Centerfield

You've missed all the fun, Tully! I've caught a little bit of them, particularly the exchange between Specter and Kennedy yesterday--very entertaining! I'm just amazed that all of those egos can fit in one room.

We should have come up with a drinking game before they started, like...

Take one shot of whiskey if:
1) Joe Biden talks about one of his kids
2) Kennedy mutters something unintelligible
3) Specter reminds everyone that he's chairing the committee
4) Tom Coburn describes how an abortion procedure is performed

The list could quite obviously go on forever...

It's moments such as these that make me fantasize about a congressional version of that Simpsons episode where the family goes for therapy and every has the power to electroshock everyone else.

There really doesn't seem to be anything lurid enough to act as a seed crystal for opposition to gather round, no coke can or blue dress. So Alito probably gets just about every GOPer and 1/3 to 1/2 of democrats. I get the feeling that it's all about re-election already...

BTW, can we expect either McCain or HC to play any role?

ROFL at both.

That list is already long enough for liver damage, Abel.

BTW, can we expect either McCain or HC to play any role?

I really don't think so, Brian--at least with Hillary. It's just not a winning issue--i.e. people don't care. I could see McCain giving an impassioned speech on the floor in favor of Alito to burnish his image with religious conservative (GOP primary voters). This thing will probably end with a whimper...the Dems haven't been able to make anything stick, and it's just not something the larger public really seems interested in.

As far as liver damage goes, Tully, I guess I should have added a disclaimer that this could very well put you in the ER with alchohol poisoning. I should have thought ahead to put "Any time Biden slams on Princeton" in there as well...and I forgot the obligatory mention of a Senator's father/grandfather/mother/grandmother...

Take a shot anytime a Senator spends more time making a speech than actually asking a question...

That's the Instant Cirrhosis rule.

I have to ask this about the wife...

If she is going to tear up when some Senators ask questions, how is she going to react when the same whack-jobs who think it is OK to bomb abortion clinics start threatening him and his family if he won't vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? I mean, he implied that it's established precedence. How will she react then? How will that reaction affect his behavior on the bench?

Scott, please just tell us what your point is...? Are you suggesting that a fragile wife is a disqualifying point, or did you just feel like saying "whackjob?"

I think it was just a chance to get in a cheap shot.

I'll be flat out honest, if I had to sit through a day of hearing my significant other accused of every crime known to man, there's a possiblity I might come unglued as well--although, I don't tend to respond with tears. It's a little more physical than that.

Sorry I wasn't clearer. My point is that she broke down on National TV. The media is running with it. I was not watching the hearings, but my understanding is that the questioning by the Democrats is ineffectual. So if this is how Sam Alito's family handles pressure, how will they deal with threats he may get. The biggest threat I could think of to use as an example was a death threat from someone who has already proven that they see violence as justified. And if the family deals with it poorly, will that affect Justice Alito's behavior on the bench. AND I wanted to use the term 'whackjob'...

I am trying to spark conversation, not controversy.

AR-

You are right about having to listen to the filth. You do want to lash out. Justice Alito is so poised and composed during all this (pretty much what you want in a judge) that I would expect that he (or someone) would have prepped anyone he wanted in the audience. If I were looking for the cheap-shot, I would have called it a set-up to make the Democrats look worse than they are making themselves look.

Well, let me just ask you point blank, what weight do you think we should we give to the unquantifiable possibility that Alito's views might be swayed should his wife respond poorly to some sort of threat?

My opinion is that it merits precisely zero wieght.

As Abel suggests, my feeling is that the woman deserves every possible benefit of the doubt. She was thrown into a stressful, high stakes, public situation which she was unaccustomed to, and she found it unbearable. It sounds unbearable to me too.

I really don't see why I'd want to view this as primarily reflective of her, rather than of the high content of poisonous air emitted by a self-important collection of pompous partisan preening blowhards.On both sides of the aisle.

I think it merits some weight. Not much, but some. And I say that because we just showed the world a weak point of one of our Supreme Court justices (unless anyone out there thinks he won't get confirmed). Yes, it is a poisonous atmosphere, but they knew that going in. Do you get confirmed when you get appointed to the Appeals court? If so, he has been through confirmation before. In addition, it's not like he (they) didn't have time to prepare for this, he was nominated for the SCOTUS in December, maybe even November. Sorry I don't remember which. This is why the feds run background checks on applicants, to try to determine if there is any leverage a bad guy can use against the person looking for the job.

OK, maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. I thought it was a valid point, I'll return to my corner now...

It takes both training and practice to sit quietly through long public meetings without leaping up to strangle obnxious bullying speakers who go on forever while saying nothing.

Trust me on this.

72-26

Too high, IMO. The floor vote will be mostly partisan with around 5 Democrats and 2 Republicans defecting. That places my prediction at 58-42.

72-26 would be more in line with my best estimate for cloture.

It takes both training and practice to sit quietly through long public meetings without leaping up to strangle obnxious bullying speakers who go on forever while saying nothing.

Isn't that what they make Blackberry's for?

I put my Palm Pilot on top of my notebook and play poker and backgammon while pretending to be taking notes--but if you're on the bench listening to the public you're supposed to watch the speaker, meet their eyes, and at least pretend to be paying respectful attention.

Even if you're thinking about how they're repeating from a printed script exactly what the last nineteen public speakers before them said, or how far the leap is to get to their throat, or both.

scott, of course the hearings also reveal that the United States Senate is largely run by raving lunatics... the major weakness of each one being a strong desire to hear themselves talk into a microphone. If I were a bad guy wanting to make them spill U.S. secrets, I'd just hold a microphone about 10 feet in front of them, in front of a camera with the lens cap on. Just tell them when they do what I want, I'll take off the lens cap and turn on the mike.

Actually, I wanted to sniff her handkerchief for onions. ;-)

No, really, I thought it was a wonderfully well-coached performance. I can just see W's handlers saying "Now, when your husband is asked about belonging to a club that excludes women and minorities, burst into tears like they've just accused you of killing your children. That will show them."

I would have given her a 9.5 for it, but she teared up when Graham was telling everyone what a swell guy her husband was. As every thespian knows, timing is everything, so I'm knocking it down to 8.1. The Rus-uh, Rep judge will probably give her a 10.00. ;-)

I got a laugh out of this:

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), in his first 12 minutes of questioning the nominee, managed to get off only one question. Instead, during his 30-minute round of questioning, Biden spoke about his own Irish American roots, his "Grandfather Finnegan," his son's application to Princeton (he attended the University of Pennsylvania instead, Biden said), a speech the senator gave on the Princeton campus, the fact that Biden is "not a Princeton fan," and his views on the eyeglasses of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Now, when your husband is asked about belonging to a club that excludes women and minorities, burst into tears like they've just accused you of killing your children.

Which club would that be? Because if you mean CAP, that would be a signficant misrepresentation of it. (Though I did get a chuckle out of hearing that Teddy Kennedy was the one pushing that line.)

The Senate should be ashamed of itself. It is no wonder that the President has taken so much power and authority unto himself (of which I am no fan). The Congress has just totally abdicated its role and somebody has to be in charge. SHame SHAME SHAME.

What's with Corburn's comments to know Alito's heart?

Which club would that be? Because if you mean CAP, that would be a signficant misrepresentation of it. (Though I did get a chuckle out of hearing that Teddy Kennedy was the one pushing that line.)

To paraphrase Will Rogers, all I know is what I read in The Daily Princetonian. I suppose one could say that being nostalgic for the days when only white men were admitted to Princeton is not quite the same thing as opposing the admission of women and minorities, but I think it's a kissin' cousin. Funny how Alito suddenly "forgot" he ever listed such a fine organization on his job application.

Speaking of Kennedy, I think it's ironic that he led the charge against Bork, only to falter in the face of a Bork clone like Alito. Almost as ironic as W, who said we should think America is "slouching toward Gomorrah" appointed Alito in the first place.

To be precise, CAP did NOT argue against the admission of women and minorities--something that happened before they were formed. They argued that the university admin should honor the agreement made at that time to maintain the agreed-on admissions quota for men (especially male children of alumni, of course). They also argued for the return of ROTC to campus and against coed dorms. Conservative views, to be sure.

Yep--that pretty much adds up to "affirmative action" for connected white guys! In later years they became better known as a simple conservative campus group. By the time Alito claimed membership (1985) they were on their last legs, and were simply Reaganesque. To be a member was the only way to get their conservative magazine, The Prospect. By then they were so anti-women and minority that the last two editors of said magazine were Laura Ingraham and Dinesh D'Souza.

Heck, I'm a member of the Urban League. Doesn't mean I love Al Sharpton. If that's the best Kennedy could come up with, it's pretty feeble. Maybe someone at the Owl Club suggested it to him. ;-D

64-36, Tully.

btw if you like 70 or more, it pays almost 5-1 at Tradesports.

It's moments such as these that make me fantasize about a congressional version of that Simpsons episode where the family goes for therapy and every has the power to electroshock everyone else.

ROTFL! I'll never be able to watch a congressional hearing in the same way again. Shockingly hilarious.

At those odds I may have to get a few florins down! Shouldn't actually be any worse than 2-1 or 5-2 on the "over" at this point, IMAO.

Last note on CAP, Jean--IMHO, the real problem the alumni had with the Princeton policy wasn't the admission of women and minorities, or even the banning of ROTC from campus, but the loss of reserved admission slots for "legacy" applicants. The Good Ol' Boy WASP network was well aware that many of their children could not win admission on a competitive basis, and half the value of a Princeton education lies in the "club" connections. My sympathy level for them is minimal. At best.