VICTORY!!!!
I believe it was October of 2004 when, on this site, I first wrote that the best two choices for the Supreme Court were Sam Alito and Emilio Garza. I have since soured just a bit on Graza — publicly so — although I still would be delighted to have him named. But I never wavered from saying that the best choice of all would be Alito. So, after 15 months, this confirmation feels especially sweet. I hereby tip my cap, though, to all the bloggers here at SA, and especially to feddie, because without SA providing such a crucial early forum for conservative law scholars and enthusiasts, I don’t think the groundswell would have beens trong enough to result, in the long run, in a Justice ALito. Now it has, and victory is sweet. ALITO, ALITO, ALITO!!! Oh, happy day!!!
January 31st, 2006 at 10:32 am
I think Alito is already my favourite justice.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:47 am
Hooray!
January 31st, 2006 at 10:49 am
I really can’t wait to see what comes of his tenure. I am optimistic about him, but the proof is in the pudding… er, I mean opinions.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Power Line’s Paul Mirengoff draws the following lesson from Alito’s 3-month confirmation saga:
“The vote changes the “rules” for confirming Supreme Court Justices. Under the Alito rule, Senators will vote against [a] highly qualified nominee for no reason other than that they expect the nominee to rule contrary to their preference on major issues. Under the Alito rule, the president’s party, in effect, must control the Senate in order for the president to have top-notch nominees of his choice confirmed. When the the president’s party doesn’t control the Senate, only compromise nominees acceptable to both parties can expect to be confirmed.
… [T]he important thing is to have one set of confirmation rules that applies to both parties. Thanks to the Dems, we now have a new set.”
He is clearly right about the current state of the rules. What do people think about the claim that this is a “new set” of rules? The GOP didn’t control the Senate during the Bork nomination (1987), and Bork wasn’t seated. Ditto during the Thomas nomination (1991), when Thomas barely squeaked through the Senate, despite being a sitting federal judge and a black nominee with an impressive life story.
Perhaps it’s more true to say that the Alito hearings have cemented a shift in the Senate’s role in judicial appointments that the Democrats set in motion back in the 1980s, when the conservative legal counterrevolution began to gain ground.
After Alito, the shift has been entrenched to the point that no one can pretend to ignore it any longer. There will be no more 96-3 votes to confirm former ACLU lead counsels.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:23 pm
“Perhaps it’s more true to say that the Alito hearings have cemented a shift in the Senate’s role in judicial appointments that the Democrats set in motion back in the 1980s, when the conservative legal counterrevolution began to gain ground.”
I agree. This isn’t a “new” set of rules - it’s the same playbook the Democrats have been playing from since Bork. The only difference is that now the Democrats - for once in their lives - are being “honest” and upfront about the rules by which they’re playing.
The real question is whether the Republicans will unilaterally disarm by refusing to play by those rules whenever it’s a Democrat President making the nomination.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:24 pm
It is a good day. Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and Scalia will make a formidable brain trust for the left tilting court.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:50 pm
The SC is now split 4-4 and the next opening will trigger armageddon. I hope Mitch McConnell is in charge when the Reps have to discard the filibuster, and not that patronizing ghoul from Tennessee. Today is a good day, in no small part because the blind dithering dart thrower is now off the bench.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:09 pm
I’m not sure it helps for the republicans to try to block qualified Dem nominees. The reverse doesn’t seem to be helping Dems. And lets face it, a Dem president is not going to nominate somoene who would overturn Roe, so why not take the high road? the fact that the Repubs did so with BryerGinsburg probalby helped smoothe the path for RobertsAlito.
Of course if Roe is overturned, I have to imagine that will alter the landscape for future nominations.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:12 pm
“After Alito, the shift has been entrenched to the point that no one can pretend to ignore it any longer. There will be no more 96-3 votes to confirm former ACLU lead counsels.”
Isn’t this all preconditioned on Senate Republicans growing a pair…for lack of a better term?
January 31st, 2006 at 1:22 pm
I’d like to note another shift in “the rules”:
It is no longer true (assuming it was) that a nominee may not have given any prior indication of opposition to Roe, nor must the nominee utter the magic words, “settled law,” about the same.
Just last summer and fall, we were all told we couldn’t confirm such a nominee; Bush was right to pursue a stealthy strategy.
The Alito nomination was going to be a donnybrook, we were told. (And, we were told Bush lacked the “political capital” for such a fight.)
All that was wrong.
From now on, there’s no reason a nominee can’t be known to dislike Roe, although every nominee should say, just as Alito did: I will decide the case on the merits; no hints, no forecasts, no predetermination.
I think what helped, of course, was Alito’s pleasing demeanor and otherwise sterling credentials.
It remains less than certain whether a Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Jones would fare as well.
You could argue this helps their chances, by moving away from having to be totally mamby-pamby; or you could say it hurts, because the next nominee should be just like Alito.
Also, it helps the GOP has 55 votes, and the “Gang of 14″ deal on the filibuster clearly helped — indeed, a best-case scenario, seems to me: we took the filibuster weapon away from the other side, without damaging this otherwise very useful tool.
Other benefits: now we have a record vote that may prove useful the next time some of these “solons” are up for reelection.
The collapse of the filibuster against Alito clearly show that the Dems know the political winds were against them; it is axiomatic that a filibuster cannot be sustained in the face of public disapproval.
Filibusters succeed, as Senator Kennedy pointed out, when they awaken the public to something about to happen they don’t want to happen. No wonder he was purple with rage: the people weren’t responding as he wished!
An excellent play, well executed!
Please, Mr. President, run this play again next time . . .
January 31st, 2006 at 1:36 pm
In celebrating this great victory, let’s give CWCID:
http://www.tessari.net/Non%20nobis%20Domine.htm
January 31st, 2006 at 1:42 pm
And don’t forget, Ave Maria School of Law now has a graduate of its inaugural class (2003) clerking for a justice on the US Supreme Court. A well-deserved victory for Mr. Bowman.
http://fumare.blogspot.com/
January 31st, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Yeah, what Fr. Fox said. Great analysis.
February 1st, 2006 at 10:19 am
Yes, of course. Without “Southern Appeal,” we’d be looking at Justice Harriet Miers.
Obnoxious posts like this are why there’s such scorn for bloggers. You guys have a great site, and probably a wide readership, but a little humility goes a long way sometimes.
I find it hard to believe that a bunch of posts about college football and Wm. Pryor’s awesomeness turned the tide more than oh… John Fund’s op-eds in the WSJ pointing out exactly what was wrong with Miers, the people who advised the President, the staffers on the judiciary committee, Judge Alito’s practice sessions, John Kerry’s idiocy, the “Gang of 14’s” compromise, Ted Kennedy making a fool of himself, or the fact that Judge Alito was simply well-qualified and the Dems couldn’t lay a glove on him at his hearings.
Oh no, none of that would have meant anything without a few blog posts and all-important links.
You guys have a great site, but get the hell over yourselves.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Dude, chill out. I think you’re taking this a bit too seriously…