"A Wretched Hive Of Scum And Villainy" Part Nine--Passing Thoughts
Yes, today I'm getting a chance to watch the hearings for Alito (can Russ Feingold be any more boring than he already is?) but thus far nothing big has happened. Well, unless one counts the announcement by Sen. Specter that Senate staffers went over the CAP archives last night and determined that:
--In no records (aside from membership) is Judge Alito mentioned.
--In no letters is Judge Alito mentioned.
--That the magazine Prospect never published an article authored by him.
--And that, in short, Judge Alito had nothing to do with CAP other than his "activism" in regard to the ROTC program that Princeton kept trying to kill on campus.
A non-story, to be sure, as the New York Times admitted this just a couple of weeks ago in their own investigation. (Yes, even the Old Gray Lady can get it right from time-to-time.) So, as far as Sen. Kennedy's concerned CAP is a dead issue. That's the worst thing the Democrats could hear now; their attacks are done and over with. They've got nothing left to throw at him. Every hunk of junk in their pitching repertoire has been thrown, and he keeps parking it over the right field fence.
But I'd like to move onto the end-game vote. I've had a lot of questions as to what the vote count will be. Not to toot my own horn, but this was expected as I was only one vote off of the vote tally for Chief Justice Roberts. So, let me try to break this down.
Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Biden, Durbin, Kohl, Schumer, and Feingold are all on the Judiciary Committee. 22 Democrats voted against John Roberts. Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, Durbin, Biden, were five of those no votes. I expect them to also vote no on Alito. In addition Corzine, Sarbanes, and Dayton are retiring this year; all three voted no knowing full well voters couldn't hold them responsible at the ballot box for that vote. That makes eight. Boxer, Inouye, Akaka, Obama, Bayh, Harkin, Mikulski, Kerry, Stabenow, Reid, Lautenberg, Clinton, Reed, and Cantwell rounded out the remaining Democrats opposed to Roberts. Aside from one or two that might think differently on this vote--purely to prevent the loss of their seats--this roll call looks a lot like the one I would predict for no votes on Alito.
Among those that voted no on Roberts, and those I predict will vote no on Alito, Feinstein, Kennedy, Stabenow, Clinton, and Cantwell are up for reelection this year. That's five that might end up being swing votes. Kennedy's going to vote no, as his seat is basically secured. (This is ONLY because people in Massachusetts can't seem to pick up on the fact that the Kennedy Clan's "Camelot" is long gone, and that Teddy is a knucklehead that continues to embarress the family nationwide.) Feinstein and Clinton are likely secured, as well. Clinton is facing no real opposition, and Feinstein's special interest ties will do in anyone facing her. Stabenow, according to people I have spoken with in Michigan, might be facing a tough opponent, and her job is not assuredly secure. Cantwell's in Washington, and her job is pretty secure. So, if any defectors of the original 22 that voted against Roberts switches sides, it's likely to be Stabenow.
Nine Democrats up for reelection in 2006 (Kohl, Byrd, Jeffords, Conrad, Bingaman, Nelson-Neb., Nelson-Fla., Carper, and Lieberman) voted in favor of Roberts, and I predict they'll vote in favor of Alito.
The reasoning behind this sort of speculation is that Alito is very similar to Roberts. They share similar judicial philosophy, and near as I can tell, the only difference lies in how long they served on the bench. Both have a phenomenal grasp of the Constitution--far better than any Democrat sitting on the committee--and both have completely twisted the Democrats into knots.
They were grasping at straws when these hearings started. They have tried to pain this man in the typical fashion they pain all conservatives: racist, sexist, bigotted, homophobic fascists. It's not working. It never does when it comes to conservatives. We can take that sort of ad hominem beating because we know it's not true. We believe in a nation of laws and morals, and their side believes in an ideology that everywhere it's been tried, it's failed miserably. Judge Samuel Alito will be confirmed. And he will go to the Supreme Court, and utilize his judicial philosophy--one firmly rooted in the Framers ideas of originalism--and serve this nation proudly and honorably.
The Democrats will go back to their grousing. And when the next justice steps down, we'll go through this all over again. I predicted it in 2004, and I maintain the prediction that Pres. Bush will have one more nominee to put up for the Supreme Court. We've seen what the Democrats were capable of against Chief Justice Roberts, and it was pitiful. We've see where they were willing to go with Judge Alito, and it, too, was pathetic. When the next nominee steps up, they're in for a helluva ride. If we thought we saw the lowest emanate from the Democrats on this nominee, we haven't seen anything yet.
And, in closing, my prediction for Judge Alito is: 79 yeas and 21 nays.
Publius II
ADDENDUM: Sabrina just picked up on this piece, and e-mailed me. She reminded me that Lautenberg was one of the senators who introduced Judge Alito to the committee, therefore he may not vote against him. I reminded her that Roberts' vote was 78-22. As Lautenberg intro'd him, I removed him from the equation. My prediction stands: 79-21.
Also, for those befuddled by the idea presented by the Democrats called "unitary executive," Ronald Cass has an excellent piece up at Real Clear Politics explaining this concept. You might want to read it so you can better understand what the Democrats are carping about. The link is below. (HT: Confirm Them) http://confirmthem.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_12_06_RAC.html
Yes, today I'm getting a chance to watch the hearings for Alito (can Russ Feingold be any more boring than he already is?) but thus far nothing big has happened. Well, unless one counts the announcement by Sen. Specter that Senate staffers went over the CAP archives last night and determined that:
--In no records (aside from membership) is Judge Alito mentioned.
--In no letters is Judge Alito mentioned.
--That the magazine Prospect never published an article authored by him.
--And that, in short, Judge Alito had nothing to do with CAP other than his "activism" in regard to the ROTC program that Princeton kept trying to kill on campus.
A non-story, to be sure, as the New York Times admitted this just a couple of weeks ago in their own investigation. (Yes, even the Old Gray Lady can get it right from time-to-time.) So, as far as Sen. Kennedy's concerned CAP is a dead issue. That's the worst thing the Democrats could hear now; their attacks are done and over with. They've got nothing left to throw at him. Every hunk of junk in their pitching repertoire has been thrown, and he keeps parking it over the right field fence.
But I'd like to move onto the end-game vote. I've had a lot of questions as to what the vote count will be. Not to toot my own horn, but this was expected as I was only one vote off of the vote tally for Chief Justice Roberts. So, let me try to break this down.
Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Biden, Durbin, Kohl, Schumer, and Feingold are all on the Judiciary Committee. 22 Democrats voted against John Roberts. Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, Durbin, Biden, were five of those no votes. I expect them to also vote no on Alito. In addition Corzine, Sarbanes, and Dayton are retiring this year; all three voted no knowing full well voters couldn't hold them responsible at the ballot box for that vote. That makes eight. Boxer, Inouye, Akaka, Obama, Bayh, Harkin, Mikulski, Kerry, Stabenow, Reid, Lautenberg, Clinton, Reed, and Cantwell rounded out the remaining Democrats opposed to Roberts. Aside from one or two that might think differently on this vote--purely to prevent the loss of their seats--this roll call looks a lot like the one I would predict for no votes on Alito.
Among those that voted no on Roberts, and those I predict will vote no on Alito, Feinstein, Kennedy, Stabenow, Clinton, and Cantwell are up for reelection this year. That's five that might end up being swing votes. Kennedy's going to vote no, as his seat is basically secured. (This is ONLY because people in Massachusetts can't seem to pick up on the fact that the Kennedy Clan's "Camelot" is long gone, and that Teddy is a knucklehead that continues to embarress the family nationwide.) Feinstein and Clinton are likely secured, as well. Clinton is facing no real opposition, and Feinstein's special interest ties will do in anyone facing her. Stabenow, according to people I have spoken with in Michigan, might be facing a tough opponent, and her job is not assuredly secure. Cantwell's in Washington, and her job is pretty secure. So, if any defectors of the original 22 that voted against Roberts switches sides, it's likely to be Stabenow.
Nine Democrats up for reelection in 2006 (Kohl, Byrd, Jeffords, Conrad, Bingaman, Nelson-Neb., Nelson-Fla., Carper, and Lieberman) voted in favor of Roberts, and I predict they'll vote in favor of Alito.
The reasoning behind this sort of speculation is that Alito is very similar to Roberts. They share similar judicial philosophy, and near as I can tell, the only difference lies in how long they served on the bench. Both have a phenomenal grasp of the Constitution--far better than any Democrat sitting on the committee--and both have completely twisted the Democrats into knots.
They were grasping at straws when these hearings started. They have tried to pain this man in the typical fashion they pain all conservatives: racist, sexist, bigotted, homophobic fascists. It's not working. It never does when it comes to conservatives. We can take that sort of ad hominem beating because we know it's not true. We believe in a nation of laws and morals, and their side believes in an ideology that everywhere it's been tried, it's failed miserably. Judge Samuel Alito will be confirmed. And he will go to the Supreme Court, and utilize his judicial philosophy--one firmly rooted in the Framers ideas of originalism--and serve this nation proudly and honorably.
The Democrats will go back to their grousing. And when the next justice steps down, we'll go through this all over again. I predicted it in 2004, and I maintain the prediction that Pres. Bush will have one more nominee to put up for the Supreme Court. We've seen what the Democrats were capable of against Chief Justice Roberts, and it was pitiful. We've see where they were willing to go with Judge Alito, and it, too, was pathetic. When the next nominee steps up, they're in for a helluva ride. If we thought we saw the lowest emanate from the Democrats on this nominee, we haven't seen anything yet.
And, in closing, my prediction for Judge Alito is: 79 yeas and 21 nays.
Publius II
ADDENDUM: Sabrina just picked up on this piece, and e-mailed me. She reminded me that Lautenberg was one of the senators who introduced Judge Alito to the committee, therefore he may not vote against him. I reminded her that Roberts' vote was 78-22. As Lautenberg intro'd him, I removed him from the equation. My prediction stands: 79-21.
Also, for those befuddled by the idea presented by the Democrats called "unitary executive," Ronald Cass has an excellent piece up at Real Clear Politics explaining this concept. You might want to read it so you can better understand what the Democrats are carping about. The link is below. (HT: Confirm Them) http://confirmthem.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_12_06_RAC.html
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home