One of the most telling things about this morning's Alito testimony was his bizarre detachment in talking about the strip search of a 10 year old girl. As I'm sure you know by now, he defended this warrantless strip search in a dissenting opinion in Doe v. Groody.

Try to set aside the potential merit (or lack thereof) in defending a warrantless strip search of a 10 year old girl and the fact that it seemingly ignores the Fourth Amendment. Instead, take note of the fact that it didn't seem to phase him that he's talking about a strip search of a 10 year old girl. It was downright creepy. When Senator Leahy asked him whether or not he had reconsidered his opinion in the case. Alito answered, "I haven't had occasion to think that what I said in that case was correct."

Here is a link to the PDF document from the National Association of Women lawyers that evaluates Alito as "unqualified." Originally, Republicans had planned on calling the President of this orgnaizaiton to testify on behalf on Alito. I wonder if they will still do so now.

Also, Alito is a liar. The whole business about not being able to remember anything about joining the Conerned Alumni for Princeton is just a flat out out lie. If it isn't a lie, then I wonder why he put that he was a member of said organization on his CV in 1985. Even if we assume that he is telling the truth, his inability to remember why, or even if, he joined an organization makes him seem more than a little senile. Is someone with such a poor memory qualified to serve on the Supreme Court? I don't think so.

Bumped--Chris

The hearings are starting up again. If I were on the committee, the first question I would ask Alito is "do you post on right-wing online message boards, such as Free Republic?"

I bet he does. He certainly fits the profile:

• Right wing extremist
• Lives in a blue state
• Well to do professional
• Quiet
• Kinda nerdy
• Uncomfortable talking in public

I wonder what his freeper user name is. I'll send the person who comes up with the best guess $20 via pay pal.

Update: Needlenose has an awkward, freeper-esque picture of Alito up.

Juan Cole is brilliant: I'm not really going to blog about policy, but Joseph Hughes has a great run down of what is at stake in these hearings.

Will Bunch wants Alito to explain which family friend "bequesthed" him $161K in Exxon-Mobil stock.

Blog for Choice is a really great project that you should check out.

If you have a blog post on Alito that you would like me to link to, just send me an email at chris@mydd.com

Update: Democrats.com speculates on Bush's strange comments in favor of Alito today.

Apparently Christie's firm is a registered lobbyist.  Oh Christie, we thought you were just supporting Alito cause he's a nice guy.

After the opening statements today, I spent some time wandering around the press conference area in the Hart Senate building. I was able to talk to the Presidents of two major advocacy organizations and ask them about their idea of success for the hearings. There were the obvious concerns about making Alito answer the questions he was asked, making sure that the Democratic Senators asked the right questions, informing he American public about Alito's freeperesque record as a judge, etc. After a little egging, and because they knew I was a blogger and not a "regular" journalist (although it was hard to tell the difference when I was in the press conference area), I was able to coax a little bit of more direct information out of them.

The first President I talked with wouldn't say "filibuster," and instead relied upon the term "opposition." However, she indicated that she felt the best possible scenario would be if Alito said things during the hearings that directly contradicted his record. This struck me a smart, because it was really the only remaining avenue where Alito's nomination could face serious trouble without a filibuster even being necessary.

The second President I talked to was somewhat more direct in her support of a filibuster of Alito, as she indicated that the goal was to stop him from being confirmed, and there was no reason to take any option off the table. This isn't a direct quote, but the general gist I took from it was that if a filibuster was the only available means of stopping Alito, then filibuster it would have to be.

These two interviews, combined with private conversations I have had with staffers from several other advocacy organizations, have made it seem to me that within the progressive advocacy world there is far more serious and determined opposition to Alito than there was against Roberts. Back then, I couldn't get anyone down here to even tell me in private that they thought filibustering Roberts was a good idea. The general sentiment was that we needed to force more answers out of Roberts, and rack up as many "no" votes as possible in order to change the composition of the next nomination. By contrast, this time the mood is definitely that we need to stop this geeky, lying freeper, and if that means the filibuster, well then that means the filibuster.

I have no idea if this sentiment is shared among Senate staff on the Hill, but I do know that I will spend much of my time tomorrow trying to find out. Also, while there is much more determined opposition to Alito than there was to Roberts, that still doesn't mean that we are going to be able to get the 41 votes necessary. If things go our way--and judging by Alito's stunningly nervous and uncomfortable performance in front of the cameras today they just might--this could end up being the biggest political fight Washington has seen in a couple years.

Of we might only get something like 32 "no" votes and nothing happens. Stay tuned...

I am in DC today, as I will be for the rest of the week. While I am down here, one of the main things I will be working on is to defeat the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

I want to make that last sentence clear. I believe the Democratic goal for the Alito hearings should be to defeat his nomination through a filibuster of 41 votes or more, and then to defeat the nuclear option with a vote of 51 votes or more. Samuel Alito is an unacceptable choice to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.

This is my belief and my goal, and I write this without representing any group or elected official in Washington DC.

I don't care if a filibuster of Alito results in Republicans successfully triggering the nuclear option. Blocking an unacceptable nominee to the Supreme Court is the main reason why we need the filibuster for judicial nominees. If we can't use it in order to save it, it is worthless. I also don't fear any significant public backlash in the event of a Democratic-led filibuster, as enough of the country already opposes Alito's confirmation to prevent any significant political repercussions for Democrats. If anything, I believe Republicans will have more severe political repercussions for using the nuclear option at the start of the legislative session just before the State of the Union address. Further, I always thought it would be fun to see the Democratic response to the destruction of the filibuster, which Harry Reid outlined back in April.

Given all of this, I am not going to blog these hearings the same way that I blogged the Roberts hearings back in September. This week, it is going to be more about vote counting, about protests, about linking to as many progressive bloggers on Alito as possible, and about all of the other things that will be taking place as part of the effort to prevent Alito from being confirmed. I will be in connection with a lot of people down here, and I will try and give you a sense of what it is like to be here yourself.

I'll be blogging all day on Alito Tuesday and Wednesday. Check out Dragonball Yee for some photos and a first-person write up of the protests at Justice Sunday yesterday.

(Bumped -- Scott)

Chris is in DC, and he's liveblogging the hearings.  Today there's not that much interesting stuff, just introductions.

Reddhedd has a great round-up of coverage.  Pay special attention to the video segment of this Washington Post article where he endorses the Meese-led Reagan Justice Department.  These guys were extreme freepers.  And Alito said he shared their legal views.

UPDATE: I misunderstood. Apparently Chris is liveblogging the hearings tomorrow and Wednesday and will have a recap later today. Reddhedd at Firedoglake is liveblogging.