It's not Reid's fault. Several red-state Democrats announced they were going to vote for Alito; Ben Nelson (unsurprising) and Tim Johnson (unsurprising). But then Robert Byrd, who's now facing a very rich Republican candidate, also caved in.

43+1(Jeffords)=44-3=41

Then several other red-state Democrats (Landrieu, for example), refused to support the filibuster out of fear (though she is going to vote against Alito).

41-1=40

Among the Republicans, Lincoln Chafee CANNOT oppose Alito, because his REPUBLICAN primary challenger is bating him on being indecisive and unsupportive of Bush, while Specter has already said he's supporting Alito.

40-2=38

SO THERE ARE NOT 41 VOTES. They just don't materialize out of thin air. I'm not sure what Collins and Snowe are up to, but even if they vote against Alito, since they say they support abortion rights, they aren't going to be the two lone opponents to Herr Frist. So there aren't 41 votes. It's sad, but as I said, let Alito on the bench. Repugs, moderates and independents just better not bitch when his rulings start coming.

[ January 27, 2006, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Strange advice from a free speech advocate, especially one with the power to foretell rulings in advance of the cases' even being accepted for review. "So what are we supposed to do, just suck it up?"

Please, GMG. You know exactly what I mean. If someone did not oppose this man or threw up their hands in exasperation or was indifferent, when he starts his judicial activism, they should thank themselves, and yes, not bitch about how bad he is. They had the chance and did and said nothing. But hey, I'm sure you think he'll be just fine, just like WW, who nominated him, which is comforting to all on this board.

So now you're speaking "for all on this board," FT? "Not in my name," especially with your newly-articulated "forfeited speech doctrine."

Alito will be much more than "just fine" and I look forward to reading his first opinion.

Meanwhile, como si dice "meltdown" in italiano? Carry on, o wayward sons!

[ January 27, 2006, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

Fantomas, I don't quite get your math. There are 44 Democrats and 1 (leaning Dem) Independent (Jeffords) in the Senate. So at least 5 of them would have to oppose the filibuster. Not sure why you subtracted two off for Republicans Specter and Chafee. Perhaps I missed something.

I would at least support a filibuster until 10:00 pm Tuesday EST. Yeah, it's petty, but it would serve the President right.

For what?

Gmg, I'm not sure what you are questioning here, but I guess my reference was a bit subtle. Anyway, my point was that one of the many complaints with the Alito confirmation process is that the Democrats are trying to delay the vote so that Alito is not confirmed by the State of the Union Address. And I do think it is petty if that is the reason why the Democrats want to delay the vote. But I also think it is petty that Bush would even need to refer to it during the State of the Union. Combine that with my opinion that, despite tough competition, Bush is the worst President that this country has ever had (and I could throw a few more adjectives expressing my feeling about him), hence my comment.

Remember one very significant fact: these polls always discuss a change in terms of what is called a "generic" candidate or "generic" change, meaning that a person polled wishes to simply see "a different party" or "a different person." When an individual's name is then inserted, such as Candidate Doe, the person polled often has second thoughts depending on who this Candidate Doe is. Worse, when people are polled they almost always say they want a change in Congress, but that their representative is fine.

Do these idiots even realize that change begins at home? How convenient for them to want a change in Congress but not in their district.

[ January 28, 2006, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Now you're sounding like fantomas. There are many Democrats with common sense who don't believe in following the ultra-extreme, left-wing views that many wacko Dems like Kennedy, Kerry, et. al. follow.

[ January 28, 2006, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

I think you're forgetting one important fact, gmg: liberals believe in free speech only when it conforms to their wacked out viewpoints. Why do you think they're so fearful of conservatives speaking at public events, especially colleges and the like?

"Quick! Silence that cretin! He/She is making sense and is talking logically. Shut him/her up right now or people will stop believing in our socialist, tiny minority views!"

MIB, I'm only too well aware of that fact, as illustrated by the error in your last post. As taught to me in law school by my first year, feminist torts professor, the proper form of "He/She" is "s/he".* Hee-hee!
_____
*It rhymes with "LGBT" and is as unalphabetic as it is dyslexic.

What is the current news on a Democratic filibuster? I just can't seem to catch as much news as I should.

I haven't followed this entire thread, but has anybody mentioned the obvious fact that Alito will make this a Catholic majority Supreme Court? Gee, I wonder how that affects any future abortion-related decisions... :confused:

[ January 28, 2006, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: billsf ]

Perhaps there is someone else out there who appreciates your sophistry ("forfeited speech doctrine"? PUH-LEASE!), but if it pleases you, so be it. Speak all you want. Praise Alito to the high heavens. Were you pleased with Roberts' first ruling? I'm sure you'll be just as pleased with Alito's. Tra la la la...etc.

[ January 28, 2006, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: billsf ]

You must have missed something because 3 Democrats--Ben Nelson (NE), Robert Byrd (WV), and Tim Johnson (SD) already announced they were supporting Alito. So that makes 41. Landrieu has already said she won't support the filibuster, so that makes 40. Other Democrats have been silent or have said they'd vote not but not stated a no on cloture; I have heard Pryor is also not going to support it, so that would bring them down to 39 at best.

Chafee has not yet announced his position and he is a strong pro-choice Senator, as is Specter, who has already said he's supporting Alito. I'm not sure if Collins and Snowe have yet announced how they'll vote. I also saw that Ted Stevens of Alaska, who can be quite conservative, hadn't announced whether or not he'd vote no on cloture.

The New York Observer had an article this week on Lani Guinier, which broached how hysterical and "mean"--to use Orrin Hatch's word--the Republicans were towards her and numerous other Clinton nominees during his 8 years in office. In her case, these right-wingers totally distorted her scholarship and theories, versions of which are used across the globe, to the extent that Clinton ditched her nomination for an assistant AG job. The Republicans are total hypocrites about Alito. Warrantless Wiretapper and Co., to maintain that 40% of the population that still supports him, let extremist right-wingers can Harriet Miers before she even had a chance to go before the committee, and made promises to the likes of anti-gay fanatics like Jim Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly and others to put Alito forward.

And now according to Republican Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, Frist will again do the bidding of the anti-gay right-wing extremists and put forward the anti-gay marriage amendment once again. Enough to make the GOP's diehard gay supporters jump for joy--with friends like these, who needs enemies?

[ January 28, 2006, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Considering that Kennedy the Catholic has voted to affirm Roe, I don't think your concerns are warranted.

Kennedy is about as Catholic as Jerry Falwell.

Which is why a Catholic majority shouldn't worry you.

Late last week...

Cindy Sheehan to Dianne Feinstein: Fillibuster Alito or I’ll Challenge Your Senate Seat

Caracas, Venezuela – Gold star mother Cindy Sheehan has decided to run against California Senator Diane Feinstein if Feinstein does not filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. While in Venezuela attending the World Social Forum, Sheehan learned that several Democratic Senators had announced their plans for a filibuster but that Senator Feinstein, who’s up for re-election in November, had stated she would vote against the nomination but not filibuster it. "I’m appalled that Diane Feinstein wouldn’t recognize how dangerous Alito’s nomination is to upholding the values of our constitution and restricting the usurpation of presidential powers, for which I’ve already paid the ultimate price," Sheehan said.

Sheehan is the grieving military mother whose vigil outside President Bush’s ranch in Crawford last summer focused the nation’s attention on the human cost of the Iraq war. Her son Casey was killed in Iraq in April 2004.

"Judge Alito has an extensive paper trail documenting the right-wing political agenda that he has actively advanced, not only as a high-ranking official in the Reagan Administration, but also as a judge. He has publicly supported the 'Unitary Executive' theory, a radical notion that the President holds exclusive and inherent authority to execute all federal law. He has supported efforts to curtail privacy rights, including not only privacy from government surveillance and arbitrary arrest, but also other constitutional rights based on privacy, such as reproductive liberty for women. Alito has outspokenly sought to restrict Congress' power, limiting the scope of the Commerce Clause of Article I of the Constitution. In addition, he has consistently applied his discretion as a judge in favor of certain interests and against others. He rarely votes against big business, police or prosecutors."

Sheehan is available for interviews from Venezuela through the contact people listed above. She returns to the United States on this morning and will travel to Washington, DC on Tuesday to participate in an alternative State of the Union event.

Well, whaddya know? Senator DiFi has flip-flopped. I guess Sheehan's threat to run against her scared DiFi. Senator switches positions.

Cue the music, Maestro...

"They call her Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning..."

Well, it's finally coming to an end. The filibuster failed miserably.

Senator Obama, who unfortunately has now become a tool like so many other senators, had this rare sensible thing to say. Too bad he doesn't practice what he preaches. He criticizes Democrats' delay tactics via the filibuster, then votes for a filibuster.

Oh! The hypocrisy!

Some more funny stuff from the Senate today...

The senior Senator from New Jersey is a fairly comic figure, trying to oppose home state Judge Alito. Lautenberg's reading some speech that sounds like it was written by a 23-year-old legislative assistant who hasn't read all the way through the Constitution. (Maybe the leg assistant just read that clause about the constitutional right to abortion.)

This is largely about how, as Lautenberg puts it, "women want government's hands off 'their' bodies." (Lautenberg is still reading from some NOW pamphlets written in the 1970s--you have to forgive him--he didn't really expect to be back here making speeches. Moreover, some women aren't worried about the whole government, but just would be content if certain Senators would keep their hands off 'their' bodies.)

So, presumably Judge Alito wants government's hands all over women's bodies? But, Lautenberg is quick to remind us, "He's a good, decent man, an ethical man, and I don't think he has any bigoted views."

But, says Lautenberg, "I want to be on the side of protecting women's rights and protecting the little people."

But not really little people--not young human beings killed by abortion. Not people who are THAT little! They will never be New Jersey voters, or left wing political campaign donors.
-------------------------
Senator Lautenberg professed shock at Judge Alito's answer when asked if "the right to choose is, quote, settled law."

According to Lautenberg, the answer is "a no brainer. Of course it's settled law. It's been on the books for 33 years!" According to Lautenberg, "you don't have to go to law school to figure that one out!"

When asked if Plessy v. Ferguson was "settled law" in 1954, Lautenberg surely said, "That's a no brainer: it's been on the books for 60 years!"
---------------------------

Not to be outdone by the senior Senator from Judge Alito's home state of New Jersey, junior Senator Bob Menendez has now taken the floor. The incongruence of his two-faced statement — attempting simultaneously to pander to his home state and to the liberal Left that controls Democrat campaign purse strings — is stunning.

Menendez says he "takes pride in the honor that's been bestowed on a fellow New Jerseyan," noting that he too is the "son of immigrants" and that Judge Alito's "story of seizing opportunity and working hard" is "a story close to my heart."

But when it comes to a Supreme Court nominee, he says: "It's not where you come from that matters, but where you will take the nation."

Menendez thinks that Supreme Court Justices are supposed to "take the nation" someplace: he, like the liberal Left opposing Judge Alito, doesn't understand that under our Constitution, courts are not supposed to "take us" anywhere. In a nation based on the "consent of the governed," judges are supposed to apply the laws the people have assented to.

Further revealing his sophisticated understanding of the role of the Court in our federal system, Menendez asserts that what the Supreme Court decides "is the law of the land," but that the "Supreme Court alone has the power to revisit and reverse its previous decisions." (Sen. Menendez: Please inform Sen. Lautenberg that this means the Supreme Court can get it wrong, and that it can overturn a prior decision that got it wrong.)

The two-faced pandering flips back and forth so fast, it's hard to keep up with it:

Pandering to New Jersey: Judge Alito has "a keen intellect."

Pandering to the Left: But he can't replace Justice O'Connor, the deciding vote "protecting our rights and freedoms" (he got that line from Ralph Neas!).

Pandering to New Jersey: "I take pride" in the nomination of Judge Alito. "He's a decent, intelligent, accomplished man."

Pandering to the Left: But Judge Alito would "overturn a woman's right to contol her 'own' body," "side with corporations over African Americans," "favor the concentration of unlimited power in the hands of the President," and "make it impossible for a person has been discriminated against to take his or her case to court."

But really, he's very proud of the decent, intelligent, and accomplished Judge Alito!
----------------------------

THE LEFT TO DEMS: WE HATE YOU

Now that the Alito filibuster has collapsed, the anger--anger at Democrats, that is--is boiling over at the DailyKos. One diatribe from one of the site's "recommended diaries":

But the spoken word is he/she. One cannot say "s/he." Try it. That's how I always refer to it.

A left-wing website has published an open letter to a married Republican senator promising to out him as a homosexual at some "inopportune" time because he voted for cloture Monday on the Alito nomination.

The real threat that's posed here is to Democrats, because with a base this out of control, every Democrat that doesn't toe the moonbat line has a reason to be afraid.

And we wonder why Americans are becoming more turned off by the Democratic Party.

-----------------

Could this blogger be in legal hot water over this? Hmmm...

The post on BlogActive may constitute blackmail under the criminal law of Washington, D.C. As set forth on Lexis - Nexis, section 22-3252 of the District Columbia Code provides:

(a) A person commits the offense of blackmail, if, with intent to obtain property of another or to cause another to do or refrain from doing any act, that person threatens:

(1) To accuse any person of a crime;

(2) To expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or

(3) To impair the reputation of any person, including a deceased person.

( Any person convicted of blackmail shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

It appears the author of the BlogActive post has threatened, with "intent to . . . cause another to do or refrain from doing any act," to "expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule."

I'm assuming the D.C. Code applies because the BlogActive website lists a D.C. post office box for contributions.

[ January 31, 2006, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

It's absolutely fine to expose such hypocrisy in my book. And I think I know who the closet case is.

Do Dems/libs WANNA WIN? Take the friggin' gloves off... "by any means necessary."

Bill, a question: whom do you think it is? I honestly can't even hazard a guess.

Would it be Drier of Calif. I wonder? He has prominently been mentioned many times already here, and elsewhere.

The confirmation of Justice Alito is a great moment for the country for two reasons.

One: the triumph of quality. We have a new Justice with outstanding qualifications and experience, proving that the demagogues of the liberal left can no longer ‘Bork’ such outstanding nominees. The process is still nasty, and the demagogues still try their hardest, but the partisan judicial filibuster has failed. The American people see that Justice Alito is not the caricature the extremists tried to paint. Indeed, it is clear that is attackers are the real extremists.

Two: the triumph of the philosophy of judicial restraint. Americans are appreciating the virtue of judicial modesty and respect for democracy in our courts. The last few years, Americans have grown increasingly frustrated with out-of-control judges imposing a leftist agenda on them through judicial activism. A recent ABA poll shows the public believes such judicial activism has reached "crisis" proportions. But Justices like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito hold the promise of greater faithfulness to the Constitution and the laws enacted by the people through their elected representatives. Today, a significant step has been taken in restoring American self-government.

HT, not Drier, because he's a Congressman, not a Senator. California's curse is a woman's: our Senators are Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.

Two good points, MIB. It was fun watching Kerry and Kennedy fulminating in their morass of moral rottenness as they watched it being drained before them. And good for Orrin Hatch for telling it like it is after today's vote, by properly denouncing the Demos' mistreatment of Roberts and Alito in the hearings as "despicable."

Who's next? Justice Stevens is 87 and has said that since he was appointed by a GOPer, he wants to retire under one.

MIB, I admit that I'm in my 20s, so I don't remember the civil rights era of the '60s. It's quite possible I'm just ignorant of the SCOTUS decisions to end segregation and allow interracial marriage. I know that ultimately the Sup Court is supposed to review and decide on the laws of the land passed by the people; therefore, is it correct to say that ending segregation decades ago was an overstepping of bounds by that Sup Court? Were African Americans at the time supposed to remain silent and wait for the majorities of states to overturn their laws?

Aren't there just blatant examples of when the majority of a population is wrong? It might be difficult to pick and choose these circumstances; yet, treating some members of society different than others just seems to be common sense...it's wrong.

What is it about the Sup Court pushing the people towards a more inclusive environment that is so bad? I'm afraid if the Sup Court had not stepped in during the civil rights era, we still might have African Americans drinking out of separate fountains and going to separate schools in states like Mississippi and Alabama...hell, even my state of Texas. frown

Those are both excellent reasons MIB.

I think anyone with even a beginner's level of understanding politics can add a third: the 72-25 vote and the DemoGogues ranting and raving to their radical irrational base only helps cement their status as a "footnote" in history and failure in the exercise of minority political power.

Damn, I wish the silent mainstream majority in the gay community would denounce the liberal clowns who've highjacked our issues and causes so that they can worship at the DemoGogues' altar. Traitors. Turncoats. Selling us into perpetual bondage with the cut-and-run DemoGogues.

But that'd be like getting blacks off the DemoGogue Plantation. Not likely to happen in my lifetime.

72-25, democracy and freedom in Iraq is progressing, troop levels sliding down in 2006, enlistments rising... Bush's PR standings on the mend... Europe and Canada moving to the Right... damn, it's gotta hurt bad to be a GayLefty these days. Oh wait, they still have Mother MoonBat if she gets back from Hugo-land in time to fashion some tinfoil hats and lead the rebellion.

Impotent and irrelevant = GayLeft

[ January 31, 2006, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: MiMatt38 ]

Hey gmg, why dont you run?
Or maybe Arnold; he's real popular isnt he?

Touche Raze. Whats going to be great fun is watching the Repugs, distance themselves from Shrub going into the off term elections.

Are you sure about that, gmg? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I could've sworn someone told me not too long ago that Stevens, who has become the most liberal Justice on the Court, did not want Bush appointing his replacement, and that he wanted to wait until a Democratic president took office.

I don't know if this is true or not. It might have been just political gossip.

First of all, dfw, don't sell yourself short about only being in your 20's. That certainly doesn't mean you're stupid. There's nothing wrong about seeking knowledge about topics such as the one being discussed.

As far as your questions above go, the Supreme Court looked at desegregation laws as being in conflict with the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process. The old term "separate but equal" was a contradiction in terms in the way its defenders presented it. While that term may be legitimate in certain areas of life, the Court felt that in terms of other essential areas, like education, to name one, that term and the laws that it purportedly bred could not stand. There were more fundamental issues at stake.

As far as laws being wrong that are passed by states, this happens all the time. The ones that are in opposition to the Constitution face the potential of being struck down. The ones that are not in opposition, though still wrong, should not be struck.

Let's take an example. In Illinois, there currently is an attempt by a couple state legislators to raise the legal driving age from 16 to 18. Many people, including, not surprisingly, teenagers, in this state believe it is wrong. This law may be wrong, but it is not unconstitutional (federally, that is).

Another example: mandatory helmet laws. These laws are even more controversial, with a LOT of people screaming that a state has no right to mandate the use of helmets for those over 18 years of age. Is such a law wrong? Even if it is, as SCOTUS would say in denying writ of certiorari, there is "no substantive federal issue" involved.

States have since the inception of our republic been allowed to pass all kinds of laws, stupid or otherwise, and even though I find many laws stupid, I find this ability to do so one of the true beauties of our grand republic. If my displeasure with such a law is strong enough, I am left with a handful of choices:

(1) Challenge it as an affront to my state's constitution

(2) Seek to get it repealed legislatively

(3) Work to get elected persons who will repeal such laws

(4) Move to a state that doesn't have such a law on the books

If there is "no substantive federal issue" at stake, then I should not take the route of the federal court system and try to get it struck down. This is the main problem I have with liberals. For decades they have realized solid majorities in most parts of the country simply do not want to enact laws that the liberals want. So, the Left turns to the federal courts and seeks out liberal judges to legislate from the bench (take a look at the 9th circuit and you'll see what I mean), effectively bypassing the People and imposing their extreme views on a nation. I have always wondered, if their views are so mainstream, so acceptable, so "right," why not let the People decide? Why not let the 9th and 10th Amendments truly be utilized?

I hope I've answered your questions. If not, feel free to reiterate.

[ January 31, 2006, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

The 2006 elections are "mid-term" elections, not "off-term".

You answered my questions, MIB...I guess I already knew the answers. Living with the reality of them is what sucks. frown

[ January 31, 2006, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: dfwAggie99 ]

Hopefully they will overturn Roe v Wade before the mid-term elections.

Even with Alito, I don't think there are enough votes on the Court to overturn Roe.

But the potential political fallout makes for an interesting thought experiment.

I was reading this thread I thought something sounded familiar.

Compare the above to this written by Jon Podhoretz at corner.nationalreview.com:

Anyone see any similarities? Anyone surprised? BTW, the rest of the post also seems to mostly be a cut and paste from Podoretz too.

DFW: Ignore MIB, he really doesn't know what he is talking about.

First, his support of Brown v Board is in direct opposition to the other views he has expounded. For decades, the concept of separate but equal had been upheld, it was only an act of judical activism that over ruled the doctrine. MIB, wouldn't education normally fall under the purview of the State? What makes this a valid federal question? Most state constitutions include equal protection provisions, why not sue under state courts? You have to twist your own logic in order to support this out come.

Your next examples all deal (1) state laws governing licenings of drivers and (2) federal laws regarding helmets. You have stated there is no federal question in these situation. However, the Federal Congress has used the Commerce clause to regulate driving issues before (why are all state drinking laws 21 years or older). There is a Federal argument that (1) federal funds were used to construct highways, on which licensed drivers and motorcycles requiring helmets drive and (2) there is a possible interstate commerce argument.

This is also the perfect place to mention a recent Supreme Court case, the decision in which, MIB actually supported, and which Scalia, Thomas, Roberts decented (and in which Alito would probably dissent). The Oregon right to die case. MIB has stated that he thought the court's ruling was correct, as it upheld a state's rights to pass whatever laws it wants. However, MIB also supports Alito's addition to the Supreme Court, despite the fact that Alito has often been describe as being of the same judical philosophy as Scalia. So it is likely that MIB and Alito would disagree in this case. I therefore ask, which one of you is correct? Is Alito, like Scalia, a judicial activist who rules against states rights in order to support his own political beliefs? Oh, wait, you can only be a judical activist if your opinions are contrary to MIB's beliefs.

The final comment I have relates to MIB's statement about "challenging" something as an affront to a state's Constitution. I assume this would be a judicial challenge. MIB stated that where there is no federal question, the US Supreme Court is the wrong venue (we will ignore his ignorance of diversity jurisdiction). Therefore, the challenge would be in state courts. As the Mass. Court case upholding gay marriage meets this requirement, MIB do you disagree with President Bush and the rest of the Republican Party that the judges on the Mass. Court are judical actists?

It is not judicial activism when the Court overturns a decision wrongly decided. A decision wrongly decided then is a decision wrongly decided now. The Court has often realized its errors and corrected them, thank God.

Well, say goodbye to your constitutional rights. To all the women of America, expect huge changes. The government now controls your body, not you. I wonder how long boards such as Outsports will be allowed to exist. I wonder how long it will be before all gays are rounded up and placed in Gitmo. This is one of the darkest days ever in the history of America.

True yes, along with the election and re-election of George W. But we have just over 2 years now before this buffoon is out of a job.

Don't be so sure of that. He can be hired as a consultant by FEMA.

shawnnq, nope I don't see it. Just because MIB comments on what is a disgusting tactic of the radical gay fringe of the Democrat Party and Podhoretz did so as well... so did the smart thinkers at GayPatroit and lots of other sites.

It's because the utter uncivil gall of MikeyRogers and the radical gay fringe is so outrageous it requires people of common decency to stand tall, renounce the tactic, and work to restore the temper of our public square. MIB is right. This tactic and threat is disgusting.

What I think is MUCH MORE interesting is how guys just like you over at AmericaBloat think it entirely appropriate and proper and fair.

Kind of like the sleaziness of tarring Judge Roberts' adoptions as "the rich get trophy kids" or "influence played out to gain trophy kids", or the ridiculous assertion that Alito was anti-gay, anti-minority, or against coed universities.

MikeyRogers has lots of friends here, but I hazzard to say those who adopt his tactics are short on character and long on sleaze. But I've come to expect that from the gay radical fringe of the Democrat Party.

Millerbeach, congrats! Here's your biscuit. I knew it wouldn't take you long at all to slime the discussion with the baseless canard of "gay concentration camps", images of govt control over female bodies, and the other nonsense.

If RvW even gets nibbled on by the right-of-center core of the Court, it'll likely be to protect the child's right to life guaranteed in the Constitution to all citizens.

Gay conentration camps? Do you even believe that nonsense? God, you have to get out more. Much more.

You were saying, oh paranoid one?

The Decision of the Day blog notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit released three opinions authored by Judge Alito yesterday. Not that any of the media outlets that caricatured Judge Alito’s record will notice, but in one of the cases, Judge Alito rules in favor of a female plaintiff alleging gender discrimination, overturning the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer. (Of course, the larger point that judicial opinions should be evaluated on their merits, and not on who wins or loses, remains.)

I seriously think he's gone off the deep end. The signs are there, that's for sure.

Recall those here, like their left-wing counterparts in the Senate, blasted Alito for his ruling on a warrant involving the search of a 10-year-old girl whose parents may have hidden drugs on her. It's well-known drug dealers use children for their nefarious purposes.

Yet another example.