Steve,
I know the SCOTUS is important, but the death toll of American soldiers is now 2024. And according to the BBC and Reuters, we bombed another village and killed many innocent Iraqis. I'm distraught and can't even focus on Alito.
Susan, I'll be posting about the latest deaths in Iraq later in the day; trust me.
Posted by Steve Soto at October 31, 2005 08:03 AMIt's now at 2026.
Posted by Susan S at October 31, 2005 08:08 AMPardon me if I'm wrong...but don't most Evangelicals consider Catholics to be "unsaved"?
So let me get this right...the Christofreaks burned their own born-again evangelical so they could get a pope-worshipper.
Ah, the "workings" of the wingnut mind.
Posted by Saint Patrick at October 31, 2005 08:21 AMNow now...let's not use the name "Scalito"...according to the Sludge Report, it is racial offensive to Italian-Americans.
Posted by the professor at October 31, 2005 08:22 AMThe nomination is actually a good development. The Alito nomination will allow America a clear choice: do you like the rights that the Warren Court (and to a lesser extent the Burger Court) said you have, or do you want to give them back?
It really is just that simple. I salute Bush for giving us a nominee that will allow us to discuss these issues properly, instead of all this "stealth" bullshit. It is, indeed a bold move (even if its timing reeks of cowardice); I suspect it's also a bad move. We shall soon see.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 31, 2005 08:34 AMRacially insensitive?
The man is the promise borne skin, arms, and legs that Bush writ in 2000. "I promise to appoint Justices in the mold of Atonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas." [sic]
If the man is right of Scalia, or in the same mold, he damn well deserves the nickname Scalito.
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 31, 2005 08:44 AMSaint Patrick, no. They believe that Catholics are "misguided" and live by man-made laws instead of God's laws.
Posted by Judith at October 31, 2005 08:46 AMNow THIS is what we were expecting!
A far right wing, constitution-in-exile loon. You thought Scalia and Thomas voted together? Scalito will be even MORE in line with Thomas.
He will be confirmed, by a razor thin margin, as some Blue State Repubs will be forced vote against him based on his extremist record.
And that will be the end for many, many famous precedents. And our environment.
And most of our rights of the last 70 years.
Great work, American boobs.
Posted by euzoius at October 31, 2005 08:47 AMFor example, confession to a Priest is a Catholic Law or that Priest cannot marry is a man-made law. Remember eating fish on Friday was a man-made law for years.
Posted by Judith at October 31, 2005 08:49 AMI guess the far-right wing is celebrating this morning. Is there a snow balls chance in hell that Alito will be defeated?
To have civil rights is to have the power to seek and receive justice when you are not being treated equally. To be able to go to court. To be able to have your discrimination or harassment be remedied. Without those tools, promises of equality are empty. Rights without remedies are worthless.
The far Right has relentlessly sought to erode federal civil rights by supporting judges who seek to vitiate Congress' power to enact civil rights law, restrict the application of civil rights laws passed by Congress, limit people's access to courts to vindicate their rights, and refuse to recognize constitutional rights such as the right to privacy.
The heart and soul of this right-wing strategy is to stack the federal courts-from the Supreme Court to the district courts-with conservative activists. It is judicial activism at its worst: denying rights, blocking democracy.
SAMUEL ALITO
A judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Alito has a disturbing record in cases involving discrimination based on race, disability and gender. Under his judicial philosophy, victims would face near-impossible burdens to prove their discrimination. One Third Circuit majority opinion, criticizing a dissent from Alito, noted that his approach would immunize employers who had a "conscious racial bias" when hiring employees.
Alito also subscribes to a "states' rights" approach that undercuts the ability of federally elected representatives to enact laws that protect civil rights, an approach that leaves women vulnerable. For example, Alito has argued that the U.S. Congress cannot apply laws such as the Family and Medical Leave Act to state government employees, allowing state governments to deny employees such leave.
His hostility to reproductive rights is also clear. In the 1991 abortion rights case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v.Casey, Alito's dissent argued that spousal notification was constitutional, and did not place a significant burden on women. Further, the conservative LifeNews.com described his opinion in that case as "arguing for a standard that would permit virtually any restriction on abortion."
http://www.legalmomentum.org/news/ib/05_march/presletter.shtml
Posted by Judith at October 31, 2005 09:08 AMcry me a river,
and your point is?
Is there a snow balls chance in hell that Alito will be defeated?
Yes. The administration is bloodied right now. The Alito nomination will certainly invigorate their base, but if the democrats in the Senate filibuster, it's conceivable that the republicans would rather let the filibuster stand than side with the administration.
It's certainly worth a try. This is it, folks. This is the one they've been angling for over the last couple decades--a chance to replace O'Connor with a sure right-wing vote. Democrats have nothing to gain by letting this one slide (unlike with, say, Roberts).
Posted by dj moonbat at October 31, 2005 09:21 AMAfter seeing just a taste of the end-timer fundie propaganda, I can say that there is a portion of the evangelical crowd that think Catholics are little more than a cult.
I prefer to think of it like this: the evangelical crowd holds out the right hand of ecumenicalism and hides the proselytization knife in the left behind their back.
Because after all that is the main tenet of evangelicalism bringing people to a personal relationship with Jesus. The Catholic church just does not cut in that does it?
Posted by j swift at October 31, 2005 09:23 AMSusan, the point is that 26 more died and their families are grieving, but hell, in the grand scheme of things, so fucking what. It will be your bleeding heart and other bleeding hearts that will help stop this insanity.
Posted by Judith at October 31, 2005 09:23 AMdj moonbat, I sincerely hope that is the game plan.
Posted by Judith at October 31, 2005 09:29 AMReid—who is, after all, a pro-lifer—says there will be trouble for this nominee:
While Alito is expected to win praise from Bush’s allies on the right, Democrats have served notice they will fight it. Reid had warned Sunday that it would “create a lot of problems."
The beauty of this is that Reid can point to how conciliatory he was over the Miers nomination, which makes his resistance to Alito look like it's less a function of partisan politics than genuine alarm. This instead of having to beat back two nominees, since the right wing did his dirty work for him on Miers. Nice work, Harry.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 31, 2005 09:39 AMThis nomination is nothing more than a smoke screen.
Choosing Miers to the supreme court was the administration’s plan to later use her nomination as an escape goat. Can you people see it?
Right before the indictment Miers withdraw her name, the media focused some of the attention the this news.
Just few day after the indictment Bush makes the nomination. Now all main steam media are focusing all the attention to the news and neglecting the indictment.
It was all orchestrated by the administration and the media has fallen for it.
i am 55yr old catholic and thought anti catholicism died with jfk victory in 1960.... who cares what religion this fellow is ? he is eminently qualified to hold the seat..this is gonna be fun.....a real bloodbath....an old fashioned shootout.....george bush ran twice(three times if you count 2002) proclaiming that he would appoint judges who thought like scalia and thomas.. he didnt lie and was rather vocal about it...wipe awy your tears and win a damn electionand then you can pick the judges....life is tough.
Well, it would be a tad irresponsible for the press not to report a Supreme Court nomination, however cynical the timing of that nomination might be. Plus, no matter how crazy the Alito fight becomes, you can rest assured that if more indictments are handed out over the next few weeks, the press will find time for those.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 31, 2005 09:44 AMAnon:
I'm a lifelong Catholic, but I wouldn't want a court with a majority of Catholic males, and neither should you.
And a president with a 39 percent approval rating doesn't get to stack the court.
Posted by Steve Soto at October 31, 2005 09:51 AMReligious broadcaster Pat Robertson called the pick "a grand-slam home run." Gary Bauer, a conservative activist who challenged Miers nomination said, "At least now the president is having a battle with his political opponents and not with his friends." (From Yahoo News Service)
If Pat Robertson says it is "a grand-slam home run", then it is indeed a sad day for us.
Posted by Judith at October 31, 2005 09:53 AMCarlos, the same thought crossed my mind.
Posted by Judith at October 31, 2005 09:57 AMmr soto....i am the anonymous post from above...i dont see how it makes an iotas worth of difference if there are five catholics,nine catholics or zero catholics. would you bar mario cuomo from serving ? he is the catholic who went through an exercise in mental gymnastics and convoluted logic and said while personallly opposed to abortion he was not about to force in view on anyone else. that just doesnt hold up in my book.......i would bet if some putative democratic president circa 2010 decided to appoint mario there would be very few objections based upon his (weak) cathoicism. the objection to mr alioto arises from his opposition to roe v wade....i would suggest that laws regarding marriage and laws regarding abortion should be the province of the individual staes.jjj
Posted by at October 31, 2005 10:00 AMthe objection to mr alioto arises from his opposition to roe v wade
Actually, I'm more horrified that he thought it was okay for the police to strip search a ten year old girl. That's just monsterous in my mind.
Posted by ann at October 31, 2005 10:05 AMAnon:
I would be opposed to Mario Cuomo for two reasons: we already have four Catholics on the court, and he has never been on the bench.
Posted by Steve Soto at October 31, 2005 10:15 AMmr soto......why does it matter how many catholics sit on the bench.........we are worried about his views on race yrt we are concerned about his religion....seems a little ironic to me.......and this whole argument is the antithesis of what the civil rights movement circa 1960 anything was all about. to coin a phrase "the original intent" of the civil rights movement as ro obviate the differences and to be color blind. we have turned that construct on it's head and now we enumerate the religion of the judges.........and finally it would be nice if you would show due deference to the pope and at least call hime by his chosen title,pope benedict, rahter than joseph ratzenberger. that somehow ,to me, seems an attempt to belittle....and his fingerprints are so faraway from this pick that your coment there borders on the inane........jjj
Posted by at October 31, 2005 10:24 AMi apologize sincerely for my caustic characterization of your comment regarding the pope and the choice of judge alioto by mr bush...civility should guide our discussion and discourse. i was wrong for being less than civil.jjj
Posted by at October 31, 2005 10:37 AMmr soto....i am the anonymous post from above...i dont see how it makes an iotas worth of difference if there are five catholics,nine catholics or zero catholics. would you bar mario cuomo from serving ? he is the catholic who went through an exercise in mental gymnastics and convoluted logic and said while personallly opposed to abortion he was not about to force in view on anyone else.
*****
Hey asshole, those of us with brains understand that you can hold a personal view without imposing it upon others and violating their constitutional rights.
So fuck off.
Posted by Saint Patrick at October 31, 2005 12:20 PMSo my question is, is he a Bonesman? Another Yale grad in Bush's inner circle, being promoted by our most prominent Skull & Bonesman leads me to wonder if he is, in fact, a fellow Bonesman?
If so, why do we need yet another from that secret society in a seat of power? Why indeed?
Ed
saint patrick......why do you have to write that way? it is a demonstration of ignorance and a manifestation of an inability to express oneself......if i hold a personal view i want to shout it from the mountaintop and proclaim it as the truth....to suggest one can believe that abortion is deeply and morally wrong and to hold that while believing that i can support abortion on demand is nonsense.....a person who straddles the issue in that way is a sophist ,deluding himself or herself........and once again clean up your act.please. jjj
Posted by at October 31, 2005 01:05 PMSo jjj, I guess you're all for things like fundimentalist muslim states and Sharia law?
Posted by snark at October 31, 2005 01:49 PMEd, I have a list of Bonesmen and his name does not appear on the list. Interesting, nine people with the last name Cheney have been.
Posted by Judith at October 31, 2005 03:24 PMSpeaking of Skull and Bones at Yale, you should read some of the New World Order information. I guarantee you that the chill you will feel down your spine isn't because there is a draft.
Posted by Judith at October 31, 2005 03:27 PMHe was at Princeton for undergrad.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 31, 2005 03:50 PMthey are still in full battle mode,bait and switch,attack,deny,instill panic to distract whenever possible...full speed ahead,damn the torpedoes!showing up at rosa's casket for a foto op like dons from a rival gang...except the guys are paying their respects to what we call"our rights".america,get ready for a rough ride while we clean up this preznit's giant mess for the next who knows how many years.aren't we just pretending that future"elections"will mean anything?are there any areas that have not been"fixed"by these goons over the last five years?remember the chanting in NOLA..."WE NEED HELP"...and nobody came?
Posted by angel at November 1, 2005 11:17 AMThe Catholic Church gets the final say. The Vatican states that all oaths, contracts laws and obligations are void when in conflict with Church. Politicians, Judges, Lawmakers and private citizens can suffer Excommunication and the threat of eternal damnation when failing to obey the edicts of the Church. Can this
Influence the Supreme Court? History shows us that religion has had a serious affect on almost every nation. People have been tortured and put to death for not saying the mass in Latin, for printing the Bible in their own langue or for proposing scientific theory. Today the Catholic Church still reserves the right to use corporeal punishment, fines, threats and political influence whenever it sees fit. Historically they have deposed kings, brought down governments, invaded nations, put entire populations under threat of excommunication, interfered with national policies, and condemned private individuals. I’m sure the Catholic judges of the United States Supreme Court are all good people, loyal and true Americans, fair and honest, but as Catholics their first allegiance is to Rome.
For Alito the question is, under the threat of excommunication, will he still uphold the law.