WHY "NINETEEN DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR ALITO" DOESN'T MEAN A THING NOW

http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1762 Reports "nineteen currently serving Senate Democrats were part of that unanimous consent" that confirmed Alito":

• Christopher Dodd
• Joseph Lieberman
• Joseph Biden
• Daniel Inouye
• Tom Harkin
• Paul Sarbanes
• Barbara Mikulski
• Edward Kennedy
• John Kerry
• Carl Levin
• Max Baucus
• Harry Reid
• Frank Lautenberg
• Jeff Bingaman
• Kent Conrad
• Patrick Leahy
• Robert Byrd
• Jay Rockefeller
• Herbert Kohl

NOBODY, however, should think that this means Alito will now get any of these votes.

Why?

First, a unanamous consent is a "deal" under which individual votes aren't recorded. The circumstances of the 1990 "deal" were likely very different from the current situation.

Second, Alito now has a long record which the liberal Democrats will certainly use against him. You will hear such things as "circumstances change" and "now we know more" as weasel words to justify voting differently now.

Third, the Supreme Court is materially different from a Court of Appeals. While circuit courts are expected to follow exisiting case law to the letter, the Supremes often revisit "settled issues" (i.e. Lawrence v. Texas, which overruled Bowers v. Hardwick--a case only fifteen years or so old!). That's one reason why the "gang of 14" special circumstances exception to the "no filibusters" agreement is meaningless. A pick for the Supremes will always be a "special circumstance."

Fourth, the NINETEEN will be held accountable by their base on the Left. Special interest groups will go into overdrive to oppoose Alito. The vocal opposition to Miers by the elite right will give the shameless left some cover (although they never seem to shrink from any fight).

Fifth, the Democrats sense that Bush is weakened and will be spoiling to hand him a high profile defeat. Thus, party discipline will be brought to bear on the NINETEEN to vote against Bush by rejecting Alito.

Expect a majority of the NINETEEN to vote differently this time.