In his opening statement today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he’s already made up his mind on Alito before hearing his answers:

I don’t know what kind of vote you’re going to get, but you’ll make it through. It’s possible you could talk me out of voting for you, but I doubt it. So I won’t even try to challenge you along those lines.

It should come as no surprise that Graham has made up his mind – behind the scenes, he’s been helping Alito prepare for his question and answer session. Here’s what the WSJ Washington Wire reported this morning:

On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the “gang of 14″ who sits on Judiciary, joined a so-called moot court session at the White House.

Coaching a judicial nominee behind-the-scenes is not the proper role for a Judiciary Committee member who must subsequently sit in judgment on that nominee. Indeed, it could be a violation of the ethical duties of a senator. Here’s what Senate Rule 37 (Conflicts of Interest) in the Senate Ethics Manual says:

“No Member, officer, or employee shall engage in any outside business or professional activity or employment for compensation which is inconsistent or in conflict with the conscientious performance of official duties.” … The Committee has interpreted this paragraph to prohibit compensated employment or uncompensated positions on boards, commissions, or advisory councils where such service could create a conflict with an individual’s Senate duties due to appropriation, oversight, authorization, or legislative jurisdiction as a result of Senate duties.

Having sat in on a “moot court session at the White House,” it has created at least the appearance that Graham is a partisan advocate — not an impartial evaluator — of an issue within his legislative jurisdiction.

UPDATE: The Village Voice has written an article referencing this post.

UPDATE (2): Drudge has linked to the Village Voice article. See the third headline down from the top.

With the Jack Abramoff scandal making headlines across the country, the issue of lobbying and other forms of influence peddling at the federal level has reemerged. Below are a few quick facts showing the size and scope of this burgeoning Washington, DC industry.

In Rep. John Boehner’s (R-OH) Power Point presentation for his bid as House Majority Leader — “John Boehner: For A Majority That Matters” — he paints himself as a reformer:

It might surprise those who entered the House over the last 10 years that I cut my teeth here as a reformer. … So when it comes to institutional ethics and reform, I’ve got some experience, and some thoughts I’d like to share with you.

Boehner’s characterization of himself as a “reformer” may surprise even some of his conservative colleagues.

In 1996 Bob Herbert wrote:

One day last summer Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, chairman of the House Republican Conference, decided to play Santa Claus. … In any event, Mr. Boehner took it upon himself to begin handing out money from tobacco lobbyists to certain of his colleagues on the House floor.

Boehner stopped handing out the checks only “after being questioned about the practice by two freshmen who’d heard about the handoff on the House floor” [Charleston Gazette, 5/11/96]

Rep. Linda Smith (R-WA) said of Boehner’s actions, “[I]f it is not illegal, it should be.”

Looks like Boehner may not be the best person to “build trust” in the House.

“Jack Abramoff’s parents, brother and sister-in-law gave at least $8,000 to President Bush’s second campaign””all on the same day in June 2003.”

Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT) dusted off a baseball analogy in his opening remarks at today’s hearing:

We do not evaluate an umpire’s performance based on which team won the game but on how that umpire applied the rules inning after inning. We do not hire umpires by showing them the roster for the upcoming season and demanding to know which teams they will favor before those teams even take the field.

That’s right. The reason why Alito’s nomination is a problem is that, in nearly every call he makes, he always rules for the home team. Knight-Ridder explained:

During his 15 years on the federal bench, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has worked quietly but resolutely to weave a conservative legal agenda into the fabric of the nation’s laws.

A Knight Ridder review of Alito’s 311 published opinions on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals – each of singular legal or public policy importance – found a clear pattern. Although Alito’s opinions are rarely written with obvious ideology, he’s seldom sided with a criminal defendant, a foreign national facing deportation, an employee alleging discrimination or consumers suing big businesses.

Robert Gordon closely examined Alito’s decision in criminal cases and came to the same conclusion:

In the Washington Post, Cass Sunstein examined Alito’s dissents and found them “almost uniformly conservative.” That’s nearly true for criminal matters””just forget the “almost.”

Even Justice Scalia, on issues like flag burning or the rights of criminal defendants, has ruled with what is traditionally considered the liberal side. There is no sign that Alito takes an open-minded approach to any issue.

Number of contacts Abramoff’s lobbying team had with the White House in the Bush administration’s first 10 months. (Via: Fired Up! America)

Today, Paul Bremer, the former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, releases a new book on his year in Iraq. Bremer is currently embarking on a media tour to pitch the book, and in doing so, is contradicting many of the false assertions he made about Iraq while he was in a position of authority.

ON U.S. TROOP LEVELS

Bremer Now: I Wanted More Troops

B. WILLIAMS: Just days after he got the job, Bremer says he saw an alarming report from a think tank, concluding it would take three times more US troops to stabilize Iraq than had actually been sent. He says he tried to get the attention of his direct boss””Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. You’ll need a half million soldiers. It’s a piece of paper you sent to Secretary Rumsfeld. How did he react to that?

BREMER: So I sent a summary of it around to Rumsfeld and just said, “I thought you should take a look at this.” I never had any reaction from him. [NBC Dateline, 1/8/06]

Bremer Then: I Have Enough Troops

Q: Is the current troops strength adequate to produce the security that you’ll think is need now?

BREMER: Yeah I think it is. [Briefing, 7/24/03]

ON THE IRAQI INSURGENCY

Bremer Now: We Didn’t See The Insurgency Coming

WILLIAMS: Whose fault is it that no one saw the insurgency coming?

BREMER: You know I’ve thought about that as I looked back a lot, because we really didn’t see the insurgency coming. [NBC Dateline, 1/8/06]

Bremer Then: We Saw The Insurgency Coming

Q: Do you think that some of Saddam’s forces already had plans for opposition, even before the war began, and that they prepositioned personnel and weaponry before the war?

BREMER: Well, it’s possible. There has been some evidence of planning for the possibility of losing the war militarily and going into some kind of insurgency or organized resistance.
[Fox News Sunday, 7/20/03]

ON DE-BAATHIFICATION Read more

“The state’s highest criminal court on Monday denied Rep. Tom DeLay’s request that the money laundering charges against him be dismissed or sent back to a lower court for an immediate trial,” the AP reports.

on the legality of President Bush’s top-secret domestic spying program. (Via War and Piece)

DeLay was forced to give up his leadership post over the weekend. But he is hanging on to his conspiracy theories. Watch his “exclusive interview” yesterday on FOX:

(Quicktime Streaming)

Transcript:

DELAY: And because of that rule, the Democrats used this runaway District Attorney here in Austin, Texas to abuse that rule. Eight grand juries indicted me, and the only reason to indict me is to get me to step aside.

(BREAK)

ANCHOR: You said just a moment ago you suspect that this was the real reason you were indicted because the Democrats wanted you out of the role of Majority Leader.

DELAY: It’s the only reason, Brian.