Ellington

In another blow to a White House in trouble, an AP-Ipsos poll finds that support for Supreme Court appointee Samuel Alito is low, even among Bush's radical-right base:

Early support for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito is considerably weaker among such key groups as evangelicals, Republicans and the wealthy than it was for John Roberts, an AP-Ipsos poll found. The survey put public sentiment for Alito closer to the level of early backing for the failed nomination of Harriet Miers.

About four in 10 respondents - 38 percent - say they back the confirmation of Alito, a federal appeals court judge from Philadelphia. Twenty-two percent say they strongly support him.
For Roberts, now the chief justice, 47 percent said in July that they supported his confirmation, 36 percent strongly.

Almost two-thirds of evangelicals supported Roberts' confirmation with half strongly backing him. For Alito, about half of evangelicals support his confirmation, one-third strongly. There were similar drops among Republicans and among people who make more than $75,000 a year.

Despite Bush's call for the Senate to confirm Alito by the end of December, the Senate put off hearings until Jan. 9, giving Judiciary Committee investigators and the public more time to delve into his background and record as a judge.

Previous Comments

ID

171967

Comment

John Fahy, A Democrat And Former Bergen County Prosecutor: “Look, he is conservative. But you could disagree with him and he would listen to you. ... He’s also the brightest man I know.” (Amy Klein, “Alito Respects Precedent: Now He May Have To Set It,” The [Bergen County, NJ] Record, 11/1/05)

Author

Kendrick Johnson

Date

2005-12-22T14:18:09-06:00

ID

171968

Comment

...haven't heard much from you guys concerning Alito since the confirmation hearing got under way...

Author

Kendrick Johnson

Date

2006-01-12T22:43:02-06:00

ID

171969

Comment

Hey, we've got too many problems on the homefront these days to pay too much attention, unfortunately. At least that's the way I feel. And I apologize for that.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-01-12T23:13:25-06:00

ID

171970

Comment

There's also a fatalism to it. It's clear now that Alito, be he moderate or extreme, will inevitably be approved. I would have blogged on it if it was still a fighting war, but it isn't. Alito's in. Specter cinched it. So two possibilities... Either: (a) He knows something we don't, or (b) Future historical biographies of Specter will never use the word "unequivocable." My money is actually on (a). I have very little solid evidence to back this up, but my gut feeling is increasingly becoming that both Roberts and Alito will prove to be relatively moderate conservatives, though Roberts is clearly the more moderate of the two. I feel confident in saying that Roberts is closer to O'Connor than he is to Rehnquist, so if we look at it as O'Connor traded for Roberts and Rehnquist traded for Alito, with Roberts replacing Rehnquist as chief justice, we end up with a more moderate court that, if it has moved at all, has shifted slightly to the left. And even if Alito is a wingnut, Roe v. Wade itself is not in direct danger. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas v. Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens is still 4-5, and it's a pretty big if to assume that Roberts would vote against Roe. Although if Stevens retires or has health issues (the man's 90), Roe could be in more direct trouble. Assuming, here again, that Roberts would swing that way. We need to remember that a conservative Republican president does not necessarily mean conservative justices. Reagan, the most unambiguously anti-abortion president since Roe, appointed O'Connor and Kennedy. Bush Sr., who ran on a strong pro-life platform, appointed Souter. Literally two-thirds of the pro-Roe justices in the latter-day Rehnquist court were Republican appointees. The more imminent danger vis-a-vis abortion is the whittling away of abortion rights that we'd already seen from the Rehnquist court. A trend continuing, but not necessarily a new trend. I badly want to elect a Democratic president in 2008 to ensure that the court remains balanced. The next vacancy will almost certainly be Stevens', and I don't want to see him replaced by Luttig. Another thing that could be done to stem the tide is to bring in more Democratic senators in November. Scuttlebutt is that the D column was not terribly far from a filibuster; change a few seats and you'll see more visibly moderate justices. And with the nuclear option only getting 50-50 or 51-49 support, the departure of Santorum alone, if uncompensated for, could bring us back to the days of potent filibusters. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-13T06:14:59-06:00

ID

171971

Comment

I am disappointed that you guys have neglected to continue coverage of a Supreme Court nomination simply because (as far as I can tell) you are unhappy with its forecasted outcome. As I searched this site, the latest coverage I found was a December 3, 2005 reference to Judge Alito's abortion views. Of course, you guys have the right to pick and choose what you cover, but I am surprised that something as "headline-worthy" as the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is virtually being ignored as the confirmation process unfolds.

Author

Kendrick Johnson

Date

2006-01-13T13:50:59-06:00

ID

171972

Comment

We don't "cover" anything nationally, Kendrick. We discuss issues on here. So if you want to talk about Alito, talk about Alito. Otherwise, leave the scolding elsewhere. We're adults here.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-01-13T13:52:33-06:00

ID

171973

Comment

Also, feel free to start your own forum threads in the Forums, Kendrick, and then "bump" them to recent comments so others will pick it up if they care to. But it's up to them.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-01-13T13:53:31-06:00