Back from vacation

Blogging will resume as usual. Did anything interesting happen last week?

I'm surprised it took this long to find . . .

. . . Judge Alito's Reagan administration job application wherein he forthrightly states:

"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." (Italics added by me.)

If you have any doubt that the Alito nomination is a home run, read the job application beginning on page 15.

Hat tip: Patterico.

Alito's response to Senator DiFi was that this was a job application and of course one would "pad" one's conservative beliefs to coincide with the employer's. Who cares if this works to convince DiFi or any other Democrat. We have the votes.

More links to raw data in Plamegate

Here is the D.C. Circuit's opinion rejecting Judith Miller's attempt to avoid contempt of court. This is relevant because of . . .

This amicus brief filed by nearly every major media organization. Why is this amicus brief relevant? Guess what the media says when you're not looking:

"To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the 'deep cover' required of a covert agent. See 50 U.S.C. [section] 426 ('covert agent' defined). She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington - not stationed abroad - for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name."

and

"Novak’s column can be viewed as critical of CIA ineptitude: the Agency’s response to a request by the State Department and the Vice President’s office to verify whether a specific foreign intelligence report was accurate was to have ‘low level’ bureaucrats make the decision to send a non-CIA employee (neither an expert on Niger nor on weapons of mass destruction) on this crucial mission at his wife’s suggestion. See also Wilson Op-Ed. Did no one at Langley think that Plame’s identity might be compromised if her spouse writes a nationally distributed Op-Ed piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her subject matter expertise?

The public record provides ample evidence that the CIA was at least cavalier about, if not complicit in, the publishing of Plame’s name. Moreover, given Novak’s suggestion of CIA incompetence plus the resulting public uproar over Plame’s identity being revealed, the CIA had every incentive to dissemble by claiming it was ‘shocked, shocked’ that leaking was going on, and thus made a routine request to the Justice Department to investigate."

and

"While there is no suggestion that the special counsel is proceeding in bad faith, there should be an abundant concern that the CIA may have initiated this investigation out of embarrassment over revelations of its own shortcomings."

And that's the real story - CIA incompetence, its subsequent cover-up and backstabbing the President. Why won't the media report on that?

Two must read articles - (1) WSJ summing up how Joseph Wilson is a total liar, (2) yes, we did find stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq

Here is WSJ's editorial about the lying scumbag Joseph Wilson and how thoroughly he and the Democrats' lie that BUSH LIED!!!! has been debunked.

Here is dafydd ab hugh's blog post about what WMD stockpiles we found in Iraq. What, you say? We found stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq? Surely I jest. Every one knows BUSH LIED!!!! and we found no WMDs. Wrong.

Alito Alito Rejoice Rejoice!!

Having called the Miers Feint I am not surprised in the least that President Bush nominated Samuel Alito to fill Sandra Dee's seat. The nomination will sail through. It will be a virtual replay of the Roberts hearings. Sure, Alito has a longer public record than Roberts, but despite the nickname "Scalito" his writings simply do not have the invective of Scalia and simply do not contain the sound bites the Left wants and needs to portray Alito as out-of-the-mainstream. The Dems will try to distort Alito's record, but they tried with Roberts, too (remember the french fry case?). Alito, unlike Bork, is mild mannered, looks normal and unassuming (like Roberts) and has both their intellectual firepower (well, at least he's comparable - Bork and Roberts are two of the most impressive minds I've come across).

Alito's longer record will also benefit him in another way - we won't have the same silly arguments about releasing privileged documents from his time as a practicing attorney. Thus, the hearings should move faster than for Roberts since Alito is such a known quality - just look up his decade + of opinions in the federal reporters if you want to see what kind of judge he'll make. The "stealth" argument won't fly, of course, and Democrats will be unable to say they're voting against him because "too much is unknown" (which is the "official" reason most Dems who voted against Roberts gave). Alito is obviously qualified. So Dems will have to oppose him because of his judicial philosophy.

Great. The Republicans have the votes in the Senate to both confirm and end the filibuster so Alito will get confirmed. Plus, the Democrats will likely establish the rules for voting on Supreme Court nominees - judicial philosophy is a perfectly appropriate factor. Thus, Republicans will be free to use it, too. (Hopefully, they'll never need to, but the Dems have to regain power someday, right? Maybe someone said that of the Whigs, too.)

Update: Robert Bork copies me.