The Coming of The Apocalypse for The Left (Updated)

The Image from 'Apocalypse Now'

Scroll down for November 1st Updates

In the WaPo this morning:

"President Bush today named appeals court Judge Samuel A. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito, 55, serves on the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where his record on abortion rights and church-state issues has been widely applauded by conservatives and criticized by liberals."

It is appropriate to quote Hugh Hewitt today, when citing one of Judge Samuel Alito's opinions, which upheld a Christmas display on city property, in which Hugh said: " ... Barry Lynn will no doubt view as the coming of the apocalypse."

Well we wanted a fight and we will sure have one. The Dems are already sharpening their teeth, and the Liberals are sharpening their pencils. And on both we will be "dropping bombs, not hints" (another one of SCA's gems). But equally they might say "We suspect a strong military reaction to the supporters of hate - one close to home - would get their attention. As we said, dropping bombs and not leaflets, has a way of doing just that", as clever  Sigmund Carl & Alfred said on the subject of the Iranian President in a fantastic post this weekend. This will be all out political war, you can be sure of that, so fasten your seat belts it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Minority leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev), has threatened to oppose Alito, of course. Immediately after the announcement, the liberal activist organization People for the American way also announced the launch of a "massive national effort" to prevent Alito's confirmation. What a surprise. Really?

And now for some preliminary information on Judge Samuel A. Alito. More @ Confirm Them.

Judge Alito & Abortion, the hot issue, from NRO's Corner:

"If media outlets are going to report on the Casey opinion, they need to review all of Alito's opinions that relate to the abortion issue. What they show, in toto, is a careful jurist committed to the rule of law, not a "pro-life" judge or a "pro-choice" judge."

According to Shannon P. Duffy @ Law.com he is dubbed the "The Mild Mannered Scalia"

Article III Groupie @ Underneath Their Robes, is looking under Judge Alito's, with a hunky picture of him from the 60's. She has some interesting links, and has been following and rooting for Alito from the beginning,  avoiding of course the nickname some have adopted of 'Scalito'.

Orin Kerr, from the resident Libbies over @ Volokh, who has first hand knowledge:

"This was a smart pick by Bush. It will take a few weeks for Senate Democrats to get comfortable with Alito, I think; given the "Scalito" nickname often used to describe him, many initially will fear that Bush has nominated some kind of Scalia clone. In time, though, I think we'll see that Alito is more like John Roberts than Antonin Scalia. Like Roberts, Alito is an institutionalist who spent his career working in government at a very high level (including at the Solicitor General's Office). Like Roberts, Alito is a very likable person. In light of his similarites to Roberts, I expect that Alito will be confirmed without a filibuster."

John Hinderaker @ Powerline: "The most helpful Alito opinions won't be found in well-trodden areas like abortion. Rather, what will be interesting is how Alito has ruled--and, equally important, what his reasoning processes have been--where there is no controlling or highly relevant Supreme Court precedent. It is when writing on a relatively blank slate (in law, the slate is rarely completely blank) that Alito, or any judge, will provide the most clues as to what sort of a Supreme Court justice he would be."

My friend Jeff Goldstein @ Protein Wisdom, does the Alito Shuffle and has the best round up of reactions from the left. Spitting slime as usual....it's worth a read, to know what we are up against.

Update November 1st: My dear friend Michael J.W.Stickings @ The Reaction in the Liberal Blogosphere, a great visionary and forward thinking liberal, who is devoted to bridging the gap between the conservatives and the liberals, has the absolute winning 'all rounder' round up of the left, the right  and the  liberal  viewpoint. I  shall be  writing a post today, dedicated to him and his incredibly inspired, perceptive and very intuitive quest to reach out to the conservatives to join forces in a strong effort to unite the information flow, and perhaps stop some of the far left in their tracks.

Listen to the Newsweek audio about Alito from Stuart Taylor. Amongst other things he deals with what the Liberals will have a gripe about, hot button issue of abortion of course is mentioned, but listen to it, it's interesting

Read 'Alito, Strong Conservative on Liberal Court', in NYT.

Now go and cast your vote for Judge Alito on Hugh Hewitt's Scotus Poll, and check out Radioblogger for "Ohio Senator Mike DeWine's agreement that the constitutional option is ready and waiting".

Matt Margolis over @ Blogs For Bush has the best reason that Alito is our man, quoting from MoveOn.org:

"Alito is a notoriously right-wing judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He has consistently ruled to strip basic protections from workers, women, minorities and the disabled in favor of unchecked power for corporations and special interests.

That's why today we're joining the fight with an emergency petition to the Senate, calling on them to stand up for ordinary Americans and reject Alito's nomination. We're aiming to gather a quarter million signatures and comments in the next 48 hours.

Can you sign today?

Bush's ploy to woo the far-right could reshape the High Court for decades to come—but we don't have to let that happen. The president's rock-bottom approval ratings and the scandals engulfing virtually every Republican leader have broken the spell of the right-wing spin machine. If we all speak up, together we have the power to stop this radical nominee."

Matt has started a Confirm Alito coalition.

John Hawkins @ Right Wing News has an unfortunate photograph.

Media Lies has a legitimate concern:

"The problem with the courts has been an excess of political influence. How does additional excess solve that problem? Further pressure will only exacerbate the problem until the Court becomes so politicized that the Constitution no longer matters.
[...]
The more that I think about it, the more I think that the polity intruding on a judicial nomination is an obscene denial of the founding documents. Conservatives who were involved in the anti-Miers action were openly discussing who the next nominee should be, as if their input was important to the process."

The NYT has Judge Alito's long legal history dating back to 1968, and a good article also from the NYT, discussing his career of quiet focus.

The Wahington Post is stating the obvious...DAH.....:

"The record is clear: On some of the most contentious issues that came before the high court, Alito has been to the right of the centrist swing voter he would replace. As a result, legal analysts across the spectrum saw the Alito appointment yesterday as a bid by President Bush to tilt the court, currently evenly divided between left and right, in a conservative direction."

Our own Gentle Giant (because he has a big heart) Ed Morrissey @ Captain's Quarters has this to say:

"The Democrats might try to filibuster, but his candidacy does not have the same fire that may have come with Janice Rogers Brown. The Democrats feared a Brown appointment; they would have had to do a character assassination on a jurist with a clearly inspirational life story as well as a solid track record and a strong conservative record. Alito has a more mild personality and will come across much like John Roberts in the hearings, but his self-effacing style will still have some bite. Building a hearing record for obstructionist mischief on the floor will probably blow up in the faces of the Judiciary Democrats, especially Kennedy, Schumer, and Biden, who made themselves look like idiots during the Roberts hearings.
[...] Expect Alito to get confirmed, 65-35."

Jay @ Stop The ACLU tells us that Alito's ninety year old mother rose  told reporters: "Of course he is against abortion" ....oops mother really, did you have to. Senator Reid just fainted, "Senator, senator, look he hasn't seen his mother for a while..."

Don Surber has quotes from three Democratic Senators, Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Bradley, complimenting Judge Alito's distinguished and commendable career.

A Confirm Alito Trackback Round Up @ California Conservative, and a compilation of different non - related Happy Halloween Trackbacks @ Mudville Gazette if you have time to cruise.

I will of course be updating throughout the day.

Comments

[Alexandra]

"I strongly think that if all the energy that is given to the legal fights around abortion were channeled into addressing the root causes, and developing and enhancing alternatives, then in the long run, we all would be better off."

Yes! However neither Federal nor State government can efficiently carry out such a mandate. This is for local communities. But they need to be properly encouraged and given a green light from both State and Federal government. And by green light I mean ideological 'green light' if nothing else.

[Jim R]

Frankly, I think the abortion topic is a smoke screen by both sides. If the abortion issue weren't there, both sides would have less to argue about. In fact, I do believe there is middle ground, and a lot more then anyone is willing to admit to. I am personally pro choice, for reasons of my own. I also believe abortion is bad, again for reasons of my own.

I strongly think that if all the energy that is given to the legal fights around abortion were channeled into addressing the root causes, and developing and enhancing alternatives, then in the long run, we all would be better off.

I have found that many of the abortion foes (not all) also are against birth control, sex ed, and other things that would reduce the need for abortions. I also think that the pro choice side, needs to step up and provide better alternatives. Adoption being just one. It is to damn difficult and expensive to adopt in this country. Birth mothers need to be provided high quality counseling not just on the difficult choice they have to make, but also on how to live a better life.

Common Ground?

[North by Northwest]

Actually, this seems a good starting point.

[North by Northwest]

Well, Kenny, seems you've met that somebody ;-) But I wouldn't dream of pressing you or anybody else for that matter after such a clear declaration. I'll respect that and continue googleing...

[Kenny Pierce]

As far as thoughts put forth by the anti-abortion camp:

1. I am anti-abortion to what most would consider a pretty extreme degree, but for my own reasons that are shared by very few others in the pro-life movement. I doubt very seriously that the pro-life movement as a whole would be very interested in my axioms and reasoning because they proceed from a very deep, foundational regard for human rights that the Religious Right (if I may speak frankly) has historically seemed to find pretty inconvenient in attempting to roll out its full agenda. I start with deeply libertarian axioms and yet wind up at the same place the pro-lifers do; but we get there by very different roads. So I don't think I'll attempt to speak for them.

2. Abortion is the one topic I sort of promised myself I wouldn't ever blog about because I'm not sure I can ever remember meeting anybody who was prepared to change his/her mind on the subject. If ever there were a subject where the only thing you could expect to do would be to make enemies...

[Kenny Pierce]

NxN,

One thing I notice, rereading that "primer," is that I left out all the middle-of-the-road states, who will (if left in peace by Congress) come up with fifteen different compromises, with much comparing of notes. That is precisely the sort of laboratory that the Tenth Amendment allows for and that parties in national ascendance want to trample upon. (E.g., the No Child Left Behind...sorry, can't finish that sentence because ladies might be present.)

Now, it happens that I think that abortion is more like slavery than it is like school finance and that in the end no compromises are going to survive long-term, but this is the way the process is supposed to work: the states get fifty shots at coming up with something everybody can live with, and if in the end national uniformity is required one way or the other, you AMEND THE FRICKIN' CONSTITUTION -- not pretend that it says something it doesn't.

[North by Northwest]

No, Kenny, I'm not asking you to defend abortion on the basis of religious doctrine or on any other basis, as it were. I am however troubled with the many grey shades that exist between black ("over-the-counter abortion") and white (blanket outlaw) and how to address them. I am interested, what thoughts are being put forward by the anti abortion camp in that regard.

[Kenny Pierce]

NxN,

Now that one will take a little while to respond to and I have work to do this afternoon, but one thing I can say very quickly: if you want somebody to defend the thesis that we should outlaw abortion "on the basis that scripture says so" you can bloody well find somebody to defend it besides me. ;-)

[North by Northwest]

Kenny,

Thank you for this most helpful primer! I had not considered the Tenth Amendment and Congress' ability to impose nationwide restrictions on abortion.

I am also clear on the notion of legislating from the bench in this context. The aspect of outlawing abortion outright however always causes me problems. How are families and communities meant to deal with pregnancies following 'soft-rape', especially amongst teenagers from low-income households? I don't need to tell you the wide variety of circumstances in which being born virtually constitutes a life-sentence of hell on earth. If the mother condemns herself to eternal purgatory due to her choice to abort, well, that's her choice, and her burden before God when the time comes, and God the Almighty, may in fact not condemn her because He knows, sees and hears all. But we don't. The aborted Soul will make it to earth one way or another - and I don't mean that flippantly. But how can we as a society force this child into certain hell on the basis that scripture says so (there are of course other biblical laws and principals which are both more frequently and more unambiguously outlined and yet not even contemplated for the basis of legislation...), whilst, as soon as the abortion was successfully prevented, not only stand back, but in fact turn around, walk away, utterly disappear and never, and I mean never ever even give this 'lifer' another thought. And that on a large scale. Because, all good intent aside (adoption, community reach-out, et al.) isn't it far more likely that that's going to be the harsh reality in the vast majority of all such cases?

[Kenny Pierce]

NxN,

No, because the policy enforced by Roe v. Wade is an extreme policy that could not be established nationwide through any means other than judicial hijacking of the Constitution. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, Louisiana will outlaw abortions the very next day and Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, etc. will not be very far behind. Right now everybody has to live by the Left's rules even though the majority of Americans have never supported those rules. The Left doesn't want to give that up; they'll never reestablish through democratic means the level of control they kept for fifty years through abuse of the judicial power.

On the other hand Massachusettes will have state laws in place explicitly guaranteeing the right to partial-birth abortion before the Louisiana legislature even makes it into session. So all is not necessarily lost even if Roe v. Wade falls.

The radically liberal states will put into place legislative regimes that mimic the existing state of affairs; the radically conservative states of the Bible Belt will outlaw practically all abortions; and over the following couple of decades we'll see which way works best. In the meantime the blue states will get bluer and the red states will get redder as America's sexually active singles (the most enthusiastic supporters of abortion-on-demand) head north and east, and America's conservative married couples head for God's Country.

But this, too, is a bad thing for liberalism, because it accelerates one of the worst long-term political problems that liberalism has: conservatives have more kids than liberals, and in a democracy, that sets up a permanent drift toward conservative majorities. As the people whose primary interest is in not having children congregate in the blue states, and the people who want children congregate in the red states, the balance in the House of Representatives will (all other things being equal) shift slowly but inexorably toward the red states.

And all this assumes -- a huge and probably false assumption -- that a Republican-controlled Congress doesn't impose sweeping nation-wide restrictions on abortion under the same old lame premise that "interstate commerce" is involved. Quite frankly, if I were the liberal Democrats I'd be at least as worried about getting a judge who will take the Tenth Amendment seriously as about getting a judge who will preserve Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade will eventually fall because it is supported neither by the text of the Constitution nor by the will of the people; the fight to preserve it is just a Long Defeat, and the collateral damage done in the process to liberalism (which is forced to defend an uncompromisingly extreme position in a country that highly values moderation) is enormous. Kos-style liberalism is not a majority viewpoint and is in fact rejected by a majority of Americans (not that the majority can necessarily agree on what they want instead of Kossackism, but they agree they don't want Kossackism). The far left is simply not going to be able to keep control of the entire nation. But it could keep control of particular enclaves within the nation more or less indefinitely -- as long as the Tenth Amendment were respected. Which, thanks to FDR and every Washington politician in the decades since, it is not. Oops. Bad news for the libs.

So I think that the Left's focus on Roe v. Wade is incredibly short-sighted; and their attempt to make the entire country live by the Left's rules (including the huge swaths of the country that passionately reject the Left's axioms and principles), will in the long run backfire by leaving them no rational grounds for complaint when a temporarily ascendant conservativism imposes its rules in its turn. (Not the lack of rational grounds for complaint will keep the Left from complaining, of course.)

Tenth Amendment, Teddy! Go for a judge who believes in the Tenth Amendment! Otherwise, not only will you not be able to keep America; but you won't even be able to keep control of Massachusettes.

[North by Northwest]

Kenny,

What you say about Alito is encouraging and also my understanding. So, I second "Go, go, Alito"!

And, you couldn't have put it better in your next comment. It almost seems to me, that by and large, the fight between R and D over Roe v. Wade et al. is actually much more based on mistrust rather than facts. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are right in your assessment of Alito, and if most Democrats thought so too, wouldn't that put their fears to rest?

[Kenny Pierce]

Alexandra,

Here's the trackback you were after:

In Go, go, Alito, Redneck Peril says, "At last, in Alito, we have what we ought to have had all along -- what we certainly didn't get in the case of Miers and didn't even really get in the case of Roberts..."

[Kenny Pierce]

NxN,

Science can determine material facts, but that is not enough for law to govern. Philosophy/theology -- and when it comes to ethics any particular ethical philosophy entails implicit theological presuppositions -- has to establish right and wrong. Then law can govern. Both halves of natural law (not necessarily understood in the Catholic sense) must be addressed correctly before positive law can be sound and effective.

[Kenny Pierce]

Alexandra,

I don't count as a liberal, but maybe a half-liberal, since I would be outraged if the five Catholic Supremes (counting Alito) were to declare that the penumbrae of the implications of the rights hinted at by the Constitution involved an absolute right to fetal life that could not be limited or set aside by the people acting through the legislative branch, short of Constitutional amendment. I am delighted with the Alito appointment because I think that if Alito were to be asked to reconsider Roe v. Wade, or a hypothetical Woe v. Rade in which the Supremes were asked to invent a newly Constitutional right to fetal life, he would in either case say, "The Constitution doesn't say a bloody thing about this, and my personal opinion is irrelevant, as are whatever histrionics the Pope may choose to indulge in; so the people will have to work it out for themselves through the democratic process." I don't think what the people will come up with is likely to be satisfactory either to myself or to the Pope, or, for that matter, to Barbra Streisand, or even to Samuel Alito; but I bloody well know it's the people's prerogative to work out a solution, not the Supreme Court's. And I think that Alito will respect the people's prerogative in that respect.

Does that make me count as one-half of a liberal ally?

[Alexandra]

SIGGIE,

I have just decided I am going to call you Siggie, you know it's laughable, whenever I am linking you which as of late has been often indeed, (you have such great articles), I am struggling to remember, and have been known to call you Sigmund Carl & Albert (thinking of Einstein of course), luckily not as a link but on one of Anchoress' comments section. Mortally embarrassing...that really was the last straw...

Anyway, having read lately some spectacular posts of yours on dem. related subjects, I would like to ask you what you think we are going to need for this fight in way of ammunition? In order to answer let's for discussion purposes take out the nuclear attack as obviously that would be too fatalistic.

So? Unity we have, which is extremely important in every sense.....do we have some libs on our side (I am preparing a post on that one today...the photographs always take an unreasonable amount of time..no one realizes really simply seeing the result), so what else?

[North by Northwest]

Look for a lot of deceit

Ah, but they'll have to deal with the right-wing blogoshpere, won't they. As it happens, I abhorred some of the rhetoric used to voice their opposition to the Miers nomination, but, in keeping with military metaphors, maybe such voices are now a good ally to have in times of 'war'. Nah, just kidding...

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

Excelent updates- the emerging theme can be discerned.

That said, expect the dems to hit back- and hit back hard. The 527's have learned a lesson from the Miers debacle: The very threat of witholding money from office holders is enough to trigger a desired response. Look for the hard left to play hardball. The 'nuclear option' will emerge, so to say. The hard left have to have a win, as they cannot point to anything substantive they have achieved, as the results of two elections indicate. Alito is a target they will want to set their sites on. Look for a lot of deceit.

[North by Northwest]

Alexandra,

"Where science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern. [...]"

What about this thought-provoking stand: Former reporter and bureau chief for The Washington Post, Patricia E. Bauer's warning that prenatal testing techniques have shifted the medical question from an ability to abort babies judged to be defective to a duty to abort.

Columnist George F. Will, father of Jon Will, an ardent baseball fan also born with Down syndrome, writes: "In Britain, more babies with Down syndrome are aborted than are allowed to be born. In America, more than 80 percent of the babies diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome are aborted. This is dismaying to, among others, the American Association of People with Disabilities, whose premise is that "disability is a natural part of the human experience"."

Even when science does determine the facts, as is the case in this issue due to ever improving prenatal testing techniques, the law can effectively govern, but ought not to. It seems to me, that self-determination is the appropriate way forward on delicate issues such as this - especially when considering the emotional side of things. And I mean for both camps!

From the little I've heard about Alito, he considers each case on its own merits, one at a time. That's encouraging for a start.

[North by Northwest]

Senator Schumer's statement yesterday, that he feared that Judge Alito might reverse the gains that Rosa Parks worked for, is certainly a stunning statement. It's absurd to say anything like this but it certainly is a good barometer for what's to come.

[Alexandra]

Yes, and now of course, commentators on NRO's Corner are pacifying: "Alito is a careful jurist committed to the rule of law, not a "pro-life" judge or a "pro-choice" judge."

This sounds remarkably like:

"Where science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern. However, when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act. I do not mean to make very complex, emotional issues too simplistic. But some of these issues do not need to be as complicated as they have become if people deal with each other with respect and even reverence." (H Miers)

Sorry, I can't help myself...

[Jeff Stiles]

Let's hope we can all stand behind our President and support his choice this time around. And let's hope Alito never served donuts at his local church because, as we've learned the past three weeks, a humble and Christ-focused life is what REALLY scares conversatives and liberals alike.