al·i·to

ah·lee·toh
v. or n.

n. pl. al·i·tos

Italian, imperative form of Old Latin verb alterare, to reverse. [See Indo-European Roots.]

1) A reversal of direction.
2) A counterstroke.
3) In Roman military terminology, a shouted command given to cavalry to wheel and form-up for a hard, flanking charge attack. Usually done following a feigned retreat.


Just kidding...

Not least in this

will be that Alito has been unanimously confirmed twice by the U.S. Senate. Once for U.S. Attourney and once for 3rd Circuit, Fed Bench. Chuck and Ted might want to review their votes there.

Let the games begin!

"Alito!" Is it just me or does that sound like an ancient Roman command form. Like for "Wheel and Charge!"



Pretty sure that both Kurtz and Goldberg are both right about this. It is the war that both sides have been gearing for. If Frist et al. choke on this, they should be run out of town.

Still a little ticked that it is not a woman. I am quite confident that Judge Alito is up to the challenge ahead of him, but in that one particular, the choice was cowardly.

Gallup on Miers

Interesting poll - which seems very on target to my thinking.

One of the more salient:

If you had to choose among the following, which would you say is the most important reason why you are pleased that Harriet Miers' nomination was withdrawn -- her views are too conservative, her views are not conservative enough, she does not have strong enough qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court, or she is too close to George W. Bush personally?

Too conservative 8
Not conservative enough 4
No strong qualifications 49
Too close to Bush 35
No opinion 4

My key issues being qualifications and cronyism, closely followed by wanting a serious judge who will defend, not amend the Constitution. But this strongly reflects the right way of approaching the issue.

Scratch Another PIJ leader

Mohana got his punched yesterday, along with a few lieutenants. Father arrested.

A senior terror analyst at Treasury tells me that one year ago Hamas had no serious experienced leader over 30. (Which is not, by definition, a good thing but remains impressive) I would think PIJ's chain of command is nearing such a ratio. 'Spesh with Izzadin now out of the loop.

I think we are all going to get a lesson in how effective counter-insurgency operations can actually be.

Israel arrests Izzadin

Sort of a, well, duh! But we can be assured BBC/Reuters/AFP etc. will make it look like the vilest injustice.

Thank God.

Juan Cole is a Sick Bastard.

Make no mistake - this is exactly why liberals are not trusted on national security.

From Obi Juan:

Iraq Body Count, Reuters says, estimates that 38 Iraqis die in violence every day. Over thirty-five years, that would amount to nearly 500,000 dead. In fact, it is estimated that the Baath party killed 300,000 Iraqis, so the current rate seems to be greater than the Baath rate. (The number of civilians killed by the Baath is probably in fact exaggerated. Only a few thousand bodies have been recovered from mass graves so far.)

I can't decide whether I'm more appalled by his remark that "only a few thousand" have been recovered, his projectile stupidity that such a full scale recovery operation could even be undertaken with present conditions, or his willful refusal to admit even to himself that it is the Ba'athists who are currently responsible for the vast majority of Iraqi deaths. Molly Ivins wrote on this earlier, got nailed to the wall for her bad information, and rightly and promptly dedicated a column to its correction and apology. Numerous liberal blogs and news outlets cite Cole as an expert and link to his page.

The fact that Juan Cole is allowed to "teach" anything is a travesty of liberal education. The fact that honest liberals cite him weakens liberalism's crediblity. The fact that he is paid by taxpayers and students to "teach" on the Middle East is a very sick joke.

More on Sun-Tzu

For example, I grew up in Illinois, and anyone who knows Midwest politics knows that the only remaining fortresses of the Democratic Party are the unions. They are a consistent voting block, a decent fundraising arm and a truly astonishing campaign tool. If you have never seen a union canvassing operation in full deployment, you have truly missed something. 5,000 members swarm a district for days, and in targeted precincts. Teachers unions go after the women’s vote with events and debates. In a congressional race, an eight to ten-percent swing in a week is not unexpected.

So what should the R’s in Illinois be doing? Master Sun says, that they should be attacking strategies and allies first, and he’s right. There are lots of reasons unions should not be DNC fortresses at all. Most male union members are conservative. Most do not like abortion. Most do not give a tinker’s damn about gay marriage. Most are at the bar on Saturday night and church Sunday morning. Most believe that praying is effectual and that Jesus Christ can get them into heaven. Most have guns, and most hunt, and most support the death penalty. Female union members lean conservative too. Many support general “choice” position, but would also support parental consent and partial birth-bans easily. A recent Illinois poll of teachers had 50% in favor of some kind of school-choice program, and 70% favored abstinence education being part of all sex education courses. Not surprising really, but you can bet the DNC didn’t like it. Why? Because it’s so far from their base position. Fortresses are still strong, but their strategies are weak.

If the RNC truly engaged on any of these issues, putting forth cogent positional statement of contrast between the NDP members in the Midwest and DNC talking points in Washington and these strategies would fall apart and expose Party allies as the special interests that they are. MoveOn.org and others could be exposed as “driving the party away from core Democratic values” etc. etc.

But, we can always count on the RNC, especially in Illinois, to be impotent and stupid. While the Illinois Dems certainly benefit from the proximity to the People’s Republic of Chicago, they further benefit from an ILGOP that hasn’t read its Sun-Tzu. Illinois Republicans have dedicated their last decade to charging headlong into the union fortresses, attempting every form of anti-union initiative that can be imagined. This has slowly, slowly made a difference. Gore won Illinois with 64%, Kerry by 55%. Unions more and more lose tiny percentages of their membership to Republican candidates, and remain susceptible to corruption charges. But unions put the food on the table, and the direct attacks on unions alienate most members, making them even stronger defenders of the union interests, against the evil Republican corporation management. Again, much like MoveOn.org for Dems, we see the donor-driven agenda actually crippling the overall efficacy of the Party.

I actually believe that there will be a backlash against the failure of Republicans to control spending, and a long term problem of having removed the issue from the table when the Dems take control. Bush II is now the worst President and the 109th the worst Congress recent times regarding domestic spending. It’s a terrible precedent, and it hurts the country.

But my overall point is that we are now effectively in a fortress vs. fortress warfare and largely dictated by Party allies over the Party leaders themselves. This makes for ugly scorched-earth policies and shoot-the-officers honorless tactics. We're not trying to persuade, we're just trying to kill each other. We're not trying to win as much as we are trying to beat the other guy.

It's no way to run a railroad. Or a government.

What the Attack Machines Create

First, defeat the enemy’s strategies,
Second, defeat the enemy’s allies,
Third, defeat the enemy’s armies,
Only lastly, siege the enemy’s fortresses.

- Sun-Tzu, “The Art of War”

Whether its Frist, DeLay, Blunt, or Daschle, Reid or either Clinton, it is astonishing to me how much of the opposing Party's energy and rhetoric, and therefore funding, is now taken up in the attack aspect of politics. It would make a fascinating pie chart, I bet. My (optimistic) theory is that this is probably cyclical and that we are now in the "ideas trough" of the American political parabola. I feel quite confident that Democrats are quite capable of creating a viable national security agenda. Democrats like Henry Jackson can emerge and lead the Party away from the leftist cliff, without giving up core social beliefs or a belief in government-as-positive. A conservative myself, I don't necessarily agree with all of those beliefs, but I don't see them as Cindy Sheehan lunacy either. And any true conservative (yes, even Rush) would rather have an argument over ideas than dirty laundry. As a conservative, I wouldn’t mind seeing Republicans punished for the spending free-for-all.

A true intellectual conservative or liberal actually believes that his or her ideas are better and will stand up to scrutiny, and are therefore perfectly willing to debate the finer points right out in the open. They would rather persuade than attack. This is sort of my idea of what an "intellectual" is. With this I am able to place Reagan and Clinton into the intellectual category, (what a wonderful debate that would be!) but not either Bush or as of yet, Hillary. The Party attack machines are now self-perpetuating mechanisms. A weapon seeking a victim. Each party has long had a volunteer corps of attack machinery that could be activated, sometimes deploying surprisingly quickly. Now both parties maintain a standing army. I am perhaps naive, but this feels shocking to me. Speaking with a well-respected moderate Republican congressman the other day on the DeLay situation, I remarked that in the melee he might find himself being bumped up. But in his eyes becoming a leadership position was like putting a bull’s-eye on your chest. He said to me that if the leadership came to him wanting a majority leader, he would have to tell them to hold off for a few weeks.
“Because I know Rahm would instantly drop a bomb on me, and so I need two weeks to drop a bomb on him ahead of time.”

The Sun-Tzu quote above is not irrelevant to the discussion. It is often more difficult to defeat a strategy than a fortress, because it is intellectual warfare. But it remains the best tactic. Now we must preemptively attack just to have a chance to be heard.

Wolf on the Prowl

Virginia Congressman Frank Wolf is on warpath again versus beyond-the-pale lobbyists, such as Robert Cabelly of C/R International who recently agreed to lobby for Sudan's militant islamist government. Wolf entered extended remarks into the CR, and called on other Members to not take meetings from this lobbyist. Wolf has been to Sudan five times and also sent a letter on the lobby issue to the State Dept. He was fervent in his remarks:

First it was Patton, Boggs trying to polish the image of Saudi Arabia. Then we had Akin, Gump trying to assist China in buying a U.S. oil company. Now comes the shocking news that a Washington lobby shop has landed the Government of the Republic of Sudan as a client. Where will the lobbying wheel of fortune stop next?

The Government of Sudan has hired Mr. Robert J. Cabelly, managing director, C/R International, to lobby on its behalf. How can an American company use such bad judgment and represent a country whose leaders are suspected of organizing and arming militias to commit genocide? And why did the United States State Department sign-off on such a plan?

Why, indeed? If standard moral outrage is insufficient, we do currently have a black Christian woman SecState, and the primary victims of Darfur are black, Christian women and girls.

Various current legislation on this issue, including H. R. 1424, and 3127, and S. 1462 and 495, is bogged down due to two issues - role of U.S. military, and the disinterest of American Christians. None of these bill are Christian initiatives, but rather responses by War on Terror advocates to the obvious danger Sudan poses to greater Africa as a seed school.

But Wolf's point is a serious one. Darfur is a publicly declared state-sponsored Islamic jihad against a defenseless, largely Christian population, and we are letting the jihad-sponsoring goverment have a lobbyist in Congress?!

(Anyone lobbying on behalf of members of Al-Qaeda? Well, besides the ACLU, I mean. )

Wolf notes: "I would have hoped for more from the American government."

Well, yeah!

IDF Notching the Stock.

Assadi and Al-Ashkar pasted in the same weekend.

Oh, and Tulkarm? Yeah, that's been under PA control for months. Hmmmm.......

Yes! Yes! Yes!

This, from an email, on NRO, should be shouted from the rooftops. Or at least the top of OEOB while facing northeast.


Reagan, accepting the nomination in July 1980, said (paraphrasing): Mr. Carter asks us to trust him. But that is not the way our country works. We do not ask the people to place trust in one man. The trust is placed in the people with the leaders respecting and honoring that trust.

He went on to DEFINE conservatism further in that speech and continued to do so for 8 years, leading and building a movement in the process. He did not devote either policy or time to the objective of "getting along" with his enemies. He did not have aids talking to the WPOST and NYT to try and get his message out "fairly." He went over the heads of the press, straight to the American people in every speech and appearance he made. There was a reason Americans felt a renewed confidence in themselves and their country and that is because their President told them constantly how he had confidence in them. It's called leadership.

There is a reason he won two landslides. And it was not slick marketing and packaging. It was substance.


Bush I didn't get that, Clinton had it occasionally, Bush II once or twice. It's the gift Reagan had almost everyday, and not one borne of entitlement or arrogance, but derived directly from his palpable love of country and his faith in ordinary Americans.

Oh, and it turns out that this email was from Rush.

David Frum re John Fund

From yesterday,


Fund reports that the White House arranged for surrogates to guarantee a group of prominent religious conservatives that Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Can we pause to absorb the full magnitude of this catastrophic misjudgment?

1) Conservatives have argued for years that it is utterly improper for senators to probe nominees' personal views on religion and abortion. With this stunt, the White House has not only invited but legitimated a line of questioning that conservatives have opposed for almost two decades.

2) If Fund is right, the White House was acting in such a way as to persuade a group of religious leaders that they were being given more information on a nomination than would be given to the US Senate. Congress - and yes Republicans in Congress - already feel that the White House treats them with contempt. Now congressional-executive relations have been damaged even further, with potentially lethal consequences for everything that remains of the president's legislative agenda.

3) The stunt also threatens Republican relations with religious conservatives. The assurances offered to the Arlington Group were almost certainly empty. Newsweek is reporting that the White House has also recruited New Hampshire politico Tom Rath to threaten to oppose the presidential bids of any senator who opposes Harriet Miers. But Rath is as responsible as anyone for putting David Souter on the court. What on earth did they say to him? And if those assurances were contradictory, why should anybody believe either?


Indeed.

Miers Redux

When I thought it couldn't get sadder.


"Mr. President, we just all want to thank you for this nomination," said John Hill Jr., a Democrat who was chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court from 1985 to 1988 and served with Miers on the Texas Lottery Commission.

"We are excited about it, and we are here to try and let the people of America know what we all know, which is that she is an absolutely fantastic person and a great lawyer and will make a great judge," he said.

"We actually know Harriet Miers; I hope that still counts for something, somewhere," Hill said. "I'd trust her with my wife and my life."


Pah-leeeze. Someone make it stop.

Bush Approval Ratings

I agree that these are not as bad as some would make them out to be. And its also quite crucial to note that the Dems have been wholly unable to capitalize on any of President Bush's troubles. But if Bush hangs in the 30's overall. And if the "wrong direction" stays in the 20's, there is a real governing issue that will emmerge. When the President becomes a net detractor to Republican candidiates preparing for election in 06, he will lose an enormous amount of his political clout - and this can be contagious - with whole caucuses not wanting to be tainted by this issue or that one. When this happens, his presidency, lower case 'p', is truly weakened - his ability to set the agenda. Presidents are Quarterbacks, and need to be able to call the audible.

White House Botch List 2005

It's getting a little long.

Social Security Reform
Terry Schiavo
Prescription Drug plan
Irag Constitution
Iraq Security
Torture policy defense/McCain Amendment clobbering.
Highway Bill
Pre-Katrina fumble
Post-Katrina bumble
Miers Nomination
Incoherant defense of Miers Nomination
Libby
Rove

I mean sheesh, when you've got Peggy Noonan calling Gillespie a "K-street behemoth" (and not in a friendly way) you've got real problems. CAFTA went through on vapors. The Energy bill by a hair. The highway bill is a stunning bloat, even viewed as a jobs bill. Miers is about to be made a fool of 24/7 on C-Span and the WH hasn't the tiniest clue what to do about it. Whether or not President Bush is really lost his rudder is still a question, but it's clear that we have some people in the WH Communications office need'in their Freedom medals. What are they smoking in that place?

Throw in the Republican Botch List of Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Santorum's defeat, the attack on Mike Pence's actual conservatism, etc., and the '06 horizon (yes, still far away)does look choppy.


But, of course, with Mad-Eye Pelosi running the op, it's still anyone's game.

Troop Strength = Success?

I'm thinking that this ship has sailed.


Andrew Sullivan hits this a lot, and in the abstract I think he has a case to make - the argument for more troops is valid. But all of my military friends - some of whom are fans of his as well - have said many times that it is an abstract argument. More troops in theatre will shorten the war, yes. More troops in theatre will also increase the casualties. This is the real world trade off. Our greater troop strength helps us kill more bad guys more efficiently, yes, fact. Our greater size and numbers also increases our vulnerabilty to terrorist attack, due to the simple fact that more troops are, in the short run, more targets. This the real-world trade you are making.

You could have a two year war and a six year war that both accomplish the same thing - democratic Iraq. The two-year war costs $600B and 5,000-6,000 U.S. casualties. The six-year war costs $1 trillion and 2,000-3,000 U.S. casualties. "Which 3,000 young American men and women soldiers would you like to have killed to shorten the war, sir?"

250,000 troops on the ground for all of '03 would have been decisive and certainly would have overwhelmed anything Zarqawi or others could have managed to build on, and established security by spring of 04. But not without higher casualties than we have now.

Now, think back - if you enter the equation with no doubt that the war will be won by your side - which is how Rumsfeld and his team certainly did - and you suddenly have your main argument for the war cut out from under you - which Rumsfeld and Co. also did - the one key thing that a general or SecDef must maintain is the trust of the troops that they are 1) not being wasted. And 2) not alone.

While I am quite sure that 250K troops on the ground in April 03 would have put us in good stead today, I'm less certain that a massive 04 or 05 build-up after the WMD fiasco would have been read as the proper response by the troops in the field. Troops understand warfare waste of every kind, which is a main reason why we get so much waste from the Pentagon. But soldiers do not accept the waste of soldiers. We are fighting a long war, and soldiers need to see - apart from politics or abstract thought - that they are valuable to their superiors. If casualties had spiked right after the WMD exposure, the combined effect on the morale would have been harsh. Not to mention how it would have played in the media. Then throw in Abu Graib.

Also, from a troop-morale stand-point (and quite frankly an Iraqi dignity standpoint), we needed to see the Iraqis step up and fight for their country, and so did they. The short war scenario doesn't really allow for this. Iraq would have had their government handed to them by a Western power, and there would have been little dignity in it. I literally ache inside for every innocent that dies in Iraq, and some days it seems overwhelming, but I also feel that the terrorists are losing with every attack. Because the Iraqis are coming to hate them more than we do. The Iraqis don't follow BBC/NYTimes protocol and they call them barbarians and terrorists, they say it on al-Jazeera, and they say it to their friends in the U.S. Army and Marines. This is crucial now - this rapport - due to the WMD failure. U.S. troops want to be noble and seen as noble to those they fight for.

The bottom line here is that while yes, more troops accomplishes certain things, it is also a trade, and one of the most expensive we can make. Time for human lives. Patience is often the most necesary thing in war. The steady hand. I'm not giving the President credit for any of this, mind you. I'm perfectly willing to assess him clueless to most of these issues. I'm saying that I think certain generals have had to come up with certain plans and will carry them out, and that I think Rumsfeld wants to win the war in a demonstrable way. But I am afraid that, for better or for worse, the window of more troops having the effect that many of us, like Andrew, would desire is lost.

NRO's Miers Remorse

Quite the litany - and not improving. Even more here.

A Stunning Missed Opportunity

Harriet Miers? This can, probably will, and in my humble opinion should be a political disaster for Bush. But what is worse is what it shows of the White House bubble.


David Frum at NRO:
I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or--and more importantly--that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. This is a chance that may never occur again: a decisive vacancy on the court, a conservative president, a 55-seat Republican majority, a large bench of brilliant and superbly credentialed conservative jurists ... and what has been done with the opportunity?

WSJ Eds:

"...Mr. Bush may discover, however, that he'll get a fight anyway, and this time on the less comfortable ground of credentials and "cronyism." Democrat Pat Leahy fired a whiff of grapeshot past the White House on this point yesterday, and you can expect more to come. We've always thought Mr. Bush should welcome an ideological Court fight, both because it would educate the public about the Constitutional issues at stake, and because he ultimately would have prevailed in putting another conservative jurist on the bench. In choosing Ms. Miers, Mr. Bush missed an opportunity for that kind of debate.

He also missed a chance to send a message that taking firm sides in our judicial debates is not politically disqualifying. The President could have selected from numerous qualified men and women--minority and white--who have spent their lives arguing for conservative principles on the bench or off. We're referring to the Michael Luttigs, the J. Harvie Wilkinsons, the Edith Joneses.

Is the President sending a message that these distinguished conservatives are too controversial to be nominated for the High Court, even with a Senate containing 55 Republicans? The lesson this nomination in particular will send to younger lawyers is to keep your opinions to yourself, don't join the Federalist Society, and, heaven forbid, never write an op-ed piece. This isn't healthy in a democracy, and in this sense a Supreme Court fight over legal philosophy that ended in a conservative victory would have demonstrated to the left that Borking no longer works.

Rush: "There was an opportunity here to show strength and confidence, and I don't think this is it. There are plenty of known quantities out there who would be superb for the court. This is a nominee that we don't know anything about, a nominee purposely chosen in one context, we don't know anything about her. It makes her less of a target but it also does not show a position of strength."

...But the main reason I don't like this pick has nothing to do with Harriet Miers because I don't know her. I think the pick makes President Bush look weak. I think the pick is designed to avoid more controversy; the pick is designed to appease. I can't tell you how that disappoints me..."

A lot of us feel that we're in a war with a left wing that is disintegrating, with a left wing that's impaling itself on extremism, a left wing that is taking the Democratic Party so far over the edge that if we just let them go, and force them over the edge on their own, that they'll take that route, and the nomination after genuine, known conservative originalist of that quality would have, perhaps, pushed them over the edge....And defeating the left has been a lifelong objective for many people, and defeating them to the point that they are not rendered absent but obsolete. And to now compromise with them or to appear to compromise with them is what looks weak to me."


NRO's Rich Lowry:
"Watching Bush strain to pump up her accomplishments was cringe-making. He said she has tried cases “before state and federal courts”! She has “argued appeals that covered a broad range of matters”! She was head of the Texas Lottery Commission and “insisted on a system that was fair and honest”! She was a leader with Child Care Dallas, Meals on Wheels, and other charitable groups! She has a law degree! From Southern Methodist University!

Of course, Miers currently has a heavy-hitting job as White House counsel. That is testament to a certain legal acumen, and she has apparently impressed people with whom she has worked closely. But given the significance of a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest Court, this is a rather thin qualification. Indeed, the most important reason Miers was picked is that Bush is comfortable with her.

It is only natural that relationships will be important to any political leader. But Bush needs to widen his horizons. Blocked from putting one of his Texas buddies, former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, on the Court by conservative opposition, he went to another one of his Texas buddies, current White House counsel Miers. Having selected the head of his vice-presidential search team to be his vice president, he now picks the head of his Supreme Court search team to be on the Supreme Court."


NRO's Jonah Goldberg:

I'm know that I'm not the only one getting a lot of grief from some readers about the view around here that Miers is under-qualified for the job. Many of the emails assert that all one needs are strong reading skills, a logical mind and, and ... well that's about it. This strikes me as an unfortunate line of argument. Again: Miers may turn out to be a great justice. But she's never been a judge, never written seriously on constitutional issues, never been a litigator on such issues etc etc. But if you want to make the case that none of this matters, that's your perogative. All I ask is that you honestly address the question of whether you would have the same reaction if Hillary Clinton nominated her longtime personal lawyer under similar circumstances.

Andrew Sullivan:It seems to me at this stage that Miers might well be a quiet, decent judicial restraint conservative on the court. I'm still open to supporting her nomination. But a more fundamental issue is simply her intellectual and legal caliber. This is SCOTUS. After Roberts, we have gone from a clear A grade to a C +. It seems to me her nomination would be most successfully defeated merely by insisting that the court gets someone qualified in the most basic meaning of the term.

Kathryn Lopez:

Rick Brookhiser: Kathryn, you said "we want to believe." I don't want to believe. I don't care if W ends up on Mt. Rushmore, or a landfill. I want the country to be well-governed, and so do you.


Alexander Hamilton, on the role of Senate confirmation:

"It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."

RANDY E. BARNETT in the WSJ:

Apart from nominating his brother or former business partner, it is hard to see how the president could have selected someone who fit Hamilton's description any more closely. Imagine the reaction of Republicans if President Clinton had nominated Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills, who had ably represented him during his impeachment proceedings, to the Supreme Court. How about Bernie Nussbaum?"

"...To be qualified, a Supreme Court justice must have more than credentials; she must have a well-considered "judicial philosophy," by which is meant an internalized view of the Constitution and the role of a justice that will guide her through the constitutional minefield that the Supreme Court must navigate. Nothing in Harriet Miers's professional background called upon her to develop considered views on the extent of congressional powers, the separation of powers, the role of judicial precedent, the importance of states in the federal system, or the need for judges to protect both the enumerated and unenumerated rights retained by the people. It is not enough simply to have private opinions on these complex matters; a prospective justice needs to have wrestled with them in all their complexity before attaining the sort of judgment that decision-making at the Supreme Court level requires, especially in the face of executive or congressional disagreement."





I have to say I agree. I am spectacularly disappointed. I will actively pray for the defeat of this nominee and the subsequent bloody nose for the President for making such a fantastically unqualified choice. I hope for her complete obliteration by the Senate, not due to her or what she is, but to expose the President for his midnight decision in the garden of ignorance and arrogance.