The Senate is still voting, but they have crossed the 51 yes votes needed for confirmation.

Michael at BlogActive appears to be publicly blackmailing a Senator.

Mr. Senator:

Tomorrow you will be faced with a vote that may have the longest aftereffects of any other you have cast in your Senate career.

Tomorrow you will decide if your political position is worth more than doing what is right for others like you. For others like you, Mr. Senator, who engage in oral sex with other men. (Although, Mr. Senator, most of us don’t do in the bathrooms of Union Station!) Your fake marriage, by the way, will NOT protect you from the truth being told on this blog.

How does this blog decide who to report on? It’s simple. We report on hypocrites. In this case, hypocrites who vote against the gay and lesbian community while engaging in gay sex themselves*.

When you cast that vote, Mr. Senator, represent your own…it’s the least you could do.

Michael Rogers
blogACTIVE.com

*While votes on many matters are considered, votes “FOR” either the Alito nomination and the Federal Marriage Amendment are enough to qualify legislators for reporting on this site.

Ian Schwartz responds: “Michael Rogers at BlogActive is gay himself and here I thought that gays wanted people to be tolerate of their lifestyle. Oh wait, that’s only if you’re a gay liberal. My bad, sorry. ”

Adam Graham, of Adam’s Blog, observes: “Subversion, blackmail, and deceit is all that’s left to the unhinged left.”

Daniel at The Mechanical Eye rants:

… brilliant, man. The Democrats were accused of being bullies armed only with smear tactics during Judiciary Committee hearings. So, in making a final stand, the activists are… bullying, armed only with smear tactics.

I mean, make an argument! Tell us why Alito is so wicked, how he’ll send children back into the coal mines and burn gay men at the stake and force women back into the kitchen and make the menfolk sandwiches.

UPDATE: Some readers may be curious as to what the legal definition of “blackmail” is. Section 22-3252 of the D. C. Code defines blackmail as containing the following elements.

1. The defendant threatened to accuse another of a crime or to expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject the other party to hatred, contempt, or ridicule or to impair the reputation of the other party;

2. The defendant did so with the specific intent to obtain property of another or cause another person to do or refrain from doing any act.

Is what Mr. Rogers is doing criminal? Maybe, unless the whole thing is a big hoax designed to draw traffic to his blog. If that’s the case, it’s working. If it’s not a joke and he actually has sent such a letter, he will likely find himself in legal hot water for this stunt. Of course, the catch 22 of it is that by definition, the target of the blackmail is never one who wants to provide evidence and press charges.

UPDATE 2: Others are wondering about the legality, or lack thereof, of Michael Rogers’ actions.

Rob at Say Anything (via Lime Shurbet) says: “Don’t look now, but this gay witch hunt may well be against the law.”

NRO’s John Podhoretz: “I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if threatening an unnamed person constitutes blackmail. But it could…”

Kerfuffles: “The legal question is … is blackmail of a United States Senator legal? If not, can we expect “BlogActive” to receive a not so friendly visit from the FBI?”

McGehee comments over at OTB: “The man is a walking Godwin’s Law violation.”

Ian Schwartz, at his newly repainted blog ExposeTheLeft, has the video of Ted Kennedy losing it on the Senate floor yesterday.

Can this be true?

According to Senator Kennedy, more kids have asthma in this country thanks to air and water pollution. Which is something that may or may not be true, but what I found interesting was the way Kennedy wound down his tantrum, asking in a sincere and breathless tone just what Alito would do, as a Supreme Court Justice, to stem this asthma scourge.

Can it really be possible that someone who has been a U.S. Senator for decades is this patently obtuse when it comes to the role of the Supreme Court in American government? Because the last time I checked Supreme Court Justices didn’t write environmental policy. Instead, they rule as to whether or not laws written by state and federal legislators are, in fact, in keeping with our Constitution.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but this is something I learned in the sixth grade.

LifeTrek thinks that Kennedy may in fact be part of the problem. If you haven’t read “Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed” you need to. It dovetails perfectly with LifeTrek’s comment.

KOS is keeping track of the committed and iffy cloture votes. To date, committed to voting no on cloture (supporting fillibuster) are:

Barbara Boxer (D- CA)
Dianne Feinstein (D- CA)
Christopher J. Dodd (D- CT)
Richard J. Durbin (D- IL)
John F. Kerry (D- MA)
Edward M. Kennedy (D- MA)
Paul S. Sarbanes (D- MD)
Debbie A. Stabenow (D- MI)
Harry Reid (D- NV)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D- NY)
Charles Schumer (D- NY)
Ron Wyden (D- OR)
Russell D. Feingold (D- WI)
Barack Obama (D-IL)
Joe Biden (D-DE)

And liberal “Republican” Lincoln Chafee will be voting against Alito (but presumably not voting no on cloture).

UPDATE: Alexandra at All Things Beautiful has a big roundup of this story. The left wing bloggers are going all out on this issue, including urging readers to make repeat calls to offices which do not take details such as names and addresses.

That is, go through the “Urge Abstention” list twice, at least for those offices that don’t take detailed caller info like names and addresses.

Captain Ed aptly says: “If your cause boils down to tactics such as these, then everyone associated with it should be embarrassed by the connection. Hopefully, an intrepid news crew will wait outside of Walter Reed to see any Democrats inclined to endorse methods such as those urged by this blogger.”

PoliPundit points out today that with the commitment of five of the Democratic Senators not to support a filibuster, Alito’s confirmation is now pretty much assured. The five Senators are: Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD).

I personally don’t trust a politician’s commitment until the actual vote happens, but there’s a good case to be made that Alito will now sails smoothly to confirmation.

(Via Ace)

UPDATE: Add Robert Byrd to the list, per the Congressional Record 1/26/2006.

UPDATE 1/27/2005: Feinstein changed her position today on the filibuster. (Via Hinderaker)

Bloomberg reports on the flip flop.

California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, who had previously said a filibuster against Alito wouldn’t be justified, today said in a statement she would vote against shutting off debate.

From the AP:

Rendell said the only test that should count in confirming a Supreme Court pick is fairness, integrity, legal record and academic background.

“I think Judge Alito passes all those tests,” Rendell said in an interview. “He would not have been my pick by any means, but he deserves confirmation.”

Drudge is splashing an “exclusive” about the Heimbecker v. 555 Associates case that was not included on question #23 of Alito’s Senate questionaire. It turns out this is not really a new revelation, as back on Jan 11th, Mr. Heimbecker posted on Democrats.org that he had faxed information about this to Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter.

Heimbecker’s letter states, in part:

Dear Senator Specter:

Question 23 from the Senate Judiciary Questionnaire reads, in part, as follows: Please provide a list of any instance during your tenure on the Third Circuit that there has been a request for you to recuse yourself from a case, motion, or matter, or when you have otherwise considered recusing yourself from a case, motion, or matter.

As a litigant, who had filed several motions for Judge Alito’s recusal, I was anxious to review his answer to Question 23. He listed 23 cases, from 1990 to 2005. He failed to include Heimbecker v. 555 Associates, 03-2180 (3rd Cir. 2004). To confirm that 03-2180 is4 a case that should have been on his list but was omitted from his answer, the docket in 03-2180 reflects his order as follows:

2/9/04 ORDER(Alito, Authoring Judge, McKee and Cowen, Circuit Judges)denying motion by Pro Se Appellant H. Gerard Heimbecker to Disqualify the Third Circuit because each judge must decide individually
whether to recuse. Judges Alito, McKee and Cowen do not recuse, filed. (ghb) His list of 23 cases included both serious and frivolous cases. If 03-2180 was a frivolous case, it would have been included. There can be only two possibilities to explain his failure to include 03-2180 in his answer. Either he forgot or he didn’t forget.

The original case in question appears to be here. Michelle Malkin has more, as does Prof Bainbridge. The man is clearly qualified to serve, as anyone who watched the hearings knows. These last gasps of opposition will die out quickly, particularly after the Democrats further eroded their credibility during the hearings.

Specter gets snookered again, or is he in on the ruse? When will Senator Specter wake up?

The terrorists play like this. They work out a deal or ceasefire when they are on the losing end in order to gain some time to get more mortar rounds, or get food, or to create some media propaganda moment, but then at a time of their choosing renege on the deal and start more attacks.

That’s the game Leahy and the Democrats have played with Senator Specter. Specter and the Republicans agreed to delay the Alito hearings until after the New Year. In exchange for a delay in the hearings, the committee vote on Alito would be held Jan. 17 without any further delays. Leahy, representing his Democrat colleagues, agreed.

The Democrats wanted to delay the hearings so they could have time to muster a boatload of smears against Alito in an attempt to destroy a very honorable man. And the Democrats roll out their best and brightest… Kennedy (What really happened at Chappaquiddick? How many people did you really pay to do your work at Harvard?), Leahy (The one who leaked crucial classified information while on the Senate Intelligence Committee but still remains in the Senate.), Schumer (Wasn’t he involved with the communist party in his early days?), Biden (Mr. Plagiarist.), Feinstein (He’s extremely well qualified, but I’ll vote against him… brilliant… litmus test anyone?)… to try and smear, denigrate, and destroy a perfectly decent man. Isn’t their some hilarious irony to this bunch attacking a man like Alito?

Well the Democrats tricked Specter into delaying the hearings. Now the Democrats have backed out of the deal and want to delay the vote. And what is their excuse? They didn’t have anything in writing. Like that would have made any difference.

The Democrats have once again labeled themselves as untrustworthy. Like the terrorists, their word is useless. Remember that in the next campaign, whether it’s election time or another attack on decent people. You cannot believe what the Democrat politicians say (nor their water carriers in the media for that matter).

Diane Feinstein said on Face the Nation this morning that Alito is clearly qualified for the Supreme Court. And she said is going to vote against him. Stacey Harp has the video.

“in my view, he’s clearly qualified.”

And …

“… this is a man I might disagree with, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the court.”

Debra Saunders has a great idea, endorsed by Michelle Malkin.

IF BY SOME bizarre twist of fate, the Senate fails to confirm Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, I have a suggestion for President Bush’s next pick: Ted Kennedy. After all, if some Democrats can make a federal case out of Alito’s membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton — targeting his inclusion of that membership in a resume he submitted 20 years ago and his failure to remember being in the group — then I’d like to see how they tackle Chappaquiddick.

RCP makes a similar point.

How many of them could withstand the same sort of exhaustive examination and distortion of their own careers and records that’s now being given to Sam Alito’s?

The answer, just off the top of my head and without resorting to extensive research or digging through trash, is not very many: [more…]

The USA Today, on Biden at the Alito hearings.

For the next 30 minutes, Biden engaged in a rambling, self-indulgent soliloquy on his views on the Constitution, his dislike for Princeton University (Alito’s alma mater), his grandfather’s philosophy and even on another senator’s eyeglasses. Questions for the nominee, whose decisions on the Supreme Court would affect every life in America? There were just five. They ate up triple the time Alito was allowed for answers.

…

Bloviating is nothing new to politics, of course, or to the Senate. Nor is the partisanship that has raised it to gale force. But when senator after senator focuses more on scoring snappy sound bites than on learning a nominee’s views, the public is ill-served and the Senate’s credibility is undermined. More important, so is confidence in the independence of the court.

If it were not so disgusting, it would have been amusing watching the hearings yesterday. It is clear that on the issues of substance, Sam Alito knows his cases. His encyclopedic knowledge of precedent setting cases, case law, his own opinions and the cases on which he has sat is phenomenal. No one can dispute the fact that the man is a brilliant judge.

So what are the charges that moved Lindsey Graham to apologize, which moved Mrs. Alito to tears? They are charges of bigotry, charges of racism, charges of unethical behavior. The incessant focus on CAP (which had some pretty obnoxious articles in their magazine, and which Alito stronly disavows and detests the views of) and on the Vanguard case (which had no conflict of interest anyway, and which was reheard with the same finding, and which Alito has candidly admitted he would do differently if he could) proves that they cannot find any substantive problems in his 4,000 cases and 300 written opinions.

The best the Democrats apparently have is “you’re a closet bigot even though the way you have lived your life and ruled in your court says otherwise” and the American people are disgusted. Senator Kennedy, Senator Biden, Senator Schumer, please take this advice from an average guy: please stop now before you dig a deeper hole for yourself and your party.

Frankly, and “with all due respect,” you are looking like idiots to the American people.

UPDATE: Lots of others are disgusted too.

Hugh Hewitt: “Their hard left fever swamp supporters may think this is what moves America, but the better bet is that this is the sort of behavior that disgusts the center.”

Charmaine: “Even if the Democrats don’t have the common decency to realize that they have gone too far in their political game, they should have the political sense to realize that the cruelty of the Kabuki dance they have been subjecting the Alito’s to isn’t going to sit well with the American people.”

Amy Proctor: “Compassionate Liberalism Makes Alito’s Wife Cry”

Stop the ACLU: “The irony is that these kind of actions only hurt them. The public is not stupid like they believe we are. … They should be ashamed of themselves, but it seems they have no shame. … Yes, the party of compassion indeed. They are simply bullying this man, and playing the smear job as best they know how, yet in the end, they are only smearing themselves.”

HyScience: “The attacks on Judge Samuel Alito by democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are outrageous, repetitive, and personal. … What is remarkable is that the judge kept his steady even keel and answered with respect, common sense and honor while Kennedy and company inflicted their well practiced art of character assassination. ”

Captain Ed: “It’s a disgusting way to treat a dedicated public servant.”

Musclehead: “But what the Democrats who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee displayed yesterday really sank to the lowest lows since that whole Anita Hill non-sense. The badgering, the bullying, the endless yapping - and never asking a questions.”

Kevin Aylward: “Another fine moment in the bumbling careers of Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer.”

Confirm Them: “Shameless bullies.”

Political Pitbull: “shameful and dishonest”

ABP has a great analysis of each Senator’s bloviations at the Alito hearings.

Democrats
Joe Biden 78-22% (DE) (3,673 - 1,013) (a 1,879 word, and 13 minute opening “question”)
Chuck Schumer (NY) 75-25% (3,555-1,165)
Ted Kennedy (MA) 69-31% (3,439-1,539)
Pat Leahy (VT) 60-40% (2,714-1,874)
Russ Feingold (WI) 56-44% (2,976-2,364)
Diane Feinstein (CA) 42-58% (1,912-2,593)
Herb Kohl (WI) 37-63% (1,835-3,094)

Republicans
Mike DeWine (OH) 72-28% (3,398-1,323) (Corrected from 82%-18%)
Lindsey Graham (SC) 65-35% (3,032-1,643)
Jeff Sessions (AL) 61-39% (2,827-1,773)
John Cornyn (TX) 56-44% (3,407-1,900)
Jon Kyl (AZ) 53-47% (2,594-2,255)
Orrin Hatch (UT) 54-46% (2,686-2,242)
Chuck Grassley (IA) 51-49% (2,305-2,183)
Arlen Specter (PA) 50-50% (2,232-2,194)

Wow.

And the fact that Alito kept his cool during Ted Kennedy’s questioning today says a whole lot about his personal restraint. Alito emphatically denies any sympathy for any of the radical views expressed on the CAP magazine, he says he does not recall reading any of the articles that Kennedy quoted from, and now Kennedy wants to subpoena the records of CAP from that time. Incredible.

Watching the hearings yesterday was great. Alito came across as brilliant, polite and yet very down to earth. He didn’t have quite the polish of Roberts, but was more forthcoming and clearly and convincingly defended his prior decisions. He completely schooled the questioners, at least in my average Joe view. There is so much commentary all over the web about the hearings, that I really don’t have a lot to add, but I did want to point out two things. One from Biden and one from Schumer.

First, is this rich speech from Biden. (From the WaPo transcript).

BIDEN: Well, it was a pretty outrageous group. I mean, I believe you that you were unaware of it. But here I was, University of Delaware graduate, a sitting United States senator, I was aware of it because I was up there on the campus. I mean, it was a big deal. It was a big deal, at least in our area of the Delaware Valley, if Princeton, Penn, the schools around there had this kind — because the big thing was going on at Brown at the time as well.

And by the way, for the record, I know you know when you stated in your application that you are a member — you said in ‘85, “I am a member” — they had restored ROTC. ROTC was back on the campus.

But again, this is just by way of why some of us are puzzled. Because if I was aware of it, and I didn’t even like Princeton…

(LAUGHTER)

I mean, I really didn’t like Princeton. I was an Irish Catholic kid who thought it had not changed like you concluded it had.

I admit, one of my real dilemmas is I have two kids who went to Ivy League schools. I’m not sure my Grandfather Finnegan will ever forgive me for allowing that to happen.

But all kidding aside, I wasn’t a big Princeton fan. And so maybe that is why I focused on it and no one else did. But I remember it at the time.

Aside from the factual error of the suggestion that in 1985 the ROTC was free and clear back on campus (info provided by the RNC) …

“[Prospect Editor Dinesh] D’Souza Added That CAP Is ‘Concerned’ About The Formation Of A Third World Center, A Campaign To Eliminate The Army ROTC Program, And What It Perceives As The Decline Of Princeton Athletics.” (Charles Stile, “A Conservative Voice Targets The University,” The Princeton Packet, 2/12/85)

… the real fun part of this speech by Biden (because that is what it is, Alito said 72 words in Biden’s 30 minutes) is that he, “all kidding aside” was not a “big Princeton fan.” Check out this excerpt from a speech that Biden gave at Princeton on 2/24/2004.

It’s an honor to be here. It would have even been a greater honor to have gone here. I have three children who have merifully have all finally completed undergraduate and graduate school, and I tried to get all three of them to apply here…I committed a serious mistake, Dean. I’ve learned now, any advice I give…when you become parents, whatever school you want your child to go to, don’t mention it. And so I had been pushing Princeton, and this magnificently attractive, intellectually and physically, beautiful young girl, was a sophomore, was showing us around, and I figured we’ve got a lock now. My son is going to really be interested, and I know Senators aren’t supposed to say things like that, but if he hadn’t been interested, I would have been worried…

Radio Blogger’s got great audio of the Joe Biden Princeton Waffle.

And rather than discuss the Schumer excerpt I wanted to mention, since I’m long on words and short on time, I’ll just point you to the Captain, who excerpted this and then said just about what I was thinking.

SCHUMER: Does the Constitution protect the right to free speech?

ALITO: Certainly it does. That’s in the First Amendment.

SCHUMER: So why can’t you answer the question of: Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion the same way without talking about stare decisis, without talking about cases, et cetera?

ALITO: Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can’t be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.

UPDATE: The Daily Princetonian has picked up the story.

First question up from Specter was about the right to privacy and Roe. You can watch it live on C-Span now.

UPDATE: Lots of bloggers are on the scene in Washington, including Suitably Flip, Captain’s Quarters, Blogs for Bush, GOP Bloggers, Power Line, and The Political Teen. (H/T Michelle Malkin for the collection of some of the links).

UPDATE 2: Political Pitbull is also liveblogging. And Senator Frist just spoke with Scott Johnson. “He acknowledges that the committee vote can be delayed and the ultimate vote filibustered. He states, however, that he has an “absolute commitment” to get Judge Alito an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate.”

The AP has the definitive proof.

I’m listening to the senators rambling on in their opening statements for Sam Alito’s hearings. Dick Durbin just discussed how much he has considered abortion with respect to the law, his own religious views, etc. and that he has come to the conclusion that we should ensure

“that we don’t make that decision [to have an abortion] a crime except in those extreme circumstances.”

He looked a bit confused when he said it. Did his speech writer screw up, or did I miss something? In what “extreme circumastances” would Dick Durbin make abortion a crime? Or is he have a flashback to 1989, when he said…

I believe we should end abortion on demand, and at every opportunity I have translated this belief into votes in the House of Representatives. I am opposed to the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions, and will continue to support amendments to prohibit the funding of elective abortions for federal employees and Medicaid recipients. Also, notwithstanding the result in Webster, I continue to believe the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade should be reversed.

Prof Bainbridge has a great point by point take down of the New York Times editorial about Alito.

He points out the omitted pieces of the story about abortion, presidential power, congressional power, and one person one vote. Here’s a sample, go read the whole thing here.

The NY Times says:

• ABORTION Judge Alito has not only opposed Roe v. Wade, he has also worked to overturn it. When he applied for a promotion in the Reagan administration in 1985, he wrote that he was “particularly proud” of his legal arguments “that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.” In meetings with senators, Judge Alito has talked about his respect for Roe, but he has said nothing to discourage his supporters on the religious right who back him because they believe he will vote to overturn it. The American people have a right to know, unambiguously, where Judge Alito stands on Roe.

Here’s what the NY Times didn’t tell you:

• “Samuel Alito supported limited abortion rights in 3 out of 4 rulings ….” - Wikipedia
• “What is remarkable in both cases is that Judge Alito recommended against taking the position that more senior, politically appointed officials were urging the solicitor general to take before the court. In the abortion case, not only the head of the civil division but also other high-ranking officials were urging that I, as the solicitor general at the time, ask the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. The bottom line of Judge Alito’s memo was that I should not do that.” - Charles Fried, former Solicitor General and Alito’s former boss

AnalPhilosopher has more on the same editorial. And so does Ann Althouse.

Man, this photo is just nuts. Can you imagine trying to get anything accomplished (or for that matter, even looking normal for the camera) with this sort of thing going on around you? I’m glad I’m not a Supreme Court Nominee, those photographers would drive me nuts. :-)

I just hope they kick the reporters out before they try to have a real conversation.