The Anti-Sam Brownback Blog

According to the Washington Post:

For all the expectations of fireworks on the first day of questioning of Alito, and for all the purported high stakes in the nomination, the mood in the hearing room was flat and lethargic. A contagious wave of yawns spread across the dais, from Specter to Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), and crested in a brief catnap for Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). By midafternoon, only 28 of the 130 seats in the press section were occupied, and not all of those seated had their eyes open.

If anyone has a picture of this, I would love to get my hands on it.

From the San Jose Mercury News:

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a panel member who’s a staunch abortion opponent, said he was “pretty certain” he would vote for Alito. But, he added, “I’m not happy. I would love for him to be there and say, `Look, I don’t think Roe is in the Constitution. And he’s obviously not saying that. He’s leaving the issue open.”

Still, Brownback conceded that any court nominee who opposed Roe outright would be filibustered. “So you’re left like this, if he answers Roe either way, he’s caught.”

Yeah right he’s leaving the issue open.  You can be sure that for Brownback to support Alito, he has been told how Alito will vote on abortion.  A simple comparison between the Miers nomination and this one should tell you all you need to know.

Media Matters catches an inconsistancy in Brownback’s opening statement in the Alito hearings and a statement of his made during the Miers nomination:

They go on to quote Brownback from a few months ago:

“Brownback said his biggest concern was not knowing where she [Harriet Miers] stood on ‘key issues of the day,’ such as abortion, same-sex marriage and property rights.”

Busted. A comment about a certain type of beach footwear might be in order here, but I’ll refrain.

Thanks to Terry at Nitpicker for the tip.

Courtesy of CultureKitchen comes this delicious nugget:

Senator Samuel Brownback has entered into the record a letter that former Alito clear Cathy Fleming sent to the Judiciary Committee back on November. You can see a PDF copy at the New York Times here.

The problem with Brownback’s maneuver is that Cathy Fleming is the president-elect of the National Association of Women’s Lawyers and they have issued a negative rating; saying Judge Alito is unfit to protect civil rights based on his record alone.

Ouch.  I suppose this is why she was abruptly cut from the witness list.  It sure would be nice to see her testify about the negative rating her own organization gave to the nominee.  So did Brownback not get the memo or did he just not care?

As the Washington Post puts it:

Alito calmly gazed at the Senator, waiting for a question.

That is the short version of Senator Sam Brownback’s questioning of Alito this morning. The longer version involves Brownback equating Roe v. Wade to Plessy v. Ferguson and asking some softball questions about religious freedom. Again, the Post reports:

Brownback told Alito that justices should not always vote to uphold prior court decisions just because they are so-called “super-duper precedents.” Sometimes, he said, the court gets it wrong, as it did in upholding the separate but equal doctrine in the Plessy case.

This questioning was Brownback carefully playing the role of arch-conservative running for President.  He was careful not to push Alito too hard on the issue of abortion, but his line a questioing must have made some republican leaders uncomfortable.  He came dangerously close to the same line of questioning as some Democrats who hope to expose Alito  as an extremist.

Although we must always remember, in Brownback land extremism is normal (and we have always been at war with Oceana).

According to CSPAN, Senators Brownback, Durbin and Coburn were bumped to tomorrow in spite of Specter’s assertion that everyone would get the chance to question today. Brownback should be on tomorrow morning.

Almost every day, people email me with outlandish tales about Brownback. When I am tempted to post unsubstantiated rumors, I console myself with the knowledge Senator Brownback will always do or say something nearly as funny or embarrassing. Courtesy of MyDD, here is exibit A from that line of thought.

Take a look at the photo to the left. Yes, that is a picture of Senator Sam Brownback in front of a giant American flag with angels at the forefront gazing lovingly upwards. It sure appears that Brownback is a well grounded every-man who can sympathize with normal people. ..

So this is sorta funny. Check out this image to the right. Notice the American flag in the arms of the cherub to the right in the original photo. Look at the flag in the hands of the cherub to the left. Kind of hard to make out, but I think I see the pre-revolution Iranian flag. Compare for yourself and see what you think.

Sure looks like a match. I have to admit, the symbolism here loses me. What is the pre-revolution Iranian flag doing on a painting of Sam Brownback along with apparent angels? Your guess is as good as mine. If anyone has anymore information about this, please send it it in. Until further notice, this is officially creepy.

Update: A person claiming to be a Brownback staffer has posted on the MyDD thread about this painting:

The real scoop: That is a painting that was presented to the senator by a very nice Iranian American gentleman who painted it and wanted to thank Brownback for his work regarding Iran, namely condemning the anti-Semitic comments of their new president and legislation to encourage peaceful democratic reform inside Iran.

Apparently they didn’t know it would be visible from outside and were just storing it in the room. Fair enough. It is still creepy.

The questioning today is in order of seniority, alternating between parties. Thus, Senator Sam Brownback will be at the end of the line to speak.

Will Brownback pontificate on abortion like yesterday? Will Alito even get to speak during Brownback’s “questions”?

Tune in soon for answers…

During Senator Sam Brownback’s statements today at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing he focused on his extremist belief that abortion is not a constitutional right and that the government should have the ability to dictate to women what they can do with their bodies. His opening statement was mush more like a campaign speach at the National Right to Life convention than a statement to the committee about Alito.

Brownback is letting his Presidential ambitions get in the way of properly examining a nominee to the supreme court. My favorite part of his statement is:

Some interest groups and even some members of this Committee have argued that Judge Alito must be more closely scrutinized, or even opposed, if his testimony suggests that he would change the ideological balance on the Supreme Court. This notion misunderstands the role of judges, and creates a double standard suspiciously convenient to those in opposition.

Seats on the bench are not reserved for causes or interests – they are given to those who will uphold the rule of law, so long as a nominee is well-qualified to interpret and apply the law.

That was not the tune he was singing when Miers was nominated to the court. Brownback then questioned her conservative merits and agreed with some religious leaders who argued her record was troubling. He had a litmus test then and he certainly does now. Do not be fooled. The fact that Brownback is supporting Alito means that he has received assurances on the way he will vote regarding social issues. Alito is a extreme conservative who ignores conflict of interest rules. He does not belong on the Supreme Court.