[rface]

I know everyone is saying that Alito has this "wrapped up" - but I won't say that until after the Senate vote.

[Dog Gone]

I will. He has it wrapped up.

[elbucko]

"...but I won't say that until after the Senate vote."

I agree. Every Democrat senate and congressional staffer is knee-deep in any landfill within a hundred miles of Alito's home, digging for any garbage on him that they can find. "It's not over, 'til it's over".

[Redbob]

""Alito walked in there with all 10 Republican [committee] votes and 51 votes on the floor, and they knew it," says Jeffrey Berman,..."

That's called "a democracy"...

[claudiustg]

Winners get the honey, losers sing the blues.

[muawiyah]

The one really big glaring weakness the Dems could have gone after is the fact that this guy has never had a private sector job in his life ~ he's been a government employee the whole way.

The Dems, of course, see nothing wrong with that ~ in fact, most of them wish EVERYBODY was a government employee, and a unionized one to boot.

[wouldntbprudent]

That deal, in turn, stemmed from the Democrats' promiscuous use of the filibuster against 10 federal appeals court judges in 2004, which, in the opinion of some, made using it to block Alito's nomination that much harder. And three of those judges still wound up on the federal bench.

I always agree when I see the words "promiscuous" and "Democrats" in the same sentence.

[goodolemr]

Ah, a concession article. Warms my heart.

[shield]

First off, it's Roberts who'd love to get rid of Roe...it's not Alito.

All the obstructionist from the dembos cost them Dashole...thinking back on when the dems became such an anti-American commie party...I've concluded during the 8 yrs of the toons' administration...

Hildabeast is such a hard left leaning creep....I'd say she's actually the culprit more than her criminal hubby. So when we see and hear more on these anti-Americans in congress...let's just look toward hildabeast's senate office...

[Jim Noble]

The party in power in the Senate, especially if that party controls the White House, always gets its man -- at least it has since 1930. "I'm proud of the Democratic senators," says Berman, the former chief counsel to committee Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer, N.Y. "They just don't have enough of them."

What a farce.

Since 1930, and before 1930 for that matter, the President (you know, the one who is elected by all the people) gets his (qualified) choice, with bipartisan support, UNLESS a) It is after 1986, b) The President is a Republican, and c) There are 51 Democrats in the Senate.

This is absurd. "Proud of the Democratic senators" my ass.

They disgraced themselves, and they disgraced their offices.

[Jim Noble]

This despite the fact that Gallup Poll data for the past 30 years consistently show that a majority of Americans believe abortion should remain legal.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade.

[Thoeting]

I had a college professor who used to illustrate power as "chips." Using the newspaper (before the days of internet!), he would point out instances of senators and congressmen going along with another. That was a "chip." When a politician gets enough chips, he/she can pretty much get whatever they want from their colleagues. But, he would warn, if you asked for something without the chips in your pocket, you would lose all and in fact go negative.

Today's Democrats have gone negative by constantly miscalculating the power they hold. The Republicans would do well to remember that the public is watching them too. They need to follow through on promises or they will find themselves oddly out of power.

[John Jorsett]

Even Alito's answers on abortion, which justifiably raised fears among pro-abortion rights senators, failed to make much impact at the hearings. This despite the fact that Gallup Poll data for the past 30 years consistently show that a majority of Americans believe abortion should remain legal.

Maybe that's true and maybe it's not. I suspect that it depends on how the question is phrased and what other questions surround it. But if the Democrats think it's true, why don't they introduce legislation to legalize abortion by statute instead of getting hysterical every time a Supreme Court nominee who disagrees with Roe is put forward? In fact, why don't the Republicans take a page out of their own book and submit a bill and force a vote on the issue? Let the Democrats go on record with their constituents who supposedly are in favor of legality.

[RedRover]

Last year's Gang of 14 compromise over judicial nominees instantly raised the standard for filibustering.

If Alito does sail through, my respect for Lindsay Graham will skyrocket. I was among those screaming bloody murder about the "Gang of 14" but it warms my heart to hear Dems acknowledge that they were outmaneuvered.

[OldFriend]

Truth be told, it's the democrats who are held prisoner on the plantation by the likes of Moveon.org, and the Soros crowd.

The little bit of soul they ever had has been subverted.

[Right Wing Assault]

They think they could have filibustered Alito? On what grounds? Ted Kennedy not liking him? Man, they are really out of it.

[new yorker 77]

LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS

WE WIN! THEY LOSE!

[APFel]

"We shot our wad. We filibustered 10 guys[...]"

Something about that phrase just seems so... unclean. Shot your wad, indeed. Just remember the wetnaps.

APf

[depressed in 06]

The statement I would have liked to have heard Alito make:

Senator, if you don't vote for me, I owe you nothing.

But going on the offense in the comity club is not allowed.