As usual, liberal Democrats promise Armageddon over a Supreme Court nomination, and as usual, is just posturing.

The Washington Times reports that in spite of a fierce push by liberal activist groups to stop the Alito nomination, the vast majority of Americans continue to believe he should be confirmed (although not by the same margin as Roberts).

A Washington Post poll determined that Alito had 54% approval from the American public and only 29% opposes. That's an improvement from a earlier CNN poll which had Alito at 49% favored.

Ralph Neas, president of the American Way, described the campaign against Alito as the most formibable coalition since Judge Bork's hearing. The Rolling Justice caravan, a road trip for Alito opponents, stopped in Craig, Colorado in December--nobody showed up.

Aside from the foregone conclusion that Alito will be confirmed, the poll signals the new reality of American politics--the left-wing social agenda just doesn't have any political traction.

Gay rights, abortion rights and affirmative action are supposed to be hot button issues that make the nomination of a conservative to the SC a no-go, but these issues failed to arouse a ground-swell of opposition to what is arguably a tipping point on the court from a liberal philosophy to a conservative one.

Either Americans don't care about liberal-left social issues, don't agree, or some combination of the two. Wow! The left isn't mainstream-who knew?

Alito gets a unanimous "well-qualified" rating from the American Bar Association

People for the American Way have issued their pre-hearing report

GOPBloggers.

Blogs for Bush

Independent Christian Voice notes that the Harris Poll has a radically different result from the Post and CNN polls.

Hugh Hewitt dreads the antics of the unserious Democrats at the hearings.

After reading an NYT Op Ed on the Alito nomination, I would say that the liberal-left are tacitly conceding that they are hosed.

On the eve of the hearings, the NYT reflects a last minute change in strategy after failure to generate outrage over a distorted account of Alito's position on abortion. Abortion is out, executive power is in.

Judge Alito's confirmation hearings begin tomorrow. He may be able to use them to reassure the Senate that he will be respectful of rights that Americans cherish, but he has a lengthy and often troubling record he will have to explain away. As a government lawyer, he worked to overturn Roe v. Wade. He has disturbing beliefs on presidential power - a critical issue for the country right now. He has worked to sharply curtail Congress's power to pass laws and protect Americans. He may not even believe in "one person one vote."

Ironically, the NYT quotes a Harris poll that has only 34% affirming an Alito confirmation, while ignoring two other recent polls by the Washington Post and CNN indicating around 50% for confirmation and a minority opposed.

Clearly the left believe the Post and CNN polls and are adjusting their rhetoric accordingly.

Professor Bainbridge exposes the newest set of distortions:

Here's another thing the NY Times told you:

PRESIDENTIAL POWER The continuing domestic wiretapping scandal shows that the Bush administration has a dangerous view of its own powers, and the Supreme Court is the most important check on such excesses. But Judge Alito has some disturbing views about handing the president even more power. He has argued that courts interpreting statutes should consider the president's intent when he signed the law to be just as important as Congress's intent in writing and passing the law. It is a radical suggestion that indicates he has an imperial view of presidential power.

Here's what they didn't tell you:

* "Judge Alito's wiretap memorandum was if anything an even clearer example of a career lawyer doing his job properly and dispassionately. The solicitor general in that case represented not only the Department of Justice and its prerogatives but also the attorney general, who the lower court had ordered to pay damages out of his own pocket for a wiretap that was found to be illegal. The attorney general asked the solicitor general (at that time, Mr. Lee) to argue for immunity from personal liability in such a suit.

"Judge Alito recommended that the solicitor general not take this case to the Supreme Court because he thought it was a sure loser. It is hardly surprising that Judge Alito, like many lawyers delivering bad news to a client, expressed sympathy for the client's position. But the bottom line was just what Judge Alito's higher-ups did not want to hear. And here, too, the solicitor general did not take Judge Alito's advice - which once again, in the end, proved right." - Charles Fried

* Alito "doesn't sound like somebody who will just rubber-stamp the executive branch's decisions." - ProfessorBainbridge.com

Here's the Times' next claim:

CONGRESSIONAL POWER While Judge Alito seems intent on expanding the president's power, he has called for sharply reducing the power of Congress. In United States v. Rybar, he wrote a now-infamous dissent arguing that Congress exceeded its power in passing a law that banned machine guns. As a Reagan administration lawyer, he argued that Congress did not have the power to pass the Truth in Mileage Act to protect consumers from odometer fraud.

What the Times doesn't tell you is that Alito's Rybar opinion was a perfectly plausible application of the US Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Lopez.

* "At the time the Third Circuit heard Rybar, the Supreme Court in the Lopez case had indicated that Congress’s Commerce Clause power, though broad, was not without its limits. Judge Alito noted that while the majority wanted to strictly limit Lopez to “its own peculiar circumstances,” the court had a “responsibility to apply Supreme Court precedent.” It is improper to draw any conclusion from Rybar as to what Judge Alito’s position, whether personal or legal, on gun control might be." - CFJ

What a surprise--the left lies.

They also lose. A change in tactics at this late stage is grasping at straws. They've had months to comb through Alito's record, but fundamentally misjudged the mood and views of the American people. Drudge lends further support to the idea of an opposition that doesn't know whether to bail or row.

Democrats hope to tie Alito to Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP).

Alito will testify that he joined CAP as a protest over Princeton policy that would not allow the ROTC on campus.

THE DRUDGE REPORT has obtained a Summer 1982 article from CAP’s PROSPECT magazine titled “Smearing The Class Of 1957” that key Senate Democrats believe could thwart his nomination!

In the article written by then PROSPECT editor Frederick Foote, Foote writes: “The facts show that, for whatever reasons, whites today are more intelligent than blacks.”

Senate Democrats expect excerpts like this written by other Princeton graduates will be enough to torpedo the Alito nomination.

One Democrat Hill staffer involved in their strategy declared, “Put a fork in Scalito. It doesn’t matter that Alito didn’t write it, it doesn’t matter that Alito wasn’t that active in the group, Foote wrote it in CAP’s magazine and we are going to make Alito own it.”

However, a Republican insider contacted about the situation said, “It’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. The reason CAP was formed was to protest against people like Drujack who think killing chickens is similar to what happened at Auschwitz. I don’t understand how what a guy named Foote wrote in some magazine has anything to do with Alito.”

That's pretty far out on the limb.

Absolutely unwatchable.

Listening to the speechifying of Dick Durbin and other Democrats is mind-numbing. We are reminded that while its called a hearing, its mostly a talking.

If I was Alito, I'd be asleep by now. Thank heavens for Red Bull.

As usual, the promised fireworks you always hear about from the Democrats failed to appear at today's Alito hearings.

US News and World Report characterized today's hearings this way:

Can it be that the promisedfireworks at this week's Supreme Court confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committeehave already fizzled? Grinding through the first round of questioning, even liberal Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Joseph Biden of Delaware spoke at length but failed to hit their stride, much lessruffle Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, whoseanswers, deliveredin an earnest monotone, had all the zip of aremedial high school civics lesson.

Its a remarkably predictable hearing, with the Democrats sounding like three chord guitar players. Sometimes I just couldn't believe what I was hearing. One thing Schumer said actually made NPR's audio excerpt list and its worth listening to just to understand how confused he is

Judge Alito, in case after case, you give the impression of applying careful legal reasoning, but too many times you happen to reach the most conservative result. Judge Alito, you give the impression of being a meticulous legal navigator but in the end, you always seem to chart a rightward course . Some wrongly suggest we're being results-oriented when we question the results you have reached, but the opposite is true. We're trying to make sure that you're capable of being fair, no matter what the identity of the party before you. Sometimes you give the government a free pass, but refuse to give the plaintiffs a fair shake.

Schumer's problem with Alito appears to be that his process just isn't producing the predetermined results that the left demands, after all, everybody should take turns being right.

The entire exchange reminded me of the current series of NBA commercials with Ali G.. The Ali G schtick is fabulous, relying on political correctness to prevent his targets from pointing out that his questions betray colossal ignorance and stupidity. Schumer G. relies on much the same paradigm, knowing that as a Senator and a liberal icon, everything he says is brilliant no matter how transparently foolish.

( Here's on online version of Ali G. interviewing Steve Nash--hiliarious)

The Captain did a little bit of his own transcription of Schumer' remarks as well.

SCHUMER: Does the Constitution protect the right to free speech?

ALITO: Certainly it does. That's in the First Amendment.

SCHUMER: So why can't you answer the question of: Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion the same way without talking about stare decisis, without talking about cases, et cetera?

ALITO: Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can't be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.

SCHUMER: Well, OK. I know you're not going to answer the question…

SCHUMER G.: It is 'cos I is black?

taidhgin

Evangelical Outpost

A good round up of the left's views on the hearings (were we in the same building?) at Desert Rat Democrat

Freedom Eden

I love this post by bardseyeview comparing the Alito hearings to Shakespeare's Coriolanus (go read this one).

Matt May rants well.

Political Teen

Professor Bainbridge makes the observation that Democrat Senators are failing to disconfit Alito because they talk too much.

Perhaps it's an occupational hazard of being a politician, but for a bunch of ex-lawyers they sure are lousy questioners.

Let me make another observation--the Senators are not trying to "get" Alito, they are instead trying to make points with their liberal constituencies. Alito merely provides a pretext to burnish the abortion credentials and to make common cause with the MoveOn.org crowd. Democrats knew up front that they couldn't block the Alito nomination, so when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade--use the process for fund-raising, and as an opportunity to bolster one's public profile (too bad only serious wonks actually watch this stuff...).

Powerline: Character witnesses

The elite media consensus appears to be that Alito pretty much sailed through. (Read any major paper).

That view seems to be confirmed by the rumor that Patrick Leahy is asking for "round three", 15 hours not being enough time to fully explore Alito's suitability--in another words, "we need more time to rattle his cage".

The pressure is now on the Democrats to really bear down. Certainly the elite media is desperate for a story out of this process, and they haven't gotten one so far. The "desperation" synergy between committee Democrats and the media probably means any glimmer of controversy is going to get big play.

If Patrick Leahy's line of questioning is how its going to be, this is going to be a dull day and a disappointment to the media. Even in the unlikely event that Leahy manages a gotcha, the legalwze is so thick that you won't be able to extract a useable soundbite.

I just don't think its possible to "get" Sam Alito. He seems to have total recall of every legal opinion he ever read or issued, he demonstrates a consistent-to-the-point-of-slavishness intellectual rigor and to top it off, the articulacy to express the product of his intellectual process.

Absent an Alito mistake, the Democrats aren't left with much to work with. The political climate in this country at present simply rejects the Democrat notion of fairness--equality of outcomes.

Tempers flared as Kennedy and Specter mixed it up in front of the cameras--as fine a demonstration of what is going on in the allegedly collegial body as one could hope for.

I have little doubt that this will be the lead story coming out of this session. Kennedy was hammering Alito on his involvement with C.A.P., asking whether he had read various articles published in the magazine, trying to trip up Alito on timeline issues. After his time was up, he asked for an executive session of the committee to issue a subphoena for C.A.P. records.

At this point, Specter indicated he would take the "suggestion" under advisement which then triggered a bit of playground rhetoric about whether Specter had received the request by letter or not.

These are some massive egos. I find it remarkable to see a couple of senior citizens acting in this manner.

I'll try to find a link to the video a little later.

The implications of the exchange are what is really interesting though--Democrats are increasingly turning to tantrums to deflect the impression of impotency. As I mentioned in my previous post, the committee Democrats had to do something drastic today or be washed over by the tide of inevitability.

Kennedy may have gone a little too far though. If he had made the request through Leahy and in private, he would certainly have gotten his executive session and subphoena. As it stands, Kennedy publicly tweaked Specter's nose, making any concession a potential humiliation.

Postscript: the lunch recess just started, but Kennedy asked that the correspondance between his staff and Specter's staff be entered into the record.

Developing...

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has video

I've been reading the posts of a number of bloggers who are actually at the Alito hearings, including Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters and Powerline among others.

I don't know that they are getting much better coverage from being there as opposed to watching it on cable, but what is impressive is the access they are getting to Republican Senators like Charles Grassley and Orrin Hatch. Hatch is my senator and I've only seen him across a crowded room.

Considering that Captain's Quarters gets about 25K visitors a day, and Powerline somewhat less than a 100K, the awareness has to be something other than the size of the audience. Those are great numbers for a blog, but miniscule even compared to undistinguished cable news shows like Hardball. Clearly its the quality of the audience that matters here--educated, generally affluent opinion-makers.

Y'all can take a bow.

Below the Beltway notes that the Ohio supreme court is hearing arguments today in the case of Joy and Carl Gamble, whose home the city of Columbus would like to bulldoze to make room for a 100 million+ private development and the improved tax base that it would represent.

Joy Gamble speaks bitterly about the couple's ordeal and what it meant to see their home of 35 years, purchased after years of savings, in danger of demolition.

"When the municipalities and the people that have lots of money decide they want what you have, you don't own it," Gamble said. "You bought it, you paid for it, you kept the taxes up, you kept the appearance up, but it wasn't yours."

Why not just pay the Gambles what the house is worth, even more than its worth?

We'll be following this one...

Reason Hit and Run

Ted Kennedy has been in the Senate since 1962, which is a fact generally quoted to infer that he's canny and experienced, but the other side of that coin is that he is still living in a world that doesn't exist anymore.

Kennedy's call for the subphoena for the records of William Rusher, a former National Review editor was supposed to be a Perry Mason moment and a delaying tactic rolled up into one, but Kennedy failed to realize that the world operates on internet time now, and literally within minutes, there was information that an exhaustive study had already been done of these papers, and that Rusher was perfectly willing to let almost anyone examine them. They are on the way to the committee as I write this.

Brit Hume on Fox News also revealed that the articles Kennedy quoted were published as op eds, with clear disclaimers by the magazine about their responsibility for the content of those op eds.

Kennedy will look like a fool, which is something he is probably used to, and of course makes no difference to his constituency.

The Captain makes an interesting observation:

I asked Senator Kyle about the analogy between Kennedy's request to subpoena the private papers of a man involved in founding CAP and hauling all of the ACLU's records into the committee during Ginsburg's hearing. He agreed with my analogy, and noted that Kennedy would have been the first to decry an invasion of privacy. He also said that those kinds of subpoenas would have a chilling effect on political speech.

Powerline provides anecdotal but compelling evidence that the Democrat's smear tactics are backfiring.

We just met wth two more of Judge Alito's former law clerks, Jim Goniea and Susan Sullivan (1990-91). They met during their clerkship and are married with two children. They live and work in San Francisco and describe themselves as Democrats of the social progressive persuasion. They have come out to support Judge Alito as a man of sterling character and an exemplary judge. They say they are confident that he will not advance a political agenda. They say the imputation of racism to Judge Alito and the implication that he supports discrimination is personally offensive to them. They consider it an embarrassement to senators they would otherwise support. Jim describes the venture as a terrible attempt to discredit a man of unassailable integrity in front of milions of people.

I am not a big fan of these hearings. Like a lot of people, I probably watch for the gotcha moments, but the Alito hearing was a pleasant surprise. I found myself becoming quite engrossed in Judge Alito's explanations of basic legal concepts, judicial philosophy and other matters. I would have loved to take a class from this guy.

My background is engineering, and its uncommon, but not rare to meet engineers who have total mastery over a technology. You can ask them anything, at anytime, and they can without notes or forethought, provide a detailed analysis or explanation on the spot. It is as if they live in a mental construct where everything is right in front of their eyes, clearly visible to them even as it appears obscure or downright opaque to everyone else.

Until today, I didn't know that the same paradigm could exist within legal circles.

Judge Alito seems to be able to recall every case (over 4000 of them) that he's adjudicated, as well as every case anyone else has ever adjudicated.

With John Roberts, his qualifications were a matter of references, and his hearings a matter of goal tending. Judge Alito on the other hand actually demonstrates his qualifications for the office for us mere mortals with average to above average IQs while we gaze slack-jawed at the display.

In my estimation, its a huge mistake for the Democrats to extend the hearings another day, because for each hour I watch Judge Alito, I become more convinced that not only is he qualified to become a justice on the Supreme Court, but he may have divine right to the office.

A simple, spontaneous act by Martha-Ann Bomgardner Alito overshadowed Ted Kennedy's hysterics and everything else that occured yesterday to lead the news, and put the committee Democrats on the defensive.

Even the affable Eva Braun of the Today Show was grim-faced as she confronted Joe Biden with the question of whether the Democrats had gone too far. BIden, with his usual political tone-deafness, just launched into this "the nominee isn't answering the questions" bit (which really means that the committee Democrats are not getting the answers they would like to have...).

There is an interesting lesson in politics here. Unless you're a lawyer or an amateur wth some interest in the legal process, large parts of this hearing are incomprehensible. What anyone can understand those is the emotional response of a wife to having her husband smeared as a bigot.

I noticed this morning that Ted Kennedy was rushing through his questioning, pretty much conceding that he was done. He reserved a good portion of his time to create a rather self-serving review of what had occured during the hearing.

Orrin Hatch seems to have grasped something of the dynamic and kept things very simple and understandable, explaining the Vanguard issue in terms that most people could understand very easily--its a mutual fund, Judge Alito does not participate in the management of the fund (which is why judges invest overwhelmingly in mutual funds), and that when, some 12 years after being confirmed, Alito received a case that involved Vanguard, he recused himself, even though he conceivably had some justification not to.

Joe Biden, who just deepens my conviction of his incompetency everytime he opens his mouth, quite clearly learned nothing for the overnight effect of a crying woman. He questioning remained obscure, technical and impossible to answer, which I suppose was what he was going for. This Sunday, he can go on camera and once again claim that Alito didn't answer his questions. What was his question? Can the president unilaterally and legally go to war without the consent of Congress? He might as well have asked if God exists or not.

Apparently, Biden believes that the committee hearings on the qualifications and suitability of a nominee, should instead be about a philosophical and legal discussion about the great questions of the day.

"Nominees now, Democrat and Republican nominees, come before the United States Congress and resolve not to let the people know what they think about the important issues," such as a president's authority to go to war, said Biden.

As the committee headed into its fourth day of hearings on the Alito nomination, Biden told NBC's "Today" show that a better solution might be to skip hearings and send nominations straight to the Senate floor for a vote.

"Just go to the Senate floor and debate the nominee's statements," the Delaware senator said, "instead of this game."

The irony of course is that Biden is the one playing games here. Perhaps he should instead consider resigning for the committee and finding something else to do.

This thing is done, and the committee vote next week will probably go right down party lines, which was what was going to happen anyways.

Daily Kos: Tears were staged. Clearly a matter of projection here. Staging tears is not below the author's scruples and naturally he assumes that everyone else is as cynically manipulative as he is.

Soxblog: Biden chortles as Mrs. Alito weeps.

Judge Alito frequently described the necessity of embarking on a judicial process when considering any question, meaning of course that its the ethical duty of a judge to give full, impartial consideration to the arguments put before him.

Ironically, Schumer G. provided an object lesson in what judicial temperament is NOT.

After asking a number of questions, with which he found completely common ground with Judge Alito with a single exception, Schumer G. READS his concluding statement concerning the reasons he couldn't support Judge Alito's nomination. The dichotomy between the initial exchange and the conclusion was simply jarring.

The far-left has all ten fingers around the necks of the Democrat party judging from this foregone conclusion of a hearing.

The Democrats remind me of a Monty Python sketch.

BLACK KNIGHT: None shall pass. ARTHUR: What? BLACK KNIGHT: None shall pass. ARTHUR: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge. BLACK KNIGHT: Then you shall die. ARTHUR: I command you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside! BLACK KNIGHT: I move for no man. ARTHUR: So be it! ARTHUR and BLACK KNIGHT: Aaah!, hiyaah!, etc. [ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm off] ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary. BLACK KNIGHT: 'Tis but a scratch. ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm's off! BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn't. ARTHUR: Well, what's that, then? BLACK KNIGHT: I've had worse. ARTHUR: You liar! BLACK KNIGHT: Come on, you pansy! [clang] Huyah! [clang] Hiyaah! [clang] Aaaaaaaah! [ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right arm off] ARTHUR: Victory is mine! [kneeling] We thank Thee Lord, that in Thy mer-- BLACK KNIGHT: Hah! [kick] Come on, then. ARTHUR: What? BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you! [kick] ARTHUR: Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine. BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh? ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left. BLACK KNIGHT: Yes, I have. ARTHUR: Look! BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound. [kick] ARTHUR: Look, stop that. BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! [kick] Chickennn! ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg. [kick] Right! [whop] [ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right leg off] BLACK KNIGHT: Right. I'll do you for that! ARTHUR: You'll what? BLACK KNIGHT: Come here! ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me? BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible! ARTHUR: You're a looney. BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then. [whop] [ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's last leg off] BLACK KNIGHT: Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw. ARTHUR: Come, Patsy. BLACK KNIGHT: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

In 2002, the Daily Kos predicted that Democrats would recapture the House. After the rout, Democrats hailed Mary Landrieu's victory in the run-off election as a repudiation of the Bush agenda. Carefully worded polls assure Democrats that they are winning. The euphoria in the lefty blogosphere after they "got" Jeff Gannon, the rapture over Mother Sheehan's antics or the satisfaction of Harry Reid's move to close the Senate--they're invincible!

An article in the New York Times provides a glimmer of hope for a return to rationality.

Now,, several Democrats said, even at a time when many of his other initiatives seem in doubt, and though he was forced by conservatives to withdraw his first choice for the seat, Mr. Bush appears on the verge of achieving what he had set as a primary goal of his presidency: a fundamental reshaping of the federal judiciary along more conservative lines.

Mr. Bush has now appointed one-quarter of the federal appeals court judges, and, assuming that Judge Alito is confirmed - the Judiciary Committee vote is expected to occur in the next 10 days - will have put two self-described conservatives on a Supreme Court that has only two members appointed by a Democratic president.

"They have made a lot of progress," said Ronald A. Klain, a former Democratic chief counsel for the Judiciary Committee and the White House counsel in charge of judicial nominations for President Bill Clinton. "I hate to say they're done because Lord only knows what's next. They have achieved a large part of their objective."

Asked if he had any hope that Democrats could slow President Bush's effort to push the court to the right, Mr. Klain responded: "No. The only thing that will fix this is a Democratic president and more vacancies. It takes a long time to make these kinds of changes and it's going to take a long time to undo them."

Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said it was now hard to imagine a legislative strategy that could slow Mr. Bush's judicial campaign, assuming vacancies continue to emerge, at least through the end of this year.

"You either need a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate or moderate Republicans who will break ranks when it's a conservative nominee," Mr. Schumer said. "We don't have any of those three. The only tool we have is the filibuster, which is a very difficult tool to use, and with only 45 Democrats, it's harder than it was last term."

All right, we'll call it a draw...

Diane Feinstein has broken ranks with Democrats, essentially removing any rhetorical cover they may have taken for a filibuster.

"I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."

She said she will not vote to confirm the appeals court judge, based on his conservative record. But she acknowledged that nothing emerged during last week's hearings to justify any organized action by Democrats to stall the nomination.

The Democrats only chance was to assert party discipline and Feinstein has made it clear she won't go along.

You know, I used to belong to a club too...

The Boston Herald reports that Ted Kennedy is withdrawing from his membership of the male-only Owl club at Harvard as "fast as he can".

In an interview with WHDH Channel 7’s Andy Hiller that aired last night, Kennedy said, “I joined when I . . . 52 years ago, I was a member of the Owl Club, which was basically a fraternal organization.”

Asked by Hiller whether he is still a member, Kennedy said, “I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.”

He then said of being a member in a club that discriminates against women, “I shouldn’t be and I’m going to get out of it as fast as I can.”

Ironically, Harvard disassociated itself from the Owl and other clubs because of a federal law that Kennedy himself championed.

When asked by Andy Hiller whether he would himself be able to pass judicial muster, Kennedy answered, “Probably not . . . probably not."

I knew that Kennedy had belonged to the Owl club while he was in college, but its rather shocking that he's still a member in good standing--must be a hell of a club. In any event, I get to add yet another entry into the Kennedy CV.

Professor Bainbridge intones

Powerline

Drudge reports that the Kennedy staff is hoping for one last chance to stall the Alito nomination with an accusation that he did not properly listing a recusal request in 2004. H. Gerard Heimbecker of Upper Darby, PA asked Alito and the entire 3rd circuit to recuse themselves in his case.

Drudge has a comment that this guy is a serial litigator, well that seems confirmed with a search of Lexis-Nexus.

Heimbecker acted as his own counsel in pursuing a RICO case

This case has its genesis in a decision made in 1994 to deny Plaintiff a renewal of his lease to operate a food concession shop in an office building located at 555 City Avenue in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania ("555 Property"). See Commonwealth v. Kleiman, 694 A.2d 1119 (Pa. Super. 1997) [*18] , attached as Exhibit A to the Motion to Dismiss by the 555 Defendants et al. When his lease was not renewed, Plaintiff filed private criminal complaints against three leasing agents and/or managers of the 555 Property (Dale Mulartrick ("Mulartrick") and James Rementer ("Rementer"), both of whom are defendants in the instant action, and Dana Kleiman) in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas ("First Montgomery County Action"), alleging that the defendants had violated the Real Estate Licensing and Registration Act, 63 Pa. C. S. A. § 455.101 et seq., and had committed summary criminal offenses by engaging in the practice of real estate without a license. See id. After a trial before District Justice Henry J. Schireson, "not guilty" findings were entered as to the three defendants. See id. Apparently unsatisfied with the unfavorable outcome, Plaintiff then unsuccessfully employed a variety of procedural avenues in an effort to obtain an alternate result. Plaintiff first filed a notice of appeal to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which Court found the appeal frivolous and dismissed it with prejudice. See id. [*19] The Court also ordered Plaintiff and his attorney, Joseph T. F. Quinn (a defendant in the instant action) to pay the appellees' attorney's fees of $ 5,281.56. See id. Plaintiff then filed a motion to vacate the order to pay attorney's fees, which was denied. Finally, Plaintiff filed a pro se notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which was quashed for lack of standing. See id.

Its not uncommon to file a case as an intimidation tactic, and this is what it appears that Heimbecker did, but usually when you adversary calls your bluff, you shrug and move on, but not this guy. He takes it to the mat and loses. But wait, he's not finished yet--he appeals, and loses again. He is order to pay the appellant's attorney fees (a reasonable request under the circumstances) and appeals that decision as well.

Now the appellant in the case sues for malicious prosecution--and wins a default judgment because the Gerard and his daughter Susan Heimbecker refuse to participate in the matter. The Heimbeckers appeal and then appeal again in Pennsylvania superior court, but to no avail..

The Heimbecker's insurance carrier, CNA Insurance company, settles the case with the plaintiff (555 Associates) and Heimbecker objects--using the liberal definition of fairness-everything that doesn't go my way is unfair...

Apparently perceiving CNA's decision to settle the case without their approval as a profound injustice, the Heimbeckers then embarked upon what has proven to be something of a crusade. The Heimbeckers first appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which Court affirmed the trial court. See First Superior Court Memorandum Opinion. The Superior Court held, inter alia: (1) that the [*22] trial court did not err in granting CNA's petition for intervention; (2) that the trial court properly approved the settlement; and (3) that the trial court did not err in entering default judgment against the Heimbeckers as a sanction for their failure to comply with discovery orders. See id. at 8. The Superior Court also addressed the Heimbeckers' approach toward the judicial process:

Finally, we find it necessary to mention Appellants' disregard for the dignity of our judicial system. In both their initial and reply briefs, Appellants accuse Appellees, without evidentiary support, of such misdeeds as "engaging in a pattern of criminal activity that includes corruption of a state commission, corruption of a judge, obstruction of justice, perjury and insurance fraud." They also assert that the "not guilty" verdict in the underlying criminal action was "fixed." Similar allegations of conspiracy and corruption are interspersed throughout Appellants' briefs. Our courts are not forums for parties to hurl unsupported assertions, rather, we rely upon evidence to substantiate claims and support rulings. However, Appellants offer only unfavorable results to support their vicious [*23] allegations. Lest Appellants fantasize that this Court is also conspiring against them, we note that we have invested more time than required upon their appeal by addressing claims that were waived and/or moot. Of course our decision is based upon information contained in the record, not unsupported allegations. If Appellants were members of the bar, we would certainly consider referring this matter to the disciplinary board.

Are you getting the picture here? Bear this in mind when it comes to a motion to have Judge Alito recuse himself...

Heimbecker then sues his insurance company, CNA, his lawyer and law firm, another law firm (Ballard & Spahr), and 555 Associates. The case is dismissed. Superior court affirms the decision of the lower court and rebukes Heimbecker as being an A-hole (OK, not really).

It then goes to District court and that's were the fun begins. Heimbecker files a motion for the Judge (Davis) to recuse himself, since he at one point in his career, worked for Ballard & Spahr. Denied. A motion for reconsideration is presented. Denied again.

Somewhere during this process, someone starts a website called www.thecasetoimpeachjudgedavis.com

Heimbeckers writ of mandamus is there for your perusal.

This loon actually filed RICO claims against the defendants, which were dismissed out of hand (although the decision soberly explains the legal reasons for it...)

I wish I could say it ended there, but since Sam Alito's confirmation is involved, you just know that it went to the 3rd district court--not once, but four times (Alito was only involved in the one action). Two of these occasions were to obtain a writ of mandamus against Judge Davis, which believe it or not, was eventually heard (and denied) by the Supreme Court.

Ted Kennedy must be drinking again or really worried about his reelection prospects, because this is just embarrassing. No one will be convinced by his argument since we are talking about a certifiable loon, censured by not one, but several courts for being an A-hole. I can only assume that this is symbolism to mollify the lunatic left who think actions of this sort represent "toughness".

Another look at Antonin Scalia, our most blatantly partisan and activist justice.

The cloture vote on the Alito nomination is in process.

Lincoln Chafee, in an indication of the strength of the Republican position, has announced that he will vote against Alito. You can believe that if it was a near thing, the party would have prevailed on him to vote party-line.

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) has announced he will vote for Alito, making Democrat total for Alito four so far.

The filibuster attempt, such as it was, was slapped down quite soundly 75-25 in the Senate.

As I said before:

Remarkable what comes to mind when one hears that now, after it’s a done deal, the hearings are over, and it’s doomed to failure, John F. Kerry, the haughtly French-looking senator from Massachussets who, by the way, served in Vietnam, is getting his knickers in a twist over Judge Alito.

This is sure to please the angry left, and there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about a Justice Alito, but the time for this, if he were serious about it, was a couple weeks ago…

Such a profile in courage.

Not.

Judge Samuel Alito is now Justice Samuel Alito.

All liberals should report to the embarcation ramp for processing...

The final vote was 58 to 42--41 Democrats and Lincoln Chafee voting against. About a tight an ideological divide as can be constructed.

Aside from the change in the Supreme Courts character, the Alito confirmation process is bound to have three other lasting effects.

I think the conservative blogosphere surprised itself with its own strength. The dump Harriett movement really started with a few outspoken opponents of the nomination--proving the assertion that the CB is just a Bush cheerleading section a lie. While we've long viewed the left-wing blogosphere as the heart and soul of the Democrat party, something similar, although not as deterministic, has happened here as well. Increasingly this corner of the blogosphere is the virtual Peoria.

The Alito confirmation also demonstrated that the president can nominate any qualified candidate he wants to. Borking has become an anachronism. The important thing is to nominate a great judge.

Finally, the Democrats have hurt themselves far more than I think they know. The one thing no political party should do, particularly one out of power, is to appear "extreme", but this is precisely what the Democrats have done. The base loves this, but the American people will look at the Democrats will increasing concern. The poltical reality is that the country is feeling insecure right now and not particularly happy about the country's situation. Normally that would be something an opposition party could capitalize on, but Democrats have succeeded in making themselves too scary to vote for.

Its important to turn out the base in an off-year election, but the hard-core left is too small a base to win an election no matter how much money or activity they can generate. Assuming that the Crats are not stupid, it could well be that they are looking past 2006.

There is some sense in that. Having effectively lost the last bastion of left-wing political power in the country with the confirmation of justice Alito (roll it around your tongue--jus-tice A-lito) to the Supreme Court, and Congress likely to remain in Republican hands for the foreseeable future due as much to demographics as anything, the presidency is the last, best chance for liberals to turn back the tide.

Flopping Aces has left-wing feed-back on the Alito Confirmation. Civil war in Cratland.

There seems to be very little time wasted in taking full advantage of the Kelo decision.

Conaway Ranch is a 17,300-acre spread north of Davis, Calif. On property that sidles up to Interstate 5 and provides a fine view of the Sacramento skyline, owners grow rice and alfalfa, boast rights to 50,000 acre-feet of water and extract natural gas. The gray sky and Sierra runoff are home to countless birds — ducks, egrets and hawks — some of which the owners hunt.

Yolo County wants the land. In 2004, county supervisors voted to seize the ranch by eminent domain. "We want to keep it from being developed," explained Supervisor Mike McGowan.

The owners are fighting back, and they're media savvy. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous Kelo decision — which supported the seizure by New London, Conn., of taxpayers' waterfront homes so that the properties could be handed over to private development. Americans on the left and right were outraged at this expansive definition of a "public use" taking.

Then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent: "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."

Now, the owners — a group of developers that calls itself the Conaway Preservation Group and bought the property after Yolo commenced the eminent-domain action — are arguing that what Yolo wants to do is worse than Kelo.

Spokesman Tovey Giezentanner argues that while Kelo was outrageous — for it allowed local governments to seize homes and hand them over to private developers — if Yolo wins, it will be the first time the "government got into the business of trying to run an existing business." There will be nothing to stop governments from seizing other profitable businesses — parking garages, farms, hotels — and running them themselves.