What Now has shared a creative idea. Linking to the RNC donation page, he says:

ADD NINE CENTS to whatever you plan to give. That will allow an easy tally of the pro-Alito donations. So if you’re going to give $5, give $5.09. If you’re going to give $20, give $20.09. Doing this is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to the effort.

As you may know, on November 16th in New York City, Pajamas Media is hosting their big “Launch Event.” The keynote speaker, who will be introduced by the Professor, will be none other than Judith Miller. There has to be some irony there somewhere, but it’s eluding me.

In other blogging news, LaShawn wonders what will happen to your blog if you die.

There is bound to be lots of confusion regarding what Alito’s ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey really means, but only because of the deceptive or naive statements of those who would villify Mr. Alito.

Here is the key portion of the law, from the Supreme Court decision.

3209. Spousal Notice.

(a) Spousal notice required. — In order to further the Commonwealth’s interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship and to protect a spouse’s interests in having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal life of that spouse’s child, no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), unless he or she has received a signed statement, which need not be notarized, from the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed, that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion. The statement shall bear a notice that any false statement made therein is punishable by law.

(b) Exceptions. — The statement certifying that the notice required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished where the woman provides the physician a signed statement certifying at least one of the following:

(1) Her spouse is not the father of the child.

(2) Her spouse, after diligent effort, could not be located. [p909]

(3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction.

(4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual.

Such statement need not be notarized, but shall bear a notice that any false statements made therein are punishable by law.

(c) Medical emergency. — The requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply in case of a medical emergency.

(d) Forms. — The department shall cause to be published, forms which may be utilized for purposes of providing the signed statements required by subsections (a) and (b). The department shall distribute an adequate supply of such forms to all abortion facilities in this Commonwealth.

(e) Penalty; civil action. — Any physician who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of “unprofessional conduct,” and his or her license for the practice of medicine and surgery shall be subject to suspension or revocation in accordance with procedures provided under the act of October 5, 1978 (P.L. 1109, No. 261), known as the Osteopathic Medical Practice Act, the act of December 20, 1985 (P.L. 457, No. 112), known as the Medical Practice Act of 1985, or their successor acts. In addition, any physician who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall be civilly liable to the spouse who is the father of the aborted child for any damages caused thereby and for punitive damages in the amount of $5,000, and the court shall award a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney fee as part of costs.

Law.com summarizes Alito’s dissent, where he states that the spousal notification law is not unconstitutional.

Alito argued that the Pennsylvania law’s restrictions should have been upheld, saying “the Pennsylvania Legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands’ knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans or the husbands’ previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion.”

The case went on to the Supreme Court, resulting in a 6-3 decision that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and struck down the spousal notification provision of the law. But late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in his dissent, quoted Alito’s underlying dissent and said he agreed with his reasoning.

Kathryn Jean Lopez has a great observation about the scare tactics that are already beginning to develop.

Already this morning, I’ve heard a lefty on FNC scary viewers with abortion: Alito ruled that a woman needs her husband’s consent for an abortion. It was part of the Casey vs. Planned Parenthood case in 1991 and it was notification (vs. consent). And all Alito did was say the Pennsylvania law was constitutional, as I, layman, understand it.

The QandO blog has more.

Libertarians (generally) would not support a law requiring women to inform their husband before getting an abortion. But—and this is important—that was not the question before Judge Alito. That question was asked and answered when the legislation was proposed and passed.

The question to which Judge Alito responded was whether such a law violated the Constitution. Alito dissented because the law did not violate the Constitutional standards established by precedent. Specifically, the law did not create what Justice O’Connor called an “undue burden”. In fact, Alito specifically listed the components of “undue burden” and explained why the law did not violate them.

The law may still be bad policy, but that’s a wholly different matter. States are constitutionally permitted to enact bad abortion policy, so long as it does not—as has repeatedly been held by the Supreme Court—present an “unduly burdensome interference with her freedom to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy”.

The Left Coaster spews invective, showing a clear misunderstanding of the issue at hand.

Yet this week, Bush has forgotten all those words in touting the long conservative judicial track record of Alito, who seemingly takes the position that women have their place, as second-class citizens, barefoot and pregnant.

Donklephant, too, misses the mark, apparently failing to read (b).(4) of the law.

Why is this troubling? Well, imagine that you’re a woman in an emotionally or physically abusive realtionship [sic] and you’ve just found out you’re pregnant. You don’t want to carry the pregnancy to term because you don’t want to bring a child into this situation. Alito’s dissent seemingly ignores these types of situations. And what troubles me most, is that it appears he fails to understand that these laws are specifically made for the exceptions. These laws protect the weak and the wounded.

Don’t be confused by the inaccuracy, intentional or not, of those who misrepresent the Alito decision on Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

UPDATE: Bainbridge takes to task the “spousal notification is extreme” mantra. And Volokh has a look at the public opinion polls on the issue.

… or something like that.

Captain Ed has the full jaw-dropping analysis, from Late Edition:

BLITZER: But do you feel comfortable, do you feel comfortable with the very narrow issue of — for example, some people that have problems with you, and they say, well, let’s go to his — let’s see what his wife is up to, and we’ll try to drag her into this?

BAUER: But, Wolf, in this case, his wife allegedly played a role in sending him on a mission that ended up in a very real way being used to undermine the president’s desires in foreign policy areas…

BLITZER: So you don’t have a problem dragging her into this?

BAUER: Well, I would have trouble attacking somebody’s spouse if that spouse had nothing to do with the controversy. I’m arguing that in fact she did have something to do with the controversy. Look, this is a tough city…

Ed:

“Dragging her into this?” Does Blitzer ever do any research or real reporting, or does he just read off of notecards at this point? The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence made this quite clear in their unanimous report on the use of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. Plame didn’t get dragged into this controversy by the Bush administration — she initiated the entire event by getting her husband a job to investigate the Niger data, based on the CIA’s curiousity about the British intelligence on the subject.

We’ve never tried the open trackback thing before, but hey, there’s a first time for everything.

If you are blogging about the Samuel A. Alito Jr. nomination, feel free to link and trackback to this post.

UPDATE: I have just now realized that decorum would dictate that I display the trackbacks inline when doing an open trackback type thread. Until I re-do my template to permit this, your entry will only show up in the expanded thread, and not on the main Myopic Zeal page. I’ll be working on that over the next week or two.

Until today, I had never heard of mesothelioma. It is a form of cancer that is linked directly to asbestos exposure (according to the Asbestos Victims Association):

Terry Miller from the Asbestos Victims Association says some regions will report a higher rate of illness than others.

“You have a higher proportion of asbestos-related diseases from people particularly around the Whyalla area that were involved in the ship building. I mean asbestos in its day was a super-duper product,” he said.

This disease is a real killer, with the median survival time being from 6 to 12 months after presentation. This alternative treatment site lists the rates of success of various types of treatment.

If you, or someone you know, has been exposed to asbestos, and are interested in filing a lawsuit seeking damages for your Mesothelioma, this website has lots of information.

Wow.

Mesothelioma is the most lucrative type of asbestos claim. Such suits typically are settled out of court for about $3 million each, according to plaintiff and mesothelioma attorneys.

Why did I post this on my blog? Let’s just say it’s a small experiment. ;-)

President George W. Bush will nominate Samuel Alito for Supreme Court at 8:00 am ET today, 10/31/2005.

CNN has the reporting, as does FoxNews.

James Joyner has more coverage, as does Jay Tea and Stop the ACLU.
Julian Sanchez says it’s “Trick, or Treat?” time for the headline writers.

Based on various comments over the past weekend on the talk shows, it may be a fight. But if it’s a fight for what’s right, I say, bring it on. Many are casting him in the mold of Scalia, and Harry Reid, who didn’t get his way with Miers, is not too happy, which is probably a good sign.

But the Senate’s top Democrat, minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, raised the possibility of “a lot of problems” if Bush settles on Alito, who sits on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, to succeed O’Connor, a swing voter on abortion and other social issues.
…
For instance, Alito, 55, wrote the lone dissent in a case striking down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to inform their husbands.

The case later was appealed to the Supreme Court, which voted 6-3 in 1992 to strike down the spousal notification requirement. In his dissent, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said he agreed with Alito’s reasoning. [MZ notes: Patterico reviews this decision in detail here]

Alito’s “is not one of the names that I’ve suggested to the president,” Democratic leader Reid told CNN. “In fact, I’ve done the opposite. I think it would create a lot of problems.”

bRight and Early (via Jawa), says it’s not Halloween, it’s Christmas!
PoliBlog wonders: “So, how many times do you think we will hear “Scalito” in the next 24 hours? Does Vegas have an over/under yet?”

Sister Toldjah has a bit of a roundup, as does Michelle.

PoliPundit thinks confirmation is all but assured, and does a roll call. [UPDATE: But Taegan Goddard points out that the more important question is whether the Democrats have enough votes to force a filibuster.]

Ed Whelan says “Congratulations, President Bush!“:

By any objective criteria, it is doubtful that there is anyone now or in recent decades (yes, not even Chief Justice Roberts) whose experience and qualifications better prepare him for the Supreme Court.

The BBC has a brief profile.

1950 - born in Trenton, New Jersey
1972 - graduates from Princeton
1975 - earns Doctor of Law degree at Yale
1981-85 - assistant to US solicitor general
1985-87 - deputy assistant to US attorney general
1987-1990 - US attorney for district of New Jersey
1990-present - judge US court of appeals

Many conservative bloggers are initially reacting with “thrilled” - including Southern Appeal, a Typical Joe (well, actually it’s his mom who would be thrilled), and Confirm Them.

Conservative Outpost reminds us that he has twice been confirmed unanimously.

There should be absolutely NO DOUBT among conservatives as to his credentials, (or those of the academic “elite”, as he’s a Yale/Princeton man). Rated well-qualified by the ABA…and confirmed twice by the US Senate - unanimously. I’m sure we’ll all be “treated” to Halloween references by those on the left today, but no matter. This is great news folks. In Alito we get exactly what we want (a solid conservative) and what we need (a fight that will re-galvanize conservatives).

BlogsForBush has started the Confirm Alito Coalition.

The RNC talking points are in. Qualified. Experienced. Respected.

And of course, there has to be the requisite fake Alito blog.

Others are scared. And are yelling “Goodbye choice.” The KOS thread is a fun read. Fired Up America says it’s an appointment from weakness. Howard Friedman looks at this decision in Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania. Arguing with Signposts notes: “Alito appears to be everything Miers was not in terms of qualifications. He is also a “he”, which is bound to raise some hackles.” Chuck Currie thinks that Conservatives who are “opposed to basic civil rights for women and other minorities” will support this nomination (my guess is that Chuck, too, is opposed to these basic civil rights for women and other minorities who are not born yet). And also, what does the phrase “women and other minorities” mean? Are women currently a minority? A class of people maybe, but minority? That’s a stretch.

Pandagon screeches: “The Chimp bowed down at the altar of Dobson, Bauer, Schlafly, and the rest of the AmTaliban to save his “base” of the wild-eyed Freeper set, nominating Samuel Alito.” … but then goes on to ask this legitimate question, which many on the right would have liked an answer to as well: “how on earth did Harriet Miers rate ahead of Sam[uel Alito]?”

Ott spoofs Schumer: “hopelessly overqualified.”

Captain Ed says the Democrats blew their chance.

Democrats blew their one opportunity to get a moderate on the bench during the Bush administration by waiting until Miers withdrew before defending her. Prior to that, Charles Schumer and Pat Leahy took great pains to call her questionnaire response “insulting” and echoing conservative complaints that her resume seemed too lightweight for a nomination to the Supreme Court. Had they pledged to support her, Bush likely would have allowed her to coast through the hearings to a floor vote despite the dissatisfaction on the right.

He also notes:

Democrats may well try obstructionism, but they stand to lose the filibuster if they try — and if John Paul Stevens steps down or dies during the next two years, the path will open up for Janice Rogers Brown to take his place.

Ian wishes it would have been Brown.

Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood weighs in with: “Planned Parenthood opposes the nomination of Alito because he would undermine basic reproductive rights.” Of course, they mean only the reproductive rights of those who are already born. If you are a young person who hasn’t yet taken a breath, you have no rights at all according to planned parenthood. No right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. And PFAW has similary lambasted the president’s choice.

It’s interesting, though again not suprising, to hear the Democrats looking not for who is most qualified, but for who has the right color and gender. (Which, incidentally, seems like what Bush did originally with Harriet Miers).

Confederate Yankee thinks the left will now shriek themselves into oblivion. California Conservative says that conservatives should now keep their powder dry.

California Conservative is doing open trackbacks, as we are here.

Drudge is splashing that “Scalito” is ethncially insensitive. “… the DNC’s anti-Italian American talkers…”

Howard Kurtz (via Nate):

This is a winning political move. Alito is at least as qualified as Roberts, and his Casey opinion will not sustain a convincing filibuster. The Democrats seem trapped here. Reid has warned the president not to nominate Alito. And despite the narrow and non-substantive character of Alito’s dissent in Casey, the Dems will be forced by their groups to make abortion the issue. So if there is no filibuster, this is going to come off as a huge victory for the president.

UPDATE: Welcome those of you who arrived at this post from http://www.SamuelAAlito.com! Feel free to look around at our other posts. Down the road, this domain name will probably point to a full featured site with lots of links and info about Judge Alito, but for now, it points here for your reading and linking pleasure!

And Captain Ed says: “Expect Alito to get confirmed, 65-35.” He arrives at this after analyzing the chances of a filibuster, including the perspectives of one of the “Gang of 14,” Lindsey Graham.

Ann Althouse makes the case that Alito is stronger than Roberts.