Is he related to Judge Lance Ito?

So it looks like it's going to be Alito, and if you haven't been keeping track of the bench, here's a good overview from law.com. Especially noteworthy: He was the lone dissenter in the 3rd Circuit in the Casey case, which you'll remember was much discussed in the John Roberts hearing. Casey concerned a Pennsylvania law that required women to notify their husbands when seeking abortions. The 3rd circuit struck down the law, but Alito thought it was a good idea, q.v. his obviously disingenuous logic here, saying in effect that b/c the law could have served an interest in some few (and odd,) cases, the state was justified in applying this barbaric restraint to not all, but all married women:

"The Pennsylvania Legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems -- such as economic constraints, future plans or the husbands' previously expressed opposition -- that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion."

Could have believed? Some women? May be obviated? Lotta holes in that net. Plus wouldn't it create an undue division among women, depriving the married ones of a right that is granted single ones? In fact, isn't the Casey law one of the rare instances of our government showing a predjudice against marriage? While the 3rd had only a lone dissenter, Mr. Alito, Casey went eventually to the Supremes, where Rehnquist and (surprise) Scalia agreed with Alito's twisted non-logic. This is where we're headed, people. And please believe we say that not in an alarmed or inciting sense, but rather with a bored and heavy sigh of resignation. Standing Eight is rooting for but not predicting a fillibuster, and very willing to be wrong on the prediction. And forget your John-Roberts-Vote-as-Democratic- Presidential-Litmus-Test theorists of last month, here's the word: No Democratic senator who does not actively oppose Alito will ever win a single Democratic presidential primary. Standing Eight is prepared to use it's ever more considerable clout to insure that. (Sarcasm either reads poorly in print or is not Standing Eight's strength. )

Also especially noteworthy (end of law.com piece): People on the right think he's a great choice to be the first Hispanic justice. He's Italian. "We are not making this up," to quote Dave Barry, who we think is Chinese.

Casting Call

Here's an interesting game some Standing Eight regulars have been playing around the virtual water cooler: Casting the inevitable ChromeDome scandal movies. It's pretty self explanatory. Take a look, and feel free to add new castings and new roles to be cast. After all, only in working together will we defeat this thing. We have listed our choices on a rough high-to-low preference, but we also conceive of four possible categories: All-Time, Oscar Contender, Movie of the Week, and the optional last category, a spoof in the manner of the Watergate spoof "Dick" (don't flag us for content, that's the title of the film.) Action!

Patrick Fitzgerald: Jimmy Stewart, Joseph Cotten, Kevin Spacey, Martin Donovan, John Cusack, Michael Moriarty (cheating since he already played a hardball attorney for about a quarter-century.) Clearly all the hottest actors will be vying for this role.

Scooter Libby: Jon Stewart (think about it,) William Devane

Karl Rove: Russell Crowe, Brian Dennehy

Amb. Joe Wilson: Tom Hanks

Ms. Wilson/Valerie Plame/"codename flashfalcon": Marlee Matlin (think about it, she could also play Mary Matalin, for obvious though inappropriate reasons.) Meryl Streep, Felicity Huffman

Judy Miller: Judy Davis, Catherine O'Hara

Matt Cooper: Stephen Root

Tim Russert: Darrell Hammond?

Novak: Gary Oldman

Jeff Gannon: Tom Cruise

Bob Luskin: Harrison Ford

Scott McClellan: Kevin James

And if there's any justice in the world (an "if" statement on which Standing Eight has no official position,) Wes Anderson will write and direct and the Coen Brothers will produce.

Link Sausage

Just a link to an interesting item from TPM and my man Josh Marshall, posted here without comment, which we sincerely hope is not a violation of blog etiquette. See It Now.

A Word From The Paranoid Democrat:

New Theory Of What's Happening Now (NTOWHN):

Harriet Miers was never supposed to get to the Supreme Court: she was a Rove-inspired test balloon, meant to be popped loudly as a distraction on indictment day, thus forcing the mainstream media to divide its focus, thereby sliding indictment day (partially,) under the rug. It's the contemporary equivalent of Rove's now famous self-bugging, back in his salad days in Texas. Here's how Al Franken summarized the news of the day in the cold intro to his Thursday 27 October show (Sundance Channel version,):

"Miers is out, my friends, and I smell blood...not because she fell on her sword, but because I got a paper cut flipping through my newspaper too fast looking for news about PlameGate."

Exactly what Rove et al would have wanted to happen, had Fitzmas come Thursday instead of Friday. Which everyone was pretty sure it would. Knowing Rove as I do, (viz. through anecdotal evidence, poorly-mongered rumor and my own suspicious insinuations,) this all plays out just a little too pat to be 100% unintentional happenstance.

Remember you heard it here first. (Unless you didn't.)

--The opinions of The Paranoid Democrat do not necessarily represent those of Standing Eight Count. Further, Standing Eight would like to point out again that it is not necessary to call every Executive scandal "SomethingGate." We could hearken back to more genteel White House scandals, dubbing this one the ChromeDome scandal once Cheney and Rove are officially entangled. (Knock wood.)--

Chase Theme (First Audio Post!)

This was recorded to the blog from a phone, so the sound quality is mediocre, but herewith, please enjoy Standing Eight's first "accidental composition."

Standing Eight Political Memo: Waiting For Fitzmas

We're up late in the Standing Eight office, which is nothing new but tonight we've just sent our Fitzmas lists off to the north pole and we're wondering if the next news cycle we open up will have a shiny new prize inside, and we were struck (neither all at once, nor sequentially,) by a thought:

Perhaps the actual best disposition of the ongoing Executive Branch Scandal (Standing Eight does not approve of any of the names being bandied about, PlameGate, RoveGate &c. We would like to call it the Chrome Dome Scandal if Cheney and Rove get hit, and stop all this "gate" nonsense,) but anyway the best case for those who wish the Bush administration let's say a robust hubris-oriented gut-check if not an actual impeachment would be (stay with us here,) for it to continue dragging on like this straight through the next 365 days. We'll explain.

Of three possible "outcomes" to the next White House year, two point roughly to a continued Republican house in '06, while one leaves slightly more room for a Democratic take-back (Standing Eight's most optimistic minds think not even the best case improves the odds to better than 1 in 4, but we'd bet that in Vegas.)

Outcome 1) Karl Rove is not indicted (or he is but he soon after skates.) Result: Rove gets his focus back and turns the lack of imprisoned Bush Chums against the Dems, holds or maybe pushes his majority.

Outcome 2) Rove is indicted and knows all year long that prison is only a matter of months away. Result: Rove spends his last free year pursuing the '06 Republican majority with a vengeance, (albeit from the indicted shadows,) so he can go to jail knowing he protected his man GWB from what most Americans call "appropriate congressional oversight."

Outcome 3) Rove is indicted, but feels in limbo for the next year, will he be convicted, will he walk, will he prove he was framed? This leaves him as impotent as he has been since Terri Schiavo (ouch,) and keeps him from having an angle to pursue in '06, giving Dems their best chance.

Free advice and worth the price.

Brava, Brave Broad

News and commentary from the Dog Bites Man Department

Standing Eight Count would like to give a Cheer, a Thumbs-Up, or a Tip of The Cap to three-time WNBA MVP Sheryl Swoopes for "coming out," but those phrases are trademarked by TV Guide, Roger Ebert and TV's newest and perhaps pre-eminent pompous pundit, Stephen Colbert. So we'll just say we're proud of you, Ms. Swoopes. It took orange and white striped balls.

And yes, some of you will say, a complimentary Jeer or Thumb-Down or Wag of the Finger would probably be appropriate for her ethically shaky decision to express her lesbianism by way of a secret relationship with her team's assistant coach, but we at Standing Eight realize that these things happen, and frankly think the bigger Jeer goes to the NY Times for feeling the story needed a negative angle. (Standing Eight can hardly be blamed for mentioning it, though. We are merely an infant squirrel thinking about trying to get a nut.)

Memory Hole Alert

Two of our favorite Wide Media Disseminators, TiVo and the WaPo, tried to slide corporate accountability down the memory hole while you weren't looking this weekend. A story that topped the Washington Post website at midday under the headline, "Unisys Accused of Overcharging Taxpayers," now (early 23 October,) tops the site under a new sanitized headline: "Tech Firm Accused of Overcharging Taxpayers."
And that's not all. NOW, the lefty PBS newsmag that used to have Bill Moyers and be great, tapes late in the week and appears on most PBS stations all weekend. In Standing Eight Count's TiVo Guide, the Friday night NOW's second story was, "VIOXX scandal", and here, (or now, if you will,) it's Sunday night and the same episode of NOW has the same first and third stories, according to TiVo, but the second story is about an "analgesic scandal". We doubt, however, that anyone called David Brancaccio and an editor in the middle of the night to come in and change the story.
We here at Standing Eight are not lawyers, but we have had the misfortune in our travels of spending some time around lawyers, and we can just imagine how boring those two lawyer-to-lawyer calls were at whatever point this weekend.
But four or five people got to bill out at however many hundreds of dollars an hour. And the GDP did increaseth. And Orwell's sleep was no more restless than yours or mine.

Inaugural Post

The editorial staff here at Standing Eight debated what should be our virginal post on this, destined to become the most widely read blog ever on Politics Sports Art Music Philosophy Media and Literature Not Necessarily in That Order. It didn't seem right to just jump on the rather unappealing dog pile Harriet Miers is at the bottom of; and at this point no one who cares is going to be impressed that we were bitching about Judy Miller way before she went to jail; and Baseball just ended for the season, given that the board are to a man and woman lifelong Redbird fans; and David Foster Wallace's next book comes out later in the year and it's only essays anyway. (Seriously, the board wants to know, when do we get a new novel?) Rest assured, those and similar topics will fill our page regularly.

So in the spirit of getting things started, our first post is the first poem we ever wrote (as a board) that we liked enough (as a board) to show to people who weren't close friends (to the board). Forthwith and for your consideration:

If TS Eliot Had Been a Taoist, He Would Never Have Written a Poem

After, after now, before the end,
I sense, and so should you, a place where things will intersect,
And you will thread the needle's eye's hole of your intellect,
To weave a custom garment which by custom I select;
But you will do your due part if you duly do attend.

Beginningly, I'm sorry, but I feel I must digress
While we are still pre- any permanent undo-able progress
And take a moment to discuss my outer dressing:
"A needle's eye my intellect?"
If you, good sir or madam should object,
You'll find your cup of tea perhaps too full,
But I'm afraid my argument too pressing.

But, if you're open to receive,
If you're willing to believe,
You know mind is just a state of mind.
(Smiling,)
You know how to go with it when taken from behind
By ideas that seem at first to be a little bit unkind,
But after due review are not as cruel as we conceive.

The student who can learn is the teacher who can teach,
And others can say anything or nothing, each to each,
But none can put the question to themselves, auto-impeach.

And maybe that's the reason for the fall.
I must not be a poem because I made my point before I could say anything at all.