In the meantime, enjoy a replay of one of our 50 (!!) episodes...

We'll put a show together as soon as we can after the vote... travel schedules and lost bags (thank you Northwest Airlines!) have intervened a bit, but we hope to get it to you late tonight.

Thought I would take a moment and point you to one of our latest offerings in light of the continuing "hey, this is just like the Ginsburg nomination, but in reverse!" arguments that the GOP is so fond of making. Great line, just not terribly accurate. Take a look at our analysis, Revisionist History: Comparison of Ginsburg and Alito nominations defies the facts .

That's how it usually works. There are other mechanisms in the Senate rules that end a debate, but since we're just getting started, we might as well hunker down and tune into C-SPAN 2's coverage...

ANYWAYS, there's a big vote in Committee today on Samuel Alito's referral to the full Senate starting at 9:30 AM. We think C-SPAN should be moving away from our north-of-the-border (Windsor, Ontario notwithstanding) friends' election for this one... we'll have a new show later today.

The vote counters are out in force. Take a gander at this Forbes article for the latest revelations.

Did you get used to a show every day last week? Do ya miss us? Well, we're not too proud to say we missed you too. A new show is on the way tomorrow...

On Tuesday, the second day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, "we get down to business," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat.

The hearings begin at 9:30 AM and will likely go well into the evening, as there is a 7 PM dinner break scheduled. We'll wrap a few things up, then scurry into Studio 1-A for SCW 42, AKA Late Night With Kelly, Adam, Dan and Tim.

Of course, stay tuned to the Insider Scoop blog for our coverage throughout the day, but we'd also like to plug the excellent WashingtonPost.com Campaign for the Court blog for continuous coverage, including video clips.

Also, for live coverage on C-SPAN online click here. TV coverage is on C-SPAN 1, so no need to go to channel 283476234 like we did for the Roberts hearings...

So, enjoy your morning and get set for the 11:30 AM start!

Also, AP put out a good summary of the pre-hearing discussion here.

Alito's words and record must credibly demonstrate that he understands and supports the role of the Supreme Court in upholding the progress we've made in guaranteeing that all Americans have an equal chance to take their rightful place in the nation's future. "Credibility" has rarely been an issue for Supreme Court nominees, but it is clearly a major issue for Alito.

Hearings begin Monday morning. Just a reminder... we'll be posting throughout the day at the Insider Scoop blog on the main supremecourtwatch.org page, plus we'll be gathering the ragtag gang of usual suspects for a hearing wrap show every night, DC time.

Today, Alliance for Justice released a 168 195 page report examining the record of Supreme Court nominee Samuel J. Alito. The comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analysis shows a nominee determined to reshape the law and drive the Supreme Court sharply to the right.

"Given his record, it is no surprise that the Alito nomination has been embraced by the radical right. They believe that he will realize their hopes of undoing decades of progress in the advancement of individual rights," said Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice.

Throughout his career, Alito has quietly promoted a legal agenda and jurisprudence that aggrandizes executive power at the expense of individual liberties; limits Congressional authority to enact legal safeguards; and generally diminishes judicial authority to enforce both statutory and constitutional rights. "The reasoning Judge Alito employs and the results he reaches are not balanced. Rather, they track a staunchly conservative political and legal view to a remarkable degree," continued Aron.

Judge Alito has frequently gone to the right of even his Republican-appointed colleagues to find against individuals who claim that government officials or corporations violated the law. "This quantitative analysis shows a clear pattern - Judge Alito consistently opts to restrict individual rights and freedoms, and champion the causes of corporations and government power."

"Judge Alito is not simply a judicial conservative. Rather, he has the ideas and vision to move American legal thought in a radical new direction, jeopardizing our most cherished individual rights and freedoms," concluded Aron.

Check out the final report here.

See the rest of Adam Cohen's piece in the NYT here.

Update... we also stumbled upon this editorial on executive power and Alito from The Palm Beach Post.

Who says we never post on Saturdays? Happy new year everyone!

(No, I have no idea what that means either.)

The National Archives is releasing another 291 pages today... take a gander here, after 9 AM.

News Advisory:

WHAT: The National Archives at College Park will release 45 documents relating to Samuel Alito. These records total 744 pages from Record Group 60, Records of the Department of Justice, Files of John Bolton, Michael Carvin, Roger Clegg, Stephen Galebach, Brian Landsberg, Mark Levin, and Richard Willard.

The National Archives found the documents, consisting of memoranda and other documents, in various folders in the files of these individuals during the processing of additional FOIA requests.

WHERE: These records will be posted on the National Archives Web site at http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/

WHEN: The records will be available on Friday, Dec. 23 at 9 a.m., EST

We did a little pre-podcast caucus today, and it looks like we'll be recording and uploading the last show of the year on Thursday. But... a little elf told me there may a little something in your podcatcher stocking on Christmas day. The tease continues in SCW 37 on Thursday.

Update - looks like everything is straightened out... enjoy the show and your weekend!

Whether Samuel Alito would vote to overrule Roe v. Wade and whether his vote would be the last necessary step to Roe's demise are not the only questions before the Senate or the American public. For overruling Roe is not the only way to end legal abortion or make access so difficult, expensive, and dangerous that abortion's legality is practically meaningless. Indeed, overturning Roe outright is not the most likely avenue for the Court and anti-choice legislatures to take in the near term.

Stacking the Court with Justices who are indisposed to find a state regulation to be an "undue burden" is as sure a way of ending legal abortion for many women in much of the country as is overturning Roe. It's just far more subtle and less likely to create political backlash.

UPDATE - Our upstairs neighbors (and AFJ member) National Women's Law Center have added their report to your Alito reading list. Get crackin' people!

A new podcast is coming your way tomorrow... in the meantime, let it snow ice rain, let it snow ice rain, let it snow ice rain!

Confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito are scheduled for early next year, and a majority of the public is withholding judgment about him. Seventy-five percent haven't heard enough about Alito or are undecided in their views of him...

See the poll here.

Rolling Justice will be visiting Americans in towns throughout the country to educate and engage them on the importance of the Supreme Court and the impact of the Alito nomination. We want to hear the stories and voices of Americans and find out what the Supreme Court means to them.

For more on Alliance for Justice's eleven state tour, click here.

Check back in tomorrow (we promise this time) for SCW 35! If you're in the need of a little more reading, take a look at "Review of cases shows Alito to be staunch conservative" by Stephen Henderson and Howard Mintz.

Senate Democrats on Wednesday pushed for the Justice Department to release more documents about U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito as some liberal advocacy groups prepared to come out against his nomination.

* * *

Leahy pushed for the release of documents the administration has determined are not covered by a Freedom of Information Act request. He said the Senate was entitled to see the documents, or in some cases edited portions of them, and could handle them on a confidential basis if warranted.

Hang tight and we'll get a show out to you tomorrow Friday with all of the week's news, plus a new segment... "Dan Roth, Senior Supreme Court Correspondent."

Also, Senate as a full partner, not a rubber stamp by Sen. Patrick Leahy is well worth the read.

When Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Alito about that letter seeking a promotion, she said he told her: "First of all, it was different then.... I was an advocate seeking a job. It was a political job. And that was 1985."

Rather than defend his letter, in other words, Alito preferred to leave the impression that he might have been engaging in a bit of opportunism. Does that mean that 20 years from now, he will say that his statements to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were simply those of an appeals court judge seeking a promotion and were never intended to be taken too seriously?

In a 15-page memo, he argued in favor of letting states give police the power to shoot to kill at their discretion whenever a suspect flees, whether or not he poses a threat. Alito's memo is written with his usual dispassion. But he's forceful in his belief that the Constitution has no role to play in a cop's decision about whether to shoot an unarmed suspect.

More to come on this case, to be sure.

On the tech front (i.e. feel free to skip this if it makes you sleepy), we've just updated our Odeo feed. Click on our Odeo Channel (odeo/31867e600dc3d102) if you want to check us out through there.

In celebration, we're going to do exactly nothing out of the ordinary. We'll be gathering the roundtable today in Studio 1A and should have a show up sometime later in the day tomorrow. Stay tuned!

Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. was an architect of the Reagan administration's failed 1985 attempt to have the high court consider overruling Roe v. Wade, according to a memo from the period released today.

Alito, then assistant to the solicitor general, urged his boss to use a case before the court to "make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled."

In the memo, Alito suggested that the government challenge Roe in an amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief in an abortion case that itself did not challenge the 1973 decision legalizing abortion. This approach, he wrote, is better than a "frontal assault."

Here is the AFJ statement on the memo at the heart of the article:

The 1985 memo that came to light today reveals precisely what Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was talking about when, in a 1985 job application released two weeks ago, he declared that he was proud to have joined the Reagan administration's effort to scuttle women's reproductive freedoms. The memo shows that Samuel Alito worked in the boiler room as one of the chief engineers of a multi-tiered strategy to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Unlike Chief Justice John Roberts, Judge Alito cannot claim that he was simply a government lawyer doing government work. The memo released today illustrates his dedication to eliminating a woman's right to choose - a dedication that carried through to his dissenting opinion on the Third Circuit in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Casey was the only case he has ruled on that presented an open question regarding reproductive freedoms. And in Casey, as in the memo released today, he devised a way to hollow out a vital right.

With the memo, Alito promoted "the goals of bringing about the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade, and in the meantime, of mitigating its effects." There is little doubt that he would do likewise if elevated to the Supreme Court.

It's no surprise that President Bush resisted postponing the Senate confirmation hearings on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court until January. The more Americans learn about Alito, the more worrisome his appointment becomes.

For a great take on Alito's stance on civil rights, check out today's column in The Boston Globe by Derrick Jackson.

A nominee so willing to prostrate himself to an administration that left virtually nothing to be proud of on civil rights is a solid warning that if Alito gets on the court, he will have no shame exhuming the ideology he claims has been buried.

This week... Kelly is on assignment in Wisco, but the rest of the roundtable (Adam, Tim and Dr. Oth) are set for a big show. We're not sure whether to call this the "all testosterone show" or the "all off-message show." No matter what, check us out tomorrow for SCW 33.

In a 1985 application to be Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote that he "disagree[s]" with landmark Supreme Court decisions regarding "criminal procedure [and] the Establishment Clause" and "personally believes very strongly that... the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." He also said he "believe[s] very strongly in... federalism."

For more, take a look at the AFJ fact sheet, Connecting the Dots: Samuel Alito's 1985 Job Application Previewed His Judicial Record, here (PDF).

To read what he wrote click here (PDF).

• We've Heard That Before: Judge Alito and Stare Decisis - In his meetings on Capitol Hill, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has been telling senators what they want to hear - stressing the importance of stare decisis. But his recognition of the importance of precedent is not a predictor that he would follow it if confirmed to the Supreme Court. Click here for more (PDF).
• On November 01, 2005 The Coalition for a Fair & Independent Judiciary organized a legal briefing composed of senior lawyers from several prominent organizations on Judge Samuel Alito's judicial record, and the impact his decisions have had on ordinary Americans. If you're itching to listen to something before tomorrow's edition of SCW, check it out here (mp3).
• Read all about AFJ president Nan Aron (plus another mention of your favorite podcast) in today's Washington Post here.

Washington, DC - Alliance for Justice opposes the nomination of Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. "Influential segments of the radical right torpedoed the nomination of Harriet Miers because she didn't have a proven record of being a 'movement' conservative, dedicated to carrying out their political agenda on the bench. The right is now giddy about the nomination of Samuel Alito – undoubtedly because he has such a record. If confirmed to the pivotal O'Connor seat, Judge Alito would fundamentally change the balance of the Supreme Court, tipping it in a direction that could jeopardize our most cherished rights and freedoms," stated Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice.

"The president and the right claim to value judicial restraint. Yet Judge Alito has not demonstrated such restraint," noted Aron. Alito has voted to:

• Strike down a federal law prohibiting the possession of machine guns, leading his colleagues to accuse him of disrespecting the considered decision of Congress by requiring it to "play 'Show and Tell' with the federal courts";
• Invalidate part of the Family and Medical Leave Act;
• Scuttle Congress' intentions by making it much harder for civil rights plaintiffs to prove sex and race discrimination. In one case, his colleagues noted that the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination "would be eviscerated if our analysis were to halt where [Judge Alito] suggests."

Judge Alito has also:

• Upheld intrusive police searches of women and children who were not named in search warrants and weren't the subjects of any investigation. In one case, President Bush's own Director of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff – who formerly served with Judge Alito on the Third Circuit – criticized Judge Alito's position.
• Excused race discrimination by prosecutors in jury selection and upheld a death sentence that the Supreme Court overturned - with Justice O'Connor casting the deciding vote;
• Upheld abortion restrictions that the Supreme Court struck down in a landmark case.

"With Judge Alito, President Bush has sought to appease the radical right and fuel a revolution on the Supreme Court," said Aron. The National Law Journal reported that lawyers believe that Judge Alito is "much more of an ideologue than most of his colleagues." A prominent legal observer, who strongly supported John Roberts' nomination, has similarly called Judge Alito a "conservative activist" and asserts that his "lack of deference to Congress is unsettling."

"While it's clear Judge Alito possesses a keen intellect, it is equally clear the president selected him for his backward-looking judicial philosophy. The Supreme Court is not a place for 'movement' judges of any kind. Supreme Court Justices do not rule for a narrow segment of the population, but for all of us. It is truly disheartening that President Bush thinks otherwise. Instead of going to the Senate for advice and consent, President Bush chose to go to the right wing, injecting divisiveness and controversy into a situation that calls for unity. We call on Democrats and Republicans alike to reject this nomination," concluded Aron.

The latest buzz is that the choice will be Judge Samuel Alito from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Pardon my cynicism, but "the latest buzz" and a buck sixty-five gets you a tall house coffee at the Dupont Circle Starbucks. Take it for what it's worth.

A Weakened President Faces New Risks, Washington Post

Washington, DC - "An influential segment of the right wing was profoundly disappointed that, with Harriet Miers, the president did not nominate a proven 'movement' conservative who would carry out their political agenda on the bench. They have been clamoring for the withdrawal of Ms. Miers' nomination for weeks. What has happened today is an ominous indication of capitulation to such pressure. An independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our democracy. It is too vital to be used as a means of placating a political party's base.

"As the president makes another attempt to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's pivotal seat, we encourage him to work in good faith with members of both parties to choose a consensus nominee who is committed to equal justice. The new nominee should not merely serve the interests of the radical right. He or she must serve the interests of the American people - in their entirety - by protecting and enforcing our rights, freedoms and legal protections."

President Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

Shades of the Krautheimer exit strategy we mentioned in SCW 26.

Miers withdrawal letter
President Bush's statement

Adam Curry (A.K.A. the "Podfather") is often credited with bringing podcasting to the mainstream... it's great to be mentioned on the show. Thanks Adam!

Just two weeks shy of her hearings, we still don't know who Harriet Miers is. Senators and advocates on both sides of this nomination agree we need more information.

She has a heavy burden to meet to convince both the Senate and the American people that she is independent and qualified for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

Harriet Miers must prove that she will impartially enforce the rights, freedoms and legal safeguards protected by the Constitution.

Check out the rest of the statement here (PDF).

Look for the next show sometime in the next day or so... with all of the hurricane related power outages messin' with our host, we want to make sure everyone can actually get the show before we put it togeteher!

We hope everyone is dry and safe in Florida. We at Supreme Court Watch are eagerly awaiting the end of hurricane season on 11/15!

New podcast tomorrow... welcome to everyone who's been introduced to us via the Yahoo Podcasts page!

"She's a born-again Christian, owns a handgun, and headed the Texas Bar Association. I have a hard time understanding why this is a bad thing," says Ed Naile, chairman of the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers.

Outstanding... Miers hits Ed's trifecta.

Now, if you'd like to throw a little love back at us, make sure you mention the show to your friends and family. Our numbers are already much larger than we ever imagined when we started this little dog and pont show, but we've become greedy and want an even larger audience.

Still not satisfied? Do you need to do more? Consider voting for us at Podcast Alley or Yahoo Podcasts. Thanks and have a great weekend... we're keeping an eye on the continuing developments (Miers had a glint of liberalism in the 90's? El Rushbo will love that.). Look for a new show (#25!) on Monday.

According to the poll, 29 percent say she's qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, while 24 percent think she's unqualified. Forty-six percent say they don't know enough about her.

"There is nothing to suggest that people have turned on her," [Democratic pollster Peter] Hart said. "But there is just a huge question mark behind her at this stage. She has to establish her own bona fides."

Stay tuned...

The Miers nomination continues to divide conservative commentators. George Will's column is a must-read today. Meanwhile the rest of us are taking a closer look at Harriet Mier's record... stay tuned!

Count Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) on the pro-Miers side however. The Washington Post's Campaign for the Supreme Court blog offered this quote from the good Senator:

"A lot of my fellow conservatives are concerned, but they don't know her as I do," said Hatch, a former Judiciary Committee chairman. "She's going to basically do what the president thinks she should, and that is be a strict constructionist."

Meanwhile, we're gearing up for the record review. Stay tuned...

"Because Ms. Miers does not have any record providing a window into her legal views, the Senate must take its advise-and-consent duties very seriously. A thorough, searching review of Ms. Miers' legal philosophy and the role she has played in some of the most controversial policies of the Bush administration is imperative. This is particularly true given what’s at stake: the balance of the Court, which has often shifted with Justice O'Connor’s vote," emphasized Aron. "The president clearly has some idea what Ms. Miers thinks. She has served by his side for more than a decade. It is now incumbent upon the Senate to obtain the information needed to let the American people know what the president does."

"We trust the Senate to do its job. It must be vigilant in ensuring that Ms. Miers, if confirmed, would meaningfully enforce the safeguards our legislatures have enacted and the rights our Constitution protects. The burden in on Harriet Miers' to demonstrate her fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court to the Senate and the American people." concluded Aron.

Alliance for Justice is deeply disappointed with the Senate's vote to confirm John Roberts to be the 17th Chief Justice of the United States but commends the 22 senators who stood for the interests of ordinary Americans and cast a vote of no on Roberts' confirmation.

Judge Roberts has supported weakening women's rights and civil rights laws, cutting back the vital role of our courts in enforcing legal protections and restricting the ability of the people's democratically elected representatives to enact crucial, nationwide worker, anti-discrimination and environmental safeguards.

We'll be podcasting later today... stay tuned.

No shownotes for SCW 21, but we'll make good and get them up for #22 next week. Have a great weekend, and stay safe if you're in the Houston area. We're looking forward to the end of hurricane season...

Second, we have a special edition Supreme Court Watch coming at you tomorrow. Our Student Action Campaign event is tomorrow, and we'll post the audio as SCW 20 as soon as we can. What is the Student Action Campaign? Glad you asked!

Student Action Campaign is an annual, campus-based program designed to raise awareness about vital social justice issues. This year, Student Action Campaign focuses on the crucial role the U.S. Supreme Court plays as guardian of the liberties and protections guaranteed by the Constitution. We will kick off the campaign by spotlighting the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Chief Justiceship.

Alliance for Justice will facilitate the discussion by hosting a live debate on Wednesday, September 21, 2005, featuring Professor Charles Ogletree, founder and Executive Director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School, and Ronald Cass, Co-Chairman of Committee for Justice and former Dean of Boston University School of Law. The debate will be transmitted live via satellite and webcast so that every college, university, and law school can participate. To view the list of participating schools, click here.

This week, we'll have a show following the committee vote on Thursday, and additional editions as warranted. Stay tuned!

For the true junkies, tune into the hearings live on C-SPAN radio or C-SPAN 3 (channel 372716768 on some cable systems... check your local listings), or stream it from C-SPAN.org or from C-SPAN's Capitol Hearings site. The Senate Judiciary Committee also has a link to a live feed on its web page. C-SPAN 2 will rebroadcast the hearings at 9 PM.

Here is what C-SPAN says regarding its coverage:

Roberts Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Monday -- 11:30 am ET

On Monday, the confirmation hearings for Judge John Roberts, nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, begin at 11:30 am ET. We'll be airing them live as they happen on C-SPAN3 and C-SPAN Radio, or watch anytime online at c-span.org. And every day of the hearings, we will re-air them in their entirety in prime time at 9 pm ET on C-SPAN2 when you're home to watch.

Check local listings for C-SPAN2 and C-SPAN3. C-SPAN Radio is available in the Washington, D.C., area at 90.1 FM, and nationwide on Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio.

UPDATE... if you'd like to catch the press conference again, it will be rebroadcast at 5:30 PM EDT on C-SPAN 2.

Join us next week for a fresh helping of the Insider Scoop and, of course, the next podcast. Have a great weekend...

Ahh, but we digress. This week on the podcast... more on the continuing revelations from the docs we do have... another segment of Meet John Roberts, and, of course, a brand new Magic 8 Ball. There might be a couple of shows this week, so keep your podcatchers tuned into the feed!

- Tim

With a significant chunk of the District off on summer vacation, we at Supreme Court Watch like to kick back, relax and... read a lot of John Roberts' old memos. Well, it beats some retread Danielle Steele novel.

This week on SCW... John Roberts speaks (sort of)... the White House says you don't deserve to know more about its nominee... more Meet John Roberts... and yet another Magic 8 Ball. Look for SCW #7 in your podcatcher on Wednesday.

UPDATE... we'll also be covering the latest news regarding a rather pointed letter coming out of Sen. Specter's office that shows he's got a few questions for Mr. Roberts. Take a look at today's Insider Scoop for the um, insider scoop.

Special note... our hosts at Liberated Syndication are having some issues as they move to a new set of servers that make Hal from 2001 seem like a toaster with an irritating disposition. The upshot is that download times should be much better when this is all figured out. If you've been having downloading problems, let us know at podcast@afj.org and we'll find a super secret back way to get you the shows you need.

Because vacations are for suckers... enjoy this tidbit from the Washington Post.

As we transition into August and slide into the Congressional recess, the Roberts nomination promises to put a hold on the traditional "quiet time" in DC.

But at SCW podcast, there is no rest for the weary... this week... more Meet John Roberts, more fun with audio clips of highly rated crime dramas, more Magic 8 Ball, and... best of all... slightly higher audio quality!

So, subscribe to the feed and consider listening to us at the beach with your mp3 player... it might be our only shot at actually getting to the beach this summer...

We'll be putting together two editions this week... a full episode with your favorite segments including a new Magic 8 Ball question and more Meet John Roberts. Look for that to be posted sometime Wednesday.

Later in the week we'll be putting together a special edition of Supreme Court Watch... Nominations 101. Do you listen to Adam, Kelly and Tim but miss some of the references? Join us for Nominations 101 and we'll back up and give the big picture on the process. Look for that in your podcatcher by Friday.

UPDATE - SCW was featured in this morning's Seattle Times.

SCW is now also available for one-click subscription through iTunes. Click here or on this logo

Using another podcatcher like iPodder? Copy the url for the RSS feed on the left side of the page, or here and copy it into your subscription feed box.

Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:53:21 -0700

Subject: dig the podcast

I'm still trying to figure ou how to configure everything on my itunes to roll with it, but I listened to the whole grab you've got on the blog and I found it very informative. You rock.

Also take a look at coverage of the podcast in the Washington Post here and here.