Alito's Way

If, like Bostonist, you feel a perverse thrill when Senator Kennedy's paunchy, serious face appears on your television screen to inveigh against the evils of Republicans, you are in luck: Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito are going on now. The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee is, of course, our own Teddy, so expect tonight's news to feature his lips forming the phrases "woman's right to choose" and "our fundamental constitutional rights." If you're keeping score at home, the first day of hearings is always dominated by lengthy opening statements by every one of the Committee's 18 members, in which the party favoring the nominee touts his credentials while the one opposing him talks about deliberation, serious inquiry, and important matters like (ready? here it comes . . .) a woman's right to choose and our fundamental constitutional rights. Both parties will, of course, urge candor from the nominee, knowing full well they're unlikely to get any. Bostonist would live-blog the event, but then we'd have to shoot ourselves. (Also, someone else is, thankfully, on the case.)

Events like this are so predictable as to be boring even for law nerds like Bostonist. Alito will praise practically every question for its incisive nature, and offer long-winded, digressive answers, hopefully including case citations. With any luck, Senator Kennedy will interrupt from time to time with a pithy, indignant, you-can't-handle-the-truth type retort, causing the nominee to push his glasses up his nose, shuffle the papers on his table, and continue obfuscating. Senator Schumer of New York will hopefully supply some clever, complicated analogies. Bostonist will be secretly praying for a filibuster, just so the rest of the nation can watch Ted Kennedy ramble on at length, cementing the Commonwealth's reputation as totally out of step with the American mainstream.

UPDATE: Chuck Schumer did not disappoint, as Blue Mass. Group has helpfully informed us. His opening statement deftly alluded to Judge Roberts's use of a baseball analogy during his confirmation: "If the record showed that an umpire repeatedly called 95 percent of pitches strikes when one team’s players were up and repeatedly called 95 percent of pitches balls when the other team’s players were up, one would naturally ask whether the umpire was really being impartial and fair." Brilliant stuff, Chuck. This is why we voted for you in our Brooklynist days.