Although I’ve blogged about ancillary topics related to Judge Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, I haven’t yet stated my own position on the pick, so let me say this. At first blush, I am inclined to say that he should be confirmed. The relevant question isn’t, “If I were president, would I have picked Alito?” Rather, the relevant question is, “If I were a senator, would I vote to confirm him?” And the answer is, I think, yes. Unless something emerges that makes him look more like a crazed lunatic than he currently appears, I believe that he possesses the requisite credentials for confirmation.

There are two components to this position. First off, I don’t believe the Senate’s advice-and-consent role extends so far that senators are supposed to act as 100 mini-presidents, each making individual judgments about whether they would have chosen this person if they were in Bush’s shoes. I prefer the approach taken by the Republicans during Clinton’s term, when only 3 senators voted against Ruth Bader Ginsburg and only 9 voted against Stephen Breyer; the vast majority of Republicans voted to confirm, even though I’m sure very few of them actually agreed with Ginsburg or Breyer on matters of judicial philosophy. I think senators are supposed to assess whether the nominee is generally, objectively acceptable, not vote “yes” if they agree with the nominee’s philosophy and “no” if they disagree with it. This isn’t an election. We had an election in 2004, and Bush won it. That means Bush gets to pick the Supreme Court nominees, and as long as his choices are reasonable, I believe they should be confirmed. The Senate plays an important role in making sure the nominee isn’t unqualified (see: Harriet Miers) or otherwise objectively unacceptable for some reason, but I think it’s an abuse of that role to vote against (or, even worse, filibuster) someone merely because of a disagreement over philosophy, so long as the candidate’s philosophy isn’t deranged or truly outside the mainstream. If the Senate starts to act like 100 mini-presidents on judicial battles, that new role will come back to haunt liberals once the Democrats re-take the White House. What happens when there’s a Democratic president and a Republican Senate (or even a Democratic Senate with more than 40 Republicans)? Is the president not allowed to appoint a judicial liberal? I don’t like that idea at all. The president gets to pick the justices; the Senate isn’t just a rubber stamp, but it isn’t a co-picker, either.

Secondly, I don’t believe that a nominee’s disagreement (or suspected disagreement) with controversial cases such as Roe v. Wade is somehow prima facie evidence that he or she is “unqualified.” If Alito disagreed with, say, Brown v. Board of Education, then we’d have something to talk about. But just because some more recent, controversial and debatable cases, like Roe, are seen as gospel truth by liberals, doesn’t mean everyone is required to agree with them or else be seen as objectively unsuitable for a seat on the Court. I simply don’t buy into the notion that anyone who has a Scalia-like conservative judicial philosophy is necessarily deranged or “outside the mainstream.” Frankly, I find that position absurd and borderline dishonest. No matter how much one might disagree with it, the conservative philosophy espoused by Scalia and his ilk is undeniably “mainstream.” It is held by two to three Supreme Court justices and countless other judges around the country, as well as many highly respected lawyers, law professors and others. To claim that judicial conservatism is “outside the mainstream” is to distort the term “mainstream” beyond all recognition. Again: just because one might strongly disagree with it, doesn’t mean it’s deranged or objectively beyond the pale.

The counterargument to this, I guess, is that if a judge isn’t clearly willing to “uphold” such “fundamental rights” as a woman’s right to choose, then he or she is just as objectively unsuitable as someone who opposes Brown. Sorry, but no. There is nothing “objective” about the debate over Roe and other issues that pit judicial conservatives against judicial liberals. There is an ongoing, vibrant discussion in which both sides have valid arguments and intelligent points. Just because you think someone is on the “wrong” side of the debate, doesn’t mean they’re objectively unqualified for high office. It just means they disagree with you. Presumably you registered your disagreement in the 2004 election; so did millions of others, and the other side won. That doesn’t mean you have to give up the fight, but it does mean you need to realize that elections have consequences, and the “wrong” side is going to win some battles in the short term, because they won. Crying “fundamental rights” resolves nothing, since whether the “rights” in question exist is the very thing that’s being debated. No matter how well you dress it up in flowery language suggesting the conservatives that evil, rights-stealing bastards, it still boils down to a fundamental disagreement over what the law should say and what the role of the courts should be, and whereas we can all agree today that segregation was objectively wrong, no such agreement is possible on the issues currently at stake.

Thus, since I believe senators should vote for a SCOTUS nominee unless that person is unqualified or otherwise objectively unacceptable, and since I do not believe Alito’s undeniable judicial conservatism makes him unqualified or objectively unacceptable, I am inclined to believe he should be confirmed, barring some new information or a poor performance at the hearings that raises doubts about his suitability for the job.

That said, I don’t particularly begrudge liberals the fact that they are vigorously opposing this nomination. This isn’t like Roberts, where I felt it was downright foolhardy to oppose a candidate whose positions on hot-button issues generally seemed to be either moderate or ambiguous, which is about as much as a liberal could realistically hope for from a conservative Republican president. Here, we’re looking at the quintessential conservative dream candidate, which means the quintessential liberal nightmare candidate. This is the guy the Democrats should have been saving their fire for; this is the one worth opposing. Although I ultimately don’t agree with the basic precepts that one must accept in order to oppose a SCOTUS candidate on purely ideological grounds, I can at least see where the Left is coming from on this one. So, for example, when my mom told me she’d written a letter to her senators urging them to oppose Alito, I didn’t feel the need to start an argument with her, like I did over her opposition to Roberts. :)

So anyway, there you have it. I tenatively support Alito, but I’m not about to join his fan club, either. And now, I need to either get back to my Moot Court paper, or sleep, or some combination of the two…

Shortly after Harriet Miers’s nomination was withdrawn, somebody (Bea, I think) asked me to dig up the old posts where I had mentioned the various conspiracy theories that were floating around right after Miers was picked. Well, here they are:

I read somewhere this morning (I can’t remember where now) a comment, presumably tongue-in-cheek, suggesting that the Miers nomination is a ruse; Bush nominated Miers knowing she’ll be rejected (or eventually withdrawn after a bitter fight), and figuring he can then nominate a qualified but far-right conservative, because the public won’t have the stomach for a second consecutive Senate bloodbath, and the new nominee’s judicial credentials will look stellar compared to Miers’s.

Far-fetched, and almost certainly false, if for no other reason than that I can’t believe Bush, Mr. Loyalty, would throw a long-time confidant under a bus like that. But who knows? It might work out that way for him accidentally…

…

The Anchoress [writes]:

She may not make it to the Supreme Court. Bush may not even intend for her to get there. She may be, rather than the ‘misdirection’ many expected, an out-and-out decoy, floated to allow both the liberals and the conservatives to blast her out of the water so that Bush can then put up another candidate that both left and right - after having behaved very badly over Miers - will get behind.

I’m still finding that “throw Miers under the bus” theory hard to believe, but who knows? Only time will tell, I suppose.

So, what did time tell us? I still seriously doubt Miers was thrown under a bus. But the “might work out that way for him accidentally” thing is looking pretty good right now. Still, with the Left girding for an all-out war over the new nominee, I’m not sure if things are really that much different than they would have been if Bush had skipped Miers and gone straight to [Sc]Alito in the first place.

Meanwhile, the jury is still out on my conspiracy theory about the “evil-genius Rovian plot to deliberately lose the 2006 elections.” :)

“A life without boobies is like a life without chocolate.” –Becky

I agree 100%. :)

Okay, I’m procrastinating on my Moot Court paper again, which means it’s time for another wild BCS scenario.

Once again, it involves USC losing to fUCLA. I know, I know, it’s disloyal of me to think of such things… but with Becky’s and my wedding set for December 30 in the Phoenix area, I had to wonder… could USC and Notre Dame somehow end up playing each other in a Fiesta Bowl rematch on January 2, thus sending attendance at our wedding through the roof? :) (Conveniently enough, I believe our RSVP date is a few days after the BCS pairings will be announced.)

Here’s the scenario. Notre Dame wins out, and finishes high enough in the standings that they are BCS-eligible. UCLA beats USC in a close game on Dec. 3; the Trojans drop to #3 or #4 in the BCS standings. Texas and UCLA finish #1 and #2, and play in the Rose Bowl. Miami wins the ACC and goes to the Orange Bowl. The SEC champion (doesn’t really matter who it is, but I’ll go with LSU) goes to the Sugar Bowl. Up for grabs, bowl-wise, are: Big 10 champion Ohio State, Big East champion Rutgers :), and two at-large teams — one of which must be USC, because (like in 2002-03), the Trojans are a non-conference-champion in the Top 4, are thus are guaranteed a BCS berth.

So, before any of the discretionary bowl picks, the lineup looks like this:

Rose Bowl: Texas vs. UCLA
Orange Bowl: Miami vs. _____
Fiesta Bowl: _____ vs. _____
Sugar Bowl: LSU vs. _____

The Fiesta Bowl, having lost its host team to the Rose Bowl, picks first. Obviously, the folks in Tempe pick the team whose huge national fan base gives every bowl in the country wet dreams: the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame, who went 9-2 on the season.

According to this article, the order of bowl picks then goes: Orange, Fiesta, Sugar.

The Orange Bowl’s choices are: USC, Ohio State, or Rutgers. Obviously Rutgers is out of the question (as any Big East champion would be). So who do they choose: the Trojans or the Buckeyes? Well, think about it. The Orange Bowl hosted USC three years ago, and again last year. Will they really want the Trojans again? I think not… especially considering that the Trojans would be coming off a loss, whereas Ohio State would be on a six-game winning streak. Moreover, picking OSU would be an the opportunity to host a rematch of 2002-03’s thrilling double-overtime championship game between Miami and Ohio State — a rematch that the Fiesta Bowl was salivating over in 2003-04, until Kansas State gummed up the works by beating Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game. (The Fiesta Bowl ended up hosting KSU vs. OSU instead.) Am I crazy in thinking that the Orange Bowl would pick OSU? (Or, for that matter, Penn State? Or Wisconsin? Okay, maybe not Wisconsin…)

If I’m right that the Orange Bowl would pick the Big 10 champ over USC, that would leave the Fiesta Bowl with two options for who would play Notre Dame: the Big East champ, or the Trojans. Right, like that’s a hard choice. The result: Sun Devil Stadium in Tempe, Arizona plays host to a rematch of OMG OMG The Greatest Game Ever, which immediately becomes the most-hyped bowl game this side of Pasadena. That’s right, it’d be USC vs. Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl. And suddenly, 250 people would be coming to Becky’s and my wedding, and that whole discussion about delaying our honeymoon would take on new urgency. :)

Of course, none of this is going to happen, because USC is going to crush UCLA on December 3. But it sure would be interesting…

Here is the obituary of Richard Hastings, the former Newington High School teacher and wrestling coach who died Saturday in a house fire. The memorial service will be tomorrow at 11:00 AM at the First Church of Christ Congregational on South Main Street in West Hartford.

The local Youth Wrestling Club has set up a memorial page for Mr. Hastings. It includes a video of the coach and the following statement:

It is fair to say that Coach Hastings WAS Newington Wrestling. During the time he was coach, and even after he left the program, Coach Hastings was an inspiration to many of Newington’s young people. He not only coached the sport of wrestling, but taught his team and all the young people of our town about thinking big, believing in themselves, and about character. He will be sorely missed.

There’s also an e-mail address where you can send in your own tribute.

Memorial donations may be made to the NHS Wrestling Booster Club, Newington High School, 605 Willard Ave., Newington, CT 06111, attn: Matt Rossi; the Hampton Volunteer Fire Department, West Old Route 6, Hampton, CT 06247; or the Kingswood-Oxford School, 170 Kingswood Road, West Hartford, CT 06119.

I know I’m a day behind on this, but… 31-year-old GM wunderkind Theo Epstein has left the Red Sox, apparently because of “intra-organizational politics and power struggles that he ultimately decided he could not live with any longer.” Or, as Coach Leahy puts it with trademark delicacy, “Thank you, Larry Lucchino, for sabotaging the franchise because Theo has a bigger wang and gets more tail than you.” Just another item to add to the long list of successful sports partnerships torn apart by competing egos.

P.S. Mad Max wonders if this means the Curse of the Bambino will be replaced by the Curse of the Epsteino. Hopefully not; I don’t know if I’ll still be alive in 2090. :)

So, randomly, in the last day I’ve developed a bitchin’ sore throat, a really annoying cough, a fever, and muscle aches. (I’m claiming bird flu.) And it’s not like I have a Moot Court paper due in 48 hours! Arrgh!!

Well, at least he didn’t ask Mary to Katie him. (Hat tip: Briandot.)

I remember, when I ordered my banner, I triple- or quadruple-checked that they had the names spelled right. It’s a good thing, too. If the New York Times and MSNBC had made the banner, it would have said, “ROBBIE WILL U MARRY ME? ♥ BRANDON.” :)

In case you needed any more evidence that unranked Tennessee (3-4) is coming to Notre Dame Stadium this weekend in total disarray, the Vols’ offensive coordinator has resigned. And with good reason:

Tennessee’s offense is one of the worst in the country. The Vols average 16 points a game, which ranks 108 out of 119 Division I-A schools. They are 99th in total offense, 98th in rushing offense, 79th in passing offense and 101st in passing efficiency.

Ah, the glorious SEC!

Perhaps the Vols will see Saturday’s game as a chance to salvage their season, or at least their pride, and will play better than expected. But I’m thinking Notre Dame’s toughest game for the rest of the season is at Stanford.

Boi From Troy on the BCS: “Speaking of why the computers should be ignored at this point…the Colley Matrix ranks Penn State ahead of unbeaten USC, Alabama and UCLA. Riiight.”

The witching hour has come and gone, which means it’s officially November… and now that my birthday and Halloween are over, it’s time to begin counting down in earnest to the autumn’s really big event… Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire!!! (Trailer here.) Only 17 days to go!!! OMG! OMG! :)

Notre Dame freshman Emerson Spartz’s world-famous* fan site MuggleNet, of course, has much more, including additional video clips here and here.

*Yes, even more famous than that “weather nerd” guy’s blog. :)

P.S. Speaking of the “weather nerd”… the USC Online Journalism Review’s article about me is online.

The Backer has restored his old name and color scheme after nearly two weeks as “Traddies.” (Our bet was extended because he decided the cardinal-and-gold look was good luck for his White Sox. The Sox — much like the Trojans — were undefeated while he had the USC mojo goin’ on.)

In other Brendansphere news, I’ve added a new blog to the NDLS bloggers list: Chris McLemore’s London photoblog, which has some cool pictures from across the pond. Jolly good.