Alito’s confirmation

Well, it looks like Alito is actually heading to a confirmation, is spite of what the insane left-wingers say. I think it was Senator Kerry today who said that we needed more debate! Hasn’t there been enough babble from the Senate already? Where has he been?

On a related subject, I finally heard something from SC’s own Lindsey Graham that was worth repeating. He said (was it Wednesday?) that if the Dem’s wanted to make the filibuster an issue, we would “clean their clocks.” I know he apologized to Alito during the hearings, but somebody was going to have to do that–he just got to be the one to do it. This, however, was an optional comment that I’m glad he make. (My only problem is that he’s been making himself so visible lately, trying to ride to the White House on John McCain’s coattails, that I don’t know what he says because he means it and what is for show.)

On the other hand, Senator Jim DeMint made a great speech to the Senate on Thursday 1-26. Go read it here. There’s a guy I can respect!


Keep the Tax Cuts!!! (link)

Check out this link by Donald Luskin for National Review Online. He reports that the 2003 Tax Cut on Capital Gains not only paid for itself, but produced a NET INCOME. How about that? So much for the dem’s belief that supply-side economics doesn’t work. I guess Reagan knew what he was talking about!

Ted Kennedy’s Alito report actually supports Alito! (link)

See article by Byron York, reporting for NRO. Toward the end of the aritcle, he quotes the report author’s ‘caveats’ and actually sound like SUPPORT for Alito. For example:

“A preliminary analysis suggests two points,” Sunstein wrote. “First, Judge Alito’s opinions are carefully reasoned, well-done, attentive to law, lawyerly, and unfailingly respectful to his colleagues. Second, it is fair to say that the law, fairly interpreted, could well be taken to support those claims. Hence he has exercised his own discretion, not lawlessly but in a way that helps to illuminate his general approach to the law.”

And also, he basically points out how conservative judges tend to not be ‘activists’ who are driven by a political agenda.

“With many apologies for the crudeness of this method of coding, I can report that many prominent Republic nominees tend to show a complex pattern of dissenting opinions, dissenting ‘from the left,’ as they understand the law, as well as ‘from the right,'” Sunstein wrote. The decisions of many Republican nominees, he continued, show that “they read the law in a way that does not fit with conventional political ideology.”

Go read the whole article–it’s a good piece.