The Left Coaster: Comment on Alito And Roe : A More Potent Issue Than The GOP Wants To Admit

Comments: Alito And Roe : A More Potent Issue Than The GOP Wants To Admit

I know everyone might want to concentrate Alito's pick on just Roe v. Wade. That's fine.

Others will take it to another level, especially we who have a distaste for Dobson, Pat Robertson, the rest of the Christian Reich and their relationship to bu$hco.

Posted by bbtb at November 2, 2005 11:14 AM

Don't even bother with Santorum. He's going to be a bug on a windshield after November '06.

Posted by dj moonbat at November 2, 2005 11:51 AM

I wonder if Alito supports a poll tax. This is a case from GA that is now going to the supreme court. I hope someone mentions this when he is questioned.

Posted by Ga6thDem at November 2, 2005 11:57 AM

Ga6thDem,

What is wrong with Georgia? Georgia used to be THE model state of the new south. Do the rural areas hate Atlanta so much that they go out of their way to be even more backward than South Carolina?
Progressives around here are getting to the point where we feel that time goes backward when you cross the state line going west! I used to consider moving to Georgia, not anymore.

Posted by rlp at November 2, 2005 12:20 PM

rlp,

I'll tell you what happen to GA - a bunch of damn carpetbaggers moved in and they are all republicans and they live in MacPlantations and listen to neil boortz while drinking caramel macchiatos at starbucks. Somebody please tell david brooks about this so he can write a new book.

Posted by michaelw at November 2, 2005 01:24 PM

Will someone tell Harry Reid to tell Ben Nelson that Republican Lite as practiced by Joe Lieberman is not going to work anymore?

I agree... bring out the filibuster and bring out the nuclear option... let the damn chips fall...

Posted by lefty at November 2, 2005 01:41 PM

Even Nebraska is slightly more pro choice than anti abortion. WTF. Nelson has nothing to lose by a filibuster.

And wasn't Chafee endorsed by NARAL? If he confirms Scalito he's toast.

Posted by Real Tough Cookie at November 2, 2005 01:53 PM

Why shouldn't Democratic Senators just assume that Sclito will overturn Roe. If he remains silent than we know that it is true. That way they don't have to pressure him to elaborate his his position. The White House can stonewall Congress all they want. Their position should be that he is against Woman's right to choose. If not than prove it. That's the message that should be presented in those venerable Republican districts and it is the message that should be made in the Moderate Demos district to keep them in line. Why should the Democrats do all the work.

Posted by Lanny Rhoads at November 2, 2005 02:29 PM

Lanny, excellent idea. In fact, Democrats should just go ahead and say that he is against choice for women and then let Alito prove otherwise. Frame the issue first.

Posted by Judith at November 2, 2005 02:48 PM

Lanny and Judith are right... Sen. Reid are you listening? You showed us last night you are taking the offensive... do it again... let the GOP be forced to react... just like last night...

Posted by Lefty at November 2, 2005 03:20 PM

rlp,
Mike is partially right. It is those people who moved here from other parts of the country. The funny thing is, though, they are completely clueless as to who the GOP really is. They think that they are voting for Olympia Snowe when they are really voting for Sonny Bubba Goober republicans. Hopefully, they are getting a real taste w/ Gov. Hee Haw and W, the runaway cowboy.

Posted by Ga6thDem at November 2, 2005 03:33 PM

Update on Alito. The AP is reporting that Alito in a 1971 positon paper is for the legalization of Sodomy and is in defense of privacy rights. This is a good place to start. Does he still hold those views? If he does this should scare the shit out of Dobsen and make him a frequent lunch partner of Souters.

Posted by Lanny Rhoads at November 2, 2005 03:41 PM

Senator Feingold is the critical player in the defeat of Alito. If he votes to confirm there is virtually no chance that the nomination will be rejected. Feingold is likely to vote for Alito because the judge is intelligent, experienced and he seems honest. These qualities seem to blind Feingold to the political rational for defeating the candidate. However if Feingold can be convinced to vote against the judge, there may be some hope of defeating this nomination.

Posted by pmslax at November 2, 2005 03:49 PM

Mike and Gathdem,

Thanks for the response. The Carter-Busbee progressives had devoloped a climate that was good both short term and long term, attracting out of staters looking for a better life who promptly vote to end the policies that had benefitted them. Sounds realistic and somewhat like what had happened to Florida,*sigh*, some people have to learn the hard way.

Posted by rlp at November 2, 2005 04:14 PM

The Dems in the Gang of 14, gave what they were forced to relinquish already. They don't have to go along with shit anymore. It is now that we find out the true democrats, and who the republican dems are.

Don't forget, workers rights people! This Judge is anti-worker, he doesn't even believe in the FMLA. Ladies...kiss maternity leave goodbye, your kids die...who cares, temporarily mentally ill...so what!! It's your fault, be strong, be responsible, life is not fair, buck up...all the fucked up shit these corporate ya-hoos believe in will become a reality! Veterans benefits...so you served your country, get on with your life! Social Security...quit the governmental quilt trip, SCOTUS will just rule on it!

Let's see where America stands on these issues! Reid has only started to scratch the surface of the problems facing America. If yesterday was any indication, I trust Harry!!

Posted by bbtb at November 2, 2005 04:39 PM

I like this quote:

Quote of the Week
PoliticsFrom Alito's thesis advisor at Princeton (awaiting link):
"I confess surprise that a man so dreadfully intellectually and morally
challenged as George W. Bush would want a person as intellectually gifted, independent and morally principled as Sam Alito on the bench," Murphy said.

I hope it's authentic.
However, I don't believe the phrase "morally principled" applies to Alito any more than it did to Roberts who failed to recuse himself from ruling in favor of the government in a case while he knew he was under consideration.
Alito has no problem with conflicts of interest either as long as he benefits.
Judge Participated in 2002 Vanguard Case Despite Promise to Recuse
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 1, 2005; Page A11
When Samuel A. Alito Jr. appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee 15 years ago as a nominee for the appellate bench, he promised in writing to disqualify himself from "any cases involving the Vanguard companies," a stock and mutual fund firm in which he had substantial personal investments.
That is why several Senate aides said they were wondering yesterday why Alito agreed to participate in 2002 with two other judges in an appellate case in which he ruled in Vanguard's favor, dismissing a complaint that the company had improperly seized some private accounts and blocked the owner's widow from obtaining the funds they contained.

I know Vanguard. I used to have a 401(K) with Vanguard. When I tried to roll it over, it suddenly lost one-third of its value.

Posted by Mike at November 2, 2005 05:04 PM