January 22, 2006


GOP likely has won on Alito; the cost: Further polarization (Steve Goldstein, 1/22/06, Philadelphia Inquirer)

Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. appears certain to be approved Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a straight, 10-8 party-line vote, setting the stage for a vigorous floor debate that will culminate in Alito's confirmation.

The Republicans have won the latest judicial battle - but the war over the divisive issues that dominated his hearings has only intensified, according to legal experts.

In fact, the 12-week process since his Oct. 31 nomination spotlighted the polarization of politics between Democrats and Republicans, particularly on abortion, executive power, individual rights, and other contentious matters destined for the docket of the Supreme Court.

If Democrats keep voting in lock-step against everything the President wants and they keep losing then how do things get more "intense" or "polarized"? Don't the losers just get more bitter?

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 22, 2006 12:26 PM

Even more telling, how can things become more "polarized" when only one side is talking? The GOP said very little about Alito, except that he is qualified. And I doubt if even Larry Tribe would say that the 'intensity' of debate was equal on both sides.

This author must listen to Nina Totenberg a lot; and he surely doesn't remember anything about the Bork and Thomas hearings - those were intense, although Bork's disposition prevented a lot of helpful support.

Posted by: jim hamlen at January 22, 2006 7:05 PM

The Presby churches are having roundtable discussions abount ordaining gays, disvetstiture from Israel and the future of the church.

I missed the 1st session. The politically-motivated moderator made reference to a comment he made the week before about Alito and abortion, how the country should be talking about abortion instead of constitutionality of the issue.

I disagreed w/his statement. He's young, but most of the people there were tail-enders and above. I had to explain the abortion issue has already been settled except for the screaming. The argument is really about funding, power and access. Someone asked were I got my info from and I said the newspapers.

Mr. Goldstein is also not listening/paying attention.

Posted by: Sandy P at January 22, 2006 7:37 PM

Sort of. What those people are starting to talk about is another great left forlorn hope. The idea is that they will keep losing elections The Court will tip further, and possesed by hybris, overrule Row vs. Wade. Abortion will then be abolished, the citizenry will see the error of their ways, and vote them back into power.

Except that it can't happen that way. The law is so far skewed to the pro-death side that the baby-murder machine can be dismantled, piece, by piece, all the while upholding its empty frame. At each step, the death advocates will be arguing not for Roe vs. Wade, not for eliminating the result of rape or incest, not for preserving maternal life or physical health, but for plunging scissors into the back of an almost born child's head.

Is is even likely that the Court will from time to time uphold the super-dooper prescedent, most likely by denying certiorari, in a case dealing with a state overreach. Following the Rovian tradition of steering those people like radio-controlled model airplanes, such a demonstration might even be arranged in advance.

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 22, 2006 7:59 PM

Sandy P:

Where do you go to church, if I may ask? We just had a 2 hour presentation at our last presbytery meeting about how to discuss the ordination report w/our congregations.

Posted by: Dave W at January 22, 2006 9:19 PM

Clarendon Hills and only a handful of people showed up.

Since I missed the 1st meeting, I don't know if polygamy and pedophilia were discussed.

I'm arming for bear on Thursday.

1 of the guys who's pushing it used the argument that it's AAAAGHHHHHHHHHHHH can't remember the word begins w/n, cites the studies done and another said they're teaching that in med school, then the 1st guy's other point is that it's always been w/us, yada, yada.

Thanks to Bros. Judd's posting about the rapist teachers on Friday, I'm going to use his words to say that the church must then legalize and condone P&P, because both of those also are validated under his reasoning.

I found it interesting that neither of those topics were discussed. But they are there, bubbling up to the national surface, especially since my husband heard Canada wants a vote on polygamy, might as well get them all out on the table.

I'm not leaving the church, it's leaving me.

Posted by: Sandy P at January 23, 2006 12:51 AM


Posted by: Sandy P at January 23, 2006 1:07 AM

Actually, what has happened is that the dems have freed the Republicans to vote against well qualified nominees because of their perceived politics. There may come a time when they regret it.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 23, 2006 2:07 AM