I haven't seen anything regarding Alito on this board. If it has already been posted somewhere, my apologies. I found this on craigslist.org, and found it rather interesting. At least the poster did his/her homework! Enjoy, and be very afraid of Alito.


The Justice S.J. Alito Border Checkpoint
WARNING!!
You are about to enter the United Christian States of America. To ensure that your stay will be a pleasant one, you will obey the following fourteen commandments:

1. Abortions are banned.

2. Woman are free to do whatever their husbands allow.

3. Do not run from our police -- or you will be shot in the back.

4. White male privilege will be protected at all times.

5. You have the right to answer ALL our questions -- no right to remain silent, no right to an attorney.

6. You have the right to an all-white English-speaking jury.

7. Political refugees are welcome to stay in our detention centers before deportation.

8. Students will be indoctrinated with religion, prayer will be enforced.

9. You and your children can and will be strip-searched at any time.

10. White votes count for more.

11. Speak up and speak clearly -- we're always listening.

12. If you have AIDS you have the right to be discriminated against.

13. Prisoners have the right to be beaten.

14. Employers have the right to discriminate without fear of lawsuits.

Have a Good Day!


Footnotes:

All of the above "commandments" have been advocated in some manner or form by Judge Samuel J. Alito -- as a Justice Department applicant, government official or sitting judge. While at present, much of what he has advocated has of yet failed in the courts, Alito on the Supreme Court will open the door that his views will become the new standard for law in the United States.

1.Alito explained in a 1985 job application to the Justice Department that he believed "very strongly" that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" and that he was "proud" to help advance that position in the Justice Department. His efforts included a proposed strategy that aimed for the "eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade (1973), and in the meantime, of mitigating its effects."

2.Alito upheld a Pennsylvania law requiring a women in certain circumstance to notify her husband before obtaining an abortion. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992).

3.In a 1984 memo Alito authored as an assistant Solicitor General in the Justice Department, he maintained that it was constitutional for a Tennessee police officer to shoot in the back and kill an unarmed 15 year old boy suspected of stealing $10 worth of money and jewelry. Alito wrote, "societal order would quickly break down" if suspects could force officers to choose between killing them and letting them go. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Tennessee law authorizing the shooting. ( Tennessee v. Garner 1985)

4. In a brief opposing an affirmative action plan, Alito obscenely equated affirmative action with slavery, claiming it could teach students "that one hundred and twenty years after the end of slavery government may still advance some and suppress others not as individuals but because of the color of their skin." On the bench, in another case, Alito tried to keep a worker's claim of race discrimination from being heard by the jury. ( Bray v. Marriott Hotel 1997)

Most revealing, in what amounts to using the KKK for a job reference, Alito prominently highlighted his membership in "Concerned Alumni of Princeton" in a 1985 application for a Justice Department promotion. The organization was created in 1972 to protect the then white male character of the Princeton student body. An essay entitled "In Defense of Elitism" in the November 1983 issue of the group's publication, Prospect, began "People nowadays just don't seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children." Alito now reportedly fails to remember anything about his membership in CAP.

5.In his 1985 Justice Department application, Alito stated that while in college, "I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment." Two central Warren Court rulings on criminal procure established the "right to remain silent" when questioned by police (Miranda), and the "right to an attorney" even when you can not afford one (Gideon).

6.Alito disagreed when seven judges tossed out a criminal verdict because of racial discrimination during jury selection, by a prosecutor who had struck all potential Black jurors from other death penalty trials occurring in the jurisdiction that year. The majority opinion said Alito's reasons "minimized the history of discrimination against prospective black jurors and black defendants." That came in response to Alito's trivializing discrimination by comparing the statistical evidence concerning Black jurors to the number of left-handed U.S. presidents, a statement that in essence dismissed the " Batson " ruling that made discrimination in jury selection illegal. ( Riley v Taylor 2001)

7.Alito upheld the denial of asylum to a member of a Guinean political opposition group who's father was murdered by the Guinean military, his home burned to ground and wife beaten and raped - saying there wasn't enough evidence to "second guess" the immigration department's ruling. ( Dia v Ashcroft 2003) In another case, an Iranian woman gave a number of examples of the consequences women face for non-compliance with Iranian gender-specific laws -- imprisonment if caught in public without the traditional Islamic veil, the routine penalty of 74 lashes, as well as rape or death. Alito denied the Iranian woman's asylum claim, stating that she failed to show how compliance with Iran's laws and social norms would be "tantamount to persecution" or that she would refuse to conform even if the consequences were severe. ( Fatin v. INS 1993)

8. Alito stated opposition to the Warren Court (see #5) including the ruling that struck down what the court saw as coercive prayer in school (Establishment Clause). On the bench, Judge Alito argued that a public school board could get around an earlier Supreme Court ruling, which barred school-approved, clergy-led prayers at graduation ceremonies, by allowing students to approve student-led prayers at graduation ceremonies, a position later ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. ( ACLU of New Jersey v. Black Horse Pike Regional Board of Education 1996)

In another ruling, Alito held that a school board's anti-harassment policy restricted the free speech rights of Christian students to speak out against homosexuality. ( Saxe v. State College Area School District 1999) Alito also ruled against local school officials, who had refused to permit representatives of Child Evangelism to hand out materials and staff a table at back-to-school nights and other events on school grounds because that would violate the Establishment Clause. The group describes itself as a

"'Bible-centered, worldwide organization composed of born-again believers whose purpose is to evangelize boys and girls with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and to establish (disciple) them in the Word of God and in a local church for Christian living.'" ( Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey, Inc. v. Stafford Township School District 2004)

9.In a dissenting opinion, Alito upheld the strip search of a mother and her 10 year old daughter. Neither were suspects or named in the search warrant. ( Doe v Groody 2004) Alito also voted, in another case, to prevent a jury from hearing evidence that a police supervisor illegally allowed his officers to handcuff and search a woman and her teenage children at gunpoint. They had simply walked up to her oldest son's home, which was being raided by police. ( Baker v. Monroe Township 1995)

10.Alito's opposition to the Warren Court's "reapportionment" decision puts him in opposition to decisions in 1962 and 1964 that ruled against the practice where Congressional and Senate districts were fixed so that small numbers of mainly conservative, often rural white voters had their own districts, while much larger numbers of people (usually in urban areas) were crammed into other districts - essentially giving people in these conservative, rural districts more votes per person. These rigged, white-get-more-votes congressional districts were part of denying Black people the right to vote. On the bench, Alito has ruled against minority voters who claimed that a Delaware school board voting plan illegally diluted their voting strength. ( Jenkins v. Manning 1994)

11.While at the justice department, Alito agreed that Executive Branch officials should be absolutely immune from claims concerning illegal domestic wiretapping. While in the Solicitor General's office, Alito argued (unsuccessfully at the time) in a Supreme Court brief that Cabinet officials who authorized illegal wiretaps to gather intelligence about "possible terrorist activities" were entitled to absolute immunity from any legal liability. ( Mitchell v Forsyth, 472 U.S 5111985)

12. In 1986, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General Alito helped draft the Office of Legal Counsel's "Cooper Opinion," which concluded that the prohibition against discrimination against persons with disabilities in any federally funded program did NOT apply to people with AIDS. They could be excluded and fired because of an employer's "fear of contagion whether reasonable or not"

13.Alito threw out a verdict and $300,000 judgement against prison guards who viciously beat inmate Raymond Pryer, breaking his leg in two places, breaking both hands, splitting his lips, swelling his eye, leaving welts on his face and bruises over his entire body and causing him to urinate blood. ( Pryer v C.O. 3.Slavic 2001)

14.Alito upheld judgement for the company in an age-discrimination suit brought by a former executive who was first denied a promotion and then later fired by a company president who openly asked the executive "if you are getting too old for the job." ( Keller v. ORIX Credit Alliance 1997)

YIKES - that’s one very scary man! frown

Yes, he is.

Rob

Obviously, with the close proximity of these hearings to Chief Justice John Roberts' comparisons are inevitable, and the really important one, the one that stands out above all others is Roberts has much better hair.

Yeah, if he's confirmed he will be a disaster for fair minded Americans for years to come. Apparantly though, this is what the electorate wanted so...we go backwards. I'm still keeping Canada in mind if need be.

Another scare tactic posted by some mindless idiot on Craig's list who obviously didn't (a) read the cases referenced, and ( didn't bother to learn the case history of any rulings.

A majority of Americans polled support his confirmation (something irrelevant anyway), and the "gold standard" (Democrats' exact wording) by which a nominee is evaluated, the ABA rating, gave Alito the highest possible rating, and unanimous at that.

When all is said and done, this all comes down to one simple question: Judge Alito, will you continue to support a woman's "right" to kill her baby?

NOTHING else matters in the scheme of things, but why the Left is SO fixated on being able to legally kill babies has me continually scratching my head.

Bullshit MIB, you know there's so much more to it than just abortion. We are about to lose quite a few more rights and protections.

[ January 10, 2006, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: gobar ]

I'm probably much more liberal than most Americans, but I think Alito ought to be confirmed. I don't agree with his apparent political positions, but Bush won the election and Alito clearly has the academic and work bona fides. Liberals need to put more effort into winning elections that matter than in being obstructionists.

I don't know what's funnier, your actually believing what you wrote or the left-wingers' ridiculous rants on Alito.

Face it: this is ALL about baby-killing. Everything else is irrelevant. Period. It always has, always will. Perhaps it's time you faced reality. Heck, a simple perusal through the myriad of comments by the uber-left reveals the typical Roe-related diatribes.

It's amazing how perhaps the worst decision in the history of SCOTUS can continue to be so precious to the Left.
---------------------

BTW, aquaman, I commend you for your logic and fairness.

Uh, ya, cause I care so much about an abortion... Oh well, you get what you pay for.

In this morning's hearings Alito said that he beleives that there is a right to privacy.

Now all we need to find out is if he thinks it applies to everyone, or if gays don't count cuz they're not really people.

[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE]
It's amazing how perhaps the worst decision in the history of SCOTUS can continue to be so precious to the Left. [/quote]Worse decision by whose opinion? By a gay man, who supports the worse president in America's history?

Aquaman, you are right, democrats have to learn how to win elections, or find a way to cheat like Bush did the first time around, but just because our guy isn't sitting in the oval office, should we just roll over and die, and give an obvious right-wing fanatic an easy pass to sit on the Supreme Court?

The big question to me in addition to the right of privacy, is how he feels about use or abuse of Preisdential power and maybe even if its against the law to do what Shrub did in so far as the wiretaps without warrants...thats what I want to hear answered.

Some funny stuff from the Left in yesterday's opening statements.

First of all, Senator Leahy should be happy. Senator Leahy is making an opening statement that began: “The challenge for Judge Alito is to demonstrate he'll protect the rights and liberties of all Americans against overreaching government power.” If Sen. Leahy really is interested in this, and an “independent federal judiciary,” about which he is now speaking, then he can't find a better nominee than Judge Alito. He has a 15 year record of restraining himself as a circuit judge from the temptation to make policy from the bench that reflects his, or anyone else's, views. He has ruled, based on the written Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, that statutes cannot stand when congress oversteps its constitutional authority. Most important for Leahy, under Judge Alito's decisionmaking, Americans will retain the power to govern themselves rather than to be governed by unelected judges. If Sen. Leahy honestly reflects on this, he should be very happy with Judge Alito.

And Kennedy? HOW is this man still senator? A half-drunken, babbling, ex-killer (hello, Mary Jo Kopechne) of an idiot, Kennedy falsely alleges that Alito has expressed support for an "all-powerful executive branch," tries to link Alito to controversy over NSA surveillance. Cites "well respected expert Cass Sunstein" for charge that Alito doesn't give individual citizens a fair shake. Inaccurately summarizes Alito's 1985 job essay. Repeats highly dubious claim that Alito now says that he was just applying for a job. And, then, of course the silly Vanguard charge.

The misstatements came too fast for me to keep track of all of them. Of course, I found it amusing that he referred to the nominee as "Judge Aliata." :confused:

But the gloves are off. That did not last long. He's talking about the administration allegedly “sponsoring torture” and “spying on its citizens” and saying perhaps Pres. Bush has nominated Judge Alito because he's a “cheerleader for an imperial presidency.” Plus the usual stuff about how he expects judges to be cheerleaders for “reproductive freedom.” Mischaracterizing Judge Alito's record on race. Baldly misstating the facts. And he's still has the chutzpah--or something--to attack Judge Alito's “ethics” for ruling in the Vanguard case, even though every reputable legal ethicist has dismissed this as bunk and the ABA conducted an ethical review of Judge Alito and gave him its highest rating.

And Biden...Are these the longest ten minutes in human history?

An endless gurgling stream of cliches. National Review gets a mention for (along with others cited in his 1985 job essay) supposedly maintaining that there is no right of privacy in the Constitution.

Invokes supposed intent of Founders on how confirmation hearings should proceed, while offering confused rejection of originalism.

And Feinstein...Feinstein says Alito's appointment would be pivotal because he's replacing O'Connor, then attacks Court's opinions on congressional power. Of course, she fails to note that O'Connor was in the majority in all the opinions Feinstein complains about.

In discussing Alito's Rybar dissent, Feinstein confuses the Commerce Clause with the 2nd Amendment.

Tries to link reapportionment issue to Brown v. Board. Wink, wink.

Laundry list of concerns.

Senator Sessions nicely makes clear that a justice's oath is to uphold the Constitution, not his predecessor's mistaken understanding of it, even if that mistaken understanding is "super-duper precedent".

Presents cases refuting Kennedy's charges on race rulings.

And Schumer...Schumer, too, is hiding behind the skirts of Harriet Miers and Justice O'Connor.

Thinks it's the role of justices to "define our freedom". So much for any role left to representative democracy.

Schumer says that Alito has a "triply high burden". But given that he voted against Roberts and has repeatedly distorted Alito's record, there's no point in trying to clear the Schumer hurdle.

And perhaps the biggest piece of crap in the Senate, a genuine stupid person--Senator Durbin of Illinois (on behalf of this state's 11 million people, I apologize for this idiot)...Virtually every sentence in Durbin's statement contains what might charitably be called a serious misstatement. He doesn't understand the "unitary executive". He doesn't understand that the plaintiff in Griswold had to work hard to get himself fined. He doesn't understand that judicial expansion of "freedom" necessarily limits American citizens' ability to define what genuine freedoms are. Now he's linking Alito to the mine tragedy in West Virginia. It would take 25 pages to respond to all his distortions.

His insincere assertions of sincerity are stomach-churning.

Sen. Dick Durbin is making an impassioned speech about letting women make the “agonizing decision” whether to have an abortion: “we should be very careful we don't make that a crime except in the most extreme circumstances.”

Hmmm....What might “extreme circumstances” be? Maybe: partially delivering a late term, viable baby who can feel pain, so that her head is outside her mother's body, then puncturing her skull with blunt scissors and vacuuming her brains out?

Durbin addressed the Kennedy executive power issue. Here's the way Durbin tries to make the same claim as Kennedy. "As a government lawyer, you pushed a policy of legislative construction designed to make congressional intent secondary to presidential intent. You wrote that 'the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation.'"

This is grossly misleading. Alito didn’t say or imply that congressional intent should be “secondary.” Durbin is distorting the meaning of the quote he uses. Alito was arguing that presidents should issue “signing statements” offering their interpretation of the laws they sign. In context, it is clear that those statements would not be “the last word” in the sense of being binding on anyone else—there is no suggestion that the courts would have to consider the president’s interpretation as more authoritative than the interpretations of legislators, or even that the courts should so consider it.

All Alito said was that the signing statement would be “the last word” only in that it would (necessarily) come after the legislative history in time. Moreover, he is not talking about this feature of the signing statements as a reason to do them—he is saying that a disadvantage of them is that congressmen will be unhappy that the president will get to put in a word after they can. The words preceding the quote Durbin uses are "Congress is likely to resent the fact that. . ."

It seems clear that Senator Durbin can’t be trusted. On anything. Period.

Here’s an excerpt from his opening statement on Alito’s supposed views on presidential power:

But Alito wasn’t pushing any “policy of legislative construction”. His memo was exploring the pros and cons of a proposal to enhance the use of presidential signing statements. The proposal was expressly designed to ensure that, “for courts and litigants,” “the President’s understanding of the bill [he signed into law] should be just as important as that of Congress.” So Durbin’s claim that it was designed to make congressional ntent “secondary” is also false.

But it gets much worse. The language that Durbin purports to quote is the tail end of a sentence that presents an argument against the enhanced use of presidential signing statements: “In addition, and perhaps most important, Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation.” In other words, Durbin clipped the dependent clause to give Alito’s words an entirely different meaning from what they actually bore.

Sleazy. Dishonest. Exquisitely Durbinesque.

And Senator Brownback...Brownback takes on the silly "balance" argument (i.e., that it's somehow significant that Alito is replacing O'Connor). As he points out, Dems didn't seem concerned about the effect on balance when Ruth Bader Ginsburg replaced Byron White.

Also squarely addresses both the patent wrongness of Roe and its many consequences, such as the widespread killing of unborn children diagnosed with Down's syndrome.

By many constitutional scholars, of whom many themselves are admittedly \"pro-choice.\" One does not have to be pro-life to agree that Roe was simply put, a horrible, anti-constitutional decision.

For example:

The very fact, BTW, that it is so contentious a political issue should be enough to convince people it is not something in which a federal court should remotely be involved. It belongs in the forum of the People, if anything.

[ January 11, 2006, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE]The very fact, BTW, that it is so contentious a political issue should be enough to convince people it is not something in which a federal court should remotely be involved. It belongs in the forum of the People, if anything. [/quote]Putting the issue in the forum of the People:

Fifty-six percent of those polled said that they would not support the nomination if they were convinced during the hearings that Alito would overturn the landmark abortion ruling, Roe v. Wade, that guaranteed the right to an abortion

Link

Sen. Leahy, disappointingly, chose to spend a big chunk of his first 30-minute round of questioning Judge Alito demagoguing the Doe v. Groody case, in which Judge Alito wrote a dissent saying that police officers should not have been sued by a drug dealer for their search of his 10 year-old daughter during a search of his home.

As Sen. Leahy well knows, the case turned on a technical legal question of whether a police affidavit was incorporated into a search warrant. As he also knows, drug dealers frequently hide drugs on children, and searching the children protects them from such abuse. As he also knows, in the Groody case, the girl was searched in private by a female officer.

But Leahy once again misrepesented the Groody case, ignored Judge Alito's answers, and made obnoxious demagoguing speeches politicizing legal questions.

Perhaps millerbeach should have done his homework before posting emotionally-charged myths.

[quote]Di:
[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE]The very fact, BTW, that it is so contentious a political issue should be enough to convince people it is not something in which a federal court should remotely be involved. It belongs in the forum of the People, if anything. [/quote]Putting the issue in the forum of the People:

Fifty-six percent of those polled said that they would not support the nomination if they were convinced during the hearings that Alito would overturn the landmark abortion ruling, Roe v. Wade, that guaranteed the right to an abortion

Link [/quote]So I guess you're saying the People are too stupid to debate it on their own and decide for themselves? How sad. And typical of the Left: "We know what's best for everyone."

Who gives a flaming mouse's patootie what poll respondents think about issues that they themselves should be handling? Are they too cowardly to discuss and debate matters that are their responsibility in the first place?

Capital punishment works the same way. It's currently an issue hotly debated, often differently, in the 50 states that make up this great nation. Should we have SCOTUS (once again) take this issue away from the states, even though the Constitution does address--and permit--the death penalty?

as judge judy would say, "don't tell me what he knows." how does anyone here know senator leahy is so well schooled on the legal points these cases hinged upon? don't tell me what senator leahy knows.

and i thought, per mib's earlier post, alito's whole confirmation was going to hinge on his views on roe v. wade. roe v. wade is looking more and more like a rock solid stare decisis situation -- affirmed, however badly, and re-affirmed. game. set. match.

although, it could be said r v. w falls under the umbrella of personal rights, privacy if you would, that seem to be dominating the questioning at the moment, thanks to the president's questionable "i can do anything in a time of war" view of his presidential powers, and that is one area where the left and the right agree -- less government is better government. it is alito's opinions in this area, and executive priviledge, that could be troubling for him.

he refuses to commit whether the president has the power to ignore the law. he states that no one is above the law, and the president has an obligation to enforce the law. but when asked if the president could take action outside clearly defined limits of a constitutionally upheld law, he demurs, that he'd want to know the specifics of the case. 99% of the time that would be the appropriate answer. this is in the realm of the other 1%.

Then why is Roe the Democrat's #1 absolute, top priority issue, hmmm...? If it's so firm in precedence, which it obviously is not, then there should be nothing for the Democrats to worry about, right? The very fact that it has absolutely no basis in the Constitution and should be overturned is what truly scares the Dems.

The game is far from over. Keep playing.

Umm, I'm pretty sure the Right is just as eager to decide what is best for everyone. It seems to be particularly the Religious Right that can't stop itself from telling this gay man what is best for me. They can't leave well enough alone and let me decide for myself...oh no, I'm not complete to them unless I grab myself a little Jesus, marry a good woman, and conceive a few brats. (Forgive me while I get sick at my stomach visualizing that life.)

The difference to me is in the actions of our 2 political parties. For the most part, the Dems want to give more individual rights to others, while the Repubs are more than happy taking rights away from women, gays, minorities, etc...

Both groups have plenty of faults, but I'll take freedoms over oppression every time.

Oh, and you can't say I'm making a sweeping generalization of the Republican Party, when it has more than sold its soul to the Falwells and Robertsons...

Now you've got me laughing.

gobar: agreed! wink

That's too funny! It's amazing you believe this ridiculous falsehood. Year after year the Left attempts to deny people from doing what they've been doing for decades, if not centuries. I have much distaste for the self-righteous right-wingers, but I am more disgusted by the Party that professes to be tolerant and accepting when they are FAR more INtolerant and UNaccepting than their counterpart. Frickin' hypocrites!

Anyway, back to Alito...he does have worse hair than does C.J. Roberts.

The funny thing is with this guy's "the president should be the last word on everything and can do no wrong" I wonder how his tune will change when we get the office in 2008. And after this republican/Abramoff scandal fixes congress in 2006 it will be interesting.

[ January 10, 2006, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: gobar ]

MIB is C J Roberts the Roberts we just went through this with? If so he's kinda hot and when that little boy of his grows up and comes out of the closet (such a little dancer) we may have an ally.

Nope, my position is that liberals and/or Democrats (however you want to define the non-right wing/non-GOP) has to learn how to fight when it counts. It counted in November, 2004.

Is standing between Alito and a seat on the Court the right fight at the right time? Well, just look at what MIB did (and you all fell for it): he made Alito all about abortion and you all jumped into the battle not realizing that conservatives have (for the most part) won the popular opinion war on abortion. This is the same way Alito will play out on the national stage. The Democrats will go ape-sh*t because of abortion, Kate Michaelman (sp) will be all shrill on "Hardball" and the Republicans will look rational and reasonable simply saying "Bush has the Constitutional right to his choice and there isn't a man or woman alive who can honestly say that Judge Alito isn't supremely qualified."

Are there other bases for objecting to Alito? Probably. His views on separation of powers, on checks and balances, on executive privilege, on an independent judiciary and, yes, on privacy rights. But if we keep basing our fights on Roe, we will lose. Every time.

Indeed, off topic, but the headlines I am reading on the web indicate Americans are ready to "clean house" as it relates to Congress, and the news for the Dems. is generally good. Whats funny though, is when Americans are asked about their own representative, and then they are like, " oh, he is she is doing just fine!!

Don't be so presumptuous to say that Congress will change much come November, considering both Democrats and Republicans (more of the latter since they're obviously in control) are tied to Abramoff. BTW, I still maintain, rather disappointingly, that only a handful of Members of Congress will be in trouble in this scandal. Call it just a sixth sense, but I do not believe much is going to come of it, which should NOT be construed as excusing the actions of anyone who did something wrong.

[ January 10, 2006, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Aquaman I think both you and MIB are wrong about the abortion thing. People are caring more about the executive branch's seeming unbridled power grab right now and Alito's complicity if appointed not to mention you are wrong about the religious right's winning the abortion battle in the first place. The majority of Americans don't want Roe overturned and think a woman should have a say in what her future holds for her. Personally I'm most interested in stopping the return to puritanical ways, I'm sick of being told I'm somehow not as good as the next guy cause I happen to love a man, I'm sick of the assault on science, trying to get me to believe in some manufactured deity, and the demonization of the marginal in society, be they immigrants or blacks or unwed mothers. Not that blocking Alito will have much impact on these concerns but it can't hurt.

[ January 10, 2006, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: gobar ]

If his kid turns out to be gay, the kid can blame his parents. Who makes their son wear that ridiculous-looking outfit he wore when his daddy was introduced to the public last summer?

But we're referring to the Democrats and their holy sacrament of abortion. The People don't vote on SCOTUS appointments; the Senators do, and it is the liberal ones, along with the ultra-left kooks, who are all panicking over baby-killing. That's all that matters to them.

MIB, I certainly didn't mean you, I meant Alito. I also have to say the republicans wish the Dems only cared about abortion, but we care about many other things as well and these hearings are showing that. There is alot to wonder about with this guy.

And MIB, I want all of congress changed the repubs and the dems, they all suck!!! I think there will be a big shake-up.

[ January 10, 2006, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: gobar ]

Ever since the Thomas hearings, it's important to have "barring any suprises" as a disclaimer in any discussion of the confirmation process.

So, barring any suprises, Alito will be confirmed. I, like many left of center, recognize this is the reality of losing elections. I think this and the Roberts nomination demonstrate the need to win elections and perhaps will give more people on the fence pause to realize that what they like about Republicans may very well be eclipsed by what they dislike about them in the next few elections.

However, this does nothing to minimize the right and responsibility of the left to say they're not happy about this. I don't think a court that includes Samuel Alito will be good for appellants that do not conform to the right's political agenda. A court that includes Breyer and Ginsburg isn't all that good for appellants that do not conform to the left's political agenda. As much as we tout the "independent judiciary" it is at a certain basic level a farce, justices like David Souter and Anthony Kennedy notwithstanding.

I think you're wrong about the executive power issue. I think Bush has 99% support among Republicans for NSA spying and a decent enough number among Independents. 50% of Americans don't believe Bush broke the FISA law when he so clearly did:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/Janua...v%20Liberty.htm

I will agree that *more* Americans are concerned about this than in the recent past, but then no one was concerned about this a year ago, so that's not a huge claim.

I don't think too many people fully understand the Roe decision, which essentially allowed for unfettered access to abortion. In popular opinion polls, the majority of the public wants abortion to remain legal, *however*, the majority also sees no problem with putting restrictions on abortion (waiting periods, parental/spousal approval, allowing picketing of clinics or doctors' homes, forcing doctors to tell abortion-seekers about alternatives to abortion, etc.). Most of these undermine the basis of Roe, yet in opinion polls most Americans are fine with such restrictions. The truth is, most Americans don't like abortion (even supporters of choice can't say they're happy when someone gets an abortion), and the GOP knows this. They know how to capitalize on it. And as long as we keep fighting for Roe (unfettered access), we will be forever on the shorter end of public opinion.

Likewise, I think the US is stuck in 1959 whereas the rest of the western world is moving forward. And I agree that blocking Alito will have little impact on any of our shared concerns, other than to perpetuate the image of Democrats as whiney losers who are always on the wrong side of public opinion polls.

[ January 10, 2006, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: aquaman ]

Blocking Alito, that too is funny. I'm just voicing my concerns I realize the horse is already dead. I now just hope Canada escapes our fate.

Alito very well can be blocked. His confirmation is not a done deal. His record is sufficiently extreme enough that several of the moderate or moderate-right Republicans, including ones who are in political danger, like Mike DeWine, just may not vote for him. He's out of the mainstream, as is his lawbreaking nominator, and he ought not be confirmed.

MIB, good work debunking the serial misrepresentations from the lefties here; keep on keepin' on!

You're right about your own Dick Durbin: DUMB! EMKennedy is just plain obnoxious, the womanslaughtering old drunkard; Biden remains as tired as ever; and Schumer is wearing thin after his slightly more reasonable performance in the Roberts hearings. Feingold and Feinstein are both more feisty, if not more polished, this time around, and I'm looking forward to their second round with Alito. Specter got it right: some of these "opening statements" sounded more like indictments! Frankly, I'd like to see Alito - or any other nominee ever subjected to such tactics, whoever the source - rise from his chair and advise the chairman that he'll return to the hearings once proper order and decorum are restored. Clarence Thomas came close to doing so in his examination years ago, but, regrettably, didn't.

Correct me if I'm wrong, MIB,* but in both search cases, what most people don't understand is that Alito's decisions came in the context of ruling on whether the cops were entitled to qualified immunity in the plaintiffs' subsequent civil suits for damages. Thus, all his dissent did was to argue that the police should not have been subjected to civil liability for damages, as they eventually were by virtue of the majority opinion in Doe. That is a world apart from condoning their conduct and apparently beyond the ken of Craigslist to comprehend. What's next, Wikipedia as controlling authority?

Speaking of uncommon law, I definitely liked Alito's clear statement that he would not find foreign precedents useful in anything other than politically scientific pipedreams. To rely upon outside sources of law like the civil system, whose foundations and practice are fundamentally different from our own, is ill-advised and smacks of collegiate "International House" naivete. We've got our own common law precedents and traditions to rely on, and remain the envy of the world's other legal systems because of it.
_____
*If Sen. Sessions can lob softballs, so can I. :cool:

This was one of the best things I heard him say. We are embarking on a very dangerous path if SCOTUS were to rely on international law or other countries' trends when ruling on issues involving our Constitution. Furthermore, if something is not present in the Constitution, there is a clear and definitive direction in which to turn, and that's NOT international laws or trends.

It is the states.

Oh! How I miss the 9th and 10th Amendments! frown

Such as?

Penn, that question might be better directed to Jose Pedillo, or perhaps the citizens of the United States of America whom were wire-tapped without their knowledge. MIB, I realize you may miss the 9th and 10th Amendments, I miss the 4th. By the way, what did druggie Rush Blowhard have to say about all of this? Was he too busy popping oxycontin to comment?

Senator Womanslaughter cracks me up. When harping on wiretapping and all, I got to thinking that maybe Alito would find a way to mention that Senator Kennedy's brothers trampled the civil liberties of American citizens far more thoroughly than anything the Bush administration has even been accused of. He could just casually mention the wiretapping of Martin Luther King or perhaps Bobby's work for Joe McCarthy. It would be great fun, but probably a strategic error.

And Teddy lecturing Alito on morals? Kennedy thinks there may be a moral problem with Samuel Alito's Vanguard account. Being lectured on moral matters by Teddy Kennedy is like getting childcare tips from Andrea Yates. (Note: For those who don't recall, Yates is the Texas woman who murdered her children.)

"Give Senator Kennedy two more minutes!" so said Arlen Specter about the time clock at the hearings. Funny. Just think if Teddy had taken two more minutes to try and rescue Mary Jo Kopechne.

Does Joe Biden ever shut up? I swear the man's in love with his own voice. Even Senator Leahy can't take him anymore:


Gots to stop dat der Alito guy...

"To Convince Enough Senators That Alito Is Wrong For Our Country, We Are Setting A Goal Of Gathering 500,000 Petition Signatures To Deliver To The Senate." (National Abortion Rights Action League Email, "Just 5 Days Left!" 12/5/05)

NARAL's Result:

"With The Help Of More Than 50 Volunteers We Were Able To ... Enter 2,000 Signatures Into Our Activist Database From The 'Oppose Alito'
Petition Drive ..." (NARAL Email, "Thanks For Your Hard Work!" 1/10/06). Hey, they were only 498,000 signatures short. Thanks for playing!

Senator Flipper (a name given to Dick Durbin by the late left-wing Sun-Times columnist Steve Neal) is at it again. Durbin has only been talking a few minutes, and already he is utterly mischaracterizing Judge Alito's testimony from yesterday. Durbin just summarized Judge Alito's testimony on numerous issues as having changed his views since his days as a lawyer for the Reagan administration. False. Judge Alito has not repudiated any views or statements he made in the past. He has simply put them in context: he has explained the critical difference between being a lawyer-advocate and being a judge. Not surprising that Durbin does not understand this, or is willfully ignoring it. He and other liberals want and expect judges to be advocates. Their desire is at odds with Constitution, and with Judge Alito's long service as an impartial and neutral judge.

BTW, Durbin's blaming the W.V. mine tragedy on Alito was a cheap shot that called to mind how a few months ago, the Dems were trying to wrap Hurricane Katrina around the neck of Chief Justice Roberts. Here they go again. Nauseating.

Hasn't the US Supreme Court referred to foreign law numerous times since its founding? I mean, this seems to be a new bugaboo of the Right, but the fact is that our courts have always looked at, and in some cases taken into account, foreign law and precedents, and not just treaties into which the US has entered.

Second, foreign law played a role in Kennedy's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, didn't it? Is there ONE gay or bisexual person on this list that disagrees with this decision? Now, you might argue that it wasn't needed in what I believe was a correct ruling (and which Republican Senator Tom Coburn decried just a day or two ago as problematic), but didn't Anthony Kennedy use it as probative in his argument? Is foreign law (or as you label it, "uncommon law," always a problem, especially if the bedrock of the decision rests in US legal tradition and precedents)?

Someone mentioned that Kennedy referred to Alito as "Alioto." If it's calling people out of their names that's the issue, didn't right-winger John Cornyn blurt out "Scalito"? Didn't Christie Todd Whitman say that he was "President Alito"? It's not only Kennedy who makes verbal gaffes.

Alito's blatant lie about the CAP situation is just bizarre. I mean, he knows full well what that organization stood for. He knows what it meant to list CAP on his resume for members of the Raygun administration. Even Bill Frist, for Chrissakes, denounced this bizarre outfit. Yet Alito just keeps making ridiculous statements about ROTC (even though Princeton brought it back the year AFTER he graduated, in 1973) and claiming he can't remember. Yeah, right.

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

Anything to defend your beloved W, huh? Did FISA exist when Bobby Kennedy was AG or Hoover was the FBI director? Did it? When were the laws enacted and then amended, "judge"? You can be horribly ahistorical at times but this is just ridiculous. But why go back to the Kennedy-Johnson era? Let's look at the Republican president who followed them, Richard Nixon? He's the model that W is trying to outdo.

You can have W's Stalinistic warantless domestic wiretapping, use of WMD teams to search the premises of peace groups, threats against the valid criticism of his political opposition, propaganda campaigns and Potemkin-style rallies, lies and charades to launching wars, habeas corpus-less jailing of "enemy combatants," dismissal of Congress's prerogatives as the "unitary executive," treaty-violating use of extraordinary renditions and brutal torture, and use of US tax dollars to bankroll the likes of Ahmed Chalabi and other convicted felons, and so on. Take it and him and keep them both!

[ January 11, 2006, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

So you're excusing wire-tapping of the Rev. King because, as you say, there wasn't a FISA law? I guess the 4th Amendment didn't apply in the Kennedy cases.

Oh! The hypocrisy!

Come on! You and your ilk fall over yourselves running here making note of every misstatement Bush or other conservative leader makes.

Oh! The hypocrisy II!

If you're making a big deal out of someone involvement in some trivial student club--I suppose the Lil Rascals involvement in the He-man Women Hater's Club disqualified them from future political appointments--then you are truly grasping for straws.

But since you mentioned Frist, a quote from him: “As a Princeton alumnus, I had concerns about CAP, but I have no concerns about Judge Alito's credibility, integrity and his commitment to protecting the equal rights of all Americans. Judge Alito has condemned discrimination, and his record of more than 15 years demonstrates his commitment to equal rights for women and minorities. Old documents of a now defunct organization will not tell us more than Alito's statements and record already have. Further, the views the Democrats attribute to Alito through CAP were the views expressed by an individual member in a magazine who was not speaking for the organization – and certainly not for Judge Alito. This is another transparent attempt by the Democrats to wage an unfair smear campaign against an exceptionally qualified nominee.”

Yes, me, because the ends do not justify the means. To support an anti-constitutional decision simply because it conforms with one's preferred outcome--yours--is a dangerous path down which we must not tread. Eventually this renders our Constitution subservient to others. This is why the Left is a danger to the very foundation of our nation. To them, the Constitution is meaningless when they don't agree with it ("We must get the federal courts to change it").

I would much rather have seen an outcome arrived at via a different and more defendable route.

[ January 11, 2006, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

"Super precedent?"

"Super precedent???"

Good God! I've heard it all. If this isn't a blatant reason why Roe must fall, I don't know WHAT is.

FT, the reason I used the term "uncommon law" is because many, if not most, of the foreign laws looked to by legal internationalists - I refrained from tagging them the "Legal Internationale" wink - are based on civil law systems, which are directly inapposite to our common law traditions, practices and precedents, the last of which are almost unrecognized in civil law systems. When the two systems themselves are so distinct, if not disparate, it's very risky to rely upon their elements, especially when they don't represent the considered thoughts and enactments of Americans. See also, Article VI of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, which includes only US laws in its embrace, not foreign ones.

It's perfectly OK if Senator Womanslaughter wants to invades others' privacy, isn't it...

Kennedy: Explanations about radical group are extremely troubling. Tries to raise issue over access to William Rusher's papers at Library of Congress. Wants vote on subpoena. What a ridiculous diversionary tactic.

With no plausible factual basis bearing any connection to the hearing, Senator Kennedy wants the Judiciary Committee to issue a subpoena for the private papers of William Rusher. Although those papers are currently in the custody of the Library of Congress, they remain Rusher's papers. There is zero chance that Specter will let Kennedy pursue his silly game, but it's telling that Kennedy is so eager to invade a private citizen's right of privacy in his private papers in his attack on Alito.

David Kirkpatrick's November 27, 2005, article in the New York Times makes clear that he was given access to the Rusher records. The fact that he found nothing in them about Alito ought to put an end to this silliness. Or does Kennedy want to subpoena David Kirkpatrick?

Judging from the November 27, 2005 New York Times report, the available records don't reveal anything about Alito's connection to CAP, and it appears the only reason Democrats are paying so much attention to a minor, tangential, non-disqualifying issue is that they have not been able to make much progress in any other areas of attack against Alito. If Democrats could charge that secret papers are being withheld by Republicans, and that those secret papers might reveal a shameful episode in Alito's past, then they might be getting somewhere. But now, it appears that William Rusher has frustrated that hope by agreeing so readily to have the committee examine his papers. It looks like it's back to Vanguard.

[ January 11, 2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Is THIS the reasoning you use in court, because if so, Lord help everyone else around you! NO I'm not excusing the wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr., or Cointelpro, or any of the other horrendous things that that racist closeted scumbag J. Edgar Hoover did! You KNOW that, so why even imply it? I was making the basic case, which I'm sure you understand, that comparing Robert F. Kennedy's actions as Attorney General and J. Edgar Hoover's actions, which were NOT always approved by Kennedy and which preceded Kennedy's tenure under his brother, to any similar actions under set of laws in place SINCE 1978 is a problem.

I notice that you as always dodged my question about W. Do you think his warantless domestic wiretaps were legal? Under FISA? Under the emended law?

No, it's not \"misstatements,\" but hateful, outrageous statements or outright lies from \"Bush or some other conservative leader.\" And again, you're defending him, and them. Cheney? Robertson? Bennett? Falwell? And you're \"independent.\" Yeah, right.

But of course CAP, which wasn't some \"trivial student club,\" but an ALUMNI organization--oh, come on, MIB, you can follow basic issues better than this--Concerned ALUMNI of Princeton--started by a wealthy, influential Princeton graduate, Shelby C. Davis, Jr., the son of the former Illinois senator (no less), that was causing major PR problems for the institution. It wasn't \"trivial,\" its beliefs and ideas were antithetical to those the University professed, and given the University's history--particularly on racial issues, which were the worst in the entire Ivy League, and that is saying something--that this organization would be publicly pushing such a retrograde agenda, stated more than once in baldly racist, offensive terms, and that Alito would subscribe to it TEN YEARS AFTER GRADUATING, is quite significant. It's lost on you, but not on everybody.

As for Frist, do you seriously think he's going to criticize Alito given how utterly he's bent to the will of his master, George W? Isn't this the man who, despite his Harvard MD, claimed to have been able to diagnose a brain-dead woman via videotape? Who has espoused the notion, discredited by anyone who's taken college biology, that you could get AIDS from someone sneezing or kissing you? Come on! If he's willing to compromise his integrity and reputation so utterly just to stay in power, of course he's going to praise this nutcase. When he initially criticized CAP, he wasn't W administration marionette.

I knew you didn't agree with Lawrence v. Texas, I knew it. So it's solely methological, of course. Sheesh!

QUOTE

Eventually this renders our Constitution subservient to others. This is why the Left is a danger to the very foundation of our nation. To them, the Constitution is meaningless when they don't agree with it (\"We must get the federal courts to change it\").

Oh my God, this is just so outrageous it's laughable! What on earth do you think is going on in Washington now? To George W. & Co., "the Constitution is meaningless when they don't agree with it." They don't even give a damn about the Congress or federal courts, they just lie, pay people to shill for them, seize people from sovereign countries and torture them, hold people indefinitely without trials and use WMD inspectors ON A PEACE GROUP IN BALTIMORE, wiretap American citizens without warrants, drive up the federal deficit with the expectation that China, Japan and Saudi Arabia will keep buying dollars to bail us out, make fascistic threats against their political opponents, stage fake rallies and news events, and in innumerable other ways run amok. On top of which, they cannot even be bothered to supply the very troops they send off to their whimsical wars with BASIC UPPER BODY ARMOR THAT'S BEEN AVAILABLE FOR TWO FREAKING YEARS!!! Some of them have even threatened judges who rule in ways they disagree with if they can't get "federal courts to change" the laws to their liking. Is THIS NOT A GREATER THREAT TO OUR LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC?

[ January 11, 2006, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]