It's Alito!

The rumors were actually on target this time, as there was more buzz about Alito than any other potential nominee. No word on whether or not that was merely a coincidence.

Here's a quick rundown of some of the basics:

• Born 1950.
• Graduated Princeton, 1972.
• Law Degree from Yale, 1975.
• Served as editor for the Yale Law Journal.
• Clerked for Leonard Garth on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
• Served as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the appelate level, 1977-1980.
• Served as Assistant Solicitor General, 1981-1985.
• Served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel (which had previously been headed by Rehnquist and Scalia), 1985-1987.
• Served as U.S. Attorney for the New Jersey District, 1987-1989, handling prosecution of white collar crime, organized crime, drug trafficking, violations of civil rights, and other cases. He was unanimously confirmed for the position by the Senate.
• Nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals by George H.W. Bush in 1990, he was unanimously confirmed by voice vote, and won unanimous support from the Sneate Judiciary Committee (the Senate was under the control of Democrats at the time, I should add).
• From his positions as Assistant U.S. Attorney and Assistant Solicitor General, he argued a dozen cases before the Supreme Court and over two dozen on the Circuit Court level, in addition to handling another fifty cases.
• Member of the Federalist Society.

Sounds like a great nomination to me. Confirmation by the end of the year would be nice, but between efforts by Democrats to delay and Congress's desire to break for various holidays remaining on the year's calendar, a final vote may not occur until January. December is still possible, though. I note that John Roberts was confirmed two months to the day from his nomination (his nomination to fill O'Connor's seat, that is; while they were technically seperate nominations, it makes more sense to look at them as a single nomination for such purposes).

Democrats are not thrilled about this nomination; I expect a big fight from them. Their fight against Roberts was notable, but not as big as most thought it would be; their fight against Miers was there, but it was mostly in the background as they let Republicans argue amongst themselves (had Miers come for a vote, she almost certainly would have received fewer votes from the Democrats than Roberts did). Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has come out saying that he opposes Alito, and warned the president against nominating him, but Reid opposed Roberts, so it's not like anybody had any reasonable expectation of Reid supporting any Bush nominee. Keep that in mind when you see statements from Reid, Ted Kennedy (MA), Charles Schumer (NY), Hillary Clinton (NY), Diane Feinstein (CA), and several other prominent Democrats.

I also note that, properly speaking, this is the third nominee for the O'Connor seat; it rather rare to have three nominees for a position before getting one confirmed. While Reagan announced three different names for the Powell seat in 1987, only two were official nominees (Bork was defeated, Douglas Ginsburg withdrew before his nomination was officially submitted after it was revealed that he had tried marijuana, and Kennedy was eventually nominated and confirmed). Nixon nominated three to the Fortas seat in 1969/1970, with Haynsworth and Carswell being defeated before Blackmun was confirmed (actually, if you want to get highly technical about it, Johnson nominated Thornberry to the seat in 1968 when he nominated Fortas to Warren's spot as Chief Justice; however, Fortas was withdrawn, making that a moot nomination, so there were technically four nominations to Fortas's seat). Grover Cleveland, in his role as 24th President (not 22nd), made four nominations (but only three different nominees (boy, that sounds oddly familiar)) to the Blatchford seat; he nominated Hornblower, but Congress spent enough time out of session that his nomination lapsed and he had to be re-nominated, at which point he was rejected, as was the following nominee, Peckham, before White was confirmed (on the very day he was nominated, no less). Grant made three nominations to succeed Chase as Chief Justice, with Williams and Cushing withdrawing before Waite was confirmed. Fillmore and Pierce combined for four nominees to the McKinley seat with two of the Fillmore nominations lapsing (one because his term as president/the congressional term ended) and Pierce successfully nominating Campbell the month he took office. The interesting part comes in with John Tyler, not well liked by Congress, nominating six men to the Thompson seat and combining with Polk to nominate five to the Baldwin seat. The Thompson seat nominations included three withdrawals, a rejection, and one on which no action was taken (who was later renominated and withdrawn) and Tyler nominating two men in one day. The Baldwin seat included a postponement who was later renominated and withdrawn, a no action, and a rejection before a confirmation. Madison needed four attempts to name Cushing's successor, having a rejection and two nominees declining (including John Quincy Adams) before getting Joseph Story confirmed. The last instance, finally, was George Washington needing three nominations to follow John Jay as Chief Justice; he recess-appointed John Rutledge, who had previously served as an Associate Justice, but was rejected by the Senate, then the above-mentioned Cushing, who declined the elevation, before finally getting Oliver Ellsworth confirmed (interesting note: John Jay was actually nominated by John Adams to follow Ellsworth as Chief Justice, but he declined the nomination, making the way for John Marshall (lots of Johns there)). So this is the ninth time there have been at least three nominees, not counting the Powell seat (as that was officially two), but only the second time in the last 110 years.

When I started that list, I had no idea that it would be so long. So very, very long.

Supreme Court Nominee, Round Three

I think it's likely that a new nominee will be named tomorrow. At the latest, it should be named by the day that was scheduled to be the start of the Harriet Miers hearings. The buzz is mostly around Luttig and Alito, but the buzz has been mostly inaccurate when predicting Bush's nominees (though there was a bit of a rumor for Miers before she was named).

Libby, Rove, Plame, Wilson, et cetera

Well, the investigation is over for all practical purposes (despite the impression the media has given at times). Rove was not indicted, though I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was. However, Libby was indicted on charges unrelated to the initial allegations. Wilson's charge that Rove outed his undercover wife to punish him (Wilson) for disproving part of the Bush administration's case for the war in Iraq is still wrong on virtually every count. Rove was not the mastermind behind anything of the sort. His wife was not undercover, as her cover had been blown in the 1990's (there's a difference between her employment being classified and her being undercover before anyone tries bringing that up). Wilson disproved nothing -- Bush's "sixteen words" said that Iraq tried to purchase uranium, Wilson said that Iraq didn't actually purchase any, and what evidence he did gather from his trip was taken by the CIA as bolstering the claim the Iraq attempted to purchase uranium. As such, there was no effort (and no need, for that matter) to "punish" Wilson. Further, as his wife used her CIA position to get Wilson the assignment, you have a case of a CIA employee trying to undermine administration policy, which strikes me as at least as big a story as Wilsons charges, given that the one story is true and the other is not.

Also, I'm getting really tired of the media not mentioning that Wilson has been entirely discredited, including by the Senate Intelligence Committee. They tend to take his claims at face value (including the above claim which I pointed out several errors from). Just another reason to be skeptical of things you hear from the mainstream media.

Two Hurrays!

First, which was the only one I was going to post, is that I got a raise.

Second, which came as a pleasant surprise when I started up the computer, is that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination! Hurray!

And Now For Something Completely Different

In completely unrelated news:

I was informed earlier tonight that I'm a good kisser.

White Sox Win

Well, like Matt says, I'm bad at picking World Series winners (I'm up to five in a row that I've missed). Especially embarassing is that this was a sweep. However, I do believe it was the closest sweep in World Series history, with the White Sox winning the four games by a combined five runs. The 1950 World Series was won in a sweep by the Yankees by a combined six runs, and I think that was the record heading into this series. This series had the added closeness of the longest game in World Series history, a 14-inning affair (I believe the 1950 WS had one 10-inning game, but I'm too lazy to verify).

At any rate, two amazingly long droughts ending in back-to-back years after starting in back-to-back years -- quite impressive. Now it's time for the Cubs to get their hands on some of that drought-ending magic.

Simpsons Top 100 Countdown

No, I didn't forget about it.

#86 Kamp Krusty
Season 4, Episode 1 (Guide from the Simpsons Archive)
Homer promised Bart and Lisa that they could attend Kamp Krusty as long as they made at least a C average. Bart gets straight D-‘s, but Homer decides that since his attempt to motivate Bart failed, that Bart shouldn’t have to pay for Homer’s mistake. The kids go to the camp only to find that it’s a hellhole. Meanwhile, Marge and Homer are having an enjoyable summer without them, and Homer even lost weight and gained hair. At Krusty’s promised appearance, when they meet Barney dressed up as Krusty, Bart leads a rebellion. Krusty then vistis the camp to try to put down the rebellion, and decides to make it all up to the kids by taking them to Tijuana. Memorable moments include Bart’s dream, Bart showing Homer his grades, the various horrors of Kamp Krusty (the montage and other moments), the Krusty Brand guarantee, random quotes ("sweet, nourishing gruel"), and Krusty meeting with the kids.

World Series

Well, one of my two picks made it. This is an interesting series because it's the first time the Astros have been in the World Series (they were an expansion team in 1962 (as the Houston Colt .45s) so it's been quite awhile; not like the Marlins or Diamondbacks), and the White Sox are in it for the first time since 1959, and they haven't won since 1917, so we have two long-suffering franchises (or their fans, anyway). If the White Sox win, you have the added interesting factoid of the White Sox and Red Sox, after last winning the World Series in 1917 and 1918, respectively, ending their long droughts and winning back-to-back World Series, in reverse order.

This series promises some quality pitching, as the Astros top three starters were all in the top seven in the National League in ERA (top nine in the majors), and the White Sox starters, well, if you were following the last round, you saw them pitch four straight complete games (first time a team has done that since the 1956 World Series, I believe) and the one non-complete game, the starter went 8 1/3 innings. Also, neither offense is very impressive. The White Sox have a few bashers, so they can run up the score when they're on, but they're not very great hitters in the purer sense. The Astros had a lower team batting average during the season, but that is attributable to having the pitcher hit rather than a designated hitter, and despite the pitcher's spot in the batting order, the Astros managed an on-base percentage equal to the White Sox. I think the Astros will have a better time putting runners on base, but the White Sox will probably have a better time bringing them home.

Overall, I'm thinking Astros in 6ish. However, if it went seven, and we had another 18-inning series clincher, I would not complain. On the other hand, if the White Sox win, it would tick off Castro, which would be cool. Ticking off Castro is always cool. Two White Sox players are Cuban defectors, Jose Contreras and Orlando "El Duque" Hernandez, hence the whole ticking-off Castro thing (though Hernandez does not look to be starting during the series, but might do some long relief if called upon). Hernandez also called Castro "the devil" on national television. While broadcasts of Major League Baseball are banned in Cuba, there are ways of getting around it. So, while I'm rooting for the Astros, I'll have no complaints should the White Sox win.

Abortion = Bad; Abortionists = Liars

For those who don't already know, Roe v Wade was decided in part based on historically flawed data (and it was later upheld based partly on that same bad data). One leader of the abortion movement has even admitted as much:

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the abortionist and co-founder of NARAL, [] gave a
chilling account of the lies he and his colleagues told in their effort to
legalize abortion in the late 1960s and early 70s. He told the audience about
disseminating false polling data, falsifying statistics about illegal abortions
and maternal death rates, and engaging in many other appalling acts of
dishonesty. "We believed our lies were justified in what we regarded as a good
cause," he confessed.

(Yes, I'm aware the material provided does not specifically link those lies to Roe v Wade, but trust me, the Court did rely on those lies.)

U.S. Senator Wins Powerball

Well, it wasn't the big prize, but Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) took home a check for $853,492 on Thursday. He matched the five white balls, and used the power play option which multiplied his winnings by five (the check comes out to less than $1 million due to tax withholding; he bought the ticket in Washington, D.C., apparently, so I'm not sure what taxes he'd be subject to there, though I do know that federal income taxes should be larger than that, and that New Hampshire has no income tax except for dividends and interest, which I'm not sure that Powerball winnings qualify as). He's donating at least a portion of the winnings to a charitable foundation named after his late father, a former governor of the state.

Rove/Plame

Poor reporting regarding the Plame affair continues, especially that regarding Karl Rove. Here's an excerpt: "It was likely Rove’s final chance to convince grand jurors he did nothing criminal in the leak case. Prosecutors have warned the architect of President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign that there is no guarantee he will not be indicted." First, the first sentence presupposes that Rove is a target of the grand juror -- something which the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald has said he is not. As to not guaranteeing that he'd not be indicted, that's actually standard fair when someone voluntarily testifies like Rove did. People not under arrest will even be read their Miranda rights. This shows more about the ignorance of the press (in something that they're supposed to be covering -- something which many of those reporting are supposed to be staff "experts" on) than it shows anything negative about Karl Rove.

While I'm on the topic of poor reporting, the BBC reported "Shenzhou VI [the manned orbiter that China recently launched] is in a low enough orbit to be affected by the Earth's gravitational pull." Hmm, a low enough orbit to be affected by gravity, you say? How amazing ... (hopefully most of you out there see my issue with that statement; the BBC seems to have corrected it here (though it now says "the craft had deviated from its planned trajectory because of the Earth's gravitational pull," which reflects poorly on either the writer or the Chinese scientists -- or both), but the Forbes website still has the offending sentence here).

A Few More remarks on Miers

Well, the Miers nomination is (slowly) moving along. I must say, I still think it was a bad choice. I really don't have a ton to add until the hearings, but I'd like to argue against a few of the arguments I've seen recently.

First, there's the argument that her opponents are elitists. I have seen a few remarks lamenting that she did not attend a "prestigious" law school; other than that, which has only been from a few of her opponents, I really haven't seen much to justify such an attack. Many of the other potential nominees that had been bandied about did not go to a prestigious law school, either, and there weren't people complaining about that.

Second, the argument that her opponents are sexist. This is pure bunk. Offhand, there would not have been these complaints if any of five other women were named -- Edith Clement, Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, or Karen Williams. The sex doesn't matter one whit to the opponents of her nomination. Moreover, the case for her support has been highly sexist -- half of it is that she was the first woman ________. A man with her resume would not get nominated.

Third (and I'll go after the other side this time), the arguments that she doesn't meet the basic qualifications for being a Supreme Court Justice are also bunk. Most obviously, as I've already stated in a previous post, previous judicial experience is not necessary. I believe ten of the last thirty-four nominees did not have previous judicial experience. Having a law degree isn't even a requirement, though I'd consider very few people without one to be qualified for the Supreme Court (Ponnuru for SCOTUS!). She does meet the basic qualifications. Is she the best nominee possible? No, but there is no obligation to nominate the "best possible" candidate.

The Republican base is split on this nomination and that's bad news for Republicans. No matter how they vote on the nomination, they're going to be ticking off a portion of their base. The best possible solution would be for the nomination to be withdrawn (by either Miers or Bush) and for Bush to nominate someone else. The Miers supporters would not really be irritated by someone else getting the position instead (especially if the Miers nomination is withdrawn and not defeated, in which case some people would be ticked), but the Miers opponents will be ticked off if she does get the spot. However, a withdrawal looks unlikely, barring an embarassing hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Baseball Stuff

I'm leaning towards a Yankees-Astros World Series right now; it would pit a team making its fortieth WS appearance against one making its first appearance. Thus far, they are also the only two teams to win road games during this playoffs (though I expect that to change come this weekend (Friday included)).

Interestingly, the National League has three teams that have made the World Series and lost within the last seven years (Padres in 1998, Braves in 1999, and Cardinals in 2004) and one team that has never made it to the World Series (the Astros, who were an expansion team in the early 1960's), while the American League has three teams that have won the World Series this decade (Yankees in 2000 (they also won in 1996, 1998, and 1999 and made losing appearances in 2001 and 2003), Angels in 2002, and Red Sox in 2004) and one team that hasn't played in a World Series since 1959 and hasn't won one since 1917 (the White Sox, who probably could have won in 1919, but they threw the Series in a fix); so each league has three recent pennant winners and a team that hasn't won it in over 45 years (or not at all).

A couple notes on Astros pitchers; they had the top two pitchers in ERA (Clemens and Pettite) -- the only other team to do that in division play history? The 2001 Diamondbacks (who won the World Series, in case you all forgot). Oswalt finished sixth in the league in ERA, and the only recent team to have a similar accomplishment was the 1995 Braves (who had three of the top seven -- Maddux, Smoltz, and Glavine), who also won a World Series. If Clemens were healthier, I'd be much more optimistic about their chances of going all the way; that and if they could score a few runs. I'm watching Game 2 of the Astros-Braves series right now, and Clemens has been tagged for five runs in five innings, though that's partially due to the timing of hits and such -- the Braves have scored more runs than they've left runners on base. Once again, poor run support thus far for Clemens.

A little bit more about Clemens for the moment. His 1.87 ERA is very impressive, but I think his 13-8 record is going to keep him from winning another Cy Young. If his ERA had stayed in the neighborhood of the 1.32 it was at in mid-August, he would have won it (and almost certainly would have had a better record). His team was shut out in nine of his starts this year (seventeen times, overall; really bad luck on Clemens's part), which goes far in explaining his poor record. The Cy Young race is going to come down to Chris Carpenter and Dontrelle Willis, and I think Willis is going to win it. I believe the top three will be Willis-Carpenter-Clemens, with votes also going to Pettite, Oswalt, and Martinez.

Review of My Baseball Season Predictions

Back in April, I made these predictions. Now, it's time to summarize how I did.

In calling the division titles, I correctly picked the Yankees, and incorrectly picked the Cubs and Giants (Giants weren't that far out, though, not being eliminated until the 158th game of the season (though their freefall at season's end makes it look worse)). I thought I'd called the Twins here, but I didn't, so I guess that's not a missed prediction after all ...

Bonds was not back by mid-May (not even close), so I blew that one. I made his homerun total conditional on my making that first prediction, so it doesn't count against my total! Five homers in thirteen starts, though, would easily translate into over thirty (and quite possibly over forty) had he come back by mid-May.

Pedro was not a bust and in fact had a resurgence. Blew that one, too.

I said that Glaus, Ortiz, and Vazquez would be busts for the Diamondbacks. I still contend that Glaus wasn't worth nearly as much as they paid him, but "bust" would be a bit harsh of a characterization; he did only hit .258, but had 37 homers and 97 RBI's, a .363 OBP and a .522 SLG, so not nearly as bad as a half-dozen players that come to mind, but not worth his salary [editted to add: I went back and read what I wrote, and only said that he wouldn't have a very good season; still, I'll give this one to him, and Vazquez to me]. As for Vazquez and Ortiz, I said at least one would have a losing record, and they both did (11-15, and 5-11, respectively). Vazquez had an ERA of 4.42, and his status as a bust could be debated; still, they expected something of a star pitcher and got a mediocre one, so I count him as one, though I recognize others can reasonably disagree. However, Ortiz, with his 6.89 ERA was undeniably a bust.

Sosa definitely continued his decline, with AVG/OBP/SLG of .221/.295/.376 and only 14 homers in 102 games. He was among the very bottom of all qualifying players in the first three categories until missing the last month-plus and not having enough plate appearances to qualify at season's end. Between him and Palmeiro you could have two 500HR-club teammates without a job next year.

Biggio easily passed Don Baylor in the beanball category, with a couple months to spare.

Babe Ruth only fell to 78th on the all-time strikeout list, rather than 80th. Boone was cut (twice), Burnitz didn't amass enough strikeouts, Salmon didn't come back, and neither Juan Gonzalez nor Benito Santiago were able to beat injuries (didn't really expect Gonzalez to, though). Jose Hernandez, Jim Edmonds, Manny Ramirez, Jeff Kent, Rafael Palmeiro, Carlos Delgado, and Ken Griffey, Jr., all passed the Babe this year, though.

So, in total, I had a dozen predictions and got half of them. Not too shabby. More thoughts on the season that was to come later. Quick predictions for division series winners: Yankees, White Sox, Cardinals, Astros.

Supreme Court Nominee, Round Two

Well, I was right when I said the pick would probably be named today. However, I expected to be awake by the time it was named. Harriet Miers, White House Counsel -- I'd heard rumors about her in recent days (that is, rumors that she'd be picked). Currently, I don't know a ton about her, but I can't say that she's a pick that thrills me (that, of course, could change). Bush is facing a few cronyism charges at the moment, and this nominee does not help those (she's served him in one capacity or another since the mid-1990's, I believe). Interestingly, in the 1988 election cycle, she donated to the Gore for president campaign, the Bentsen re-election campaign (Texas Democrat senator, had previously beaten George H.W. Bush in an election, and would wind up being the Democrats' vice-presidential nominee that fall against the George H.W. Bush-Dan Quayle GOP ticket), and the DNC. Perhaps that will mute some criticism, but it's not something I find comforting (she did donate to Republicans in the 1996 and 2000 election cycles). I'll get more info on her and post either later today or tomorrow. Oh, one last remark on the fact that she's not previously served as a judge -- Rehnquist had not been a judge before becoming a justice on the Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Roberts only served for a couple years (can't recall figures on others off the top of my head, but I think Thomas only had a short term as a judge before joining the Supreme Court as well), so previous judicial experience isn't nearly as big a deal as it sounds like (and I'm sure you all will see news reports mentioning that lack of experience). My only real hope on the matter is that Bush knows what he's doing, which I have some confidence in, but still don't think this was the best pick.

Simpsons Top 100 Countdown

#87 Hungry, Hungry Homer
Season 12, Episode 15 (Guide from the Simpsons Archive)
The Simpsons take a trip to Blocko Land (a complete knock-off of Legoland, as Bart makes reference to). As they're driving home, Lisa laments the missing piece from her Blocko Eiffel Tower, and Marge manages to talk Homer into taking action; he turns around and drives back to the park to get the missing piece. After successfully doing so, he decides that he likes the idea of helping people. After hearing Lenny complain about not being able to turn in his Springfield Isotopes (local minor league baseball team) season tickets for a refund, Homer decides to take action. He doesn't get the refund, but he discovers that the team is planning a move to Albuquerque. He goes on a hungry strike, which distracts from attendance, so while he's sleeping, they move him from in front of the stadium to the grass beyond the outfield wall (where nobody can hear him) and say that he's on a hunger strike until the Isotopes win the pennant. When it's become evident that the hunger strike is having health effects on him (he's down to a b cup), the team brings him in, and gives him food. However, Homer sees the southwestern ingredients on the hot dog, is reminded of the reason he was holding the hunger strike to being with, and exposes the team's secret. The episode is memorable for frequent Duffman appearances, Homer helping people (especially helping Bart get a date, and giving directions to a place he didn't know "because that's the kind of person [he is] this week"), several eating-related jokes, the newscast, and various happenings at Blockoland. The show unfortunately succumbs to the fairly common problem in the later seasons of a weak closing act.

Congratulations

To the new Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, who was confirmed by the Senate on Thursday 78-22. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately, depending), the partisanship of the Democrats was on display here -- Roberts was basically the best possible nominee that Bush could choose, and half the Democrats still voted against him. You had Ted Kennedy try to appear reasonable and argue that he's supported more Republican nominees to the high court than Democrat nominees, but this is seriously misleading -- he's been around for 15 Republican nominees and only three Democrat ones, and he's voted against a record eight nominees (all Republicans, naturally). Also, this talk about "mainstream" is very irritating -- these dems won't vote against a leftist nominee, no matter how extreme, and won't support a conservative one (at least most highly visible conservative nominees -- they'll let some pass by unanimous consent and the like). Furthermore, some of the positions they consider "mainstream" -- abortion on demand, for instance -- aren't even close to being supported by a majority of the population. Basically, the democrats can't get their agenda ratified by the voters, so they use unelected judges to push it through -- not very democratic of them, is it?

Alright, I got off track enough. Tomorrow is the first day on the job for the new Chief, and it's also likely to be the day that Bush names his new pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. The Supreme Court has an argument day Monday, a non-argument day Tuesday, an argument day Wednesday, an off day Thursday, and a "conference day" Friday -- so, basically, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts will only perform the public portion of his new job twice this week. Sounds nice.