We Ready....fooooor waaaaarrrrr © Pastor Troy

Well, this little battle should have been decided over the summer, with the Republicans scrapping judicial filibusters during the appellate court nominations.  However, the Gang of 14 wanted to take the easy way out...through the back door.

However, thanks to Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court this morning, we're back to square one.  If you think the appellate court fights were bad, you've seen nothing yet.  The big guns will be pulled out and ready to fire by tonight.

I'm sure several leftist special interest group members had strokes once they found out about Bush's pick early this morning.  The next couple of months are going to be busy, and they will spend several millions on spreading propaganda about Alito.  Meanwhile, Bush and conservative Republican Senators will have to make sure their weak-kneed sistren that are called "moderates" won't back down and cower in the face of Democratic backlash.  If they do, they should be abandoned.

Now, first let's talk about Alito.  Looking at the AP's profile, this guy is just as qualified as Roberts, if not more:

Dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite," a play not only on his name but his opinions, Alito, 55, brings a hefty legal resume that belies his age. He has served on the federal appeals court for 15 years since President George H.W. Bush nominated him in 1990. Before that Alito was U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey from 1987 to 1990, where his first assistant was a lawyer by the name of Michael Chertoff, now the Homeland Security secretary.Alito was the deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration from 1985 to 1987 and assistant to the solicitor general from 1981 to 1985.

His New Jersey ties run deep. Alito, the son of an Italian immigrant, was born in Trenton and attended Princeton University. He headed to Connecticut to receive his law degree, graduating from Yale University in 1975. He served in the Army Reserves from 1972 until 1980, when he was discharged as a captain.

Needless to say, this guy knows his stuff.  Princeton undergrad, Yale law, assistant A.G., U.S. attorney, and finally a 15-year appellate judge.  Pretty impressive.

Right now, the focus is on the abortion issue.  It doesn't surprise me, yet it boggles my mind because there are so many important issues that need to be addressed other than Roe v. Wade.  Personally, I could care less about Roe v. Wade being overturned or upheld.  I'm more concerned about the Kelo decision, or Lawrence v. Texas, or the varied interpretations of the interstate commerce clause.

But most point to Alito's lone dissent in a case that struck down Pennsylvania statute that required married women to notify husbands before they have an abortion.  As Glenn Reynolds points out, there's more to that story than what they are saying:

I'm not sure what I think about this issue, but looking at the Pennsylvania statute I notice a lot of exceptions, one of which is this: "Her spouse is not the father of the child."

I'm not sure about Pennsylvania, but in many states her spouse -- even if he's not the father of the child -- would still be on the hook for child support. Likewise, if he didn't want children, but she disagreed, lied to him about birth control, and got pregnant. And he certainly couldn't force her to have an abortion if she did so, even if his desire not to have children was powerful, and explicitly expressed at the outset. (The usual response -- "he made his choice when he had sex without a condom" -- never comes up in discussions of women and abortion.)

So where's the husband's procreational autonomy? Did he give it up by getting married? And, if he did, is it unthinkable that when they get married women might give some of their autonomy up, too?

The problem here is that you can say "my body, my choice" -- but when you say, "my body, my choice but our responsibility," well, it loses some of its punch.

I think women have been given too much strength by the courts to control the fate of the child anyway.   Almost everything - the decision of life, the wallets of the man, the manner in which the child is being brought up, etc - has been placed in the hands of women, making state and local courts take a completely sexist manner towards men.  As I heard Michael Savage say one night while driving home from work, it's as if men are nothing more than turkey basters.

Besides, conservatives point to another case in New Jersey, where Alito opposed a New Jersey law banning partial birth abortion.  Alito gave credence to the Supreme Court, and said a prior decision required that the "perservation of the health of the mother" had to be considered.

More here, from the Volokh Conspiracy's Orin Kerr.

Most conservative bloggers and pundits think the Democrats will fall before the filibuster option is evoked due to Alito's creditials.  And via Malkin, Lindsay Graham, one of the "Gang of 14" and considered McCain's puppy, says any filibuster attempt will be nullified.

However, that means nothing.  Wait until McCain actually speaks; then we'll know what Graham will do.

More on this story later.