Teddy the Tick at His Usual Games

No big surprise here, Teddy was foaming at the mouth yesterday in his opening remarks. But that is politics. But then again, the "study" that he quoted to disparage Alito's findings on record is just sophistry at its best.

Byron York's piece at NRO gives the details.

As evidence for his claim, Kennedy's staff handed out copies of a December 29, 2005, letter from

Sunstein to Kennedy outlining the findings of the study to members of the press at the hearings. But even a cursory reading of the Sunstein letter suggests that his analysis was so tentative, so filled with caveats, and based so extensively on political assumptions as to prove virtually nothing.

In the letter, Sunstein began by saying that he had done the study not for reasons of academic curiosity but because Kennedy asked him to. "This will respond for your request for an analysis of the dissenting opinions of Justice Samuel Alito," Sunstein wrote, "and in particular of the percentage of Judge Alito's dissenting opinions that rule in favor of individual rights."

Sunstein then said the story is "long and quite complex" and that he would "be offering many disclaimers" throughout his presentation of findings. Sunstein's first disclaimer came three sentences later when he said of the 84 percent number, "A summary statistic of this kind must be taken with many grains of salt and with appropriate qualifications." Sunstein also said that his work was "crude" and done "under considerable time pressure."

I suppose if you make sufficient caveats you could argue that black is white. In fact, this is the Cass Sunstein that wrote this analysis of Alito for the New Republic.

At this early stage, it is far too soon to reach a final judgment about Alito. Almost everyone has a great deal to learn. Fortunately, there can be no question about his competence and his experience. In addition, his opinions are solid, and they do not show a flamboyant judge seeking to revolutionize the law. What they do show is that in hard cases his conclusions are predictable--and that they tend, with striking regularity, in the direction of deference to established institutions.

Then there is this bit that York quotes, but that Teddy didn't bother speaking too:

Even further, Sunstein said that he had employed "a high degree of discretion" in analyzing Alito's work. "A preliminary analysis suggests two points," Sunstein wrote. "First, Judge Alito's opinions are carefully reasoned, well-done, attentive to law, lawyerly, and unfailingly respectful to his colleagues. Second, it is fair to say that the law, fairly interpreted, could well be taken to support those claims. Hence he has exercised his own discretion, not lawlessly but in a way that helps to illuminate his general approach to the law."

You should read all of York's article. Just another good ole day in politics.

Schumer's statement has some statements worth a laugh as well. I especially liked the one on flip-flopping on testimony to be given by the nominee.

After so many of my friends across the aisle spoke so loudly about the obligation of nominees to testify candidly about their legal views and their judicial philosophy when the nominee was Harriet Miers, I hope we will not see a flip-flop now that the nominee is Sam Alito.

Just makes you laugh when you recall Schumer's recommendations to Ginsberg on what was required for testimony. The Ginsberg rule of course isn't fair when you don't like the party who put forward the nominee.

Specter had a fairly honest assessment of the Democrat's opening statements:

So pointed were the Democrats' opening statements that Mr. Specter complained that they sounded like "bills of indictment." He said he was concerned that so many committee members on both sides appeared to have their views of the nominee "in concrete," before they had even heard from Judge Alito.

"Let's give this fellow a chance before we run him out of town on a rail," Mr. Specter said.

After reading the opening statements, of the more virulent Dems I must agree. I don't really see any use in Alito's answering any of their questions. You can be assured that they most certainly have already made up their minds on the vote.

Does anyone else think that a filibuster attempt is in the planning?