Those liberal interest groups and senators who are ready to shout hysterically that Judge Samuel Alito is a grave danger to their advocacy of abortion rights might want to consider this:

"It's worth noting that Judge Alito does not automatically rule in favor of laws limiting abortion. In Planned Parenthood v. Farmer, he cited the Supreme Court's decision to strike down a Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortion to explain his vote to invalidate a similar law in New Jersey. It is the "responsibility" of judges, he said, "to follow and apply controlling Supreme Court precedent." At least one pro-life group was rumored yesterday to be considering withholding support for Judge Alito over Farmer--which would be an example of the results-based jurisprudence that conservatives criticize when it is practiced by the left."

John McCain is "favorably disposed" toward SCOTUS nominee Judge Samuel Alito, as he just told Alan Colmes on Fox. Not a surprise, as opposition toward Alito by McCain would irrevocably kill any chance he has of getting the 2008 nomination. McCain's support of Alito throughout the nomination process would significantly assist him in repairing the damage he brought upon himself by engineering the Gang of 14 compromise on judicial filibusters last spring.

Luckily, it does not appear to be the deadly H5N1 type:

Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Canada found 33 cases of avian influenza, a lethal strain of which has spread through Asia and Europe, in a survey of wild ducks conducted this summer, a government health agency said.

The infected ducks were healthy, suggesting they don't carry the virulent H5N1 strain, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in a statement today. Tests to identify the strain will be completed next week. Canada has had no cases of H5N1, Agriculture Minister Andy Mitchell told reporters in Ottawa today.

The chairman of the Democratic party, Howard Dean, is afraid to use the word "pro-choice." From today's Hardball:

Chris Matthews: Why do you hesitate to use the phrase pro-choice?

Howard Dean: Because I think it's often misused. If you're pro-choice than it implies sure not pro-life. That's not true. There are a lot of pro-life Democrats. We respect them. We believe the government...

HD: I believe the government should stay out of the lives of family and women. They should stay out of our lives. That's what I believe.

CM: I find it interesting that you have hesitated to say what the party has always stood for, which is the pro-choice position.

HD: The party believes the government does not belong in making personal decisions.

CM: I guess I'm learning things about a hesitancy I did know about before.

What Chris Matthews is learning is that the Democratic Party has come to the conclusion that a majority of the American people find the term "pro-choice" distasteful and disengenious. Howard Dean is attempting to fashion a new word that he, and the party as a whole believe will make this position more palatable. It would seem that he has a lot of work to do before he accomplishes that.

Judge Samuel Alito is an outstanding nomination to the SCOTUS by President George W. Bush. He exemplifies quality, competence and gravitas. He is precisely the type of nominee that conservatives were looking for just one month ago. But better late than never, and in the case of Alito I'm happy to have waited.

It is more than clear that the president had the full assistance and attention of Karl Rove while picking this nominee, which does not appear to have been the case one month ago. Harriet Miers also spent the weekend at Camp David, and she is to be congratulated for helping the president narrow his choices down to this nominee.

The reaction of Democrats, and their special interest groups, is not surprisingly hysterical, with Sen. Charles Schumer despicably arguing that Alito might roll back the advances made possible by Rosa Parks. Let them scream and let them be hysterical. Let the Democrats be who they really are for all reasonable Americans to see. I rather suspect that they are going to be making some very foolish statements in the days and weeks to come. The long and grim faces over at CNN tell it all. The ploy of the Democrats, and their willing allies in the media, to try and coax the president to "confer" with them prior to this nomination has failed, as it should have. Republicans did not request that President Clinton "confer" with them prior to his appointment of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and it is ludicrous and hypocritical for Democrats in the Senate to expect the same from George W. Bush.

Expect a concerted and down-in-the-gutter-effort coming from Democrats, their interest groups and their allies in Old Media in the next few weeks to throw anything that they can in an effort to defeat the Alito nomination. Expect threats of a filibuster, and "other" intimidation tactics. As I posted last night, let them threaten a filibuster if they must. If they attempt to mount one against Alito then it will be defeated.

Congratulations to the president for this wonderful choice. He will appropriately and justifiably have a united front of conservatives supporting the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the SCOTUS.

***
Update: Hugh Hewitt notes that the best way to preempt a filibuster by the Democrats, before it even gathers any steam, is to contact those Republicans who are part of the Gang of 14, and urge them to announce "early and often" that they will support a Senate rule change to kill any filibuster of Alito's nomination. The contact information for those senators is as follows:

Senator McCain mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Contact.Home
(202) 224-2235

Senator Warner warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm
(202) 224-2023

Senator DeWine dewine.senate.gov
(202) 224-2315

Senator Chafee chafee.senate.gov/webform.htm
(202) 224-2921

Senator Snowe http://snowe.senate.gov/Webform.htm
(202) 224-5344

Senator Collins collins.senate.gov/low/contactemail.htm
(202) 224-2523

Senator Hagel hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact
(202) 224-4224

Senator Specter (202) 224-4254
specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInfo.Home

No need to contact Sen. Lindsey Graham, he will vote to defeat a filibuster should it occur.

***

Powerline notes:

"Alito is a solid choice. Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have already come out against him; another good sign."

And Sen. Kennedy looked like he had taken an early nip in an appearance on CNN a few minutes ago.

Ed Whelan (H/T Polipundit) on Alito's qualifications:

"In selecting Third Circuit judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. for the Supreme Court, President Bush has made a truly outstanding nomination that deserves widespread acclaim. By any objective criteria, it is doubtful that there is anyone now or in recent decades (yes, not even Chief Justice Roberts) whose experience and qualifications better prepare him for the Supreme Court.

Judge Alito’s entire career since graduating from Yale Law School in the mid-1970s has been devoted to public service in the law. His range of experience dealing with difficult questions of federal law is unmatched. After a prestigious clerkship on the Third Circuit, he worked as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey for four years. Then, as assistant to the Solicitor General, he briefed and argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court for four years. He next served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel—the office that was previously headed by Rehnquist and Scalia and that advises the White House Counsel’s office and the entire executive branch on the proper meaning of the Constitution and other federal law. In 1987, Alito became United States Attorney in New Jersey. In that capacity, he was responsible for all federal prosecutions in New Jersey for three years (including the successful prosecution of a Libyan-sponsored terrorist who planned to attack various New York targets). And for the past 15 years, Alito has served with great distinction on the Third Circuit."

And Polipundit also has an analysis of the roll-call vote.

Kathryn Jean Lopez notes:

"I just got the White House talking points on Alito. Nowhere in them does it say that he is one of the best male lawyers in New Jersey."

Heh.

Sen. Lindsey Graham on Sunday:

But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, fired back Sunday, saying that if the Democrats staged a filibuster against Judge Alito or Judge Luttig because of their conservatism, "the filibuster will not stand."

Mr. Graham's warning was significant because he played a crucial role earlier this year in helping block a Republican effort to change the Senate rules - known as the nuclear option - so that Democrats could not filibuster judicial nominees. His comments on Sunday indicated that this time, he would support that rule change; Democrats have threatened to retaliate with a battle that could snarl Senate business for months.

Threaten the Democrats will, but it's all talk. There will be no snarling of the Senate, as the Democrats know full well that they would rightly be blamed by the American people for obstructing their business with a juvenile temper tantrum over a Senate rule change, with appropriate results at the ballot box next November.

Let the Democrats scream bloody murder until they are blue in the face. The president will have a united front of conservatives behind him for the battle ahead. Nominate Luttig, Alito, Owen or Batchelder. If the Dems want a fight then let's get it on.

Latest rumors and other uncomfirmed reports (here and here) are turning to Judge Samuel Alito as the next SCOTUS nominee. Either Alito or Judge Michael Luttig would be fine. Erick's post over at Red State is the first I had heard of the concerns that Luttig might "grow" on the SCOTUS.

Patterico on why Sen. Arlen Specter may not like Judge Alito.

Another Patterico post here, dealing with Alito's dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Former independent counsel Robert Ray, speaking on Fox News Sunday this morning:

"I think you have to look at Mr. Fitzgerald's body language, and I would disagree with Sen. Dodd, that Karl Rove is about to be indicted. I don't think that was the signal that Mr. Fitzgerald was sending at all. If anything, what he was signaling, was the absence of extraordinary circumstances, that he couldn't imagine, at least at this stage. He made a decision not to prosecute Mr. Rove, and while there may be a cloud somewhere out there, it is certainly at very high altitude. I don't think that Mr. Rove is seriously in jeopardy at this point any longer."

Perhaps Sen. Dodd has the exclusive information, with regard to Mr. Fitzgerald's intentions? Perhaps Senate minority leader Harry Reid, who called for Rove's resignation this morning, also has the same information? If so then it would be most desirable if they would step forward and share it with the rest of us. If not then it would be even more desirable if they let due process and the facts speak for themselves.

Davis writes "New scandal, old mistakes," with regard to the Valerie Plame affair:

"Similarly, the Democrats are playing up the idea that White House officials may have endangered national security in playing hardball politics. Well, I can remember all the times I picked up the phone and talked "on background" to reporters, "pushing back" against rumors damaging to President Clinton and citing information that I thought was "out there." I don't remember ever worrying about whether the facts that I felt were public knowledge might have been classified. But even if I had, I would probably have rationalized that anything I had heard on the grapevine couldn't possibly be a state secret. If every political aide was prosecuted for those kinds of conversations with the press corps, I'm afraid there wouldn't be enough jails to hold us."

The government cannot turn cell phones into tracking devices:

Federal law enforcement attempts to use cell phones as tracking devices were rebuked twice this month by lower court judges, who say the government cannot get real time tracking information on citizens without showing probable cause.

This summer, Department of Justice officials separately asked judges from Texas and Long Island, New York to sign off on orders to cellular phone service providers compelling them to turn over phone records and location information -- in real time -- on two different individuals.

Both judges rejected the location tracking portion of the request in harshly worded opinions, concluding investigators cannot turn cell phones into tracking devices by simply telling a judge the information is likely "relevant" to an investigation.

"When the government seeks to turn a mobile telephone into a means for contemporaneously tracking the movements of its user, the delicately balanced compromise that Congress has forged between effective law enforcement and individual privacy requires a showing of probable cause," wrote Magistrate Judge James Orenstein of New York in the latest decision Monday.

It seems reasonable to me that probable cause, as Judge Orenstein writes, should be a requirement before a governmental agency is allowed to track people via their cell phones.

Hugh Hewitt makes a pitch for Michael Luttig as the next SCOTUS nominee.

It's oh so good to be back on the same side and in the trenches with Hugh again.

***
Update: Over at Red State, Erick writes:

"Let me just say that whoever is picked, conservatives will rally.

By this afternoon, the conversation has shifted from Alito to Luttig. As of now, those are the only two names I am hearing mentioned from all sources with credibility."

Luttig, Luttig, Luttig!

The disappointment on the Left is almost palpable as Karl Rove escapes indictment. But the media and fever swamp Left blogs are emphasizing that is only "for now." The dreary faces over at CNN are saying at all. They had expected Karl Rove to be strung up and hung today by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. This was to be there "Fitzmas," in which Rove would have to leave once and for all, and a mortally damaged Bush presidency would finally be achieved.

Yes, Scooter Libby has been charged, and that is not good news. The Democrats will use his trial as a vehicle to further attack Bush administration's motives, and evidence, for going to war in Iraq. But even the indictment against Scooter Libby is not what the liberals were hoping for. The word "outing" a covert agent does not appear in the indictment.

Libby, of course, has resigned and left the White House, as he should have. The liberals will continue their mantra each and every day that Rove is still under a cloud, and may have to leave the White House, which is a fantasy indeed. But there is no doubt that this is a great blow to their hopes and dreams, and it is obvious on their faces, that this is not the "Fitzmas" that they have been gleefully hoping for during the last couple of weeks.

***
Update: Fitzgerald just noted during his press conference that "the bulk of this investigation is finished."

No charges against Rove are likely, libs. Got it? Now go home and sulk, and repeat your mantra that Rove is still under a cloud, because that's about all that you've got.

Not a bad week for the president. He's ended the Miers fiasco, resulting in a resumed united front of conservatives behind him, and the liberals didn't get their Rove indictment. The now undistracted Rove will be fully free to lend his talents to assist in the search for a new SCOTUS nominee, which I expect will be a stellar one.

Watching the press at the news conference, they are just beside themselves that Rove has not been indicted.

Heh.

***

The text of the indictment here.

The final Volcker report was issued today:

UNITED NATIONS - In a scathing final report documenting massive corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program, investigators Thursday accused more than 2,200 companies, and prominent politicians, of colluding with
Saddam Hussein's regime to bilk the humanitarian operation of $1.8 billion.

The 623-page document exposed the global scope of a scam that allegedly involved such name-brand companies as DaimlerChrysler and Siemens AG, as well as a former French U.N. ambassador, a firebrand British politician and the president of Italy's Lombardi region.

It meticulously detailed how the $64 billion program became a cash cow for Saddam and more than half the companies participating in oil-for-food — at the expense of Iraqis suffering under U.N. sanctions. It blamed shoddy U.N. management and the world's most powerful nations for allowing the corruption to go on for years.

Surprising, no. Startling...yes.

Harriet Miers is to be commended for asking the president lastnight to withdrawl her name from consideratin for the SCOTUS. She could have perservered and gone through some blistering, and I would suspect, rather embarassing confirmation hearings. Ms. Miers saw the handwriting on the wall, especially with the recent negative comments of senators that she knew she needed on her side.

It was an awful nomination and Miers did not even approach having the stellar qualifications, and evidence of any substantial consideration of constitutional matters, that are absolutely imperative for a member of the SCOTUS. I was watching Justice Stephen Breyer on the Charlie Rose show lastnight, and it horrified me to think of Harriet Miers trying to go up against him in a constitutional argument.

It would have been a blistering fight for the Bush administration to get her confirmed, and had she been there would have been long lasting resentment against the president from his base, a base that he is going to need on his side and in the trenches with him, especially against a Democratic party that is becoming more unhinged than I had ever thought it could, and rapidly turning toward the model of the criminalization of political opponents.

Now let us hope that the president will conclude, and I suspect he will, that he must send up a SCOTUS nominee that has gravitas, that is constitutionally brilliant and that evidences a deep commitment to conservative principles, while not being a slave to them. Let us hope that the person that Mr. Bush sends up will not be someone that we must simply "trust him" on, but rather someone like John Roberts, who we will immediately recognize the brilliance of.

Harriet Miers did the right thing. I wish she had not accepted the nomination in the first place, but I thank her for getting out now and sparing the president even more unnecessary damage.

***
Update: Hugh Hewitt writes

"She and the president deserved much better from his allies."

And we - who fought oh so hard for the president and GOT HIM ELECTED - deserved a whole lot better from him.

Hugh recommends McConnell, and then Luttig or Jones as the next nominee. Amen to that.

***
How it happened:

"According to informed sources, this is how the last day of the Miers nomination played out. Yesterday morning, President Bush met with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, and others at the White House, where they discussed the problems facing the nomination. There were staff conversations between the majority leader's office and the White House throughout the day. There was a meeting in Dick Cheney's office in the afternoon, with the vice president and nomination strategists taking part, in which the fading support for the nomination was discussed. And then in the early evening, Frist had a phone conversation with White House Chief of Staff Andy Card in which Frist gave what's being called a frank assessment of the nomination's prospects. Not long afterward, a final decision was made, and Miers called the president at 8:30 p.m. to say she would withdraw, and the formal announcement was set for this morning."

This is significant:

"Ed Whelan, a former Scalia law clerk and the head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, argues that Harriet Miers should withdraw. Until now, Ed has been giving the White House "the benefit of the doubt" on this nomination. However, a 1993 speech by Miers, reported on in today's Washington Post, moved Ed into the "withdraw" column.

I'd be happy to see Miers withdraw. However, the speech is 12 years old, and Miers should be given the opportunity, if she wants it, to say whether or to what extent she agrees with the views she expressed in 1993. If her views have changed, she should describe her current position and explain what caused the conversion.

UPDATE: Here is the speech. Whelan's analysis of the speech for NRO is here.

FURTHER UPDATE: I've found the time to read Miers' speech carefully. This is not the speech of a centrist (the worst case plausible scenario, I thought); it's the speech of a liberal. The behavior of liberal Senate Democrats over recent years relieves conservative Republican Senators of any obligation to vote for the confirmation of nominees who take positions like the ones Miers sets forth in this speech (e.g., "abortion clinic protesters have become synonymous with terrorists" or, in the context of the abortion debate, "where science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act").

Miers should withdraw. If she doesn't then, absent convincing evidence that her positions today are completely different from the liberal ones contained in the 1993 speech, the Senate should not confirm her."

Captain Ed has also moved "off the fence:

"I'm off the fence for good now. I oppose the Miers nomination. I have no objection to allowing Miers her day in front of the Judiciary Committee; if the Bush adminstration wants to subject itself to that kind of political damage, let it. The quality of her prepared speech strongly suggests that the White House will deeply regret that decision, but quite frankly, that will be their problem. The Judiciary Committee should reject her, as should the Senate, once her nomination hits the floor."

Mr. President, how long are you going to let her twist in the wind? How long are you going to continue this charade? Mr. President, have you taken a liking to bleeding your political clout? It would not be unreasonable to assume so. Mr. President, what were you thinking when you nominated her?

Withdraw her, please. If you fail to do so then the Senate should defeat her nomination.

***

The Baseball Crank poses 22 questions to Hugh Hewitt and other Miers defenders. (Via Patterico)

***

The Investor's Business Daily:

Mum's the word on Harriet Miers among Beltway Republicans who know what's good for them. But privately, they're betting two to one that Miers will bow out to spare herself — and President Bush — further embarrassment.
Those are the odds in at least one betting pool of lawyers, lobbyists, and "Hill rats."

"I expect she's going to be gone next week this time, certainly not later than Friday next week," said a GOP consultant who asked not to be named.

Senate Republicans have dismissed such talk as "absurd." But the signs aren't looking any better for Miers the closer she gets to her Nov. 7 hearings.

Rod Dreher:

"Conservatives, consciously or not, looked the other way for far too long, mostly because we felt it important to back the president in wartime and because nothing was more important to the various tribes of Red State Nation than recapturing the Supreme Court. For the first time in a generation, a conservative Republican president and a Republican majority in the Senate made that dream a real possibility. Whatever else Mr. Bush might fumble, we trusted him to get that right.

Instead, he gave us a crony pick of no extraordinary constitutional expertise or discernible vision, except for love of Our Lord and George W. Bush, and support for racial preferences. This is what we drank the Rovian Kool-Aid for? The Miers selection was no isolated incident, but the tipping point in a series of betrayals."

Withdraw her, Mr. President. Give us a reason to fight with and for you again.