Chuck Schumer has used a dead body as a political tool, ala Cindy Sheehan.

"Will Alito use his seat like Rosa Parks did to change history for the better?"

"We need to move on, of course, so Fitzgerald is yesterday's news, and this is today. And if that doesn't work, terror alert tommorow, and if that doesn't work, guess we need to send out another batch of anthrax."

From Mark Levin at NRO's Bench Memos

"Sam Alito has spent his entire professional career defending the Constitution. The president and Alito deserve our strong support. It is clear the media this morning are urging Democrats to fight this nomination, not that they need that much encouragement. We are already hearing the usual superficial analyses about how Judge Alito will vote on specific issues, and so forth. We must be prepared to explain and defend our judicial philosophy, and contrast it with the left's lawlessness.

I have known Judge Alito for two decades. We served together in the Meese Justice Department, where he worked in the Solicitor General's Office and was considered the sharpest of Charles Fried's assistants. He is every bit as smart and personable as Chief Justice John Roberts. He is an expert on constitutional law. And he obviously has a longer judicial record, so his judicial philosophy is well-known. Judge Alito is soft-spoken. He is his own man (efforts in the media this morning to paint him as "Scalia-lite" or "Scalito" are intended to fire-up the leftwing base). If he is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, then no conservative is qualified."

Senator Graham (R-SC): "[F]ilibuster will not stand."

Perhaps the most significant statement yet. As a member of the "Gang of 14", Graham's proclamation indicates that he noticed the political fallout from the Miers nomination too, and that it was more than social conservatives who were ticked.

Judge Alito will get appointed. One need not be a mastermind to see that. Bush was quite wise in this selection, so this mulligan will spare him for a while.

A good point was made in the captured quotes above...if you have a blog, or just when you talk to others about this nomination, bear it in mind...Scalia was confirmed 98-0. They want to call this guy Scalia-lite...make sure people are reminded that Scalia was confirmed unanimously and if they disagree that a precedent has been set, ask them who/what has changed? The judges' philosophies, or the Democrats?

I have been a republican all my life, but this latest chapter in the Bushitler olympics has changed me over. No longer will I embrace greedy republican doctrine that hurts my fellow man. From this day forward I will vote for Democrat, and against the evil that allowed Bush to become president.

I am sad to say that I'm no longer a stalwart republican. I've been a republican for 20 years, but this president and party, bought and owned by hallibruton and other greedy companies oppressing their fellow man, have chased me out of the fold.

I hope you all you know that your "president" is chasing people like me out of the republican party.

Wow, nice try. I like how you said, not just once, like most liberals pretending to be ex-Republicans, that you 'used to be a Republican', but said it again at the end. Maybe just a bit of overkill. It is Halloween...think of a boffo dracula outfit, but you just had to put too much stage blood on the plastic fangs and make it look all goofy and fake.

Any republican with any decency will leave the party over the nomination of this awful, bought and sold judge.

Goodheart = Lyingass

Goodheart,

So by your own post you must be 20 years old. (i.e. all my life and 20 years)

Any human with any decency would never belong to the bought and sold Democrat party that exists in this country today.

RE: Goodheart's transformation (October 31, 2005 05:07 PM)

Nice try. Say, do you have a deed to a nice bridge in your pocket? I have some mad money and I'm looking for a steal.

Scalia was confirmed 98-0. They want to call this guy Scalia-lite...make sure people are reminded that Scalia was confirmed unanimously and if they disagree that a precedent has been set, ask them who/what has changed? The judges' philosophies, or the Democrats?

Neither: 9/11 changed everything!!!!

Seriously, though, you're right: there's little question there's been a shift in Washington re: blind partisanship. And it's pretty disgusting. But I hope you don't think it's only the Dems who have undergone this change. Both parties have been terrible in this regard the last 15 years or so.

AD,

There's quite a few D Senators for sale right about now.

What's the point of trying to enlighten closed minded shills?

I didn't leave the republican party, the republican party left me.

Earl: I agree re: not just the Democrats. But they were the first to stop respecting the president's choices in SCOTUS nominees...what was the count on Ginsburg, etc? And which was the first party to filibuster judicial nominees? Believe me, I agree it's not just the Democrats...I just wanted to make the point that the Republicans get to say, "But they started it!"

"I didn't leave the republican party, the republican party left me."

That should fit nicely on a sign at a Cindy Sheehan rally against troops in New Orleans or whatever the heck she's talking about today. Make sure you wear a suit...all Republicans, even ex-Republicans, wear suits. Makes you more believable as an "ex-Republican" dontcha know?

We're just trying to help here.

RE: Sheik Yur Bouty's investment advice (October 31, 2005 05:20 PM)
There's quite a few D Senators for sale right about now.

Not that I'm ready to commit in writing yet, but since I'm in the neighborhood, any from Brooklyn?

Goodheart,

I'm sure you and the Democrats will be very happy together. With your victim mentality you guys are a good match for one another!

But they were the first to stop respecting the president's choices in SCOTUS nominees...

That's true; but the first time the filibuster was seriously threatened it was by Republicans; and it was the Republican Congress under Clinton which first stopped respecting the President's non-SCOTUS nominees. It's not just one side starting something and the other getting to say "they started it!". Instead, the tactics used are rapidly escalating in severity, with each change of President upping the ante for the opposition party. Next time there's a Democratic President, you can bet both Democrats and Republicans in Congress will be making remarks exposing themselves as massive hypocrites.

Earl,

"you can bet both Democrats and Republicans in Congress will be making remarks exposing themselves as massive hypocrites."

No I can't, who'd take that bet? I'd have to give them some serious odds.

I was a life-long democrat until they lowered the standards so low that dishonest people like Goodheat could not only get in, they were the majority of the party. The party left me when I was just a few minutes old, over 46 years ago.

Pennywit via Wizbang JULY 01, 2005

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/006338.php

Reaction -- New SCOTUS Nominee
When Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down from the Supreme Court, President Bush had an opportunity to prove that he really is a uniter, rather than a divider. He could have consulted with senators from both parties and nominated a judge who values those freedoms that Americans hold dear.

But President Bush failed to do so. Instead, he has chosen one of the most divisive nominees available, one who has received the lowest ranking ever from [Group to be determined later]. President Bush's nominee favors Republican special interests, rather than individual freedom. The nominee is also an incredibly divisive figure, as can be seen in any number of the opinions he has written over his checkered judicial history.

Democratic senators are incredibly disappointed that President Bush has politicized the judicial process and chosen such a divisive nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. These sorts of extremist judges should not be allowed in the judiciary at all ... and certainly not on the highest court in the land

SPLOID's "f***in' Nazi" spoilage is about as low as a lowdown, rotten website (and related) can go, at this point, and that's saying quite a lot as to the standard of "low."

Particularly given the abundance of homosexuals in Berlin who formulated the German Socialist Party and the notable influences by same in SPLOID (and related).

Never ceases to amaze me just how confused is some individual's ability to read and comprehend history.

So, given that, is SPLOID actually COMPLIMENTING the nomination of Alito? If so, they're wrong from all possible defenses.

Compare the pennywit column 2 posts above to Chuck Schumer

" "It is sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us," he said. "This controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people.""

I have this hunch that the real reason for Harriet Mier's withdraw is being withheld. "Duhhhhh" Just before her withdraw, I heard something about her firm working on setting up some questionable tax "Dodges". Does anyone know how to access information on these "Dodges" and who benefitted from them ? It must have been someone (Bush) soooo important (Bush) that they didn't want it to (Bush) become known ? She was Bush's personal attorney. I would do some of the research, if I knew how ?

Sploid: Freakin' Nazi

You're going to see some real high level hysteria out of the tolerant progressives as they realize they've been pummelled by Chimpy AGAIN!