[decal]

"Akaka said today he wouldn't support a filibuster because the Senate has heard Alito's positions in confirmation hearings."

I suppose it's just a coincidence that Sen. Akaka happens to be one of the Senators in re-election races this fall...

[msnimje]

I do not see how any Senator who has already stated his intention to vote for or against a candidate can vote for the filibuster.

[BobS]

blah blah blah. That's another old phart making noise.

[Petronski]

Poor Jean Qerri. LOL

[Lancey Howard]

Akaka says he would vote against confirming Alito to the court because he has concerns about whether Alito would uphold anti-discrimination racial preference laws allowed under the Constitution.

There. Fixed it.

[CaptRon]

Akaka says he would vote against confirming Alito to the court because he has concerns about whether Alito would uphold anti-discrimination laws allowed under the Constitution

These despicable wastes of oxygen are determined to defame this man.

[syriacus]

Akaka said today he wouldn't support a filibuster because the Senate has heard Alito's positions in confirmation hearings.

Good for Akaka. He might point out that King Kerry didn't deign to sit in on the debates, unlike many of his fellow Senators. Yet King Kerry has decreed that the hard-working Senators, who courteously listened to their colleagues' speeches, should not get to hold an up-or-down-vote.

Kerry can pretend he's doing important things in Davos, but this is what his platonic friend, Alexandra Polier said about Davos (where she met Kerry almost exactly 5 years ago.)

I met John Kerry for the first time in January 2001, in Davos, Switzerland...

Although it presents itself as a serious policy machine, Davos’s real point is, of course, networking,

Kerry avoids Senate duties
(Afraid he'll catch Democrat cooties?)
He knows he's elected
But instead he's selected
To put on his Swiss-made ski booties.

[Condor51]

Akaka says he would vote against confirming Alito to the court because he has concerns about whether Alito would uphold anti-discrimination laws allowed under the Constitution.

Dam!
I just went through my Sen Robert C. Byrd Pocket Edition of the U.S. Constitution and can't find any mention of "anti-discrimination laws"?!?

Oh, wait, silly me, I've got it!
He means the ILLEGAL anti-discrimination laws enacted by Congress do to their over stretching the intent of the Commerce Clause which SCOTUS has finally caught on to after +60 years and said to Congress - "STOP IT! Everything doesn't pertain to Interstate Commerce".

Yep, he means those "laws".