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.

We know. It’s been forever. We’ve just been so busy lately. And yes, we hate that excuse, too, but when we say "it’s not you, it’s us," we really mean it! (And we totally meant to call, too.) As you’ve no doubt noted, quite a bit has transpired since last week.

The biggest news has swirled around the disclosure of a 1985 Justice Department job application in which the young Alito expressed great affection for the Reagan administration’s work to roll back a virtual cornucopia (getting in the Thanksgiving spirit here) of rights and protections – efforts he had been a part of as a lawyer in the Solicitor General's office. Alito wrote that he was "extremely proud" to have worked on recent efforts against affirmative action and women's reproductive choice, and shared his belief that "the constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." Judge Alito moved quickly to try and temper the serious concerns raised by this document, telling Senators he was just trying to get a job, and that those clearly expressed views really don’t matter today. While we certainly understand the need for gainful employment, it strikes us as a little more than odd that the judge would suggest that he wasn’t being entirely straight with the DOJ. More strikingly, as it turns out, Alito’s judicial record tracks very comfortably with the statements he made in the application, as we’ve outlined in this handy document. And... Ads ads ads! So, what are we doing about all this? Today, Alliance for Justice and our partners in IndependentCourt.org are launching a nationwide campaign to raise awareness and opposition to President Bush’s nomination of Judge Alito. In addition to events being held around the country, we've also launched this ad highlighting the major areas of concern in Alito’s record. Check out the ad and more information here.

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.

Nominated by President Bush to replace moderately conservative Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito has a 15-year record of trying to push the law sharply to the right. He is what the Right calls a "movement" judge.

Okay, I admit it's late... but, if you missed it on Friday at the main page, here's the latest Insider Scoop:

So, the Gang of 14 met yesterday. And while it sounds like something out of Alias, it is a bit more prosaic than that. Though still important. At their meeting, they determined that they were "united" and "withholding judgment." A couple of gang members senators (DeWine and Graham) have made remarks about voting to go nuclear should things get to that point, but their support for the nuclear option was never a question in the first place, no matter how many gangs they did or did not join, so it doesn't exactly fall into the "stunning revelation" category.

More interestingly (to us, anyway, since it plays into our winter travel plans. Looks like St. Tropez in January is out.), a hearing date has been set. The party begins January 9th. It will continue throughout the week, with an exec (executive session/Judiciary Committee vote - we like shortened words, acronyms and near-incomprehensible jargon in this town) scheduled for the 17th of January. We also think it is fun that the Judiciary Committee will vote on the nomination that would de-diversify the Supreme Court the day after we observe Martin Luther King Junior day. It's a little too ironic, don't you think? (And despite that line, not even in the Alanis Morisette kind of way.)

Finally, we have to belabor a point. Something we never do, of course. And certainly never this point. An article ran in the New York Times today talking about how philosophy is at play in this nomination. Yes. Yes it is. Why? Because philosophy matters.

Apparently, we are starting a special expose series, and we didn’t even plan it. Well, if people just keep handing us the material, we have to run with it. So, we here at the Scoop bring you another installment of our hard-hitting series on cracking the code used by the the radical right. (We sort of wish we had some sort of dramatic music, or perhaps John Stossel or Stone Phillips to narrate, but we’ll have to make do with the limitations of our format. It’s probably for the best.)

So, on this edition of Codebreakers (yes, we know, weak title—we may have been watching a bit too much of the History Channel lately. Work with us here), we’re covering the idea of dignity. Hey, we like dignity, even if we end up sacrificing it a bit every now and again due to our charming clumsiness. But certain members of the Senate *coughMitchMcConnellcough* have taken to throwing around the word “dignified� when it comes to the hearings process. It was said a lot during the Roberts hearings as well. Funny thing about the use of their use of the word “dignified.� We’re going to have to borrow from/paraphrase Inigo Montoya here: we do not think that word means what you think it means. Because when the right starts making pronouncements about a “dignified� hearing process, what they actually mean is “non-substantive� and “rushed.� These are not good qualities in a hearing. And they certainly aren’t synonyms for “dignity� no matter what some people try and tell us.

The Senate Democrats, perhaps as part of their Cosmo “bold and sassy!� makeover of late, are pushing for hearings in 2006, rather than rushing Judge Alito through the process to get him on the Court by sometime in December. This is exactly what needs to happen—a thorough and substantive process that examines issues and allows both the Senate and the American people time to really understand Judge Alito and his judicial philosophy. And when we say “thorough� we mean a close examination of his record, his legal views and judicial philosophy. Pushing Alito through the process without having him provide substantive answers isn’t “dignified� it’s irresponsible.

So, onto the nomination! President Bush announced his nomination of Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court yesterday morning. Ahh, there’s nothing like the satisfying feeling of completely caving to the fringe elements of your base. Because the radical right loves Samuel Alito. He is everything that Harriet Miers was not - a guarantee that the balance of our nation’s court will be tipped far to the right in pursuit of an ideological agenda. Funnily enough, we can say the same thing about Samuel Alito that people sometimes say about us: he’s no Sandra Day O'Connor.

But Bush said Alito will show "judicial restraint." Yeah, that’s one of those fun code words like "strict constructionist" that sounds good, but pretty much means that the person is a conservative activist with an ideological agenda. Fun, huh? Code words are always great. Without them, they won’t let you into the Federalist Society Clubhouse. (We think they came up with some extra code words like "constitutionalist" so they could waive the secret knock.)

And yes, we have reasons for saying this. Reasons like Alito's attempt to rescind Congress' authority to ban machine guns. (Maybe he’s a Rambo fan?) Or his disregard for the Supreme Court’s decision on spousal notification in his decision to allow such a provision in a New Jersey statute. Or the time he approved the strip search of a mother and her ten-year-old daughter by police, despite the search warrant not naming them or authorizing the search.

So, of course, the papers are abuzz with all of the comments and reactions and possible outcomes of this nomination, but the real heart of the story is this: while Judge Alito may have the on-paper qualifications, his judicial philosophy falls far short of the requirements needed of a Supreme Court justice. He will not stand up for the rights and freedoms of the American people. He was not selected to be a justice for every American, he was selected to be a justice for Phyllis Schlafly and James Fund and all of the other uber-conservatives who pitched a fit over the Miers nomination and didn’t even allow her the courtesy of a hearing. (What was that tired old refrain about the supposed mistreatment of Robert Bork again?) Alliance for Justice has opposed this nomination because we've looked at his extensive judicial record and found it wanting.

Sorry to end on such a serious note. We’ll try and do better next time. In the meantime, don’t forget to check out our preliminary report on Judge Alito.

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.