The New York Times is reporting that the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommend confirmation for President Obama's first nominee to the United States Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. All 12 Democrats voted aye.

While some things have changed since the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, some things probably never will: Texas' senator John Boxturtle, as expected,

Via ThinkProgress, G. Gordon Liddy on Sotomayor:

LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

Nice. I wonder what former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and current Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg think about that?

So a 13-year-old honor student goes to school one day, and her classmate gets busted for having ibuprofen. Classmate fingers the honor student as having supplied the pills ... and the girl ends up strip-searched. Lawsuit ensues, with the aid of the ACLU. The US Supreme Court justices don't seem to care as much about the Constitution and Bill of Rights as about the kiddie-porn imagery, though.

"So if you have a reasonable suspicion that the student has drugs and you search every other place (and don't find any drugs) ... don't you have (a) reasonable suspicion that she has drugs in her underpants?" (USSC Justice Antonin) Scalia asked (during yesterday's oral arguments).

"No," (David O'Neil, assistant to the Solicitor General arguing on independent grounds for reversal) O'Neil said.

"Your logic fails me," Scalia said.

The search followed an unsupported accusation -- and the student who made it didn't say the student being searched currently had possession of ibuprofen, just that the pills the caught student had were received from that student previously. The student searched didn't have a history of discipline problems.

While Justice David Souter seemed to think this level of intrusive search excessive for possession of a common painkiller, Chief Justice Roberts apparently doubted that limits on searches of students and their clothes could ever be a good thing

Say Hello to Overruled. I'm expecting some quality stuff. Take a look at the "Why I blog" post:

Why I Blog
Debbie Dantz worked at an Applebees, a job she desperately needed to take care of her two teenage daughters and a terminally ill father. It was not a high paying job, but because Dantz couldn't afford a car or even a bed to sleep on, she needed work within walking distance of her home and the Applebees fit the bill.
So when Dantz' boss made a pass at her, she didn't quit because she needed the money. She stuck with the job as her manager's behavior became increasingly bizarre and cruel. He ordered all the waitresses to wear skirts, and would regularly lift them up and make crude comments as he looked under them. Sometimes, he would order Dantz to sit in a chair while he quietly circled her, staring at her like a predator. When Dantz complained about this treatment, her manager and her male co-workers threw food at her.

One day, when Dantz arrived at work a paper was shoved into her hands and she was ordered to sign it. The paper contained something called a "binding mandatory arbitration agreement" which said that, if Applebees broke the law, Dantz no longer had the right to hold it accountable in court and instead would be shunted into a privatized, biased justice system. Dantz refused to sign, and was told that until she did, she would be paid nothing but tips—a violation of federal minimum wage laws. Nevertheless, Dantz needed her job, so she didn't quit.

After nearly three years of harassment, abuse and long hours for little or no pay, Dantz finally decided that she'd had enough. She filed suit against her employer—and the court kicked her to the curb. Even though Dantz refused to sign the binding arbitration agreement, the court said that merely by continuing to work for Applebees, she was bound by its terms. Debbie Dantz' employer illegally abused her for almost three years, and Dantz was powerless to hold it accountable.

Court rejects Exxon appeal in human rights case

Exxon Mobil Corp. has failed to convince the Supreme Court to halt a human rights lawsuit against it.

The justices, without comment, on Monday rejected the energy company's appeal of a ruling on a 2001 lawsuit filed by International Rights Advocates on behalf of 11 villagers in Indonesia's Aceh province.

The Supreme Court by a vote of 5 to 4 has just handed down a ruling that prisoners at Guantanamo do have a right under the U.S. Constitution, and in particular, the ruling restores habeas corpus to them, giving them the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. It does not specifically invalidate the entirety of the odious MCA as far as I can tell.

Need I tell you who the five and who the four were?

On February 2, 2008, Punxsutawney Phil, the most well known of groundhog Spring prognosticators, did indeed see his shadow and predicted six more weeks of Winter.

However, Buckeye Chuck has challenged the outcome of Groundhog Day, citing the name recognition of Phil – a result of Bill Murray’s solid endorsement of Phil back in 1993.

Groundhog day insiders confirm that it is unlikely that the case of Chuck v. Phil will reach the highest Court.

Counsel to Chuck has advised against any legal action in light of the precedent set forth in Bush v. Gore.   Read more…

Barf:

Rumsfeld's experience will assist the Hoover Institution's research into terrorism, said institute director John Raisian.
"I have asked Don to join the distinguished group of scholars that will pursue new insights on the direction of thinking that the United States might consider going forward," said Raisian.

This is the most perfect example of why I'm not sorry not to be in my former biz. Any institution that willingly associates itself with the creator of "how many vases can there be" and "unknown unknowns" should have its accreditation revoked. Not that I should talk, I know lots of "good" and "serious" and "scholarly" schools do this, but still. He's going to do "research" because he's got so much "experience." With failure? Lying? Murder? Is that what "scholarship" is about these days?

Academics everywhere should hang their heads in shame. This is a new low. Even for the leeches/subs for the uberwealthy calling themselves "universities."

It’s been reported that:

Chief Justice John Roberts was hospitalized Monday after falling while on vacation in Maine, the Supreme Court told NBC News.

Roberts, 52, fell at his home and the court said he was taken to a hospital as a precaution.

President Bush touts his appointments of Associate Justice Samuel J. Alito, Jr. and Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court bench lauding them as “strict constructionists.” In his speech congratulating Justice Alito for his confirmation , President Bush said:

“Sam Alito is a brilliant and fair-minded judge who strictly interprets the Constitution and laws and does not legislate from the bench.”

Of Chief Justice Roberts :

“He will strictly apply the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench.”

After all, a reactionary Court was a core purpose of Christian Fundamentalists’ support for Bush. He was merely a conduit; and he has delivered it unto them.

Right-wingers chastise “activist” (i.e. “progressive”) judges as banes on the judicial system.

With all this “strict construing” of the Constitution, I ask these people, where exactly in the Constitution, is the clause regarding Executive Privilege?

It’s not there. I checked.

Well if this doesn't just take all the fucking fun out of a good hearty well deserve fucking tirade:

But the judges said vulgar words are just as often used out of frustration or excitement, and not to convey any broader obscene meaning. “In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities.”

So can we now get an Official Supremes Stamp of Approval on blow jobs too? A ruling that they are either not really "sex" or can no longer be classified as deviant or unnatural acts since "even top leaders of our government" are "reported" to have engaged in them? But to continue the tortured logic here,

Remember when other countries gave us presents to commemorate our committment to liberty?

Democracy-forcing is Jack Balkin's phrase, used in a much-linked-to piece to describe the central import of the Hamden decision.

If you've resisted other exhortations to click and read it, here's another opportunity; go ahead; do yourself a favor, it really is a wonderfully clear and provocative post.

Balkin's analysis emphasizes that the decision should be read primarily as one that reaffirms the separation-of-powers doctrine embedded through-out the constitution.

Thus, although Stevens' opinion cites particular provisions of both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, the President is bound by them not because the provisions are sacrosanct on some universal human rights basis:

The reason why the President is bound by these requirements is because Congress passed the UCMJ and because the UCMJ uses the laws of war-- which include the Geneva Conventions-- as a benchmark for procedures in military commissions. So when Congress acts under its constitutional authority to regulate military justice, as it has throughout the country's history, the President must abide by those regulations.

And yes, as Commander-In-Chief, Presidents get to conduct wars, and are generally in charge of foreign policy, but while reminding myself that our government is based on a tripartite structure, I decided to refresh my own memory about what the actual constitution has to say about the role of congress in these matters.

It's important, no matter how painful, to occasionally check out what folks on the other side of the spectrum are saying about the issues of the day. Think of this not so much as a "reality" check, but as a way to test your own logic about why the Hamdi case means what it means to you.

He supports something, I'm just not sure what.

By "we," I mean all those Americans who still believe that our constitution is a source of our greatest strength.

The Hamdan decision is in. Nothing ambiguous about this ruling; here's how the Wa Po's lede describes it:

The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of war prisoners."

Just a note; not a lawyer, but I think the violation of the Geneva Conventions, being an international treaty agree to by an action of congress, is also a violation of our laws.

It was a bare majority; Justice Kennedy joined the Stevens-written majority decision. Roberts recused himself, since he had ruled in the same case, as an Appellate Judge, in the government's favor. Yeah, that's our new Chief Justice.

What Americans don't believe the constitution is our greatest protection from tyranny?

The ones who think it's our greatest weakness.

Not a majority of Americans, but a significant, if small minority, that includes this Republican congress, the entire Bush administration, most of the rest of the Republican party, Joe Lieberman, and all of the right-wing blogosphere.

You think I exaggerate? Let's look at some of the reactions on the right.

Like The Man said: "This is going to be a long war."

Jane has the roll of honor (and dishonor).

You damn well should be.

UPDATE: Here's an interesting website, Vichy Democrats, where they are keeping up-to-date counts on the cloture vote. They're urging those Democrats who don't want to vote "no" on cloture to abstain; for cloture, you have to get 60 yes votes to cut off debate. so an abstention is a vote less for cloture. Note also, the C-Span poll on whether or not a filibuster will help or hurt Democrats; then go a vote.

I spent the weekend and this morning on the phone, filling up Senators' voice-mail boxes in Washington, and in their local districts, urging them to vote "No" on cloture, which is a vote for further debate, and yes the possibility of a full-blown filibuster that might eventually thwart Alito's nomination.

Floor debate on the Alito SCOTUS nomination has begun this morning. Republicans and Democrats are to take alternate hours, and the schedule indicates the debate will continue late, until11:00 PM EST. Republicans hope to wind up debate by Friday, with a vote before next week.

There were five days of debate on Roberts, so the push to limit debate to less than three this time around might be an opening for an undeclared filibuster; the cessation of debate requires a cloture vote, so Democrats could refuse to go along on behalf of fuller debate. I mention this to point out that there is plenty of time to contact Senators to express your reasons for wanting them to filibuster.

Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, often seen as a "conservative" Democrat has announced he'll vote against Alito. We might be seeing a solid Democratic front here, minus Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

I just watched George Allen, R. Virginia, son of the football coach of the same name, and surely one of the dimmest bulbs every to hang its sorry bell shape ass on the Senate floor, challenge the Democrats to filibuster, and thus to...wait for it..."MAKE MY DAY." Because, Senator Allen continued, he'll be only too happy to pull that constitutional trigger, (referring apparently to abolishing the right to filibuster by a simple majority vote, a move which is against the Senate's own rules), in defense of Alito's right to an "up and down vote."

What we have here is another example of Republican success in "framing." In truth, even in the face of a filibuster, Alito will get an up or down vote; a "yes" or a "no" will be required of every Senator who wishes to make a preference known, the difference is whether or not Alito is to be approved by a simple majority.

To defeat a filibuster, Republicans have to muster, in addition to every Republican, at least 4 Democrats, which shouldn't be that oppressive a burden, if it's true that Alito is a genuine centrist conservative in the mold of Justice O'Connor. But you don't hear Republicans talking about a "simple majority," do you, and you know why? Because it makes it sound like what they want is a pro forma, casual rubber-stamping of the President's choice, and they aren't that certain there's a real majority of voters who would be comfortable with that idea. They used to talk about the outrage of forcing a President to come up with 60 votes in order to confirm a SCOTUS nominee, but you don't hear much about that these days, either, do you?

The significance?

The Judiciary Committee will vote out the Alito nomination today. I expect that no Democrat will vote to affirm Judge Alito. However, the Republicans will all vote in the affirmative, and his nomination will proceed to the floor of the Senate.

In fact, the AP has just confirmed that is exactly what has happened.

I know many of you were disappointed by the performance of Democrats during the hearings, at least as reported by a media corps that is typified by the recent performance of the Washington Post’s Deborah Howell, who appears to think the chief responsibility of an ombudsman is to be the Post’s chief PR executive, but I think there is a general consensus emerging, even among those bloggers most critical of the Democratic performance, that opposition among Democrats is hardening, and that there is even a possibility that on the floor, Democrats might just go for a filibuster, if they can muster the votes on their own side to get it going.

Thus far, only Ben Nelson of Nebraska has indicated he will support Alito on the Senate floor. Many anti-Alito Senators have already released detailed statements explaining why they won’t. John Kerry is circulating a petition opposing Alito, which you can sign here.

MoveOn is on the case, too, with a terrific idea.

Visiting aliens seen relaxing after visit to spa for massages and group waxing

+++

(Jivester News, Lmtd.) In response to the Senate's questioning of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, and concerned by the potential for Female Reproductive Coercement by the Government of the United States of America, visiting aliens from Dildonvulvia released a statement warning Earthlings to "keep their mitts out of our pudendas."

QUICK UPDATE: Day 4.

Morning session has begun, and I'm watching and noting. I am also dealing with a sick dog, so some of my attention has been distracted.

In summary - mostly Democrats have used their time, Republicans are holding back, reserving their time for later, or perhaps the end. There will be an executive session at some point before lunch, and the afternoon will be taken up with witness panels for and against.

Let me emphasize to all of you that Democrats have done a fine job, again, today, one that no one our side should be muttering about.

I have been disappointed to see less than universal appreciation of this fact on our side of the blogisphere.

Via Piratesinfo.com:

As the American Revolutionary War raged, the role of privateers could not be underestimated. In fact, strictly speaking, one of the first acts of American defiance was an act of piracy.

We're into the second morning session, which now begins the second round of twenty minute sessions all Senators will have to ask questions of Alito.

Leahy started out. He expressed his unease at the way Alito has backed away from previous positions the dot his history as a lawyer. He went right to the issue of presidential power, carefully leading Alito through a series of considerations that point to Alito's confusion, according to Leahy about what Justice Jackson said about the twillight area between circumstances that heighten and don't heighten presidential power. He then went to Hamdi, I think it's Hamdi and read a majority opinion by Justice O'Connor, and a dissenting one by Justice Thomas and asked Alito which one he agrees with. Naturally, Alito slip slid away from saying anything too definite.

Leahy will never produce fireworks, that is simply not in his nature, but I remember that in questioning Bork, his quiet, steady, non-legalistic style was deadly effective.

Hatch comes out swinging.

This is the second day of Senatorial questioning of Alito.

On this third day of the hearings, where do we stand?.

In a deep hole.

The Democratic Senators have been doing a good job, they have.

You won't know that from reading or watching any of the SCLM, and that is part of the problem, as Armando at Daily Kos demonstrates with devastating precision. Go read it, I'll wait.

The Democrats went after all the issues they should have - privacy, abortion, the Bush administration's pursuit of power that encroaches on the power of the congress, not to mention the civil liberties of all of us, they went after Alito's lack of candor, his multiple explanations for breaking his sworn word to the committee on the issue of recusal, and his memory lapses regarding CAP, the Princeton alumni organization formed with the specific intent of lobbying against admission of women and the use of affirmation action for minorities at Princeton.

Alito was ready, and although his dodging and weaving was considerably less artful than John Roberts', it was good enough to let the media do what it does best, look the other way when Republicans are lying.

Think that NYTimes reporting is bad? Look what Salon gives us - Walter Shapiro, a typical sort of liberal pundit, the kind who likes to be on Hardball way too much. He hasn't been recently, and his coverage of the hearings for Salon reads like a sample resume for a place on a Chris Matthews pundit panel.

Tuesday, Day 2, 2nd Afternoon Session

Senator Feingold comes out of the shute and goes straight at the issue of Presidential power in a time of war. Alito demurs answering specifically on the basis that the issue may come before him as an appellate judge.

Then Feingold does something brilliant; he reveals that the question he'd asked Alito was precisely the same question that Feingold had asked of AG Gonzales on the occasion of his own confirmation, and that Gonzales had renounced the torture memo, claimed there was no such thing going on by the administration, all of which turned out not to be true.

Nice way of reminding the audience what people/Republicans say at a confirmation hearing may have nothing to do with how they act in office.

Feingold goes after interpretation of the FISA law and points out that Alito's mushy answer, if that's the best he can come up with, would leave the country in a constitutional crises, if the courts can't decide such things.

Feingold asks if the issue of the President acting against the provisions of a congressional statute was ever raised in the moot court sessions Alito particpated in as preparation.
Alito is vague...but under pressure agrees the issue, if not Feingold's specific question came up. Then Feingold asks who was there and what feedback they gave him. Alito pretends not to understand what Feingold is asking, who clarifies, he wasn't suggesting that the administration gave him talking points, but what about feedback? Alito insists he hasn't been briefed by a member of the Administration. Now Alito is splitting hairs, again. Feingold asks if it is ethical for members of the administration to be prepping him on issue they may be defending in court. He says yes, if they gave him answers, which they didn't.

Feingold goes onto Alito's position regarding immunity of AG convicted of violating rights of individual citizens as regards civil damages. This is the John Mitchell case, I believe. Feingold brings it around to statement in the brief to today's context of warrantless wiretaps. Feingold moves onto some class notes of a course given by Alito at...wait for it, Pepperdine law school. The notes indicate a lot of deference by courts toward the Presidency in times of emergency. Oh, Oh, Michele Malkin's gonna be upset, Alito just said that internment of the Japanese after Pearl Harbor was a great constitutional tragedy. Alito is great at expressing the dilemma, but not so good at indicating how he would resolve dilemmas.

Feingold makes a statement to other Senators, regarding the notion they're pushing that questions asked by Democrats are somehow illegtimate attempts to torpedo a nomination. This leads Feingold into the Vanguard case. Good moment, there. More like those, please.

Feingold tries to clarify the Vanguard issue about recusal, Hatch takes umbrage, Feingold doesn't relent. Good.

Lindsey Graham is up next.

UPDATE: The committee is in recess, next up will be Senator Feingold, followed by Senator Graham.

The closest the morning session brought to us in the way of a bombshell, actually, it was more like lit sparkler, was Alito's admission to Spector, that his statement in 1985 was wrongly decided did represent his won opinion.

Tuesday, Second Day Of The Hearings, Afternoon Session

Kyle continued his questioning of Alito, without event, or much of interest being said, except that there are occasions that can be noted when Alito has been nice to women and minorities.

Kohl is up now. He wants to know how Alito views Justices who changed what decades of "neutral" Justices thought were adequate interpretations of the 14th amendment, which allowed legally sanctioned segregation of African-Americans.

Alito's answer is unremarkable; he isn't a fool, after all. And he's obviously worried about the implications of his barely remember membership in a Princiton club that was exclusive to white guys. In fact, Chris Bowers has an interesting take straight from Washington take on that issue.

Yes, he's willing to admit that the process of constitutional jurisprudence can be complex, on occasion...

Kohl just did something smart, he brought up Bork, whom Alito has called one of the finest nominees for the Supreme Court in a century, and then went on to remind everyone of Bork's positions...which, once regular Americans heard them, were soundly rejected by a majority of them.

Seems Alito didn’t mean what he said at the time all that much; he was just an employee, of the Reagan administration, supporting the boss. A bit slippery that. However, he is separating himself from Bork's rejection of Griswald, at least in reference to the right to use contraception being a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Oh, now Alito's for one man, one vote, he's saying its settled law, no reason for revisiting, damn if he isn't saying that it's especially so now that so many localities have redistricted according to that ruling...right, by Republicans. But that does distance Alito from some of the more regressive positions of Bork.

>> yeah, but what about when Texas gets to redistrict a second time and the civil servants in the Justice department say it doesn't meet the standards of a court ordered review to make sure of no disparate impact on minorities, and gets overruled by political appointees

Hey, Alito says that the decisions of the Warren Court stimulated his interested in constitutional law - cites Alexander Bickel, a liberal critical of the Warren Court's activism...stimulated him in the way his view of those naughty nasty 60's activist students at Princeton stimulated him to recoil and join that exclusive Princeton club where activists weren’t welcome, no doubt.

What is it with these guys and the sixties.