It is often interesting to learn the etymology of a word or the original meaning of a common phrase.  Take the ‘bottom of the barrel.’  It means the sediment left by wine in a barrel.  It was apparently first used by Cicero to describe the lowest elements of Roman society. 

Today, the democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines not to send Judge Samuel Alito to the full Senate for confirmation.  Because their Republican counterparts did vote in favor of the Judge, he will go to the full Senate.  Judge Alito did nothing during the Judiciary Committee questioning to raise any red flags about his confidence or qualification to sit on the high court.  He demonstrated, once again, that he is thoughtful, even-keeled and respectful of the Constitution.  His answers and judicial record give no evidence of extremism, bias or judicial activism. 

I think Senator John Sununu put it best, after meeting with Judge Alito, “He understands the law and the Constitution extremely well, and I think one of the abilities he showed was to clearly describe how he ruled, why he ruled, and what factors were critical to particular cases,” . “That’s an indication that his service on the court and his view of the Constitution is rooted in principle.”

During the questioning before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito repeated, “no one is above the law, not even the President.”  For most reasonable people, this statement would be a clear indication that Judge Alito does not believe in an Executive Branch with unbridled power, but that is exactly the opposite of how democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee have labeled him.   Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado, “Judge Alito would place too much power in the hands of the president of the United States, at the cost of the protective system of checks and balances built into our Constitution.” Oh, Senator Salazar?  That makes for good propaganda for the portion of the American population that is spoon-fed this nonsense, but does the judge’s record and answers lead to that conclusion?  Of course they don’t.  Senator Leahy was just as disingenuous, continuing this unproven, but politically advantageous theme, and Edward Kennedy, “He is a longstanding advocate for expanding executive power, even at the expense of core individual liberties.”  Sure, you are all trying to convince the country that the President is engaged in heavy duty domestic spying, so why not throw Judge Alito into the mix.  We already know that the NY Times and the other outlets of misinformation will run with this argument.

This blog was originally going to stay straight down the middle of the political spectrum, and speak to political and social issues from an unbiased perspective.  The lean may have been ever so slightly right, but not overly so.  The behavior of the Senate democrats on the Judiciary Committee, and the Bush hater mentality has just been too much to stomach.  The Senate democrats have certainly reached the bottom of the barrel, and are attempting to continue down the low road in their power hungry frenzy.  Every utterance is designed to secure seats in ’06 and the Presidency in ’08.  Nothing is sacred. 

Senator Patrick Leahy, senior Senator from the State of Vermont, has already announced that he will vote against the appointment of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.  That this announcement is a disappointment to me is an understatement.  Senator Leahy has broken with the democratic lock step in the past, and to see him lead the inevitable charge of the far left to derail Judge Alito’s confirmation is a disappointment.

Indeed, the Senator has voted independently in the past on such matters as the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Defense of Marriage Act and NAFTA.  It is more evidence that ideology, extreme ideology is trumping everything else.

In a speech to his alma mater, Georgetown University, on the 19^th, Senator Leahy took every opportunity to impugn President Bush, while making his case against Judge Alito. The Senators speech can be found on his own website , and while making his case against the judge, invokes the inflammatory word ‘wiretapping’ in his partisan remarks against the President...  One would think that a Senator and former State Attorney would understand the difference between wiretapping and the broad electronic net that the NSA casts in search of certain words or phrases when monitoring millions of international calls.  The Senator also says that “in a time when the President is seizing unprecedented power, the Supreme Court needs to act as a check and to provide balance.”  Do I need to remind the Senator that the terrorist attack on 09/11/2001 had not happened previously, and that every measure necessary must be taken to ensure that it does not happen again? 

The President does NOT have an agenda that includes removing the civil rights of Americans, and to insinuate such is malarkey.    This speech was nothing more than an attempt to further defame the Bush Administration using talking points that will be coming from the mouths of more and more leaders of the Democratic Party in the days and months ahead.  There will be a chorus of such accusations, talking points and propaganda whenever any democrat gets in front of a captive audience, reporter, weekend morning news program or the Senate or House floor.  They will build to a crescendo until they are able to start impeachment hearings against the President or usher in a democratic President in 2008.  All the time, the current President is using every resource legally available in his obligation to protect Americans. 

In a 96 to 3 vote, the Senate confirmed President Clinton’s nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993.  Ms. Ginsburg refused to answer several questions during the hearings, and made clear her liberal beliefs.  She had been the chief litigator of the ACLU’s women’s rights crusade.  So President Clinton was able to nominate an ACLU lawyer, who refused many of the Judicary Committee members questions, and she got an overwhelming confirmation?   Obviously, in 1993, the Republican Judiciary Committee members left ideology out of the process, and gave the President his nominee. Although, Ms. Ginsburg is the most liberal member of the court and believes that the U.S. should base its laws on those of other countries, she still sits today as a jurist on the Supreme Court. Judge Alito answers all questions, does not indicate an ideological agenda, is fair and considerate in his prior rulings, and is now in jeopardy of having his nomination derailed.  America………….wake up.