SCOTUS: Beasts of Burden

The real bloggers are blogging the SCOTUS hearings for Scalito. Although the hearings are politically significant, like any political campaign, what people say are 99% crap. Worst of all, the Democrats have already positioned themselves to tie or lose (they're the same thing) the hearings. We're trying to show What Makes Sammy Run? when we should be playing Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (Think Lakoff when you answer that second question.)

How the Republicans Win
The Republicans need to make Scalito acceptable; the Democrats have to make him look worth a "No" vote or a filibuster. He's too well prepared and too intelligent to look like an idiot or an extremist; the questions on both sides are too predictable to break him. When the Democrats throw a strike, the Republicans make sure the next pitch is slow and in the strike zone. The average person actually paying attention won't see anything wrong with him from the hearing, leaving partisans to reject and accept him, but more importantly, the middle voters not seeing the issue at all. The tie goes to the Republicans.

The Democrats need to put the burden on Alito to show he's not a right-winger. They've accepted the burden of proof and are trying to build a case that he is a wacko. They need to turn the tables. The question shouldn't be, "Are you qualified?" It should be "Why are you the best candidate for this position?" and "Why are you often out of the judicial mainstream?" Then connect Alito to Bush's nomination of Meyers and the many incompetent cronies he's appointed. That's where the case is. Democrats could argue that Bush hadn't appointed the best candidate and spike him.

Any of you guys ever on the debate team? Ever hear of pre-emption?



Mb

P.S. And asking a judge if he believes in stare decisis is like asking a mathematician if he believes in base ten.

P.S.S. Anyone else want to strangle Lindsey Graham any time he speaks?