KATIE COURIC: So he is a strict constructionist in every since of the word? I know President Bush is looking for a conservative jurist, so he fits the bill in terms of someone who will interpret the Constitution literally and may disagree with the right to privacy, which is the foundation of Roe v. Wade?

JONATHAN TURLEY: Oh absolutely. There will be no one to the right of Sam Alito on this Court. This is a pretty hardcore fellow on abortion issues.

ME: Then I would expect a filibuster from the Democrats.

Then I would expect an end to the filibuster possibility. Alito does not qualify as someone deserving of filibuster under the agreement of the "Gang of 14".

But the big question is this. Given the attitudes currently dominating the Republican party, once they've eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees will they stop there?

Dems of all stripes would have been ok (some even happy) with Luttig and perhaps even McConnell, but right wingnuts want a knock down drag out and Bush just handed them one on a silver plate with his nomination of Alito.

The Gang of 14 made an agreement whereby the seven Democrats would not vote to filibuster along with the party on judicial nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."

When Jonathan Turley says “there will we no one to the right of Sam Alito on this court,” I think most ordinary Americans will probably call Alito's nomination the very definition of an "extraordinary circumstance."

Well quite frankly Jonathan Turley is wrong, and I don't think his thoughts will be determinative of whether or not there's a filibuster. I think George Stephanopoulos went too far when he said "[Samuel Alito] won't provide a big target for the Democrats", but I do think he's closer to the truth than Turley.

I guess that Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer quoted in US News who has known Alito since 1981 and tried cases before him on the Third Circuit, is also wrong when he describes Alito as "an activist conservatist judge."

Thanks, but no thanks.

once they've eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees will they stop there?

Personally, I think the idea of having more than one filibuster at a time is ridiculous. It is supposed to be a tool to allow more debate, so if something is being filibustered there should be an active debate going on. As it stands, the Democrats are using the filibuster to require a 2/3 supermajority on any issue they don't like, so long as they think they can get away with it in the political arena.

Nice selection of quotes there John. Here's what else Lawrence Lustberg said about him: "He's mild mannered and generous and family oriented. I don't agree with him on many issues, but I have the utmost respect for him. No one can question his intelligence or integrity." Not exactly an "extraordinary circumstance."

And if you recall, the issue you raised is whether he will be filibustered, and he doesn't seem to be the "extraordinary circumstance" necessary for that.

Josh

Your selection of quotes have nothing to do with how Alito might perform on the court.

I would not expect Democrats to oppose Alito because he isn't mild mannered or generous and family oriented.

I also think a lot of Senators had the utmost respect for Robert Bork when they found him unfit to serve on the Court. I also don't believe they questioned his intelligence or integrity.

Those points are neither here nor there.

I picked that quote because it nicely backs up Prof Turley's description of Alito, which is that “there will we no one to the right of Sam Alito on this court.” And that negates the Gang of 14 agreement.

I think my Senator, Chuck schumer, just put it very nicely:

``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.''

Josh,
The question is will seven democratic senators all think that this nomination does not meet the criteria of "extraordinary circumstance". That John thinks it does leads me to suspect that one or more of the seven will agree with him.

``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.''

Oh, puh-leeze. Schumer wrote that line on an index card when O'Connor announced her resignation, and he was going to read it off if Bush nominated any solid conservative.

The next days and weeks will bring more of Alito's background into the public forum, but the idea that Bush must replace every justice with one of similar ideology is patently absurd. The makeup of SCOTUS was clearly at issue in the 2004 election, and Bush won.

"But the big question is this. Given the attitudes currently dominating the Republican party, once they've eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees will they stop there?"

Am I missing something here, or should I evaluate this statement based on the slippery slope fallacy alone?

Eric, I agree with your notion that multiple filibusters are illogical. The way I see it, the filibuster has infinitely morphed over the past century from an act of civil disobedience by a member of the Senate (ex: Strom Thurmond's 24 hour 18 minute filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 - which ultimately passed) into an unchecked "veto" with no mechanism for restraint. Senate rules need to return to the prior system, or at least return the physical demands of the filibuster as a check against its abuse. Sens. Reid and Kennedy need to drop by Blockbuster and rewatch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Eric, you said: "As it stands, the Democrats are using the filibuster to require a 2/3 supermajority on any issue they don't like, so long as they think they can get away with it in the political arena.".

And how many times have they done this? Not nearly often enough to justify the attitude I think I see in your post. Besides, given that the main goal of the Republicans in the Senate seems to be the quashing of any debate and the complete marginalization of the opposition your point seems rather...pointless.

Sen Schumer is correct that the Alito nomination will divide the country. This is the big SCOTUS brawl that the right's been itching for.

Eric is also correct that "the idea that Bush must replace every justice with one of similar ideology is patently absurd."

However, expect my Senator and others to take notice when Bush attempts to use the rationale that his narrow 2004 election entitles him to nominate the type of an activist conservatist judge that appeals to his base.

Sen Schumer and other Dems also have the obligation to represent the values and beliefs of their supporters.

Bush won a much greater percentage of the popular vote (51%) last year than Clinton did in 1992 (43%), yet for some reason I don't recall any outcry that Clinton didn't have the right to nominate justices with the judicial philosophy of his choice.

Schumer and other Dems certainly have the right to oppose Alito because he's a conservative. But they will not be successful in any attempt to block the nomination, so long as there are 51 senators who will vote to confirm him.

Clinton did not try to get away with nominating left wing versions of Alito. There would have been howls from the right, like those howls that you should expect from the left. Clinton instead did the politic thing and offered up moderate nominees he felt would win confirmation without a major battle.

Please explain to me why you think Alito is significantly further right than Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer were to the left. And please offer more than quotes from pundits.

Orrin Hatch claims to be the guy who recommended the Breyer nomination to Bill Clinton. While pro-choice, Breyer's also very pro-businesss. Ralph Nader got VERY mad at Clinton for this nomination.

A Legal Times study found Ginsburg had voted more consistently with Republican-appointed judges than with Democratic appointees on the 1987 appeals court. The NY Times described Ginsburg's judicial style as "resolutely centrist," calling attention to the Legal Times study where, "in 1987 cases that produced a division on the court, she [Ginsburg] voted with Judge Robert H. Bork 85 percent of the time."

You know very well that Alito is no centrist. There is more than enough info on the web attesting to this: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, his vote to limit Congress' power to ban machine-gun possession, strking down a law protecting gay students against harassment, the strip-search of a 10 year-old girl without a warrant ruling, his ruling that ruled that the Families Med Leave Act was unconstitutional congressional overreach, (Rehnquist said it wasn't.)

JohnS, you haven't offered anything on this thread that couldn't be found by a casual perusal of liberal blogs. I get the distinct impression that you, like Schumer, would oppose any conservative nominee to SCOTUS, and you're simply repeating the left-wing talking points against Alito. *yawn*

I've never claimed that Alito is a centrist. Everything I've read so far indicates he's a pretty mainstream conservative, just as Ginsberg is a mainstream liberal. (That the NYT calls her "resolutely centrist" tends to confirm, rather than dispute that.)

A Legal Times study found Ginsburg had voted more consistently with Republican-appointed judges than with Democratic appointees on the 1987 appeals court. The NY Times described Ginsburg's judicial style as "resolutely centrist," calling attention to the Legal Times study where, "in 1987 cases that produced a division on the court, she [Ginsburg] voted with Judge Robert H. Bork 85 percent of the time."

I am not convinced. First, we do not know whether these votes were over legal issues that were politically controversial, at least along the well-known politically liberal/conservative line. Appellate courts consider a lot of issues that are not political, and they often divide along lines that are not the popular liberal/conservative line, so the fact that she voted with Robert Bork 85% of the time in 1987 or voted with Republican judges more often than Democrats tells us nothing about how often her votes were "conservative."

Second, even if she did often side with Bork or Republican judges on politically controversial legal issues in 1987, taking the "conservative" position, that does not necessarily mean that she was "moderate," either personally or in her judicial philosophy. Ginsburg may have thought that her conclusions in those cases were compelled by precedent that she did not agree with. If she voted this way, it may mean that she was an honest judge, but it does not mean that (in 1993) she looked like she was going to be "moderate" while on the Supreme Court (where she could do something about precedent that she thought was wrong).

Third (this also applies to the evidence that Breyer is "moderate"), even if Ginsburg (and Breyer) voted in accordance with a judicial philosophy that was at least partially conservative, for this to show that these justices were meaningfully "moderate" choices, we would need to know on what issues they actually voted conservatively. Whether or not you think it is appropriate (the issue hasn't been raised yet, here), abortion and a handful of other highly controversial issues are dominant concerns in the minds of activists and senators. These issues are the reason why nominations to the Supreme Court are so politically controversial, and they have become significant factors in deciding who can be nominated and confirmed. If Ginsburg and Breyer were "liberal" on these issues but conservative on others that are not as prominent, then it may mean that they are moderate in some sense, but not for the purposes of comparing Clinton's nominations to the nomination of Alito.

Finally, without knowing what "pro-business" means when used to refer to the way Breyer votes, it is impossible to say whether it is even conservative. Kelo, for example, could be considered pro-business, but many conservatives disagreed with it.

Even ignoring all of this, I don't see how it can seriously be argued that nominating a conservative judge is objectively inappropriate, regardless of who he is meant to replace. The Supreme Court and many of its decisions are already politically controversial and decisive. Freezing the balance of power until Bush leaves office will not change that -- it can only affect the outcome of those controversies.

I would not oppose ANY conservative nominee to SCOTUS, that is any conservative nominee committed to a cautious, restrained federal judiciary, and I would assume that Sen Schumer and a large number of his constituents would too.

I would oppose, as does Sen Schumer appear to oppose, the nomination of a "movement" judge, a conservative activist who's not interested in judicial restraint, but is instead hell-bent on to reducing the power of the federal government and diminishing my privacy rights. Mr Alito initially appears to Sen Schumer and to me, of this type, and the hearings should help confirm or deny that impression.

As for your reading that Mr Alito is a mainstream conservative, I can only assume from your comment that it wasn't in the NY Times. And even Bill Kristol has retired that old chestnut. *yawn*

Sorry, quick (bad) editing job. Should have read:

I would not oppose ANY conservative nominee to SCOTUS, that is any conservative nominee committed to a cautious, restrained federal judiciary, and I would assume that Sen Schumer and a large number of his constituents wouldn't either.

I would oppose, as does Sen Schumer appear to oppose, the nomination of a "movement" judge, a conservative activist who's not interested in judicial restraint, but is instead hell-bent on to reducing the power of the federal government and diminishing my privacy rights. Mr Alito initially appears to Sen Schumer and to me, of this type, and the hearings should help confirm or deny that impression.

As for your reading that Mr Alito is a mainstream conservative, I can only assume from your comment that it wasn't in the NY Times. And even Bill Kristol has retired that old chestnut. *yawn*

but is instead hell-bent on to reducing the power of the federal government and diminishing my privacy rights.

I disagree with your implication that reducing the power of the federal gov't is inherently a bad thing. Nevertheless, you haven't provided any substance to back up your assertions about Alito. You simply reference a few talking-point cases (of which you probably don't even know the names), several of which have already been debunked as not being what critics imply they are.

I'll grant you one thing: however he answers questions during the hearing, Alito is going to be more likely to vote in favor of abortion restrictions than O'Connor was. For people with a litmus test, that's all you need to know.