The Washington Post reports this morning that it looks like Alito will get confirmed, and that it is unlikely that Democrats will unleash some sort of filibuster or other draconian last stand. Perhaps this is for a variety of reasons outlined in various editorials and comments in the Wall Street Journal. James Taranto points out that the bullying that was more possible here than in the the Roberts' hearing because of Alito's less smooth persona, in many ways completely backfired on the liberal Democrats. And most Americans (other than the callous, partisan liberal types) were quite empathetic to the fact that Alito's wife finally couldn't take it. Who of us could stand up to eighteen hours of being badgered, sometimes rudely? (See the Anchoress and Thomas Lifson.)
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal editorial points out how far the Democrats had to dig to find an issue to pound Alito with. Peggy Noonan says the Democrats seemed half-hearted in the critique, and Dan Heninger suggests that perhaps the Democrats' approach to confirmation hearings may be finally seeing its last days. I hope so, but I think we had better keep the hearing process so that nominees are able to defend themselves publicly. Without a hearing, the potential for slander and misinterpretation just becomes too great. In the end, the problem for the Democrats is that they have no substance to discuss -- it is just pontificating and posturing and making assumptions about an individual's views based on twenty year old documents. And, as PowerLine and Captain's Quarters point out, the Democrats couldn't hang around to hear the positive and supportive comments of Alito's fellow appeals court judges.In particular, Ted Kennedy couldn't stay and hear the comments of a judge that his brother supported for the judiciary and is now the most senior judge on the third circuit. Michelle Malkin discusses the very positive comments of a Clinton-appointee female judge.
Comments