In one of the more disgusting displays of political opportunity, Senator Charles Schumer desecrated the dead body of Rosa Parks for political purposes as she lay in state in the US Capitol today.

This morning I went and visited Rosa Parks in the Capitol Rotunda to pay my respects.

Being in the presence of Ms. Parks was awe-inspiring. This was a woman who changed history with one thin dime. She paid her fare and took her rightful seat on the bus and America was never the same again.

Like Rosa Parks, Judge Alito will be able to change history by virtue of where he sits. The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place.

Judge Alito's visit to Rosa Parks this morning was appropriate. His record, as I'm sure Rosa Parks would agree, is much more important.

A preliminary review of his record raises real questions about Judge Alito's judicial philosophy and his commitment to civil rights, workers' rights, women's rights, the rights of average Americans which the courts have always looked out for.

All right, Senator -- let's have the specifics. What rights is he out to roll back? What is your evidence for this accusation? And if he is, as you seem to indicate, acting in a manner contrary to his oath to follow the Constitution, why have you not introduced articles of impeachemnt due to his failure to exercise "good behavior" on the circuit court?

Could it be that you know that Judge Alito is not ruling contrary to the Constitution, merely contary to the Democrat platform which has been rejected by the American people in the last two elections?

And why, Senator, when you talked about the need for uniting Americans instead of dividing them, did you pimp the corpse of a great American like Rosa Parks to cast doubts upon the character of a highly respected judge and sow division between Americans based upon race sex, class, and ideology?

Fifteen years ago, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg called Samuel Alito “impartial, thoughtful and fair” and offered whole-hearted support for his confirmation.

Today, though, Flip-Flop Frank is singing a different song.

“Fifteen years ago, I supported Samuel Alito to be a judge based on his record as the United States Attorney for New Jersey, but his tenure on the appeals court has been marked by troubling decisions. Judge Alito has demonstrated a hostility to fundamental civil rights, and his record on the bench must be closely scrutinized by the Senate. “New Jersey has a proud tradition of producing great judges, most notably former Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan. Justice Brennan was chosen for the Supreme Court based on his legal knowledge and wisdom, unlike what we see today, in which nominees are chosen based on litmus tests that cater to narrow ideological groups.”

OK, Senator -- which "fundamental civil rights" has Judge Alito demonstrated a hostility towards? Given your statement, it should not be hard for you to produce a detailed list with copious documentation.

Or could it be that the litmus test in question comes from "narrow ideological groups" on the Left, those that want abortion on demand and perpetual racial preferences -- in other words, the Democrat base?

I guess I am taken aback by attempts to limit contact between students and the United States Armed Forces.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. A civil-liberties activist says school officials should better inform parents of their right to keep their children's information from military recruiters.

Beth Wilson says some schools are putting notices in handbooks or newsletters rather than providing separate forms to students. Wilson is director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky. She recently sent a letter to 176 school superintendents.

The 2002 No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to provide names, addresses and phone numbers to recruiters or risk losing federal funding -- unless parents "opt out." The law didn't specify how schools should notify parents of that right, and procedures vary among schools.

Kentucky education officials let districts decide how to notify parents.

This fall, about 24 percent of Louisville public high school students opted to keep their information private, up from about 20 percent last year.

Military recruiters say information from schools helps them to make home visits and calls and to send promotional material.

Now i see a real problem here. Assuming these kids are American citizens, do they not have the right to receive communication from their own government? Is it not a violation of the rights of the child to permit a parent to interfere with their right to communicate freely with agents of their government?

And what I find particularly amusing is that folks who don't believe parents have the right to be notified of, much less consent to, their child undergoing an invasive surgical procedure (abortion) now want to let parents control their child's access to career and educational opportunities. Groups that object strenuously to parents being permitted to pull their child from programs discussing what they view as immoral lifestyles are willing to permit them to opt their child out of contact with a government agency. Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here?

UPDATE: The Washington Post has a longer article on the issue.

Now many parents -- aided by such anti-recruiting groups as the San Francisco-based Leave My Child Alone -- are demanding that school boards make it easier for families to prevent military recruiters from contacting their sons and daughters. They are mounting e-mail and letter-writing campaigns telling families they can block school systems from releasing student information to military recruiters. Even such national educational groups as the PTA are getting involved in the effort to get the word out.

But the military is spreading its own word -- about the benefits of a career in the armed services. This month, the Pentagon launched a $10 million marketing campaign aimed at encouraging parents to be more open to allowing their children to enlist. Although officials say the effort is not tied to growing antiwar sentiment, the commercials feature kids broaching the topic of enlistment with apprehensive parents and urge mothers and fathers to make it a "two-way conversation."

Many states have long allowed military recruiters access to student phone numbers and addresses, but the practice received a boost from the federal No Child Left Behind act. School systems that decline to release the information now risk losing federal dollars.

The advocacy is putting school officials in a quandary, particularly principals who say they want to be responsive to parents but also want to be fair to military recruiters, who by law are allowed the same access to student information as college recruiters. And, principals point out, although some parents wish to prevent military recruiters from reaching their children, others view military service as a good option.

"I'm just trying to follow the rules -- and the rules are the same for everyone,'' said James Fernandez, principal at Albert Einstein High School in Kensington, where recruiters have visited four or five times this year. Last year, five students from the school enlisted in the armed forces.

As i said, I'm a bit taken aback by those on the Left who don't care about the views of parents on any other isue DEMANDING that parents be able to prevent the federal government from talking to their children.

And, of course, they seem to have no problem with that same government funding the school those children attend. In fact, they usually want more.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear the proto-Sheehans tell the truth? "We loath the military and would prefer to leave the US vulnerable to attack."

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Syria and the Hariri Conspiracy by Right Wing Nut House, and Race and the Unconscious by ShrinkWrapped.

The full results of the vote may be found at the Watcher's site.

CBS White House Correspondent set a new low in journalism today – he even outdid his Dan Rather, one of his predecessors.

CBSNEWS Chief White House correspondent John Roberts described the President’s selection of Judge Samuel Alito as “sloppy seconds” during today’s press gaggle with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

John Roberts: “So, Scott, you said that -- or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean that Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?”

Scott McClellan: “Not at all, John.”

The all-knowing, all-seeing Matt Drudge provides this tidbit of information for us.

”Sloppy seconds” is described in the United Kingdom’s A Dictionary of Slang as:

Noun: “A subsequent indulgence in an activity by a second person involving an exchange of bodily fluids. This may involve the sharing of drink, or more often it applies to a sexual nature. E.g. ‘I’m not having sloppy seconds, I want to shag her first.’”

Talk about an inappropriate no-class comment.

UPDATE: As pointed out in the comments on this thread, Roberts has apologized.

“At the morning White House gaggle, I used an unfortunate choice of words in a question to Scott McClellan. Please be assured that there was no perjorative intent to my question. I was merely attempting to reconcile past statements about Harriet Miers with the President's new nominee for the Supreme Court.

The early morning White House gaggle is an informal, free-wheeling and often irreverent forum, which is not broadcast and generally not publicly available.

Obviously, my tone this morning was a little too casual.

As we all experience from time to time, it was one of those 'oops' moments which we wish we could rewind and re-record.

I apologize to anyone who took offense to my poor choice of words. I can assure you I meant none."

Not only did he do so in the statement released by CBS, but heoffered his apologies to Scott McCllena at a press briefing as well.

"Scott, on the subject of rude, my apologies for my unfortunate choice of words this morning to you."

Not only that, but he has even posted a response to some of the comments that appeared on the CBS PublicEye blog.

After reading some of the posted comments in response to my apology, I remain deeply troubled and wanted to take a moment to try to clear this situation up.

I can assure you that in no way did I intend to use the phrase 'sloppy seconds' in either a sexual connotation or a perjorative way. Rather, I was thinking 'second choice' - or 'second best'. If Harriet Miers was the "best person for the job" - then - where did that leave Alito? It was a poor choice of words, for which I am deeply sorry.

Many posters seem to think that it is indicative of an 'agenda' or 'reveals my true thinking' about the White House. That is simply not the case. I goofed. And I freely admit it. The words had barely escaped my lips when I cringed and thought 'oops - that was a stupid thing to say'.

Again, the forum was informal and is never broadcast, so I my linguistic guard was down. I uttered a phrase that is used colloquially these days to describe a number of situations. At no time did the sexual connotation ever enter my mind, but I agree, it has no place at the White House.

I have offered my apologies to Scott McClellan, and he has graciously accepted. Scott and I have a good working relationship and he is confident that I meant nothing untoward.

And I offer a humble apology to anyone who took offense upon reading the text of my question. Journalists must be held to high standards, and in this case, I fell short.

You can be confident that it will not happen again.

With highest regards,

John Roberts
Chief White House Correspondent
CBS News

Fine, he sounds contrite and the explanation is plausible. We've all put our foot in our mouths from time to time. We'll have to give him a break on this one.

Following the Miers debacle, the President has nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the US Supreme Court. While not my preferred candidate, he certainly fell on what I would call my “top five” list of possible successors.

Samuel A. Alito Jr., 55, is a jurist in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia. Nicknamed "Scalito," or "little Scalia," by some lawyers, the federal appeals court judge is a frequent dissenter with a reputation for having one of the sharpest conservative minds in the country.

Educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School, Alito was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in 1990. He had worked for the Justice Department in the Reagan administration and served as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.

The linked Washington Post piece offers further links to some of Alito’s more significant opinions while on the bench – including his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He writes well, logically, and bases his opinions on solid constitutional and statutory grounds. I therefore concur with my brother and sisters on the right in supporting this selection.

I think Mark Levin puts it best.

I have known Judge Alito for two decades. We served together in the Meese Justice Department, where he worked in the Solicitor General's Office and was considered the sharpest of Charles Fried's assistants. He is every bit as smart and personable as Chief Justice John Roberts. He is an expert on constitutional law. And he obviously has a longer judicial record, so his judicial philosophy is well-known. Judge Alito is soft-spoken. He is his own man (efforts in the media this morning to paint him as "Scalia-lite" or "Scalito" are intended to fire-up the leftwing base). If he is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, then no conservative is qualified.

So let’s get the hearings scheduled and the votes taken. Sandy wants to get back to the ranch and her ill husband, and an ideal candidate is ready to take her place.