Two free numbers to the Capitol switchboard:1-866-340-9281 or 1-866-340-9279
Kennedy,Direct line: 202-224-4543

Please also call, Feingold (Who is saying he is going to run for President and who voted FOR Roberts.)
Feingold, Direct Line: 202-224-5323

One last call if you can: Inouye from Hawaii is the only Democratic Senator from the gang of 14 who did not vote for Roberts.
Inouye, Direct Line: 202-224-3934

At a meeting with two Kennedy aides here in Boston last week, a delegation of us was told that Choice was the key issue. We went in with other issues and I am keenly aware there are many other important issues, but think it is important to press the one the officials see as key, the one most likely to change their minds. Seventy% of the people in the USA do not want to overturn Roe.

You might want to remind Kennedy of the vote in MA several years ago, when one member of the state legislature changed his vote unexpectedly and unknown until he did it - and we were saved from bringing back the death penalty in MA by this one surprise and changed vote at the actual time of the vote, not before. If they had not held the vote because they did not have enough votes to defeat the push for death penalty, we would be stuck with the death penalty in MA

KENNEDY MUST TRY AND HE MUST TAKE A STAND: HE MUST LEAD A FILIBUSTER

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
CONTACT KENNEDY, FEINGOLD and INOUYE NOW!

"It is a momentous decision, and they need more time to think about it," says Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at the University of Richmond Law School.

It also gives groups opposing the nomination another week - and the Jan. 22 anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, expected to draw hundreds of thousands to the nation's capital on the eve of the new vote - around which to organize. [Editor's note: The original version misdated the Roe v. Wade decision.]

"Nothing is over until it's over," says Marcia Greenberger, copresident and founder of the National Women's Law Center, which opposes Judge Alito. "What's really important is to let the dust settle a little and to let the implications of these hearings settle in."

Anti-Alito activists say they can pick up another million signatures in the run-up to a delayed vote, in a bid to focus senators' attention on the threat they say he poses to abortion rights, protection from discrimination on the job, and curbs on the abuse of executive power.

"We hope to go from 1 million [anti-Alito] petitions to a couple of million by the time the committee votes," says Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, which is also launching new TV and radio ads "to express to the American people the magnitude of what is at stake."

But despite talk of Armageddon in the Senate over the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, widely viewed as the swing seat on the Supreme Court, the issue never caught on with the American public.

"I don't see evidence that voters are engaged in this," says Jennifer Duffy, Senate analyst for the Cook Political Report, citing recent polls. "Barely half of voters had an opinion. For anything Democrats might gain, there's also the downside of looking obstructionist and postponing the inevitable," she adds.

With Republicans controlling 55 votes in the Senate, the numbers favor confirmation. A bipartisan agreement by 14 senators, the so-called Gang of 14, also puts a filibuster off the table, except in the case of "extraordinary circumstances," which no senator in the group has yet claimed is an issue in the Alito confirmation.

"I do not see the likelihood of a filibuster," says Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California, a member of the Senate Judiciary panel, who says she will oppose the nomination. But she says that a delay in the vote is needed "to give members time to go over written responses to questions."

"If the majority leader pushes an earlier vote, it's a huge mistake, because it doesn't allow us to do due diligence," she adds.

Over the weekend, conservative groups lobbied GOP senators to back Chairman Specter and show up for a committee vote Tuesday.

"Delay always harms a nominee," says Manuel Miranda, who chairs the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of conservative and libertarian groups supporting the Alito nomination. "That's the No. 1 rule of nominations, but what they could do in a week when most people are on recess, I'm not so sure."

Some conservative activists were concerned that opponents of the nominee would use Martin Luther King weekend to use "the race card" on the nominee, but that didn't happen. Next week's March for Life, on the eve of a rescheduled Senate vote, sets up another flashpoint.

"The abortion issue is one that we can win, and we know it now," says Mr. Miranda, referring to the failure of the Alito hearings to rouse public opinion on the issue. But he adds that conservatives do not think that Alito will tip the balance on the court on reversing abortion rights. "Conservatives do not feel that with Alito, they will have the court. The prize is the [John Paul] Stevens seat," he adds. [Editor's note: The original version mischaracterized a comment by Mr. Miranda.]

In the runup to a final vote, Democrats and anti-Alito groups outside the Congress will try to refocus attention on the full range of issues at stake in Supreme Court decisions, especially privacy rights and balance of power issues.

"It's hard to get people to understand what the court means in their daily lives," says Debra Ness, President of the National Partnership for Women and Families, which is stepping up e-mails that make it easy for people to contact senators.

"If courts become a less conducive branch for advocacy, we will turn to the other two branches of government," she adds.

The agreement alters the schedule announced Friday, during the final moments of Alito's week-long confirmation hearings, by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who said he would conduct the panel's vote today. His announcement sparked a quarrel with the panel's ranking Democrat, Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), who said he would seek a delay. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) vowed that a vote in the full Senate, which has final say over all judicial candidates chosen by the president, would take place by the end of the week.

In the end, Specter and Frist essentially acknowledged the prerogative Democrats have under Senate rules to postpone any committee decision for one week. GOP leaders grumbled that Democrats had reneged on an earlier agreement about when the Alito vote would take place -- an agreement that Democrats denied ever existed.

As Republicans express confidence that they have mustered enough votes to confirm Alito, the timing of the committee's action and of the full Senate vote may not dictate whether he joins the court. But the timing plays into the short-term political calculus of both parties, as well as of a coalition of left-leaning advocacy groups that are continuing to air advertisements in an aggressive -- and, so far, relatively ineffective -- campaign to build broad public opposition to the nominee, who is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, most of whom have indicated they will vote against Alito's confirmation, were reluctant to cast their votes before a meeting tomorrow of the Senate's Democratic Caucus, at which senators plan to consider their strategy for the final phases of the confirmation process.

Democrats, anticipating that Alito ultimately will be confirmed, are trying to deny the White House that victory as long as possible, particularly in the days before the State of the Union address President Bush is to deliver Jan. 31. Although Senate rules do not enable them to defer the confirmation vote until after the speech, Democratic senators would like to reduce the victory period immediately before the speech, one of the broadest public stages the president commands each year.

The State of the Union "is the 800-pound gorilla lurking over the debate," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "That's part of the strategic calculation." Manley also said, "This is an important vote, and we are not going to be rushed into anything."

On Friday, the day Alito's confirmation hearings ended, Frist placed pressure on the Democrats to allow a quick vote. Frist announced that, unless the final vote takes place this week, he would cancel a week-long Senate vacation next week -- a step that he took yesterday, according to his chief of staff, Eric Ueland.

Ueland said last night that Frist planned to start debate over Alito in the full Senate on Jan. 25, the day after the committee's vote, adding, "We'll stay on the nomination until the judge is the justice."

As details emerged about unsavory dealings between lobbyists and lawmakers -- including his top lieutenant, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) -- the House speaker stood on the sidelines. As DeLay's legal peril mounted, Hastert backed him at every turn, attempting to change House rules to allow an indicted leader to stay in power and even altering the leadership of the ethics committee, which had been exposing misconduct by the majority leader.

Only now has Hastert publicly moved to address the ethics controversy, leading a push to tighten rules on lobbying and persuading Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) to temporarily relinquish the chairmanship of the House Administration Committee.

Although Hastert's job appears safe for now, there are rumblings among some lawmakers and aides that he waited too long to act -- and that his prior conduct has eluded close inspection, even when the speaker himself rubbed elbows with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his clients.

"I suppose that DeLay was simply a much more inviting target for the [Democrats], so Hastert is left alone," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). "Maybe people will start focusing on Hastert now."

Hastert and his staff "take this laissez-faire attitude on things," grumbled one Republican source close to the House leadership. "They don't respond when things are bending, but they get very excited when they break."

DeLay's announcement this month that he had permanently withdrawn from the House GOP leadership after his indictment on political money-laundering charges has touched off a scramble among Republicans for practically every high-level leadership post except that of speaker. Hastert, an amiable onetime high school wrestling coach, enjoys tremendous personal loyalty from many in the House GOP conference, and he has been credited with holding together the sometimes warring factions within the party.

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), one of those calling for a major shake-up of the House GOP leadership, stressed that there is a consensus within the conference that "we totally support Speaker Hastert."

Yet some watchdog organizations have said Hastert deserves scrutiny. After all, they note, Hastert signed a letter to the interior secretary in 2003 on behalf of one of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients days after a fundraiser for Hastert at Abramoff's posh Washington restaurant, Signatures. Fred Wertheimer, president of the watchdog group Democracy 21, said that the same easygoing personality and small-town attitude that Hastert has used to maintain the loyalty of colleagues have enabled him to skate through the unfolding scandal.

"What these scandals are revolving around is a way of life that does not appear to be Hastert's way of life," Wertheimer said. "That may be the principal reason why this scandal does not inure to him."

After years as a friendly backbencher and low-level leadership member, Hastert suddenly emerged to become House speaker in 1999. Newt Gingrich (Ga.) was drummed out of the post after a disastrous election season, and his heir apparent, Bob Livingston (La.), resigned amid allegations of an extramarital affair. DeLay, then majority whip, shepherded Hastert from the post of his chief deputy to a position two steps from the presidency.

Hastert took a laid-back attitude to his job, opening his door to lawmakers, soothing hurt feelings, fixing problems and holding the party together while the bare-knuckled DeLay, first as whip and then as majority leader, drove the political agenda. To some lawmakers, it was a "good-cop, bad-cop" routine.

But the limits of the arrangement began to emerge in the fall of 2004. That was when Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Tex.) approached Hastert aides with a proposal pregnant with possible political consequences: A Democratic prosecutor in Texas, Ronnie Earle, was closing in on DeLay, and the majority leader wanted to change Republican rules to allow a leader indicted by a state grand jury to retain his post.

Some on Hastert's staff feared that the change could have disastrous political consequences, former DeLay and Hastert aides say. But Hastert, dreading confrontation and trusting DeLay's political instincts, deferred to his second-in-command. The ethics rules change touched off a political firestorm, and within a few months it was repealed.

Even when DeLay's ethical problems began bursting into the open, Hastert maintained a low profile. DeLay was admonished three times by the House ethics committee for improper conduct, including the use of the Federal Aviation Administration to help track down Democratic Texas lawmakers who had left the state to avoid a vote on a redistricting plan engineered by DeLay.

Then when Earle began an investigation of the fundraising associated with DeLay's campaign to pass the redistricting plan, Hastert became increasingly involved in efforts to protect DeLay -- both out of loyalty and out of deference, former leadership aides said. DeLay aides at the time concede that Hastert felt uneasy occasionally, especially on the rules change for indictments. But when such confrontations arise, Hastert and his aides usually refer them to the Republican conference at large and let the issues sort themselves out, rather than stepping in to resolve them swiftly. And the conference is where DeLay held almost unchecked power.

"Tom, as powerful as he was, would truly have deferred to the speaker. He really would have," said one former DeLay aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid crossing Hastert. But he said that Hastert is a consensus-maker. "He doesn't like to rule by fiat," the former aide said. "He wasn't blind to what was happening, but he fundamentally saw it as DeLay's role to deal with these things."

Scrutiny may be coming, Flake cautioned, now that DeLay is no longer in the leadership. Wertheimer of Democracy 21, in a Nov. 22 letter to House ethics committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), called for a prompt investigation into the events of June 2003, when Hastert held a fundraiser at Signatures, which brought in at least $21,500, much of it from Abramoff's tribal clients. A week later, the speaker signed a letter to Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, urging her to reject a request from a rival tribe for a new casino.

Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said the speaker has no connection to Abramoff, but he does have a long history of opposing efforts by Indian tribes to shop for strategic locations in Illinois to build casinos. When Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.) asked him to sign a letter to block the efforts of the Jena band of Choctaw Indians, "he was more than happy to do so," Bonjean said, adding that the action had nothing to do with the fundraiser.

Even those requesting the investigation have no expectation that it will happen, Wertheimer said. That is because for a year now, the ethics committee -- officially known as the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct -- has been crippled by rules changes muscled through with the speaker's help. Bonjean said Hastert thought the previous rules were not fair to the members.

Hastert removed the panel's chairman, Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), in February 2004, replacing him with Hastings, who was closer to leadership and had handled other sensitive tasks for the speaker.

Bonjean said Hefley had reached the end of his term limit, although Hefley himself said the action amounted to a purge.

The flurry of activity may look unseemly now, one former leadership aide said, but each one seemed reasonable at the time and nobody was looking at the big picture.

"In hindsight, you may be able to see how things could have been handled differently," said Dan Mattoon, a former Hastert aide. "But part of that is the hand that's dealt, with the speaker trying to govern, trying to be fair to Tom, but trying to be fair to the conference and the issues that they deserve to have heard, too."