Current Tally

UPDATE: More recent numbers here

Outrageous partisanship is popular: More than doubling Wednesday's tally, nine Senate Democrats have vowed to vote against the unquestionably qualified Sam Alito. The shameful set so far:

• Dianne Feinstein (Calif.)


• Ken Salazar (Colo.)


• Dick Durbin (Ill.)


• Tom Harkin (Iowa)


• Barbara Mikulski (Md.)


• Ted Kennedy (Mass.)


• Max Baucus (Mont.)


• Ron Wyden (Ore.)


• Pat Leahy (Vt.)

Add the Senate Dems eying the White House--like last time, almost certain Nays: Evan Bayh (Ind.), Joe Biden (Del.), Barbara Boxer (Cal.), Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), John Kerry (Mass.) and Barack Obama (Ill.). That's a total of 15 nasty, lying, race-card raising Bush bashers putting partisanship before our country and Constitution. So far, according to California Yankee, the twelve Alito-supporting Republicans have been joined by only a single Senate Democrat -- Ben Nelson (Neb.) -- a fair man:

Alito isn't going to get anything close to 78 votes received by Chief Justice Roberts. He will be lucky to get 60 votes.

Yesterday Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Rick Santorum predicted Alito will be be confirmed on a straight partisan vote. Santorum may be right. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska remains the only Senate Democrat to announce that he will vote for Alito's confirmation. No Republican Senator is expected to vote against Alito's confirmation.

Democrats embrace partisanship über alles. Why? Listen to liberal Sally Swift:

Make no mistake, Alito's a very dangerous man. Chosen by George W. Bush. A conservative's Conservative. Another Scalia. Another Thomas. A man who believes more firmly in Executive Powers than in individual rights. A strict Constructionist who will look backward, not forward.

Here's the biggest clue:

"In interpreting the Constitution," Judge Alito said Wednesday, "I think we should look to the text of the Constitution, and we should look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption." New York Times

The actual text! A conservative! Quelle horrible! And Scalia was approved 98-0!

How about Barking Dingo?:

I don't think he is a bad person. I don't dislike him personally, but I don't think he has to be objective SC justice. I just have not seen it in his opinions. . .

I gave Alito a fair chance. I read many of his opinions, and just did not like his judicial philosophies. He, is without question, very intelligent. But, he gives way too much power to the government over the rights of individuals. I have little doubt that he would have been in the majority on Kelo.

However one views Kelo -- I think it compelled by Midkiff -- the Kelo majority included liberals Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer! Is Dingo campaigning to impeach them? Nope--his principle is Procrustean jurisprudence, not property rights.

As a reminder, only three Republicans opposed elevating the ACLU's former General Counsel to the Supreme Court in 1993. The "Ginsburg Differential" -- the number of dissenters to SCOTUS nominees minus three -- represents an objective evaluation of each political party's neutrality and respect for the rule of law.

The Roberts vote was bad enough. Last September, the Dems' Ginsburg Differential was an appalling +19. Next week will be worse. Oh, like Breyer (GD = 6) and Thomas (GD = 45), Alito's gonna get confirmed--but with scant Democrat support.

Remember this in November. And don't let liberals pretend at principles when it's actually Constitutional contempt in service of a hoped-for Democrat dictatorship.

More:

While Sally Swift sinks to anti-intellectualism, apparently incapable of rebutting a philosophy she calls "stupid," and Senator Rum-Blossom blovates, Leon at RedState says confirmation has costs:

Right now, the safest tactic for Reid to pursue is to call for a filibuster, but to give consent to the 7 Democrat "gangsters" to vote for cloture (or at least, enough of them to push the vote over 60). In so doing, he can significantly tilt the playing field in at least one critical race in '06, basically for free. However, the bolder move would be to exercise all the discipline that he can, and force the GOP to exercise the Constitutional option. And, if he feels that the majority can be regained in '06, this is actually the right tactical decision.

It seems to me that at least two things are relatively certain: (1) Alito will be confirmed, and (2) If Reid plays his cards right, he can make the GOP pay for it. Either way, I can't see how a filibuster doesn't make tactial sense for the Democrats at this point, given the current political landscape. And I don't see a way to avoid some damage from the fallout.