Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Samuel Alito

02 Nov



The Case of the Blue-Eyed Girl: Husbands, Wives and Abortion

November 2, 2005 | By | 6 Comments

Reader Robert Freedland commented on the post below about spousal notification and abortion. I wanted to respond to his question here:


Do you actually think women need to ask permission from their spouses prior to obtaining an abortion? Perhaps what you mean to say is that you are opposed to abortion and that if a spouse can stop a woman who desires an abortion, then that would be a good thing in your view.

Actually, Robert, I have a really bad habit of coming right out and saying exactly what I mean. I won’t leave you wondering.


My Daughter’s Eyes

See these blue eyes? They belong to my dreamer-girl. If you meet her in real life, it’s one of the first things you notice about her. They are piercingly blue.

My eyes are hazel.

Those are her dad’s eyes. From the recessive gene.

So here’s what I “actually think.” I don’t think the question of spousal notification is an issue of “permission.”

It’s a question of courtesy. At least. I’ll go further and call it a question of justice.

Men in America today have no rights when it comes to abortion. Even husbands. None.

Despite the fact that the living human being the pregnant woman can unilaterally choose to kill “terminate” might have his eyes.

* * *

Glenn Reynolds with some important points on “spousal autonomy.”

Stop by Open Post at Mudville Gazette. . .

. . .and at Stop the ACLU. . . and the Political Teen.

02 Nov



Americans Support Spousal Notification for Abortion

November 2, 2005 | By | 5 Comments

Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito is coming under fire from abortion rights supporters for his dissent in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. Differing from his colleagues on the Third Circuit, Alito supported the right of the Pennsylvania state legislature to pass a spousal notification requirement for women prior to an abortion.

The Left is working to paint Alito’s decision as outside the mainstream of American opinion.

But is it?

Reporting in today’s Roll Call,[subscription required] Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute writes that the vast majority of American people support requiring spousal notification before an abortion:

In 1992, when Gallup asked people whether they favored or opposed a law requiring that the husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to have an abortion, 73 percent said they were in favor. In 1996, 70 percent were in favor, and in 2003, 72 percent were. In each survey, about a quarter were opposed.

* * *

The Mod Squad

November 2, 2005 | By | One Comment

The Washington Times focuses today on the Gang of 14 — “the Mod(erate) Squad.”

Filibuster possibility is Topic A — but I still haven’t seen anyone laying out a plausible scenario that beats .the Political Math and makes filibuster a viable strategy for the Democrats.

In fact, Michael Barone, the master vote counter, laid out yesterday why the filibuster would be a very bad plan.

That doesn’t mean they won’t do it though.

“They’re in a mood to fight and, if possible, to filibuster,” said Barone.

Sometimes mood rules.

01 Nov



The Political Math

November 1, 2005 | By | 3 Comments


The thing about politics is that, in the end, it’s all about the math: either you have the votes, or you don’t.

The rhetoric coming from the Left today has been apocalyptic. I got an email from Ellie Smeal, President of the Feminist Minority, today saying, “Only a massive outpouring of opposition can stop this disastrous choice for our nation.”

This afternoon, I was preceded on ABC News Now by Kate Michelman, former head of NARAL, the abortion-rights group, who called explicitly for the Democrats to filibuster.

That’s the question everyone is discussing: Will they filibuster? And more importantly, if they do, what then?

Let’s look at the numbers. The Republicans have 55 Members; the Democrats have 44. Plus one Independent. Let’s call that 45 Dems for simplicity.

However, the Republicans need 60 votes in order to cut off a filibuster if the Democrats decided to really go to war. Hence the political impasse.

Earlier this year, faced with Democrats blocking judicial nominations with filibusters, Republicans began talking about exercising the “nuclear option” or what became known as the “Constitutional option” — this would involve changing Senate rules to lower the bar for cutting off a filibuster of judicial nominees to 51, a simple majority.

Enter the “Gang of 14.” 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats came to a side agreement — the Republicans wouldn’t support the Constitutional option, and the Democrats would filibuster only under “exceptional circumstances.”

The Gang of Fourteen

Republicans Democrats
John S. McCain III, Arizona

Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina

John Warner, Virginia

Olympia Snowe, Maine

Susan M. Collins, Maine

R. Michael DeWine, Ohio

Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island

Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut

Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia

E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska

Mary Landrieu, Louisiana

Daniel Inouye, Hawaii

Mark Pryor, Arkansas

Ken Salazar, Colorado

Where does that leave us? With all eyes on the Republican 7. The GOP needs only two of them to break the pact (the Vice President votes to break a tie) to give them a majority that would enable them to change the rules and break a Democratic filibuster.

And Lindsey Graham has already gone on record: no filibuster this time around.

And then, here’s Mike DeWine (via Polipundit):

I can’t believe anyone would believe this is a nominee that could be filibustered or that it would rise to the level of ‘extraordinary circumstances.’ If someone would filibuster, though, I would be prepared to vote to change the rules.

That’s 50. That’s the coup de grace.

Keep sending those emails, Ellie. Call for the filibuster, Kate.

In the end, Alito is confirmed. That’s the political math.

* * *

Lorie Byrd did the math, dividing Senators by support for abortion. She still comes up with the same result.

John at Americablog says the Dems are ‘fraidy cats if they back away from the filibuster. I’m kidding. Actually, he quotes Bismarck: “You can do everything with bayonets, but you are not able to sit on them.”

TUESDAY UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt has a great post on preempting the filibuster, with phone numbers for the GOP Seven.

31 Oct



Final Poll Results

October 31, 2005 | By | 2 Comments


Thanks to everyone who participated!

Sam Alito Nominated for Supreme Court

October 31, 2005 | By | No Comments


The President with Judge Alito

AP Photo

The President nominated Judge Samuel Alito for the vacancy on the Supreme Court at 8:00 this morning.

Americablog already has a post up that says “It’s War.” Then Rob asks: “Ready for hand-to-hand combat?”

That’s the subject of my next post: what does it mean to go to war politically? Coming up shortly.

28 Oct



Is It Alito?

October 28, 2005 | By | 4 Comments

So says Red State.

(JRB still ahead here at Reasoned Audacity — Be sure to VOTE in the poll on the left side-bar!)

LATE-AFTERNOON SCUTTLEBUT UPDATE: Luttig gaining. With some Chris Cox thrown in for good measure.

JRB still way out ahead here, though, with almostover 1,000 votes now cast.

Next Nomination Cheat Sheet and VOTE

October 27, 2005 | By | 43 Comments

NOTE: Updates added, please scroll.

Who’s next? Take a minute and VOTE! Look left (on the sidebar); Vote right.

Ironically, the President this next time needs to nominate a divisive figure: someone, that is, who is drawing fire from the right quarters.

Or actually the Left quarters.

Someone whose name is not anywhere near Harry Reid’s short list.


Janice Rogers Brown

Someone like Judge Janice Rogers Brown. People for the American Way hate her. Need I say more? This would be what someone referred to as a “bench-clearing fight.” Bring it on.


Ted Olson

Or, someone like Ted Olson. I sat next to Ted at a luncheon honoring his wife, Barbara, shortly after she died on 9/11. He is such a gracious gentleman. I realize that has little to do with qualifications for the Supreme Court. (Or does it?) But there’s plenty more that does. The Left hates him too.

Edith Jones

Or, someone like Edith Jones. “I am hopeful that with the debacles of the twentieth century … we can recover the original intentions of the founders of the Constitution,” Jones said in a speech at the University of Texas. She thinks Roe v. Wade was an exercise in “raw judicial power.”

More coming. . .

Or someone like Alice Batchelder.


Alice Batchelder

Not sure who she is? Christopher Flannery, from Claremont, makes the case for her.


Michael Luttig

Or, Michael Luttig. Graduated from UVA, worked for Reagan and clerked for Scalia. A triple-threat. And upheld the constitutionality of a partial-birth abortion ban. [corrected] That should be a no-brainer, but in these judicial times, that makes you pretty gutsy.


Michael McConnell

And Michael McConnell. Talk about guts — and intellectual honesty: he’s on the record calling Roe “an embarrassment to those who take consitutional law seriously.” PFAW hates “strongly opposes” him too. Still, like John Roberts, even many on the Left concede that he is “one of America’s most distinguished constitutional scholars.”


Samuel Alito

And finally, Samuel Alito. Another Reaganite who is on the Left’s hit list for a ruling in an abortion case. Alito was the sole dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in the Third Circuit, arguing in favor of a Pennsylvania law that required wives to notify their husband’s prior to an abortion. Again, not exactly, a wild-eyed idea, but enough to get him in trouble.

* * *

UPDATE: For the POLL, use the comments, or email me, with your write-in candidates. . . I will tally and add these in with a final report.

FRIDAY UPDATE: Welcome Powerline readers (Thanks John!) And welcome Captain’s Quarters readers; thanks Ed.


Chris Cox

Lowell Brown wrote and reminded me of Chris Cox. At the Hedgehog Blog Lowell makes the case for Chris. As does Quin Hilyer at NRO.

Lee Jenkins writes in with Karen Williams.

MORE WRITE-INS: (The complete list — links to follow)

Chris Cox


Maureen Mahoney (Background post from law-blogger, A3G)


Karen Williams


Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit (1995 George magazine profile, via A3G)

Judge Roy Moore

Miguel Estrada


Diane Sykes, 7th Circuit

Richard Posner (A blogger on the Supreme Court!)

Emilio Garza, 5th Circuit

. . . and John Cornyn

And note to the White House: the ultimate stealth strategy is floated in the comments — both Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham are attorneys. Turn one of them loose on the Judiciary Committee.

* * *

Here are profiles of Samuel Alito, Janice Rogers Brown and others from WaPo.

Confirm Them has profile links down the right sidebar.

Thanks to Mudville’s Open Post. Hey, milbloggers: take a minute and VOTE!

Captain Ed says this is “No Time to Celebrate.” He also has a whole post on Maureen Mahoney — the Drill Sergeant brings up her name in the comments below as well.

GOPUSA did an overnight poll, Bobby Eberle at the Loft reports, of 1,000 conservative Republicans and found the majority felt the Miers withdrawal was the right thing. Who did they want as the next nominee? Janice Rogers Brown.

The Washington Post has an overview of possible candidates this morning.