Alito is the real one

When GWB nominated Meirs, I first suspected that he wasn't spoiling for a fight. However, this is totally out of character for our President. I think what was really going on was that he was sending a signal to the GOP Senators and other conservatives. Several, including the "maverick" closet democrat, McCain, were conspiring to be an impediment to a strong conservative choice. Several others weren't inspired to be as supportive because they wanted cover for upcoming elections.Meirs was not really the nominee that GWB expected to be confirmed, but was the spark that would unify the moderates and conservatives to more enthusiasticly support the well known conservative nominee that would follow her. Sounds like a good Karl Rove political strategy.
Whether that was the plan or not, it does seem to be having that effect.
The Democrats are wailing. That alone makes me think that Alito is probably supremely qualified.

Confirmation Hearings

Some observations on the Supreme Court confirmation proceedings...

If the liberals in this country would have been watching the ENTIRE proceedings, they would likely be crying and destitute. The Liberal's regular cast of "likely suspects," namely, Kennedy, Schumer, Biden and Durbin, utilized the deep resources of their aides, liberal organizations, and more, yet Judge John Roberts sat there with no notes, demolishing them and the misrepresentations they consistently presented.

Biden, Schumer and Kennedy and Durbin were made to look especially uninformed and powerless, (neutered) and I even feared for Kennedy's health several times as he babbled and became flustered. The smarter, smarmier, and slicker each Senator tried to be, made their eventual transformation into useful idiots even more dramatic.

Senator "Double Standard" Schumer

Double standard is standard procedure for Charlie Schumer, (D) NY.

One of Sen. Schumer's beefs with the Roberts nomination is the "false deadline" for completing the process. Isn't he one of the libs screaming for a timeline for withdrawal of forces from Iraq? His arguments that a deadline is unreasonable or unknowable seem to reek of hypocrisy.

Also, when he "...hopes and prays they will change..." speaking about the White House refusal of his demands for documentation he isn't entitled to, do you think that he is really telling the truth? I don't picture this slick political cartoon character praying for anything except self promotion. Yet, would he not take a comment stated exactly the same way from President Bush, turn it around and then accuse GWB of wrongly mixing religion into matters of state?
Quotes by Schumer are from National Press Club meeting on 7/27/05

The Decatur Democrat, a subsidiary of the Party of No

The Decatur Democrat, formerly the local standard bearer for the Party of No, seems to signaling what the Dem leadership will do with the Supreme Court confirmation process. Obstruct. I have little doubt of this after hearing Senators Durbin and Schumer's comments right after the announcement.
In TDD's case, perhaps (s)he's suggesting a filibuster will be the tactic.
The attempt to change the public perception by removing all responses that had been posted and leaving only the diatribes and accusations is an admition that the truly liberal positions that TDD formerly supported just won't hold up under the bright lights and the scrutiny of truth and logic.

The Dems think that the reason that they aren't winning elections nationally is that they aren't getting the message out. They couldn't be more wrong. The more light that is shed on their liberal positions and posturing politics, the more the American people are rejecting them.

Let them talk.

Judicial nominations

Listen to Senator Frist's speech (April 24) (RealVideo clip) pleading for a return to civility, and explaining his compromise proposal and the lack of cooperation from Harry Reid.

US Senator William H. Frist, M.D.

Myths, Facts and Quotes: Judicial Nominations and Democrat hypocrisy

Myth #1: Senate Republicans are attempting to abolish all filibusters.
Fact: Republicans are seeking to reestablish the Senate's traditional role in the judicial nomination process, not eliminate all filibusters. (an initiative some Democrats have supported in the past.)

Myth #2: Filibusters of judicial nominations are part of Senate tradition.
Fact: Having to overcome a filibuster (obtaining 60 votes) on judicial nominations is unprecedented and has never been the confirmation test for a nominee. (In the past, even Democrats have called for up or down votes.)

Quotes from some of the most hypocritical of the Democratic leadership:
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) "I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 6/18/98, p. S6521)

In 1998, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said: "We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 2/3/98, p. S295)

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said government does not fulfill its "constitutional mandate" when judicial nominees do not receive a vote. "The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)

In 1995, the only Senators on record supporting the end of the filibuster were all Democrats, nine of whom are still serving in the Senate. (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, And Sarbanes)