not close enough

so alito's in. no suprise there, but it doesn't really make it any better either.the vote was generally along party lines — 58 voted to confirm him, namely republicans (what is wrong with you dakotans?), while 42 democrats and one republican voted not (i knew i loved rhode island for a reason).

there's not too much to say on this. i could bash bush's choice but i've already done it; would probably just sound tired by now.

what i would like to point out is that today's vote sent a justice with the second highest number of votes against him in the entire history of the united states supreme court. that's right, a justice was placed on the court with more senators having opposed his confirmation only ONE time before alito.

patrick leahy, the democrat from vermont said the following, which i think hits at the crux of the problem:

"the president continues to choose confrontation over consensus, and to be a divider rather than the 'uniter' that he promised americans he would be. rather than send us a nominee for all americans, the president chose a divisive nominee who raises grave concerns about whether he would be a check on presidential power."

jess sessions, on the other hand, who is a republican from alabama commented that:

"it has been most distressing to me to have this nominee, the epitome of a restrained and principled, highly respected judge, be portrayed as some sort of extremist. it is above my comprehension, frankly."

above his comprehension, or just out of the realm of his chosen perspective? if someone truly cannot see why someone else could doubt the "restrained" and non-extremist nature of samuel alito, then we are clearly dealing with complete ignorance, complete apathy with an agenda, or worse still, both.

let's play the "did he really say that?" game.

— "i am particularly proud of my contribution in recent cases in which the government has argued in the supreme court that ... the constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

yep, in his 1985 application to become deputy assistant attorney general in the reagan administration, commenting on roe

— "we certainly did not want to encourage irrational discrimination, but we had to interpret the law as it stands ... and it does not regulate what a private employer can do if he has a fear of a contagious disease."

indeed he did, in a department of justice opinion he helped write while serving as deputy assistant attorney general during the reagan administration, declaring that employers could legally fire people infected with aids because of a "fear of contagion, whether reasonable or not."

— "what can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of roe v. wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?"

uh huh, in a 1985 memo to the solicitor general proposing that the reagan administration argue in favor of restrictions in abortion cases as a way to convince the court that roe is untenable.


and that's a sample. a sample from a man already sworn in as a supreme court justice — the life-long position of supreme court justice; a man put there by george w bush.

ted kennedy from massachusetts:

"we want our country to be safe and we expect our president to do all he can to protect us. but we want the white house to obey the law. we want a court that will blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds."

with the president shifting the court more and more into the president's court, if you will, i think it unlikely we will be seeing too much whistle-blowing.

ralph neas, president of people for the american way, commented on the close vote, implying that it was important that there was at least so much open opposition to such a nominee. he did acknowledge that it wasn't enough, that "moral victories are not sufficient."

well, it's always nice to look at the positives. i guess i just fail to see any victory at all today.