aid Of Their Party.

Today wasn't the "hive" we had been referring to all week. Sure, the Democrats left their heads in their office, but it wasn't nearly as scathing today as it had been over the last couple of days. I watched a lot of the hearings today, or had them on in my office, and listened to them. Surprisingly, Sens. Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, and Leahy didn't swallow their feet today. It was the final day of hearings, and these questions were merely for their clarification. Judge Alito, as he has the previous two days, sailed through them with flying colors.

And I must say that I thought Chief Justice Roberts did the best job that a nominee could ever have hoped for. I stand corrected. Judge Alito did much better. I'm not taking anything away from CJ Roberts; the man's a phenom. However, Judge Alito did not seem like the "absent-minded" professor that so many of his detractors--liberal and conservative alike--have stated.

This man was solid. He was professional. He answered as many questions as he could as directly as he could. He had no problem clarifying things for the senators tso there would be no ambiguity on what was meant. He has endured a scaled assault on his character, his professionalism on the bench, and even his ideology for being a conservative. He has weathered this firestorm effectively, and I see no reason why he wouldn't be confirmed.

Thomas gave his prediction this morning. On the floor of the Senate, he's predicting a 79-21 split. I think it might be a bit tighter. This could come down to serious partisan issues as to how important this seat is to them; they have but one seat left on their ideologically-driven court. That seat everyone is saying will be a war. Indeed, but why wouldn't Judge Alito's seat be any less contentious? This is why I predict a straight partisan vote on the committee, and a 67-33 split. The Democrats know that we mean business at this point.

They could not handle the limited PR war that erupted on this subject. We have been working in the trenches for months on this nominee. One could say that Judge Alito was already vetted through the committee of "America;" we looked at him, his record, and his decisions, and we believe he will be a fine jurist on the Supreme Court. We also believe that his presence on the court couldn't have come at a more needed time.

The character assassination that has occurred in these hearings has been atrocious. The Democrats can argue to the contrary; "We had questions, and we wanted answers." That's a nice excuse, but not one that's washing with the general public. Sen. Kennedy repeatedly brought up CAP, as did Sens. Schumer, Biden, Leahy, Feinstein, and Durbin. These people tried to paint this man as the sort that would literally desire to "turn back the clock."

Well, I might be around Moses age, but I'd still like to see a return to the Constitution as I know it, and learned it--thoroughly--in law school.

Judge Samuel Alito will do that. That's why we're supporting him. That's why we're defending him. I just finished listening to a Goodwin Liu, an assistant law professor at UC, and a former clerk for Justice Ginsberg from 2000-2003. I just listened to a diatribe revolving around three specific cases that he reviewed regarding his decisions surrounding our rights vs. the government's. I'll admit I'm unfamiliar with all three (talk to Thomas; he breaks the cases down) however heprefaced himself by stating that "cherry-picking" wasn't a relevant course in determining Judge Alito. However, that is exactly what Prof. Liu did. He based his "professional" opinion regarding Judge Alito on how he viewed those three cases. His "personal" opinion is Judge Alito is a good man, and for the most part is solid on the law. But he pointed to three cases, based his "professional" dissent on how Judge Alito ruled in regard to these three cases, and the other cases involving citizens' rights vs. the government.

I know this was an issue of contention, however the majority of the cases left untouched by Prof. Liu spoke in volumes to me as opposed to what the professor presented in a "cherry-picking" attempt to dissent on Judge Alito.

Honestly, Judge Alito's done a great job, and he will give the court many years of superb service. The Democrats, once again, acted shamelessly by debasing themselves, and diving into the gutter one would hope a professional politician would never venture to. I think that if memories are long this year, some of these senators may find themselves facing some serious opposition from their constitutents.

But, I'd like to put a final point on the day. I'd like to cite Judge Ruggero Aldisert, an associate of Judge Alito on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He was the eldest judge to speak to the committee, and with a great deal of experience in dealing with Judge Alito.

ALDISERT: In May 1960, I campaigned with John F. Kennedy in the critical presidential primaries of West Virginia.
The next year, I ran for judge, as was indicated, and I was on the Democratic ticket, and I served eight years as a state trial judge.

And as the chairman indicated, Senator Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania was my chief sponsor when President Lyndon Johnson nominated me to the Court of Appeals, and Senator Robert F. Kennedy from New York was one of my key supporters.

Now, why do I say this? I make this as a point that political loyalties become irrelevant when I became a judge. The same has been true in the case of Judge Alito, who served honorably in two Republican administrations before he was appointed to our court.

Judicial independence is simply incompatible with political loyalties, and Judge Alito's judicial record on our court bears witness to this fundamental truth.

I have been a judge for 45 of my 86 years. And based on my experience, I can represent to this committee that Judge Alito has to be included among the first rank of the 44 judges with whom I have served on the 3rd Circuit, and including another 50 judges on five other courts of appeals on which I have sat since taking senior status.

Judge Aldisert did not step up to simply defend a colleague slimed for two days by sitting, supposedly honorable men and women, and slandered by the special interest group sin the nation. He did not stand up and tell the committee about his colleague's philosophy in addressing the law.

He stood up for a friend; a person he knows, trusts, and respects very much. Too bad that idea is foreign to the Democrats on the committee. And his words a stinging rebuke to the likes of Sen. Kennedy who, in a vain attempt to usurp the committee from Sen. Specter's control, decided yesterday that he should make a grand display of ignorance, purely to slap Judge Alito's integrity in the face. He directly questioned Judge Alito's honesty in his questioning regarding CAP; an organization that he has been all-too forthcoming about. Good for Judge Alito and Judge Aldisert for reminding Teddy Kennedy and the Democrats just how irrelevant and out of the mainstream their party has gone.

Hugh Hewitt's right. This entire hearing was a Thelma & Louise ending--right over the cliff--over, and over, and over again.

Mistress Pundit