Despite the SCLM's faithful parroting of the Republican mantra of inevitable confirmation (never mind that potential "nuclear" crisis involving the Senate breaking its own rules in order to prevent a filibuster), there are positive signs that the Democrats are not, despite the shared wishes of the administration and the media, simply going to roll over.  Harry Reid, for one, has been on note the entire time.

Now President Lawbreaker is begging for a quick confirmation -- nothing to see here folks -- and, what do you know, playing off of poor Mrs. Alito's horrible, life altering trauma this week.  Everything according to plan, right on schedule, but for this annoying detail:

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Friday in the waning minutes of Alito's confirmation hearing that unidentified Democrats will "exercise their rights" to put off next week's scheduled vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats say they won't be ready Tuesday to vote on his nomination since Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has called on party members to hold off making a decision until after a meeting Wednesday.

Wonder what Harry's gonna say at that meeting?

Stay tuned; this ain't over, not by a long shot, despite what we're reading and despite what we're hearing.

-- Stu

[Update:]:

John Edwards is the first to endorse a filibuster petition. Here's the link.

Obviously many Democrats are concerned with the candidacy of Samuel Alito.  Unfortunately, many of them have no vote, not being Senators.

Many letters, petitions, and voices of outrage are out there circulating.  I just got my letter from John Edwards, which urges our Senators not to confirm Alito.

Here's a snip from his email:

Please join me in calling on Democratic Senators to stand up for the core principals of our party by opposing Alito's nomination. This is not my petition; it is ours, because all of us are threatened by this nomination. Sign our petition calling on Senate Democrats to stand together and block Alito's confirmation with every means at their disposal. We will share the results with Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sign it.  Pass it on.

Or sign a petition. Or sign one to filibuster.  Or sign on to demand an impeachment.  Or sign one to demand body armor for the troops.

You have a voice.

Use it.  Let them hear from you.

Obviously many Democrats are concerned with the candidacy of Samuel Alito.  Unfortunately, many of them have no vote, not being Senators.

Many letters, petitions, and voices of outrage are out there circulating.  I just got my letter from John Edwards, which urges our Senators not to confirm Alito.

Sign it.  Pass it on.

Or sign a petition. Or sign one to filibuster.  Or sign on to demand an impeachment.  Or sign one to demand body armor for the troops.

You have a voice.

Use it.  Let them hear from you.

Enough with the smug and obscuring bloviation from Republicans,

make your own voice heard on Alito:

Go right to the top, and tell 'em "No" to Alito's confirmation:

Phone, fax, and email addresses for the Judiciary Committee.

Here's another "Veto Alito" tool:

    Write a letter to the editor of your local paper and contact your congress critters -- all with one click.

People for the American Way has collected over 60,000 signatures on their Anti-Alito Petition to send to the Senate, please add yours:

Save the Court Petition

this is what the "center for individual freedom" is asking people to send to president bush and the 55 republican members of congress in support of the confirmation of samuel alito to the u.s. supreme court... i suggest that all of us make a few small changes and send it right along...

The cases where Judge Alito took a stand show an incredibly low regard by him for the benefits, rights and safety of working men and women.  These examples  >>

1.  Retirement and pension case.

This is important to retiring workers. In DiGiacomo v. Teamsters Pension Trust Fund [pdf file], the 3rd Circuit Court found that a Teamsters driver, who had worked from 1960 to 1971 and then from 1978 onwards, should be duly credited for the time he worked before 1971 in calculating his pension.  (The judges, most of them, based their decision on an interpretation of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) which bars a forfeiture of benefits due to a break in service.)

     Sam Alito wrote a lone dissent that would sacrifice the worker's retirement to deny him the credit of his earlier 11 years of work – by virtue of Alito's anti-worker interpretation of the ERISA law.

Note. The above was written up first by NathanNewman, who I will link to below.  This post is written in words close to Newman's writing, not my own original.  I'm reposting NN's examples here, to get ahead of Monday's hearings.

Okay, it's your very last chance to wield your John Hancock against Judge Samuel Alito.

People for the American Way, for one, has collected over 59,000 signatures to be sent to the Senate -- why not sign 'em up to a nice round 60,000?

A penstroke (well, some clicking, actually) and you could be nudging the Senate to filibuster, so c'mon!

[Crossposted at Daily Kos]

Don't be shocked if the Congressinal Black Caucus doesn't support Sam Alito's quest to be a Supreme Court Justice. The CBC's request to meet Alito was snubbed recently.  

Does this mean much? Well, if you don't care about the CBC, or you think Alito is an OK guy then the answer is "no." Otherwise, you should be at least a little concerned.

By all means, continue:

Edited to reflect the addtion of reasons and actions for Days 1 through 12 of the 12 Days of Justice.
Updates are in the comments. Thanks! CM1

There are many reasons to be wary of the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Over the next 12 days the Anti-Alito Brigade will be bringing you many of those reasons, and also some actions that you might consider to help stop this horrible nomination.

The main intention of this nomination is to try and tip the balance of power away from the legislative branch and towards the President.

Alito is an activist judge that will legislate from the bench on many of the issues that all progressives hold dear to their heart.

There's more below the fold, so plug your nose and dumpster dive into the rest of this post with me!

From the AP:

Fox News is refusing to air an ad critical of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, citing its lawyers' contention that the spot is factually incorrect.

A spokesman for the groups sponsoring the ad said the network's decision reflects the political right's effort to shield President Bush's choice for the high court.

[snip]

Paul Schur, a spokesman for Fox, said that according to the network's lawyers, the ad is "factually incorrect and we've given them an opportunity to fix it."

Said Jim Jordan, a spokesman for the groups: "The entire right wing establishment, from Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell to Fox News, has circled the wagons around Sam Alito."

Asked about changing the ad in response to Fox's request, Jordan said, "Roger Ailes doesn't get to edit our ads." Ailes is chairman of Fox News.

(The groups backing the ad include the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for The American Way and abortion rights organizations.)

Believe it or not, the same document that reveals Samuel Alito's opposition to Roe v. Wade has an even bigger bombshell: He's opposed to a basic principle of democracy--one person, one vote.  

As pointed out by NathanNewman in a Dkos diary, in his 1985 job application, Alito himself says that he was drawn to judicial restraint in part because of the Warren Court's activism in re-apportionment--the very cases that Earl Warren himself called the most important in his tenure.  

This is a reference to two landmark cases--BAKER v. CARR and REYNOLDS v. SIMS--that together overthrew the undemocratic system that prevailed in most state legislatures, giving equal representation to underpopulated rural districts and highly populated urban districts.

...and not by a left-wing group but the Moonie-owned, ultra-reactionary Washington Times. Read PFAW's evaluation of the story here.

Let the games begin!

WASHINGTON (AP)-- Senate Democrats are pressing for extensive records on the participation of Judge Samuel Alito in an appeals case involving a mutual fund company with which he had a six-figure investment.

In their first coordinated challenge to Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, the eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday sent a letter to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying Alito had promised the panel in 1990 he would "disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies.

Nice move. Let's forget the right-wing loon stuff for now ...that will become apparent (or not) in the hearings. Planting the seeds of overall ethical questions before the questioning starts is a good move. It's also the right move for the country, when a judge with personal financial investments in the outcome of a case fails to recuse himself.

It is unclear whether Harry Reid and other Senate Democratic leaders have decided to filibuster Dubya's genuflection to the Radical Right, Samuel Alito.  The official word is wait and see, which suggests (shockingly!) an examination of the record to see what arises before and during the proceedings (you know that whole quaint advise and consent clause), and, pehaps more importantly, to see how the political winds coalesce, to see what the likely results and ramifications of the likely showdown would be.  So far, it appears that the public is unconvinced, meaning that, unlike with Roberts, the potential for a movement of the winds favorable to opposition is indeed present.

Whatever it is that Democratic leaders are planning behind the scenes, what they absolutely do not need are stories like this one, entitled "Democrat Says Alito Unlikely to Face Filibuster."  (Or this one:  "Biden:  Alito Should Get Up-or-Down Vote.")

"My instinct is we should commit" to an up-or-down vote by the full Senate, said Biden, a member of the Judiciary Committee. "I think the probability is that will happen.

"I think that judgment won't be made ... until the bulk of us have had a chance to actually see him and speak to him," Biden told ABC's "This Week."

Why is this seemingly innocuous comment and the resultant headlines so irritating?  Well, let's count the ways.

 (First time posting here, so all comments appreciated. Also posted at Daily Kos.)

In the past year or so, I've tended to take a much deeper look at a lot of the stories that are written, particularly on policits. I do have journalism in my background and I consider myself something of a student of the media anyway, so this is also an interest of mine.

Are the hacks back? Has the Wurlitzer turned up the volume? Or have the Freepers awoken from their hibernation to rate these pieces up? Or perhaps I'm exaggerating... it was all a dream.

Judge for yourself, over the bump...