As all the papers indicate today, Samuel Alito was confirmed yesterday as expected, pretty much along a party line vote (four Democrats voted for, one Republican voted against). The NYT has a piece on how that may shape cases coming up this year. (Adam Liptak, Alito Vote May Be Decisive in Marquee Cases This Term, 2/1/06.)
By the way, a few days ago Dahlia Lithwick, the legal analyst for Slate had an excellent piece on the impact of the presidential signing statement that Alito supported in his Reagan days. She tends to be on the liberal side, but her analysis is pretty sound regardless of ideology. I noticed that Andrew Sullivan is promoting it on his blog (andrewsullivan.com) and he is generally a conservative libertarian. Anyway, Lithwick's piece is well worth reading and thinking about. (Dahlia Lithwick, Sign Here, Slate, 1/30/06.)
Also yesterday (or last night) was Bush's State of the Union Address. Most of the papers this morning seem to suggest that it was not a path breaking speech. He stuck to defending his foreign policy in Iraq and his NSA wiretapping, and launched a few domestic initiatives -- the tax incentives for medical savings accounts we mentioned the other day, and a modest plan to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. The WaPo has a good article on why Bush has little political capital to spend this year. (Dan Balz and Jim VandeHei, Lowered Expectations Reflect Political and Fiscal Realities, 2/1/06, and Ron Brownstein, in the LAT, also has a good analysis of what the president proposes to do, and why his goals were modest. (To Still Midterm Waters, Bush's Agenda Is Cautious, 2/1/06.)
If you missed it, you can read the speech here. The LAT fact checks it here: Peter Wallsten and Maura Reynolds, Bush Stretches to Defend Surveillance, 2/1/06.
Tim Kaine, Governor of Virginia, gave the Democratic Response after the speech. (Michael Shear, Va.'s Kaine Assails "Poor Choices, Bad Management," WaPo, 2/1/06.)