While the battle to stop Alito is uphill, the impression left by Farhad is not accurate.

• First, while Alito recognized Roe v. Wade as a precedent, he did not recognize it as settled law. Acknowledging that Roe is a precedent is to recognize a fact, not a belief. All Supreme Court rulings are precedents, by definition. Alito is a lawyer and he's not dumb; he knows that saying this will get reactions like Farhad's, despite the fact that the statement is no more informative than saying "neon is an inert gas."
  
  
• Second, the filibuster portion of the post was incomplete and inaccurate. The filibuster is the only way the Dems can stop Alito. Any other angle can be ignored. And the only way the filibuster can be countered is by the so-called "nuclear option," which would violate existing Senate rules in order to change other existing Senate rules - namely the right to filibuster a nominee.

  While Snowe said she would not support a filibuster, she came nowhere near saying she would support the "nuclear option." Farhad's misreading of her statement here is critical. "Supporting a filibuster" means voting against cloture (which would keep debate going). Snowe - who probably would vote against Alito in an floor vote - is only saying that Dems are on their own if they want to filibuster. And, in fact, the Republicans have a very uphill battle to launch the "nuclear option" if the Dems filibuster Alito.

  (Republicans like Snowe, Collins, Chafee, and even Specter would hate to have to vote for Alito, because they are moderates - and they would hate to vote against him, because they would incur the wrath of their party. Best of all worlds for them if they just let the Dems filibuster and they escape unharmed.)

This battle is still on, folks. If you want to stop Alito, best to call your senators, donate to ad campaigns, talk to your friends and write your media to let them know not to call the game before the end.

This battle holds 40 years of jurisprudence in the balance and must be fought until it's won or lost - seriously.

Keep in mind, the Democrats made a "deal" in Spring of '05 to keep the filibuster for use on the Supreme Court. That "deal" let the worst three lower court nominees that were previously filibustered get on the circuit courts.

So much for the sniper theory.

Again, the Republicans no longer have the votes to kill the filibuster if the Democrats use it. Remember, the "nuclear option" was wavering by one vote a year ago - which, given the shifting political winds (and the extremism of Alito), is an eternity ago.

To answer the question below, yes, Sen. Kohl (D-WI) asked about Bush v. Gore. Alito's totally non-credible answer was that he didn't know enough about the case to answer. Yeah right - the most significant constitutional ruling in decades (when judged by both its uniqueness in law and ramification). This is especially ridiculous when he knew every other obscure case cold.

As for what issues should be emphasized, Roe makes sense. Polls show that an anti-choice nominee has more public opposition than a pro-civil liberties one (however surprising that sounds, the polls are decisive here). But it's important to keep in mind that the senators take presidential power seriously because it speaks to how much power is left for them - and the topic was covered extensively in the hearings.

I am troubled by Imjustsayin and others who suggest that the filibuster is a bad political move. First, Congress was not conceived by our founders to get reelected - members have a sworn duty to protect the Constitution as a co-equal branch of government. Second, sometimes doing the right thing - even if not supported by the majority - becomes a political victory. After all, the Republicans swept into power by rewarding their base relentlessly, not by ignoring it.

Repeatedly, we are asked the rhetorical question by this administration: if citizens have nothing to hide, why care about wildly expansive intelligence gathering?

Well, Mr. Gonzales et al, if you have nothing to hide, why not take an oath to tell the truth?

...would have been to set up booths next to the crosses with big signs that read: "Want fewer crosses? Reduce abortion and unwanted pregnancy with education and birth control!" The booths could distribute condoms and information on obtaining other forms of birth control.

I agree that we need not assert a right more specific than "a right to choose" - in fact, any more specific language almost cedes territory.

However, I think I perceive abortion as a good thing. I have to concede that I'm a man and don't claim to represent women in any way, but I know many women agree. Abortion is the vehicle of choice. Without abortion - specifically - women would have no choice until child birth. So to pull abortion and choice apart as clinically as you do, xylu, is to underestimate the freedom that abortion brings.

The big problem is that it's become a bad word. It was a word of shame for decades - even after Roe. So people feel compelled to give it another name - like "choice." While the principle of choice and the word itself is central to abortion, it should not, as you point out, be a euphemism for abortion. Abortion should be a good word. Doesn't mean you should choose to have as many as possible - or any at all, if you prefer. But abortion is a gift of science to humanity, no doubt about it.

Mary E - I think we are in agreement. In no way would I advocate the abandonment of the word "choice" with relation to abortion - indeed, I believe they are inextricably connected. It's just that I simultaneously believe that they represent different aspects of women's reproductive rights (choice = fundamental control over life and body; abortion = key tool in exercising that power).

I only advocate that we don't use them as synonyms; that's giving too much away.