upreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has emerged from an intense round of questioning from Democrats -- and gushing praise from Republicans -- during his time in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

   Opponents of Judge Alito tried to paint him as an ideologue well out of the American mainstream. There was no smoking gun that the Democrat minority members could find, though, with sufficient traction to clearly de-rail Mr. Bush's latest appointment to the high court. Alito danced gingerly around the salvo of questions from Sen. Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer and others who tried to focus on his record of writings as a government attorney, and opinions rendered while serving as a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court. He described some of his language used in the past as "inept," and couldn't be pinned down on the extent of constitutional restraints limiting the power of the presidency.

   On the more contentious issue of abortion rights, though, Alito "felt less need to reassure his opponents" observed an editorialist with the Los Angeles Times. "There was plenty of lip service to the importance of 'settled law,' but it was easily inferred from the judge's evasiveness that he does not consider ROE v. WADE to be as settled as other landmark Supreme Court precedents," noted the Times.

   But even after 18 hours of grueling interrogation, there is a certain "realpolitik" that emerges from the Alito hearings.

   Opponents simply do not have the numbers to stop the nomination on the Senate Judiciary Committee where a vote is expected within the next several days. Barring a flood of angry letters and threats about retribution at the ballot box from constituents, there is also little possibility of reversing the Alito juggernaut in the full Senate. That has some Democrats mulling a filibuster, and once again raising the awesome specter of Republicans turning to the "nuclear option" and re-writing the Senate rules to prevent such a move. The White House knows this, and we hear the insistent drumming on behalf of a "quick up-or-down" vote for the man who, if confirmed, could seriously alter the ideological complexion of the nation's ultimate judicial authority.

   There are several lessons to be learned, especially for those concerned about civil liberties and the separation of church and state.

    ¶       With the Republican majority in both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, the Bush White House "could put on the bench almost any qualified candidate, even one whom Democrats consider to be ideologically out of step with the country," according to New York Times reporters Adam Nagourney, Richard Stevenson and Neil Lewis ("Glum Democrats Can's See Halting Bush on Court," 1/15/06).

    ¶       Mr. Bush and his conservative allies -- including the religious right -- are "on the verge of achieving what he (Bush) had set as a primary goal of his presidency: a fundamental reshaping of the federal judiciary along more conservative lines." In addition to getting Judge John Roberts approved as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Bush has appointed nearly 25% of all judges to the federal bench. The entire judiciary system could be well into an ideological transformation seriously affecting how the First Amendment's Establishment Clause is interpreted, a process rendering the government more "religion friendly" and willing to emphasize the "accommodation" of faith-based groups.

    ¶       How far would a Roberts-Alito-Scalia-Thomas dominated court go in eroding the separation of church and state, and imposing a "federalist" or "reconstructionist" agenda on the country? Often, individual states are notorious for violating personal freedoms and allowing constitutionally-suspect activities especially concerning religion. Alito clearly displayed a nagging deference to governmental authority during his hearings before the SJC. An ideologically re-aligned Supreme Court could well be disposed to granting more latitude toward state and local practices which allow "the right of the people to acknowledge God" through school prayer, legislative carve-outs on behalf of faith-based groups, and public funding of religion.

    ¶       With the likely approval of Mr. Alito, the high court looses a unique, moderating voice in the person of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Wednesday is the final day the court hears arguments for this month, and O'Connor, 75, is likely to retire if Alito is confirmed by the full Senate. Much has been written how O'Connor served as a temperate voice of moderation on the bench. That balance changes precipitously with the Alito appointment.

   Can the Alito nomination be stopped? Many fear that the hearings in front of the SJC were really the last defensive line. There is talk of a filibuster, but Sen. Charles Schumer, Democrat from New York is skeptical.

   "You either need a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate or moderate Republicans who will break ranks when it's a conservative nominee," he told the New York Times. "We don't have any of those three. The only tool we have is the filibuster, which is a very difficult tool to use, and with only 45 Democrats, it's harder than it was last term."

[text only]