Tee time is at noon

Monday, Jan. 9, 2006, 12 noon

Judiciary to hold hearings to examine the nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Does anyone think the Dems will use this effectively? Expect long, self-aggrandizing speeches. Especially in light of the Texas re-redistricting case, I hope they focus on Scalito's voting rights record. As NYT reported:

In his 1985 job application, Mr. Alito said that his interest in constitutional law was motivated by disagreement with some decisions of the Warren Court, among them those concerning reapportionment. The decisions, from the 1960's, required states to draw voting districts with equal populations. Some legal scholars at the time contended that the decisions did not have a basis in the Constitution.

Judge Bork, too, was critical of the decisions at his confirmation hearings. "There is nothing in our history that suggests 'one man one vote' is the only proper way of apportioning," he said.

In November, after the disclosure of the 1985 job application, the White House said that Judge Alito now believes that one person one vote is "bedrock principle."