"A Wretched Hive Of Scum And Villainy": Part Eleven--Ted Kennedy's Homer Simpson Moment

I had a chance to watch the opening of the hearings this morning. As I listened to Sen. Specter's opening comments, and started to laugh. Sen. Specter handed Sen. Kennedy his head in the most polite way possible.

SPECTER: The committee staff, accompanied by representatives of Senator Kennedy, went through the Rusher files yesterday, finishing up their work, I'm advised, at about 2 a.m. this morning, and provided me with a memorandum that the committee staff reviewed more than four boxes of documents from the personal files of William Rusher concerning CAP.

Judge Alito's name never appeared in any document. His name was not mentioned in any of the letters to or from the founder, William Rusher. His name was not mentioned in any of the letters to or from CAP's long-term executive director, T. Harding Jones. His name does not appear anywhere in the dozens of letters to CAP or from CAP.

The files contain canceled checks for subscriptions to CAP's magazine, Prospect, but none from Judge Alito.

The files contain dozens of articles, including investigative exposes written at the height of the organization's prominence, but Samuel Alito's name is nowhere to be found in any of them.

The Rusher files contain lists of the board of directors, the advisory board and the contributors to both CAP and Prospect magazine. But none of the lists contains Samuel Alito's name.

The files contain minutes and attendance records from CAP meetings in 1983 and 1984, just before Samuel Alito listed the organization on his job application, but Samuel Alito did not attend any of those meetings, at least according to those records. He's not even mentioned in the minutes.
The files contain dozens of issues of CAP's magazines, but nones of the articles was written by, quoted or mentioned Samuel Alito.

CAP founder William Rusher said, quote, "I have no recollection of Samuel Alito at all. He certainly was not very heavily involved in CAP, if at all."

Sen. Kennedy had only one response, and his faced showed it all: "D'oh!"

And this should end this non-controversy. The Democrats are hanging their heads right now for the sheer fact that they tried every dirty trick, and still could not take him down. The intellectual level of the Committee Democrats is sitting at about the level of a cockroach, and that also reflects their survivability.

Thomas put up his prediction today as to how this vote will go. He did a decent analysis of it, and I think he is pretty right on. Sabrina, when I spoke with her, was planning on responding to the prediction; she did not fully agree. Such is life.

The point is, will the Democrat base make those that oppose this highly-qualified jurist pay at the ballot box? Nine Democrats voted against Chief Justice Roberts are up for reelection. Will they be forced to pay the price at the ballot box? These people have sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution; part of that protection is right here. It is ensuring that only those qualified to handle Constitutional issues, those with the idea that the Constitution "says what it means, and means what it says." No mental gymnastics. No personal interpretations. Just solid, reasoned jurisprudence, and the idea that not all stare decisis should be adhered to; there are times where past precedents might need to be overturned.

These senators have not done a good job. Their corrosive, hostile attitudes regarding Judge Alito is inexcusable, and I do hope the voters will wake up, and get rid of those that insist on causing trouble, and fighting for their power rather than fighting for the people that sent them to Washington, DC to begin with.

The Bunny ;)

ADDENDUM: Michelle Malkin has a terrific round-up of links regarding the Alito nomination, as does Confirm Them, and the SCOTUS blog. I have the links below. However, it is Mrs. Malkin's blog that caught my attention with this, from Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics.

http://confirmthem.com/
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004274.htm

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/01/how_many_dems_would_be_confirm.html

The question that Mr. Bevan asks? How many of these Democrats would be confirmed?

Not Ted Kennedy: for obvious reasons.

Not Joe Biden: he has a plagiarism problem.

Not Dianne Feinstein: she's had a Guatemalan houskeeper issue, was fined $190,000 in 1992 for failing to properly report $3.5 million in campaign expenditures, and her husband runs a company that scored a $600 million Iraq war contract in 2003. Imagine what the Dems would do with this last one.

Not Charles Schumer: two of the people under his employ at the DSCC are currently being investigated for illegally obtaining Michael Steele's credit report last year. In 1983, Schumer narrowly escaped indictment for misusing state funds in his 1980 Congressional race. The U.S. Attorney in the case, Raymond J. Dearie, actually recommended that Schumer be indicted, but the Reagan Justice Department turned down the request citing "lack of jurisdiction."

Not Dick Durbin: he would never get around his pro-life past. Durbin is on the record in the 1980's saying that he "believed that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided" and that "the right to an abortion is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution."

Here, here, Mr. Bevan. Too true, and I am poisitive this truth hurts not only them, but their party, as well.