The Ship Of Fools

'The Ship OF Fools' Hieronymus Bosch, ca. 1490-1500, Musee du Louvre, Paris

The Democrats sin qua non has become to spend their every waking moment in slowly destroying every single bit of integrity left in the judicial process of electing a Supreme Court Judge, and turning it into a political farse.

When I woke up this morning I knew it was Judge Samuel Alito's Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings first day. Why? Well let's see because even before the sun came up Alito has been called a racist, anti-disabled, anti abortion, anti-civil rights and anti-civil liberties (in layman's terms means that many of his decisions are not the ones the ACLU would prefer), anti-women, anti-environment, and most importantly DISHONEST. Basically he is the lowest of the lowest scum. Yeah right.

I am having a deja-vu moment, one of my sureal aggravating days when I get  to the right of Genghis Khan. Articles like the one in the newspaper of note The NYT yesterday, and The Washington Post this morning send me again screeching to the medicine cabinet for the blood pressure pills.

Having spat all over the greatly respected and brilliant Judge Alito, The NYT finishes the article off with an absolute disgrace of a comment:

The Senate should also explore Judge Alito's honesty. According to a senator he met with, he tried to dismiss his statement about the Constitution's not protecting abortion as merely part of a job application, which suggests he will bend the truth when it suits his purposes. Judge Alito has said he does not recall being in an ultraconservative group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which opposed co-education and affirmative action. That is odd, since he boasted of his membership in that same 1985 job application. The tortuous history of his promise to Congress to recuse himself in cases involving the Vanguard companies, which he ultimately failed to do, should also be explored.

Judge Alito's nomination is often presented as an abortion rights showdown, but it is much more than that. Those who care about the broad range of rights and liberties that Americans now have, and about honesty in government, should tune into the hearings starting tomorrow - and call their senators with their reactions to what they hear.

Stephen R. Dujack, editor of The Environmental Forum magazine and fellow Princeton University alumnus, was expected to testify about a controversial student organization that counted Alito as a member.

In a November editorial in the Daily Princetonian, a university publication, Dujack wrote: "From its founding in 1972 till its unlamented demise in 1986, CAP was an organization that at first openly opposed full coeducation and the representative inclusion of minorities at Princeton, and then when those became 'settled issues,' continued its opposition to the mere presence of women and minorities at Princeton through tactics ranging from code words to open harassment."

As I said earlier, I knew it was Alito's day today in front of the Committee, the mud is flying and the walls are thundering, there is a strong likelihood of a conservative judge on the bench. Heh.

The Senator referred to has miraculously been taken off the list of Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats' testimony list, presumably as the Dems. finaly realized that they would be going so over the top in their Alito bashing that it would serve to further discredit the ever prevailing cause of destroying every single bit of liberty we have left.

Betsy tells it like it is:

"Stephen Dujack, after it was revealed that he had written an editorial comparing slaughtering animals for food to the Holocaust. Suddenly, the Democrats realized that having such a witness there to paint Alito as outside the mainstream might not be the best move. Now, they're stuck with simple mischaracterizations of his votes and his memos. Of course, anyone can be made to seem to be "outside the mainstream" if you lie about what he's written. And if you get to define the "mainstream" as agreeing with whatever you believe and not with what the other guy believes."

Just in case you missed the dem star's cancelled strategy speech here is an excerpt, courtesy of John Stephenson:

Like the victims of the Holocaust, animals are rounded up, trucked hundreds of miles to the kill floor and slaughtered. Comparisons to the Holocaust are not only appropriate but inescapable because, whether we wish to admit it or not, cows, chickens, pigs and turkeys are as capable of feeling loneliness, fear, pain, joy and affection as we are. To those who defend the modern-day holocaust on animals by saying that animals are slaughtered for food and give us sustenance, I ask: If the victims of the Holocaust had been eaten, would that have justified the abuse and murder? Did the fact that lampshades, soaps and other “useful” products were made from their bodies excuse the Holocaust? No. Pain is pain.

I wonder why they cancelled him that was good, that was really good....

Tiger Hawk:

"Indeed, if one is suddenly unfit for the Supreme Court for having joined an organization that happens to have within its ranks an unreconstructed racist (and I am in no way, shape or form suggesting that Frederick Foote is one), then, presumably, any Democrat who joined the party while George Wallace remained a prominant member should be disqualified. By that standard, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is unfit to sit on the Supreme Court."

Professor Bainbridge delivers an excellent slam dunk, in a long and thoughtful piece. Ann Althouse follows suit with a word of caution:

"We have every reason to think that Presidents pick nominees who put a high value on executive power, and this President is pushing the limits of executive power and is therefore especially motivated to find judges who will support him. The Senators really do need to defend the legislative branch with some tough questioning here. Listening to the debate this week will give us all a good opportunity to think about what the balance of power between the President and Congress should be."

As does Ed Morrissey:

"Liberal trial attorney Caren Dean Thomas has some advice for her fellow Democrats regarding the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, advice she offers in the opinion pages of the New York Times:

The president took the high road on this nomination. He juggled his politics and his public relations, and while I don't like either, I have to be grateful for the quality of lawyer, and individual, who emerged as the nominee.

We have to decide whether the unfortunate tradition begun with Robert Bork's nomination should be continued indefinitely or whether, with the wisdom of hindsight, we exhume it only when absolutely warranted. Liberals among us have got to get real - to press for the finest jurists a conservative administration is willing to offer, and to spend our capital in that pursuit.

Glenn Reynollds @ Instapundit:

"I don't think that Senator Bernie Sanders will be much of a force in the confirmation hearings. If he is, it'll be the first time something like that has happened since the Goldwater presidency . . . ."

Patterico brings us Ed Whelan:

Thirty-three years after Roe v. Wade, does the New York Times really not understand that a vote to overturn Roe (which is unambiguously what the editorial is referring to) is not a “vote to make abortion illegal” but rather a vote to restore abortion policy to the democratic processes in the states? . . . [T]o misunderstand or lie about what is actually at stake ought to disqualify one from being taken seriously in public discourse on the Supreme Court.”

Andrew @ Confirm Them has an excellent and very extensive MSM round up, including this, on Judge Samuel Alito's merits:

After a decade and a half as a judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, he has a wealth of experience with the sort of issues that come before the Supreme Court. Before that, the Yale law school graduate was a U.S. attorney and served in the Justice Department under Presidents Carter and Reagan.

His performance on the bench has won praise from conservatives and liberals alike. Former 3rd Circuit colleague Timothy Lewis, an avowed liberal, has said, "Sam Alito is intellectually honest. This is what makes him a wonderful judge and also why I feel very good about his appointment to the Supreme Court."

University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, a frequent critic of the Bush administration and a member of the ACLU's national advisory council, examined several of Alito's opinions and found them "academically and intellectually excellent." Though Stone hasn't endorsed the nomination, he has concluded that Alito is "first and foremost a lawyer, not an ideologue."

Anyone reading Alito's opinions has to be impressed with his thoroughness, his meticulous logic and his civil tone. What comes through most powerfully, though, is Alito's unflagging determination to follow the guidance of the Supreme Court.

Where his reasoning has been rejected by the justices, as in his dissent on a Pennsylvania law regulating abortions, a good case can be made that he was more attentive to the high court's precedents than the court itself was.

Alito will face aggressive questioning on several matters, including his failure to recuse himself from a case involving Vanguard Group Inc., despite a promise to do so, and a 1985 memo arguing against the court's Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion. But Alito's financial connection was his investment in money market and mutual funds administered by Vanguard, not an ownership role in Vanguard itself--making the conflict minimal, at most.

As for Roe, what he favored as a Justice Department lawyer under President Reagan does not necessarily reveal how he would rule on a major Supreme Court precedent that has now been the law of the land for 33 years.

Democrats who reject his judicial philosophy will have no trouble voting against Alito. But so far, anyone who thinks he should not be confirmed faces a heavy burden of proof.

And this certainly is not it. Apologies to my readers to subjecting them to Senator Kennedy's distortion laden column, although linked to above here again is Ed Whelan's take down of the Senator's arguments, in case you missed it earlier. More from Michelle Malkin on this here, including the video.

The Washington Times is quoting a columnist who: "called his antics "meandering and listless" and suggested Mr. Kennedy is beyond his prime." More here from my friend Doug @ Below The Beltway.

I will be keeping you updated as the hearings go on, but just for the record, my personal view is that barring some metaphysical implosion of law and politics, which this hapless gang of politicos is unlikely to engender, Judge Alito in the next few weeks will become the newest Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. That  you can take as red.

Keep an eye on Eugene Volokh and Orrin Kerr @ The Volokh Conspiracy for updates, thus far we have this. from Orrin, on the Judges from the Third Circuit testifying for Alito, and "giving the Senate an "insider view" on how [he] decides cases."

Thank Goodness we have Greg @ The Political Pitbull liveblogging, check it out. Mary Katherine Ham @ Hugh Hewitt has more great links. such as The Scotus Blog who is also liveblogging., as well as Ed Morrssey @ Captain's Quarters and Blogs For Bush. The Washington Post, is also liveblogging, so take your pick.

Michelle Malkin has more here., and so does Jeff Goldstein @  Protein Wisdom, John @ Power Line,  AndrewSullivan, California Conservative, Steve @ Secure Liberty, Decision 8 , Lawhawk @ A Blog For All  ScrappleFace, Dafydd @  Big Lizards Outside The Beltway,  The Glittering Eye, Memeorandum,

With the voices on the left  Lawyers, Guns and Money, The Heretik
 

Comments

[Darrell]

You mean Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Democrat that Andrew Jackson(Democrat) sent up to replace John Marshall as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court? The man that Abraham Lincoln(Republican) accused of conspiring with Democrat Presidents Franklin Pierce(Democrat) and James Buchanan(Democrat) to nationalize slavery?(Speech at Springfield in acceptance of the Republican senatorial nomination (June 16, 1858)

In the same speech he expressed the view that the nation would become either all slave or all free: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The Constitution protected slavery in peace, but in war, Lincoln(Republican) came to believe, the commander in chief could abolish slavery as a military necessity. The preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of Sept. 22, 1862, bore this military justification, as did all of Lincoln's(Republican) racial measures, including especially his decision in the final proclamation of Jan. 1, 1863, to accept blacks in the army. By 1864, Democrats and Republicans differed clearly in their platforms on the race issue: Lincoln's(Republican) endorsed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery, whereas McClellan's(Democrat) pledged to return to the South the rights it had had in 1860.

Clearly, the Democrats are consistently wrong throughout the centuries...

[Ghost Dansing]

Hey, it's the Republicans that bad-mouth Supreme Court Justices for interpreting the Liberal Constitution Liberally.

The Republicans like Supremes to be like they were in the 19th Century; upholding all sorts of backward social injustices and claiming it was all "Constitutional".

In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Now there's a righteous ancestor to modern "conservatism"... Exactly the kind of Supreme the Republicans would want today...just not on that particular issue anymore, but on any "Majority Rules", "Corporatist Rights" type of decision that would provide a Liberal Bill of Rights to all citizens regardless of their social status.

Taney was a man who KNEW what the framers of the Constitution intended and took the Constitution fundamentally and literally. The Contitution didn't say explicitly that it applied to Blacks, and he wasn't going to read anything into it. He was a true constructionist, just like the ones Republicans advocate!

[Darrell]

The difference between now and the Bork Hearings is that the Dems and the MSM had some credibility left--the public assumed if so many people were against the nomination there must be something there. That is no longer the case. Let's explore the MSM's honesty...and the Democrats'. "Bush Lied" wouldn't last a day, if the two had any. The MSMs video tape and text libraries would see to that.

[Stefan]

The one thing that I would note is that this confirmation hearing would not be so hot unless abortion was involved. The Democrats have so firmly planted the flag of abortion on-demand in their camp and have been so rabidly uncompromising by not allowing any restriction, limitation, or regulation that they are now symbiotically tied to it. It is their albatross. Abortion corrupts everything it touches and has been eating the Democratic Party from the inside for a long time. People’s understanding of the issue has advanced so much since 1973 that even most abortion advocates have just conceded the fact that it is a fully human child that is being killed but sometimes “it is necessary”. “Safe, Legal, and Rare” is the new mantra. Rare? Why? I thought it was a great “civil right” that was enshrined in the Constitution? Shouldn’t we be proud to exercise it? They know something is very ugly about it which is why they have created a forest of euphemisms and depend on the lofty language of “rights” to avoid the real heart of the matter as much as possible. NARAL (or “Gnarl” as I like to call them) is even changing their name to “Pro-Choice America” in order to remove the word “abortion” from their title. Democrats are hiding from themselves on this issue. When they fanatically refused to ban Partial-Birth abortion, which astonishes even those who might generally tolerate abortion, it causes Americans to say: “There is something very wrong with this Party, something black in the very heart of it.” The charges against Alito are fabricated and trumped-up so that the Democrats can appear to attack him from multiple fronts because they don’t want to show that they are really holding only one card. The level of fury is that of one who feels a deep sense of guilt and is fighting frantically to justify their actions to themselves. After all, Democrats like the Kennedy, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Dick Gephardt, Bill Clinton, and even Dennis Kucinich, have all abandoned the pro-life stands of their early days in order to enter the national Democratic races. They sold their souls and they damn well know it! You know that they know they are in trouble when Donna Brazile says: "Even I have trouble explaining to my family that we are not about killing babies." They know they would lose the "on-demand" radical extreme version of legal abortion if this were decided democratically so they have their backs to the wall and the Supreme Court is all they have left.

[The FLY]

Kennedy On "Alioto" Nomination. Featuring a great audio clip from Ted's fan club archive where he refers to fellow senator "Barack Obama" as "Osama Obama".

[Ken Pierce]

James Taranto delivers the line of the day so far:

"Hearings opened today for Justice-designate Samuel Alito, beginning with endless hours of windbaggery from Senate Judiciary Committee members. Poor Alito is forced to sit still for all of it. If Alito were a terrorist, Sen. Dick Durbin would compare himself to a Nazi."

Unfortunately the link will only be good for a day or so, but Best of the Web is not yet blog-savvy enough to make it obvious how to provide permanent links to "keeper" items. I'll update the link that's on the corresponding item at Redneck Peril (as often happens, I'm cross-posting).

[John Sobieski]

These Senate hearings have become dreadful. To treat such a distinguished man with such venom is embarrassing. I hope the vast majority of America is disgusted with the upcoming vitriole by Schumer and his gang.

[Wahrheit]

I'm not able to watch the proceedings today but I'm quite familiar with the process and I'll tell you why I really feel sorry for Judge Alito--he has to listen to the Senators' 'opening statements' for approximately three hours. And Kennedy and Durbin each get 10 minutes.

God help him.

If he can endure days more of exquisite torture and not blow up at the idiocy, mendacity and banality he will be exposed to (I think he'll be fine) I predict confirmation with 64 votes.

[North by Northwest]

Off topic as a compliment may be, but this post, Alexandra, is blogging at its best: Brilliant insight into what's going on from a wide range of sources with a flowing commentary pulling it all together. Loved reading it.