Skip to main content

The wingers hated Harriet Miers. It wasn't that she was a walking question mark, but that they were being muzzled. They didn't want any more stealth candidates that masked the conservative agenda. After winning the presidency and expanding their leads in both the Senate and the House, they were convinced of an ascendant conservative dogma. It was time for a coming out party, and both Roberts and Miers denied them that celebration.

Rove knew that the myth of conservative ascendancy was just that -- a myth. An America that voted for Republicans out of fear of terrorists has little appetite for domestic conservative dogma. Bush's numbers didn't start coming down because of Iraq or Miers or Katrina. They came down during Bush's "Let's Destroy Social Security" road show. Fact is, conservatives are most effective when they mask their true intentions ("healthy forrest initiative", not the "let's cut down trees initiative").

But the Right refused to accept Bush's winks and nods on Miers. They didn't just want a conservative jurist. They wanted a showcase of conservatism they could shove down the throats of the likes of us liberals and the rest of America. They wanted one of those obnoxious touchdown dances.

Now we have a true-blood conservative on tap, and this now sets up the showdown of ideas that I think we've all craved. Thanks to Miers, ideology is now absolutely open to debate, and it's now time for America to see what conservatism really looks like. Samuel Alito would:

  • Overturn Roe v. Wade. About 2/3rds of Americans would oppose overturning Roe.

  • Allow race-based discrimination and discrimination based on disabilities.

  • Opposes the Family and Medical Leave Act. In fact, he doesn't just opppose it, he struck down the law in 2000. The Supreme Court reversed his decision. For Alito, workers shouldn't be able to take 12 weeks of unpaid leave to take care of newborns or loved ones.

  • Has no problem with unauthorized strip searches.

    In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home.

    Not only is strip searches of 10-year-old girls okay, but of wives as well since they are all merely that man's chattel.

This is the tip of the iceberg -- merely his court rulings. As the usual vetting process gets underway and people research his background, his writings, his speeches, and the testimony of colleagues, we'll get an even more complete picture of the man. But it's already obvious that the nuts got exactly what they wanted -- a nut. Scalito is everything they hoped for and more.

But this is the best possible scenario for Democrats as well. We now have a vehicle upon which to showcase the differences between us and Republicans, between liberalism and conservatism. This is a golden opportunity, and one wisely denied by Bush and Rove with the Robers and Miers nominations.

This is a gift to Democrats. Katrina, massive budget deficits, and continued economic hardship have proven that Republicans can't govern. Iraq, Plame, and Osama Bin Laden have proven that Republicans can't run an effective foreign policy or protect our nation. Now Scalito, along with Bush's social security debacle, will prove to the American people that conservative ideology doesn't have their best interests at heart.

Let the debate begin.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:46 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  you forgot allowing (none)
    child evangelism into public schools.

    /sigh

    •  and allowing discrimination against gays (4.00)
      in schools as well

      In 2001, Judge Alito authored a decision in Saxe v. State that declared unconstitutional a public school district policy that prohibited harassment against students because of their sexual orientation or other characteristics.

      The policy focused on harassment that had the purpose or effect of interfering with a student's educational performance or creating and intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.

      http://www.365gay.com/...

      •  the decision itself (4.00)
        Right here.  Here's a key graf that may provoke some here:
        the Policy prohibits harassment based on personal characteristics that are not pr otected under federal law. Titles VI and IX, taken together with the other relevant federal statutes, cover only harassment based on sex, race, color, national origin, age and disability. The Policy, in contrast, is much broader, r eaching, at the extreme, a catch-all category of "other personal
        characteristics" (which, the Policy states, includes things like "clothing," "appearance," "hobbies and values," and "social skills"). Insofar as the policy attempts to prevent students from making negative comments about each others' "appearance," "clothing," and"social skills," it may be brave, futile, or merely silly. But attempting to proscribe negative comments about "values," as that term is commonly used today, is something else altogether. By prohibiting disparaging speech directed at a person's "values," the Policy strikes at the heart of moral and political discourse--the lifeblood of constitutional self government (and democratic education) and the core concern of the First Amendment. That speech about "values" may offend is not cause for its prohibition, but rather the reason for its protection: "a principal `function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.' "  No court or legislature has ever suggested that unwelcome speech directed at another's "values" may be prohibited under the rubric of anti-discrimination.

        Frankly, I think this case is a close call; I like the First Amendment.
        •  yes but. (4.00)
          It's odd this is the only time in a school setting that conservative embrace a Student's civil rights  as trumping school policy.  In every other case it's gone the other way .   Censorship of school newspapers?  Fine.  Random Drug tests of HS athletes?  No problems there.  Random searchs of lockers and students?   Hunky-dory.  School administrators forbidding poltical expression?  Okay by them.  Suspending a kid for holding a Coke while being forced to appear in a Pepsi ad?  Rights? What Rights?

          But  suddenly when its protecting gays from hate speech and bullying, then  they suddenly remember kids have rights too.  Suspicious to say the least.

          Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

          by Magorn on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:14:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Interesting Point (none)
            If there's a particular hypocrisy regarding Alito here -- and let's find out -- that would be worth focusing on.
            •  The task dear democrats.... (none)
              is to decouple  mainstream American Christians from the hard right evangelical movement before the 06 mid-terms.

              with the nomination of ALito you have been given the ammo you need....load your weapons of choice and start shooting.

              "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

              by KnotIookin on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:37:33 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ah -- (none)
                But will they?  Can they do it effectively without helping Bush get his anti "librul" cred back?  

                Harry Reid is pretty cunning and he will need all of it to pull this off.  I am also hoping that the other Dems will play this wisely.  

                The President is weak but like Dracula is looking for a liberal blood feast to rejuvenate his sagging popularity and sense of control.  We have to be very very cunning and sneaky to prevent that from happening.

                Stop Looking For Leaders - WE are the Leaders!!!

                by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:57:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  democrats need to ignore the neocons.... (none)
                  and speak directly to the mainstream Christians of America.

                  I think many of them are beginning to be quite respective to a message that has something other then bible verse and hellfire and briomstone at its core.

                  "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

                  by KnotIookin on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:07:53 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with you (none)
          That may not have been a well drawn out policy and it sounds like it was entirely too broad.

          But I get this suspicion that the policy wanted to protect gays and Scalito doesn't give a damn about them... just a hunch, though.

          "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

          by Dunbar on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:14:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Free speech, yes (none)
          Free speech to invite dispute is one thing.  Harrassment is something else.  One person's harrassment could be another's free speech, but if we prevent harrassment based on gender, race, etc., then sexual orientation needs to be in there as well.
        •  Well, what's 'harrassment'? (none)
          Are 'disparaging speech' and 'harrassment' the same thing, legally-speaking? He seems to be conflating them. Is that fair, or is 'harrassment' something more than 'disparaging speech'?

          Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

          by GussieFN on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:14:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Difference btwn harassment and disparaging speech? (none)
            Intent,outcome. Proven by evidence of a pattern. Assuming "disparaging speech" could be isolated, without intent to cause "substantial emotional distress." Speculating.....

            Below is definiton of harassment.  
            Note: LAzy and haven't yet checked these citations. I will, if they are wrong I will post.

            From: http://www.uslawbooks.com/...
            United States Code Title 18 Subsection 1514(c)1. Harassment is defined as "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such a person and serves no legitimate purpose".

            The Modern Penal Code section 250.4(MPC) defines harassment as a petty misdemeanor if with purpose is to harass another, he: 1) makes a phone call without a legitimate purpose; or 2) insults, taunts or challenges another in a manner likely to provoke violent or disorderly response; or 3) calls at inconvenient hours or in offensive language; or 4) subjects another to offensive touching; or 5) engages in any other course of alarming conduct serving no legitimate purpose of the actor.

          •  I wonder (none)
            I think my calling wingnuts, whackadoodles... may be harassment.

            (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

            by Steve4Clark on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:54:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Alito: homosexuality is about "values"? (none)
          It's a matter of values to him I guess, but to me (and most other informed people) it is a matter of heredity.

          If he shares the fundamentalist position that one must deny one's nature in order to fulfill his religious fantasies, fine.  Let him suppress his own sexuality.  He has no right to judge anyone else.

          How about his lunatic dissent in a 1991 (I think) case where he argued that a woman must notify her husband before she can receive an abortion? He was a minority of one in that case, but such idealogical rantings have no place in a courtroom.

          As a woman who believes that NOBODY has the right to dictate to me what I do with MY OWN BODY, I am enraged.  If the democrats don't fight this, I'm through supporting the party.

          Please don't dump on me with the "litmus test" argument. There is a right and wrong here, and the religious right is flat-out wrong. When their religious superstitions get in the way of my personal freedom, that is going too far.

          This man is a nutball.  He must be stopped.

      •  All that dry powder (4.00)
        we've been saving up? All that fire we've been holding?

        NOW's the time to set it off.  We can see the Whites of the enemies' eyes, and they are the wild eyes of fanatics.  If this is to be Armageddon, at least let it be said we sent an army to the field

        Speaking  legally, this guy is a complete nightmare,  He's a pre Lochner era conservative who wants to take us back to the days just before FDR got so frustrated with the S. Ct that he threatened to pack the bench.

        We need to make America see this for what it is.  

        Our talking points need to go like this:

        This nomination is  proof that GWB is captive to the extremists in his own party.  When W caved and allowed his good friend of 30 years to withdraw her nomination, based solely on the criticism of the extreme right wing  we saw how much power they have over this weak and confused president.

        We also saw the agenda of those extremists naked exposed.  Terry Schaivo was only the beginning for these people.  They want to force their views into law despite the fact that 70%+ of normal Americans oppose them. Since they  know that in a democracy their radical and extreme policies will never become law; they have demanded of President Bush  an activist judge who will vote to impose  those extreme views on the American people.  In Nominating Sam Altio George Bush served up appeasement to those radicals on a silver platter.

        Bottom line is this is the fight we must have.  

        Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

        by Magorn on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:05:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Excellent terminology (none)
          "70%+ of normal Americans oppose them."  "George Bush served up appeasement "

          I LOVE this; it's almost Gingrichian in its perfection -- why can't our Dem "leaders" learn to speak like this:  forcefully, accessibly, emotionally, and with terms that any NORMAL American will hear, understand, respect -- and respond to??

          I keep hearing that the powers-that-be are reading the blogs -- if so, why are we still getting lame-itude like "Together America Can Do Better" </puke> -- when we have examples like this out in the world?

        •  The Senate wasn't even allowed a hearing on Miers (none)
          Add to your excellent points that Bush caved to the radical right on Miers without even giving the Senate a chance to have a hearing much less a vote.
        •  asdf (none)
          Since they  know that in a democracy their radical and extreme policies will never become law; they have demanded of President Bush  an activist judge who will vote to impose  those extreme views on the American people.

          Something to remember and repeat often. I don't hear this meme enough. Here's a 4.

      •  While it may be morally wrong to some (none)
        discrimination based on sexual preference is not federally wrong as it does not fall under any protected class.  
      •  Why does Alito... (none)
        hate Homosexuals?
    •  Everyone should read (none)
      the link in Georgia's post. It clearly lays out how Scalito even changed words to fit his pro-religious agenda.

      This man is not a man of the law; he is an activist judge with a religious agenda. He is even willing to misrepresent. This guy is bad news.

      "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

      by Dunbar on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:12:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wacky view of women (none)
    What's even worse about the strip search case is Alito's view of the wife. The search was for the man and the house, but, hey, the wife is just an extension of her husband. This ought to shake up even Republican women. Women are chattel?
    •  Strawman (4.00)
      I have no idea where anyone got the idea that Alito thinks women are chattel. Certainly it is not in his dissent for Doe v. Groody in which he argues essentially that since the police requested a warrant covering all occupants of a house it was reasonable for them to search all occupants even though the warrant itself did not not name all occupants of the house. I've only skimmed it briefly, but I see no reference in his opinion to the gender of any of the searched parties and his case is arguable without any reference to gender:

      "The appellants in this case did not exhibit incompetence or a willingness to flout the law. Instead, they reasonably concluded that the magistrate had authorized a search of all occupants of the premises where: (1) that is what the application sought; (2) the affidavit asserted that there was probable cause for such a search; (3) the warrant expressly incorporated [**42]  the affidavit on the issue of probable cause, (4) the language of the warrant was drafted to confer authorization to search all occupants, and (4) the magistrate signed the warrant without modification."

      There are plenty of reasons to oppose Alito. No need to make up stuff.

      •  Chertoff disagrees. (none)
        In this case, there is no language in the warrant that suggests that the premises or people to be searched include Jane Doe, Mary Doe, "all occupants" or anybody else, save John Doe himself.  Other portions of the face sheet which describe the date of the violation and the supporting probable cause do refer to the attached typed affidavit.  But this fact is actually unhelpful to the officers, since it demonstrates that where the face sheet was intended to incorporate the affidavit, it said so explicitly.  As a matter of common sense, as well as logic, the absence of a reference to the affidavit must therefore be viewed as negating any incorporation of that affidavit.

        I think what people are seeing is not that Alito is arguing that women and children are chattel, but that his decisions seem to arise from one who holds those views peronsally. Its spectulation. Chertoff clearly shows the mother and child were not within the realm of the warrant and the officers were not immune to a suit from them. Alito, had he 4th and 14th ammendment concerns for the mother and child, may not be so ready to grant to the officers authority not granted in the warrant. Chertoff:
        A non-protective search must normally be supported by probable cause, and, with certain exceptions, must be authorized by a warrant.  The officers principally argue that the search of both females was covered by the warrant for the search of the house and was supported by probable cause.  If a warrant did indeed authorize a search of Jane and Mary Doe, then the officers were entitled to rely upon it to satisfy the probable cause requirement, and there was no constitutional violation. 4  United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984).   The face of the search warrant here, however, does not grant authority to search either Jane or Mary Doe.

        Chertoff also notes, "The nature of the intrusion alleged is significant." Chattel? Who's to say? He certainly isn't concerned with the privacy of the mother and daughter.

        we now know a lot of things, most of which, we already knew... (-dash888) -8.25; -6.41

        by Tirge Caps on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:36:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A leap (none)
          The two people whose rights Alito is not overly concerned with in this instance happen to be women. But what if they had been the brother of the alleged drug dealer and his male son? Would the result have been any different? I see no evidence in Alito's dissent to suggest that would be the case. And Kos presents none so I have no idea how he reaches the inference.
      •  wild rhetoric will undermine our positions (none)
        Scalito may be very bad news but to most who do not follow the legal debates, we need examples and language that are rock solid convincing.  

        Enflamed rhetoric just plays into our opponents' hands by making us look like loonies whose arguments are so off the wall they are without substance and can be ignores.  We need to bring the moderate R's and D's over to our side, and make them understand just how bad this guy is, not with personal attacks and over the top language but using his own words wherever possible from his extensive writings.

    •  he ok's stripping a 10 year old??? (none)
      well that goes with his whole philosophy that women are chattel...the warrent said the cops were ok'd to search the contents of the mans house....chattle is part of the contents of a house <shrug>

      "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

      by KnotIookin on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:07:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  all occupants of the house (none)
        I believe the point cat was trying to make is that the warrant allowed a search of the property and all occupants of the property, not just the man.  

        Think about it.  If your spouse is a drug dealer and the police obtain a warrant to search the house, all you would have to do is put the drugs in your pocket, warrant be damned.

        Or, I know this is unfair but we are all friends so what the hell, your spouse is murdered.  Police obtain a warrant to search the murderer and his house.  When the police show up to serve the warrant, the murderer's wife puts the gun in her pants.  

        To be totally correct, I would need to see the warrant, and the rest of the court record, which i will do this evening.  But, at first glance, it does seem likely.

        In other words, lets keep our powder dry and our shots will fall where we aim them.

        •  NOT in the warrant (none)
          That's the crux of the case-- the WARRANT does NOT allow for the search of other occupants. The application for the warrant (which was attached) did ask for search of other occupants.

          What ever happened to a "government of the people, by the people, FOR the people?"

          by cybersaur on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:23:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Rick Santorum (none)
      votes "Yes" on the chattel question.

      "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

      by aggressiveprogressive on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:07:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "wacky" you bet. (none)
      Alito forgets he was born from woman, but then again maybe he came from the paranormal.

      Let's stop feeding greed. In fact, propose we make it a commandment: The greedy shall not be fed.

      by idredit on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:25:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ready to fight and (none)
    Loaded for Bear.

    Bring 'em on.  This President is an anchor for Senate Republicans--if the fight's going to happen, now is the time.

    We're ready.  Harry Reid--go kick some ass.

    Florida Democrats: Learn how to WIN at the polls! www.victoryfordems.com

    by JR on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:46:42 AM PST

    •  earlier poll (none)
      Had a poll up earlier: Fight or Flight?

      Fight: 405 votes, 94%
      Flight: 22 votes, 5%

      I think the choice is clear and the tribe has spoken.

      Florida Democrats: Learn how to WIN at the polls! www.victoryfordems.com

      by JR on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:50:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  a hat tip to Harry Reid (none)
        I think should be in order.  Our very own Scipio the Delayer has waited until the battlefield is very much in our favor to swoop in and smash the Republicans.  He has given us a chance at victory (that I previously didn't think was there), and I believe there is at least a decent chance of a win here.
    •  I'm ready to fight (none)
      I'm ready to smash these treasonous murdering scumbags. The Dems better STEP UP.
      FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Tell these fucks to go nuclear! I'm hitting the goddamn streets hard! No more analysis! TAKE THESE SCUMBAGS DOWN!
    •  Rove (4.00)
      Wanted this to red herring the Bush WH. Take them down fast and hard on all counts. Drive the treasonous scumbags out! Once and for all!
    •  I think we can win this one (none)
      Alito is just too difficult to defend to the American people, I don't think that the Republicans are going to want to run this guy being a good guy to have one the Court.

      I think that Reid and the Dems are ready and willing to fight this one to the end.  He was dropping signals  on Scalito even before the nomination was announced.

      I think that we have the votes in the Senate to maintain a filibuster and then to fend off the Nuclear Option.  If this drags on I think we have the votes in the court of public opinion to strengthen our hand in the Senate and the House to keep the fight going.

      PS Diary plug on counting votes in the Senate.

      ...in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent
      -G.W. Bush
      Looking in the mirror?

      by Luam on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:04:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Civil War as distraction (none)

      Bush was willing to launch a war against Iraq to distract from ecnomic problems in 2002. Now he will incite a civil war over Alito to distract from the Plame Affair. We talked here at Daily Kos about how dangerous he would be if attacked. Well, now we know, and since Rove was not removed from the scene by Fitzgerald, he is still has free rein to think up new plans.

      Rove is like Bin Laden: he plans his next attack to be more extreme than the last, so, btw, the 2006 elections are almost guaranteed to show new extremes of what they are capable of.

      Pipe dreams are not an exit strategy.

      by TrainWreck on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:33:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is IT-watch yr back & remember Rove's 04 (none)
      As LandSurveyor and TrainWreck have noted, Rove has thought this through on some level and decided to go for broke -- see if he can bluff and scheme his way out of a losing hand.

      Keep your eyes open, EVERYONE.  

      This bastard may not be as smart as some want to give him credit for, I don't really know.  But after the tricks and surprises he got away with last Summer and Fall, I think it's critical that we not treat this purely as a desperation play.  

      On some level it is that, sure, but the shit is going to come fast and furious, and a good deal is going to be piped underground -- so we won't have any warning before it spews all over us unless we have an ear to the ground.

      History.

      Every. Damn. Day.

      Let's make this one to be proud of, one we'll tell our grandchildren about on hot summer nights, in a restored America and a safer world....

      I had to destroy my tinfoil hat because it was beaming coded messages into my brain.

      by stevelu on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:29:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is where we find out (4.00)
    if the Dems we have in office are worth the squashed piece of chewing gum I walked by this morning.
    •  and where we find out (4.00)
      if even one Republican deserves to remain in office... or whether the Republican party is in fact no longer a valid political party in America and should be dissolved.
      •  The Republicans Are Definitely Not a Party (none)
        and they themselves are well along dissolving every bit of America that gets in their way.

        If the country or at least our leadership ever figure this out, that'd be the time we could begin to save the country instead of declaring it dissolved.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:14:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, Dems are not (2.66)
      worth anything.

      I'm tired of being disappointed and fully expect the Dems to continue in the same manner.

      The US has already started on it's way to hell in a handbasket because the Dems do not fight the good fight and lose, as usual.

      Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.--Dr. Seuss

      by sweettp2063 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:54:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tom Curry is a Stealth Right-Wing Hack (4.00)
    Curry, in his latest article on Alito, once again distorts and misrepresents to further the conservative cause.  Here is his article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

    Here is my email to him:

    "Truly Spectacular Omissions on Alito

    In your recent web article entitled "A Clear Choice", you list a few decisions from Judge Alito which you reference as his "best known."  You fail to mention the two Alito decisions referenced below which, in legal circles, have caused a collective gasp of horror among all except the most right-wing of legal scholars.  In the first, Alito agued that the FMLA amounts to an unwarranted and unenforceable use of federal power.  The very conservative Judge Rehnquist later disagreed with Alito on this.  The second decision is even more shocking.  Here, Alito argued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home.
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...

    These two decisions are notorious as representative of the new right-wing judicial activism.    In your article, how can you profess to reference some of Alito's "best know decision" and not include these "bombshell" opinions?"

    I have corresponded with Curry before and he usually corners himself with his own response.  Let him know where you strand.  

    •  Repeat FMLA over and over (4.00)
      Alito's ruling that FMLA was unconstitutional is perhaps the most powerful argument we have - moreso than even thinking that husbands have veto power over their wives' abortions.  FMLA is common sense and widely supported, especially among women.  We need for even conservative women to recoil in horror at this nominee if we are to defeat him.

      "If you want to trust somebody with your taxpayer dollars, you'd better elect a Democrat because the Republicans can't manage money." - Howard Dean

      by CA Pol Junkie on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:12:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And 'the FMLA' is.....? (none)

      A peace vigil has as much effect on foreign policy as a debug vigil would on broken software.

      by RequestedUsername on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:25:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Family and Medical Leave Act (none)
        Bingo!  When I saw this in the list of 'things that will happen to America if Scalito gets the job', my heart soared.  

        Because there is no way in hell that Republican women, especially the professional women that make up a disproportionate number of their ranks, could EVER get behind a guy who would strip them of their 12 weeks paid leave from their high-powered 70-hour a week jobs in order to deliver and tend to their newborn babies.  

        But remember, this is the family and medical leave act.  It also allows family members paid leave to tend to family members who are seriously ill.  

        I guess this kind of family value has no meaning for the likes of Scalito and the boy cabal that has thrust his nomination forward.

         

        Reality addict - can't get enough of seeing it all clearly

        by writeout on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:49:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unpaid leave (none)
          FMLA provides unpaid leave, not paid leave.  This does not undermine your argument, since professional women are more likely to be able to take unpaid leave than poor women, thus FMLA has the support of professional families, including republicans.  Even so, it's important to keep the facts straight.

          Plant a new Truffula. Treat it with care. Give it fresh water and feed it clean air. -- Dr. Seuss

          by mwk on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:56:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dohh!! (none)
            Thanks for that correction!  (And I even linked to the .gov site!)

            I realize I was confusing FMLA with the disability pay that women can get when they take leave in connection with a pregnancy.  

            The great advantage of FMLA is, of course, that their employer cannot terminate their employment as a result of them taking this time off.  It is required by law that they hold their jobs open.  

            Thanks again mwk for pointing out that error.  

            Reality addict - can't get enough of seeing it all clearly

            by writeout on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:48:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Alito's dissent in the search case is reasonable (none)
      People should take the time to read the decision and the dissent at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.... Frankly, I find Alito's reasoning much more compelling than the majority's. The case that he heard was whether the police should be granted their normal immunity from lawsuits - the searched women were trying to sue the police. The warrant in question had an attached affidavit where the police had asked the judge for permission to search the house and all of its occupants. On the warrant itself only the man's name was listed. The police say that it's because the warrant doesn't have enough space on it for them to list all the people they know of who might be present in the house. The jusge signed the warrant with the attached affidavit. Now, whether or not any evidence found this way should be suppressed, I think it's perfectly reasonable for police offices executing this warrant to believe they had the right to search the occupants of the house.

      In any case, all of this nonsense about chattel is just patently ridiculous. And all the appeals court said is that the lawsuit against the police could go forward, not that the police were actually guilty of anything.

      •  exactly (none)
        what he was ruling on was whether or not the policemen thought they were acting in good faith and should be open to a lawsuit.

        No evidence was uncovered in the search. Had there been evidence uncovered in the search of the wife and daughter, more than likely it would have been discarded on a techniciality. The technicality being they weren't actually listed in the box of "items to be searched" on the warrant.

  •  This is a great day for us. (none)
    And a scary day for Republicans. Can I get a big "BOO!"?

    Thanks Kos, for the typically concise, clear and well-worded perspective.

    •  Although (none)
      I can hardly wait for the day when a great day does not entai the possibility of a complete right wing lunatic being nominated to the Supreme Court.  This is only a great day if in the end we win.

      George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

      by Dave the pro on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:49:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You hit the nail on the head (none)
    This is a gift to the Democrats.  

    Moderate/Socially liberal Republicans are now OFFICIALLY on notice...you are not welcome in the GOP.  

    We Democrats will leave the light on for you (Ms. Snow, Mr. Chaffee, Mr. Warner, Mr. Libermann--he he he)

    Pray for my Beloved Country

    by lubarsh on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:47:19 AM PST

    •  We better know what were doing (none)
      Because if we are painted as obstructionists and preventing a good judge from taking his seat then we are in for some problems.  Nobody likes a complainer (see Republicans in 1998).  This is dangerous.  We better be forceful and to the point.  
      •  Sorry I meant "we're doing" (none)
        oops.  
      •  Constitutional Amendment to Ban Abortion... (none)
        Let Harry Reid, Mary Landrieu and Evan Bayh propose it. (don't worry, it could never get ratified.)

        If the Dems took this action it would point out several things:

        1). Reproductive rights are the current law of the land.
        2). Not all Democrats are Pro-Choice.
        3). The Majority of the country is not on board when it comes to criminalizing abortion.

        Plus, if the amendment made it through Congress, it could tie up the evangelicals for years on end. Remember that huge waste of time called the ERA?!

        George Bush doesn't care about Black people.... and Andrea Mitchell doesn't care about the Truth....

        by DeanFan84 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:07:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Fear is out enemy (none)
        Your concern is typical of Dems vassilation. The Rethugs never schrug from a fight why should we. Don't underestimate the american people. They want us to show some real back bone.

        Disabled Viet Vet ret. My snark is worse than my bite

        by eddieb061345 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:08:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't let the GOP tell us what to do (none)
        Because if we are painted as obstructionists and preventing a good judge from taking his seat then we are in for some problems.

        What problems could we possibly get that we don't already have?  Why not just do something because we think it's the right thing to do?  Why cower in fear of what the big bad bully will say about us?  We believe that women have the right to self-determination and are not the property of their husbands.  We believe that the Family and Medical Leave Act is good for American families.  We believe that judges ought to be in the mainstream, not the darlings of the right wing.  These are common sense American values - if the Democratic Party isn't willing to fight for them, then we are in for real problems.

        "If you want to trust somebody with your taxpayer dollars, you'd better elect a Democrat because the Republicans can't manage money." - Howard Dean

        by CA Pol Junkie on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:20:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obstructionists? (none)
        I feel sorry for anyone who tries to use that argument in my presence.

        Because it's like this... if someone is taking a sledgehammer to the foundation of your home, it's not obstructionist to stop him. You don't have to present a "positive alternative vision": You Stop Him.

        Make no mistake about it: that's what the Republicans have been doing for the past 5 years - striking at the foundation of the system of checks and balances, transparency and accountability that are the basis for American democracy.

        Yes, the Democrats need a positive vision for America... and they have one. But it includes so many of the things under attack right now that it can be twisted into "no new ideas".

        Don't buy into that.

        When someone is rushed into an Emergency Room with a gaping chest wound, that isn't the time to talk about proper nutrition and exercise. You respond to the crisis decisively to stop the threat of the existing danger.

        That's where we're at in America.

        This isn't obstructionism. It's not defiance for defiance's sake. It's a principled opposition to destructive behavior on the part of the Republicans who have no other check against excessive abuse of power. Period.

        I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
        This is the dawning of the rest of our lives

        by Malacandra on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:53:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm just saying (none)
          We cannot be a bunch of wusses.  I agree with you.  
          •  I understand (none)
            I've had that rant on a low boil for a while.

            You were the unlucky one to say the magic word "obstructionist", which was the only incentive I needed to let some steam off.

            No, we can't be wusses now.

            I'm hoping that Bush's appointment rouses a Sleeping Giant of American opinion, and that it won't be at all pleased with what it sees upon awakening.

            I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
            This is the dawning of the rest of our lives

            by Malacandra on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:23:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Actually.. (none)
          It is "Obstructionist" in the example you mention (Sledgehammer to the foundation)--which goes to show that the word "Obstructionist" isn't necessarily a negative word.  What the wingnuts have done is attack our strengths and embrace (what they consider to be) our impolite or mean spirited descriptions as badges of honor.  It is the ancient and simple cliche "The best defense is a good offense" in action.  

          I'm an Obstructionist when there is something worth obstructing.  We should steal that label and turn it to our advantage, a springboard to explain why we ARE obstructionists and why we need to be Obstructionists.

  •  Exactly (4.00)
    But this is the best possible scenario for Democrats as well. We now have a vehicle upon which to showcase the differences between us and Republicans, between liberalism and conservatism. This is a golden opportunity, and one wisely denied by Bush and Rove with the Roberts and Miers nominations.

    Until now, "not legislating from the bench" and "strict construction" have been empty buzzwords from the Right.  It's time to tell America what they mean.
  •  GOP strategist (none)
    called him their 'cindy sheehan'.  they hope he riles up the base that much.
    •  Great analogy (none)
      The Bushies are hunkering down in the bunker like Nixon during Watergate.  They need the "base" to believe that any attack on Bush is an attack on everything they want and believe in.  Scalito was nominated solely to get the base to march in lockstep with the Bushies.

      ModestNeeds.org Response For Hurricane Evacuees

      by socal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:54:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  i think the family leave one (4.00)
    is particularly devistating in an ad. It shows the real world consequences of his appointment.

    this is your mission: TERMINATE the Bush presidency

    by nevadadem on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:48:13 AM PST

    •  And (4.00)
      I would guess that most non-activists Christian conservatives are supportive of family leave.  Need to develop a political strategy that doesn't make the debate just about abortion.  

      George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

      by Dave the pro on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:52:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (4.00)
        I agree. Many so called Conservative Christians may be rabdily against abortion and gay marriage.
        But they support Family Leave, Americans with Disabilities Act etc. Some ( I will wager a guess of almost half) believe in and use contraception.
        Extend the debate beyond abortion so moderate Christians who may think they are conservative will peel off. For instance, there are a lot of moderate Evangelicals I know who are far different than the Right winger Evangelicals who consider themselves conservative.

        America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

        by wishingwell on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:05:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  And. . . (4.00)
      it is clear case of judicial activism -- the exact opposite of the way Roberts said he would judge.  This was an attempt by and activist judge to overturn Congress' will on a matter with no Constitutional issues involved.

      George W. Bush -- It's mourning in America.

      by LarryInNYC on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:53:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (none)
        Paint him as an activist judge.  Use the Republican talking points againt him.  The problem the GOP will run into with feeding their moronic supporters so much Kool-Aid, is that their moronic supporters will believe what they say.  Therefore, if "activist judges = bad" then, paint this guy as an activist and the morons will go along.  Either that, or their little brains will explode.

        Oh, who am I kidding.  The morons will believe anything.  We've always been at war with Eurasia.  Thanks to our brave fighting men and women, chocolate rations have been increased this week.  sigh

  •  kos you're a lawyer (3.75)
    remove this "strip search" canard

    its a joke and embarrassing

    I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

    by The Exalted on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:48:20 AM PST

    •  care to elaborate? (none)
      For those of us who are just reading about this?  :)
      •  Discussion in another diary... (3.83)
        Alito's decision wasn't based on whether it was right or proper to strip search the 10 year old.  It was whether the police's arrest warrant, which was intended to allow searching of all parties in the targeted house but hadn't been filled in properly, allowed them to actually do so.  Ultimately the fact the girl was 10 was incidental to the actual legal point.

        I think...

        But, the Swift Boat veterans proves that mud (even factually incorrect mud) sticks.  And labelling the guy Strip-search Sammy (copyright elsewhere BobcatHJ) beguiles me...

        •  Let's stay on the high road. (4.00)
          But, the Swift Boat veterans proves that mud (even factually incorrect mud) sticks.  And labelling the guy Strip-search Sammy (copyright elsewhere BobcatHJ) beguiles me...

          As much as I'd like to see the Repubrigands fall at any cost, I won't allow myself to use their insidious tactics for our side.

          We have too much on our side to stoop to the level of naming someone on a fanatical & illogical leap such as this.

          "I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

          by zeitshabba on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:10:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Incidental to the legal point (3.33)
          but utterly central to the real-world effect.

          Alito would allow the police to strip-search your 10 year old daughter without a legally-valid warrant. The fact that he'd also allow them to strip-search your 28 year old cousin and your 82 year old mother doesn't seem to undermine the truth of the first statement.

          Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

          by GussieFN on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:24:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wrong (4.00)
            Alito would allow searches of other people found within a house that was subject to a VALID warrant when covered by the request/order itself.

            It's very O'Reillyian to limit the discussion of his decision to this inflammatory aspect.

            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:28:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's exactly my point. (none)
              (Though perhaps I didn't express it well.) What Alito considers a 'valid' warrant goes far beyond what anyone else does. He would allow searches of everyone--including ten year old girls, ancient sloe-eyed grandmothers, chubby bald Jews--based on a warrant that apparently nobody else would interpret that broadly.

              Yeah, that's inflammatory. It's outrageous. Alito believes the police have the right to perform just about any search they desire, with a warrant, including not just your ten year old daughter, but your nine-month-old son, your eight-month-pregnant wife, your seven lambs a-leaping, whatever--even in the absence of a warrant which, according to the general understanding of warrants, permits such a search.

              Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

              by GussieFN on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:43:59 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again, wrong (none)
                That's not what happened in this case.  The police, in submitting the search request, the affadavit, etc. made it clear that, when searching a house for probable cause b/c it was a meth den, those occupants there at the time are probably there also for the purpose of meth.  Therefore those people in the house should be covered by the warrant (since they are unknown prior to the search).

                Alito does NOT believe the police have the right to perform just about any search they desire with a warrant ---- that's an untrue and inflammatory spin on the far more limited legal question at hand.

                Therefore, very rightwing spin-esque.

                "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:51:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The police made clear? (none)
                  The majority wrote: "What is significant is that the officers can point to no precedent that allowed an unincorporated affidavit to expand a search warrant."

                  Um, that's pretty clear, alright. Can we agree on these two things:

                  1. Per the above quote, Alita was trying to expand a search warrant in an unprecedented manner.
                  2. This expansion would grant to police increased right to strip-search ten-year-old girls at their own discretion?

                  I agree that #2 could be phrased as 'the right to search people' instead of 'the right to strip-search ten-year-old girls', but the latter is certainly as true as the former.

                  Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

                  by GussieFN on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:21:59 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're confused (none)
                    When I said that the police made clear, I meant that they made clear the fact that occupants of a meth den were probably there for a reason and could very well have drugs on them.  The clarity you speak of in the majority opinion is on legal precedent for expanding a search warrant based on an unincorporated affidavit --- that's a different topic.

                    That aside, your two points are pretty much at the heart of this issue.  #1 shows your disagreement with his legal analysis.  #2 shows an inflammatory result of that reasoning.

                    Look, if you agree that someone can be searched when there is a valid search warrant, then you're granting the police the right to strip search 10 year olds.  Same for the handicapped, old men, etc.  Just because the facts of this case involve a 10 year old, it doesn't make alito pro-strip search of 10 year olds, that's why it's an obvious canard to go on this meme.

                    "I agree that #2 could be phrased as 'the right to search people' instead of 'the right to strip-search ten-year-old girls', but the latter is certainly as true as the former."

                    Think about that for a second.  You agree it can be phrased differently.  Well, do you agree that there are some instances when a search warrant could be valid when targeting a bodily search?  No one on the USSC, conservative or liberal, believes that strip searching are per se illegal.  Therefore, they are all pro-strip search of 10 year olds!  Because they are covered by that legal reasoning.  Therein lies the dishonesty of this entire enterprise

                    "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                    by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:41:19 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Indeed. (none)
            Which is why my Realpolitik instincts say to pin the 'he stripsearches children' meme on him.  Yes, it's not strictly fair, but I'd love to see a cogent and concise attempt for the other side to explain why in easily assimilable soundbite terms.  And even if they succeed, we can still hit back with 'it shows he's not concerned about the real world emotional consequences of his rulings - an ivory tower jurist' etc.

            But when I'm not being Machiavellian, I do accept that this is the politics of the gutter.

      •  There was this diary... (4.00)
        And it was atop the recommended diaries one day. Lo, and behold, the outrage within the diary. At least until you read the legal-ese on what Alito's decision was actually talking about.

        The nutshell is he dissented in an opinion that was arguing wording between the warrant & the affadavit, and which one held more sway. It wasn't the "strip-search" that was the debate, but those wanting to create fiery passion will twist the case to reflect such.

        When we have someone with plenty of negatives to expand upon, there is no need to spin outrageous others out of thin air. IOW, we shouldn't play their games.

        "I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

        by zeitshabba on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:01:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why are you (none)
          following me around and giving me 1s? Huh? You know you can disagree with me disagreeing with Alito. Chertoff and the majority disagreed with him, too, by the way.
          •  I'm not following you. I'm following the argument. (4.00)
            And many of the logical gaps people are making in a knee-jerk reaction to an inflammatory diary.

            If I was following you, troll-rating you into oblivion, I would have nailed you on that long string of confrontations you were pushing with Adam B. to change his mind on the matter if the facts of the case were different.

            I gave you one 1-rating in the other thread because you wouldn't back off, insisting that the person who posted the decision read the decision they posted. And when he points out that fact, not as much as a "we agree to disagree" after dogging him. Instead, it becomes a "it makes a better talking point" weasel out of the argument. Very uncouth.

            I'm not willing to concede honor & integrity over a misrepresentation of the facts. That's their trick, not ours.

            "I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

            by zeitshabba on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:27:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Two points. (none)
              Logical gaps? Like what? That Alito's position was struck down by the court. Please do nail me on logical gaps and knee-jerk reaction becasue if you were to read my posts there aren't any logical gaps and certainly no knee-jerk reaction.

                 And why should I back-off from my arguments with Bonin? We have these and other arguments on legal issues all the time and ,if you were to notice, both of us were respectful, as is always the case, and didn't resort to troll-rating each other. And what about "honor & integrity"? Shutting people off because you don't like their point-of-views is called censorship where I come from. You wnat to defend Alito, fine, go ahead and make your arguments.

              •  As you wish. (none)
                asdf (none / 0)
                The issue in the case was not whether the police can search children - clearly they can as long as its in the warrant. The question was what should have been understood as included in the warrant. None of the analysis is about whether children can be searched.
                by Cat1133 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:19:59 PM EST

                Your response?
                And? (none / 0)
                Nobody is making the claim that this was the case, either. I know I am not, I know Kos isn't.Additionally, that Alito , like the overzealous Policemen, failed to make the distinction between "frequent visitors that purchase meth" as mentioned in the affidavit [NOT INCORPORATED BY the Warrant] and a 10 year old girl raises certain disturbing questions that Alito will have to answer.
                by pursewarden on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:25:53 PM EST

                So you agree that his dissenting opinion isn't about stripsearching a 10-yr-old girl, but yet you'll continue to bleat on about the finer points of stripsearching a 10-yr-old girl & hold it against him? That constitutes a logical gap in as much as I've ever seen one. What exactly are you claiming if you're not claiming Alito is for stripsearching prepubescent girls?

                And why should I back-off from my arguments with Bonin? We have these and other arguments on legal issues all the time and ,if you were to notice, both of us were respectful, as is always the case, and didn't resort to troll-rating each other. And what about "honor & integrity"? Shutting people off because you don't like their point-of-views is called censorship where I come from. You wnat to defend Alito, fine, go ahead and make your arguments.

                I didn't tell you to quit arguing with anybody. I just want you to be factually honest in those arguments. I think this chain of comments details my point perfectly. If you're asking someone to hypothetically consider having their house searched by police, including their children, as if they were meth dealers but weren't really meth dealers shows just how hard you're willing to push to make your point.

                I never said you should be muzzled, or be censored, as you so flippantly imply. I'm not defending Alito, but I notice a disturbing trend of yours that anyone who challenges your belief that Alito wants to stripsearch li'l girls suddenly becomes an Alito backer. I'm not backing Alito - I'm backing the raw, unspun truth. And I'll give the business to any other liberal/progressive who feels that we can sacrifice honesty for victory.

                "I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

                by zeitshabba on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:02:41 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Response. (none)
                  So you agree that his dissenting opinion isn't about stripsearching a 10-yr-old girl, but yet you'll continue to bleat on about the finer points of stripsearching a 10-yr-old girl & hold it against him? That constitutes a logical gap in as much as I've ever seen one. What exactly are you claiming if you're not claiming Alito is for stripsearching prepubescent girls?

                         I never claimed Alito is for stripsearching pre-pubescent girls. Not even once, However, in this case he argued that a 10 year old girl being stripsearched without proper paperwork(as established by Ybarra v.Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979)) is okay. He issued that judgement , not I. Heck, the warrant and affidavit in this case were concerned with people who frequently purchased meth from there. So, not only the cops didn't follow the letter of the warrant they even went against the letter of the affidavit (which wasn't even incorporated by the warrant) and you don't want this to be a big issue? Well, I disagree.

                  I didn't tell you to quit arguing with anybody. I just want you to be factually honest in those arguments. I think this chain of comments details my point perfectly. If you're asking someone to hypothetically consider having their house searched by police, including their children, as if they were meth dealers but weren't really meth dealers shows just how hard you're willing to push to make your point.

                    What the heck? I never made any argument of the sort. Read that comment thread again. Brady argued what if you were a meth dealer and I argued, what if you weren't because ,you see, according to US jurisprudence you are innocent until proven guilty. Brady's chain of argument is a legal fallacy and you can use that chain to support anything. What if that person actually is a terrorist? Guantanamo, anyone? The point is to prove guilt using legal methods. In this case, the cops went beyond the scope of their power and their actions were found to be infringing on the fourth amendment rights of that 10 year old girl.

                  I never said you should be muzzled, or be censored, as you so flippantly imply. I'm not defending Alito, but I notice a disturbing trend of yours that anyone who challenges your belief that Alito wants to stripsearch li'l girls suddenly becomes an Alito backer. I'm not backing Alito - I'm backing the raw, unspun truth. And I'll give the business to any other liberal/progressive who feels that we can sacrifice honesty for victory.

                    I didn't accuse anyone of backing Alito or otherwise. I simply asked you or anyone who is backing Alito to lay out their arguments instead of trolling people. For example, someone accused Markos of a canard. I wrote to respond that this was not a canard. I wa engaging them and others in a conversation, not accusing them of anything.{the original poster was, in fact, accusing Markos of creatinga canard but I digress]. You, the paragon of honesty, gave ,me a 1 for voicing my opinion on this front-page thread.

                  •  Loose with the truth, pursewarden? (none)
                    I didn't accuse anyone of backing Alito or otherwise. I simply asked you or anyone who is backing Alito to lay out their arguments instead of trolling people

                    Do you even want to considering your boy was in the minority?

                    You wnat to defend Alito, fine, go ahead and make your arguments.

                    Who's backing Alito here? I didn't see Adam B. defending him when you called Alito "his boy", or did I miss something? I definitely haven't said anything supporting him, but you want me to defend him? Ah, because you didn't directly say it doesn't make it so then, eh?

                    I never claimed Alito is for stripsearching pre-pubescent girls. Not even once, However, in this case he argued that a 10 year old girl being stripsearched without proper paperwork(as established by Ybarra v.Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979)) is okay.

                    I just had to repost this bit - I really liked it myself. So you never claim Alito is for stripsearching prepubescent girls, but you keep reminding us that he argued it's okay to stripsearch a prepubescent girl? To be clear, with the proper paperwork, nobody would have any legal problems with the stripsearching of a 10-yr-old?

                    So what exactly is your point then? You've headed down the path of proper righteous indignation when you began to discuss how the police executed the warrant, or how Alito's dissent ionvites more police guesstimation & wiggle-room. I don't like either one one bit. But somehow you keep finding your way back to Alito & stripsearching children, and miss the real issues.

                    You, the paragon of honesty, gave ,me a 1 for voicing my opinion on this front-page thread.

                    Yes, yes I did. I gave you a 1. Is that wrong, somehow? Was it wrong for me to give you a 1 for misrepresenting the case & his dissent? 1 is the numerical equivalent of Unproductive, which is exactly how I see a comment that is misleading & loose with the 'facts' of the case.

                    "I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

                    by zeitshabba on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:51:29 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Dude (none)
                      Don't waste your time with the warden --- he is playing loose with the truth, he knows it's deliberately false but likes the sound of the story "Alito is pro-strip search of minors" and there's no logic stopping him.

                      You win, walk away.

                      "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                      by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:12:14 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Is this the best you got? (none)
                      Who's backing Alito here? I didn't see Adam B. defending him when you called Alito "his boy", or did I miss something? I definitely haven't said anything supporting him, but you want me to defend him? Ah, because you didn't directly say it doesn't make it so then, eh?

                             I was ribbing Bonin because he was being a contrarian in order to explain the finer points of this case. Sheesh. Adam is not an unknown person on this blog, you know,having worked for Hoeffel against Specter and he will be the second to last person after Armando to defend Scalito. Let me make myself clear, Bonin was NOT defending Alito and I wasn't insinuating he was. Yes, you did miss something- context. And as far as defending Alito is concerned, I'm all for people defending a judge and his/her judicial philosophy as I love to have legal debates. You took offense where none was meant.

                      I just had to repost this bit - I really liked it myself. So you never claim Alito is for stripsearching prepubescent girls, but you keep reminding us that he argued it's okay to stripsearch a prepubescent girl? To be clear, with the proper paperwork, nobody would have any legal problems with the stripsearching of a 10-yr-old?

                        Point is that the search in question was unauthorized. I know that this girl was 10 year old and I never made any claim about knowledge of whether she was prepubescent or not. I tend to stick to facts. Alito upheld the unauthorized stripsearch of a ten year old girl and this is a fact. As far as searching a 10 year old is concerned, there are legal precedents but probable cause and authority of cops is extremely important especially in the case of young children. In this case, neither probable cause nor proper authority was exercised. This is a fact.

                      So what exactly is your point then? You've headed down the path of proper righteous indignation when you began to discuss how the police executed the warrant, or how Alito's dissent ionvites more police guesstimation & wiggle-room. I don't like either one one bit. But somehow you keep finding your way back to Alito & stripsearching children, and miss the real issues.

                         How am I missing the issue? Alito did upheld the invalid search of 10 year old girl which was ,thankfully, struck down by the majority opinion.

                      <blockquote.Yes, yes I did. I gave you a 1. Is that wrong, somehow? Was it wrong for me to give you a 1 for misrepresenting the case & his dissent? 1 is the numerical equivalent of Unproductive, which is exactly how I see a comment that is misleading & loose with the 'facts' of the case.</blockquote>

                         False. I never misrepresented the issue or his dissent. Yes, you were wrong to hand out 1s for posts you disagree with and it is called ratings abuse. So not only you have given me a 1, you have continuously accused me of misrepresenting the fact when I didn't. Either you are being wilfully dishonest or you have ulterior motives in squashing this piece of information. Which is it? If it is neither and you are just a well-meaning person who misread my points, I fully expect you to reverse the ratings abuse.

                      •  You misrepresent (none)
                        He didn't uphold an invalid search.  He argued that the search was valid.

                        There is a legal difference

                        "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                        by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:23:31 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The search was (none)
                          invalid. That's the law. Are you familiar with fourth amendment and legal precedent? He was legislating from the bench and his colleagues disagreed. Or are you arguing that cops have the authority to stripsearch your daughter in your house even though they have a warrant which only mentions your name?
                          •  Heh (none)
                            You're confused.  Alito didn't argue that he was in favor of an invalid search that violated constitutional rights.  He argued that the search warrant and its execution, including the search of occupants not otherwise named in the search warrant for the named individual and house, was valid and constitutional and made the legal argument.

                            You're right that his view did not prevail w/r/t the scope of a search warrant.

                            You are making a fundamental misstatement in order to spin this the way you want it.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:39:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Spin?? (none)
                            That Alito's arguments don't rhyme with US law and the precedent set forward by the Supreme Court.That's no spin, my friend, that's just the fact. He tried to color an invalid search as a valid one but his arguments were shot down. The search, in the end, was found to be invalid.
                          •  Yes, that's true (none)
                            The search was found invalid.  Your obvious spin is to present it as "Alito in favor of strip searching ten year olds."  That is spin, plain and simple.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:00:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope. (none)
                            That's not my point. I'm saying that Alito supported the unauthorized stripsearch of a 10 year old and that's the fact.This is not to say that Alito is NOT in favor of stripsearching ten year olds but we don't know enough about Alito yet to make that determination. I'll go with what I know for the moment.
                          •  Ha (none)
                            And that's such spin because the age and sex of the search victim is irrelevant to his legal reasoning.  His reasoning may be flawed, but to focus on that fact is dishonest.

                            Why not stick to the actual, substantive problems he has? Like his legal analysis and views on women's reproductive rights in Casey?  Why bother with this tabloid stuff?

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:16:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fourth amendment is (none)
                            tabloid stuff? Since when? A judge who fails to understand the scope of warrants and police authority has fourth amendment problems as well as other problems. Let NARAL and PP take on Alito on reproductive issues. let civil rights groups take him on fourth amendment and discrimination issues.I don't see the problem.
                          •  Don't be purposefully ignorant (none)
                            Don't play dumb.  I didn't say the 4th amendment was tabloid stuff --- the tabloid stuff is the whole "he favors unauthorized searches of 10 year olds" meme.

                            I'm done with you if you're going to play dumb like that.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:24:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ha. (none)
                            Who is playing dumb? Who says that Alito favors unauthorized searches.....

                                My point is simple- Alito defended the unauthorized stripsearch of a 10 year old girl. Notice the tense and notice the language in every single one of my post. There is no argument that he did defend such in his dissent. Where is the spin here? And this case wasn't tabloid stuff if you don't believe fourth amendment is tabloid stuff. No way, no how.

                          •  You played dumb, admit it (none)
                            Admit it, you knew I didn't mean the 4th amendment when I spoke about "tabloid" stuff.

                            You faked ignorance, just admit it, it'll feel nice.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:37:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And really, (none)
                            You are making your arguments so poorly.  Alito did NOT defend the authorized stripsearch of a 10 year old girl.  He DID argue that searches (of all kinds) of those people found in the targeted house (of all age and sex) of a valid search warrant, under the circumstances surrounding the application and affidavit, were also valid.

                            He never defended unauthorized searches, he argued they WERE valid.

                            I notice your tense and language --- it's usually wrong and misleading.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:39:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Since the case before him (none)
                            was about that 10 year old girl he , in fact, was defending the unayuthorized strip search of that 10 year old girl. His argument that warrants don't have to be explicit, that affidavits don't have to be incorporated correctly goes against the legal precedent. Those warrants and their scope as exercised by the cops was found to be invalid and it is as simple as that. That he was wrong in his legal analysis goes without saying. That his legal analysis results in 10 year old girls , not mentioned in warrants , be stripsearched without probable cause, which wasn't established, needs to be highlighted and it will be highlighted.
                          •  Wrong (none)
                            For Alito, it wasn't about the 10 year old girl at all.  That's the obvious point you ignore in order to sustain your spin.

                            "That his legal analysis results in 10 year old girls , not mentioned in warrants , be stripsearched without probable cause, which wasn't established, needs to be highlighted and it will be highlighted."

                            Again, wrong, his legal analysis results in stripsearches based on probable cause, because he finds probable cause there.

                            You keep missing the legal distinction here.  Seriously, put some thought into this --- his legal analysis says that there was probable cause and therefore the searches were valid.  You can disagree with his analysis, that's fine, I do too, but you cannot argue honestly that his legal analysis results in stripsearches without probable cause --- if his view had won out, then there WOULD BE probable cause and valid searches in this case.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:52:44 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There was no (none)
                            probable cause as upheld by multiple courts. My reference point is the fourth amendment and legal precedents. Alito was pulling the scope of warrants out of his ass. he was wrong and I'm simply taking his judgement for what it was. He was wrong to find probable cause. He was wrong to grant this much power to police without proper paperwork and his wrong judicial philospohy assented to a 10 year old innocent girl to be stripsearched by cops unauthorized to do so.
                          •  That's fine (none)
                            You can believe he's wrong.  I believe it, too.  But to spin it as "he's in favor of stripsearching 10 year olds without proper authorization" is dishonest.  It's spin.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:03:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As I have told (none)
                            you, about 100 times that I never claimed Alito is in favor of stripsearching.....

                                 You see , there is a distinction. Alito did accept the unauthorized stripsearch of 10 year old girl.  You are the one spinning here, not me.

                          •  Again wrong (none)
                            He thought it was authorized!  Alito never said he was in favor of unauthorized searches!

                            This is a fine point, but a simple one, really.  He argued that the search warrant and related docs covered the search of occupants, including strip searches carried out according to proper police procedure.  He isn't in favor of unauthorized searches.  He never accepted unauthorized searches.

                            Get it?

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:11:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The search (none)
                            was unauthorized. Now, spin this.
                          •  No shit (none)
                            The majority court found that the search was unauthorized.  Alito, however, argued that the search was authorized.  Alito never said he was in favor of unauthorized searches.

                            You miss this over and over again.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:26:10 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Punt accepted. (2.00)
                        You've given a sporting defense pursewarden, and I applaud you for trying. That doesn't mean you're any more right than you were in the beginning, especially considering your misguided understanding of "ratings abuse".

                        I'm not squashing information - I'm trying to squash misinformation. As for willfully dishonest, I'm shocked you actually ask me that without enduring an ironic laughing fit.

                        Is this the best you got?

                        I didn't expect to find anything funny about discussing Alito, but this chest-puffing subject line is hands-down the funniest response yet. Thanks for the laughs today, although I doubt you meant to be so humorous.

                        "I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

                        by zeitshabba on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Cool. (none)
                          It ain't all bad if it made you laugh, Isn't it? I have read your posts thorughly and I have no reason so far not to believe that you are not a well-meaning person who simply misread my post. I'll continue to insist that my posts didn't deserve a 1 ratings as they explored the other side of argument but you've every right to treat my posts as unproductive. No sweat but I'd rather you'd given my posts a chance instead of clubbing them with others who were insinuating the perverted angle. I wasn't as I was fixated on the legal reasoning throughout this morning and didn't imply or insinuate anything else.
                          •  Sitting on the bench. (none)
                            We're both players on the same team - I just don't want to see anyone on my side using a corked bat. The whole 'pervert' angle just stinks of the crooked, inaccurate politics that I abhor.

                            And to make you feel better, in the circle of kossack life, I was given a big, fat 0 (zero) by another TU for my previous post. I don't think I've been a troll, but hey, I'm not gonna cry about it either. Like a lab rat, if I push the buttons, I may get the zap.

                            "I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

                            by zeitshabba on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:47:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I wasn't (none)
                            crying, I was making sure that I was not being misunderstood. Frankly, I don't really care about ratings that much and I only give out 4s and 0s(reserved for freeper trolls only).
    •  This is not (3.20)
      a canard. Alito's argument was a poorly-constructed dissent and he indeed endorsed strip-searching of a 10 year old girl while infringing on her fourth amendment rights.
      •  yes it is (4.00)
        Here's Alito's own summary of his dissent:

        "The appellants in this case did not exhibit incompetence or a willingness to flout the law. Instead, they reasonably concluded that the magistrate had authorized a search of all occupants of the premises where: (1) that is what the application sought; (2) the affidavit asserted that there was probable cause for such a search; (3) the warrant expressly incorporated [**42]  the affidavit on the issue of probable cause, (4) the language of the warrant was drafted to confer authorization to search all occupants, and (4) the magistrate signed the warrant without modification."

        The issue in the case was NOT whether it was OK to strip search a child. It was whether the police acted properly when they searched all occupants of a house rather than those named in the warrant itself, given that they had requested a warrant for all occupants of the house.

        •  I have the (2.50)
          PDF file of the case, too. Thank You. However, Kos' argument is NOT a canard. Alito did argue that the 10 year old girl's fourth amendment rights were not being infringed when she was stripsearched by overzealous policemen, who DIDN'T have the authority to stripsearch that 10 year old girl.
          •  asdf (4.00)
            The issue in the case was not whether the police can search children - clearly they can as long as its in the warrant. The question was what should have been understood as included in the warrant. None of the analysis is about whether children can be searched.
            •  And? (none)
              Nobody is making the claim that this was the case, either. I know I am not, I know Kos isn't.Additionally, that Alito , like the overzealous Policemen, failed to make the distinction between "frequent visitors that purchase meth" as mentioned in the affidavit [NOT INCORPORATED BY the Warrant] and a 10 year old girl raises certain disturbing questions that Alito will have to answer.
            •  But the effect (none)
              was exactly that the police can strip-search children without a warrant specifically stating (outside of an unincorporated affidavit) that this is permissible. I understand that the ostensible rationale for his decision is what appears to be a novel interpretation of warrants, not a novel interpretation of strip-searching children ... but the effect of the former is to permit the latter.

              Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

              by GussieFN on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:33:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The effect of the former (none)
                is to permit a variety of searches that would be impermissible if the warrant is read technically. Those searches might or might not involve children. Kos only mentions children because it is inflammatory, not because it is relevant to Alito's legal reasoning or attitudes towards children.
                •  Um, in the real-world, (none)
                  these things do affect children. So what's the problem? The fact that this isn't directly relevant to Alito's legal reasoning or attitudes, but only to the results of his legal reasoning and attitudes seems pretty beside the point.

                  Obviously we should frame opposition in the most-inflammatory way, so long as it's justified. It's justified: Alito's legal reasoning leads directly to increased discretion of police to strip-search my child. As long as we say, 'Alito's ruling would permit the police to strip search your child in absence of what's now considered a valid warrant,' or similar, and not 'Alito expressly wishes to empower police to focus all strip-searching efforts on ten year old girls,' we're okay.

                  Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

                  by GussieFN on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:13:54 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  A house can be a big place (1.50)
          The appellants in this case did not exhibit incompetence or a willingness to flout the law. Instead, they reasonably concluded that the magistrate had authorized a search of all occupants

          All occupants? Why not all occupants of an apartment building or city block. Specifically now, why not?  Some houses are now apartment buildings.

          This has to do with: once a warrant is written, how many times does it swing around the world? Through how many orifices does it travel? Nothing in anything you've said tells us where you would draw the line, and you seem just fine with looking in a little girl's snatch.

          I gotta wonder.

          •  Um, (3.50)
            A "house" is very much different from an apartment building or a city block.  This is a terrible argument, please rework.

            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:23:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No it isn't (2.50)
              It's part of your curtilage. Look it up. What's your curtilage? SCOTUS says a lot about curtilage. What do you say, Slim?

              First it's pertaining to who they're looking for, and then it's pertaining to who they're not looking for, as in this case.

              First it's your house, then it's your curtilage.

              Slim: Perhaps you could tell us how much different it is in SCOTUSee kinda talk. I think you don't know.

              •  Heh (none)
                Your argument sounds like bad reasoning from a 1L crim class.  A "house" is very different from a "city block" and it's possible to draw a distinction between the two.

                "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:40:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sounds like you never took one (2.66)
                  Where are houses anyways? Yes, not all houses are on city blocks, but some are. Any search of a house is a search of a specific place in a city block.

                  Sometimes searches of city blocks are OK. The cops did this by me once, and I was glad they did.

                  The heart of the issue is giving the cops a sweeping generality where a specificity belongs. Sometimes they get to do this. Sometimes they should, like when they're chasing a guy.

                  This judge interpretted the specific area in the warrant to be so general, that there may as well have been no warrant at all. Too bad for us.

                  Seems like you never took any such class. That's no big deal. Most people don't.

                  •  Ha (none)
                    Please, keep arguing that it's somehow impossible to distinguish a search of a house from a search of an entire city block.  Brilliant legal reasoning.

                    "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                    by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:56:10 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How typical (none)
                      To change the subject rather than admit defeat.

                      Now we know that:

                      1. You don't read my posts. You wish to frame my argument rather than address it.

                      2. You don't go to school to study the subject, yet feel perfectly qualified to argue to know end (in either sense) with someone who has.

                      Typical. But not unexpected.
                      •  Ha (none)
                        Sorry, not going to "admit defeat" when you're clearly wrong and my point continues to be correct -- you exhibit the legal skills of an awkward 1L crim class.

                        Your post:
                        "'Instead, they reasonably concluded that the magistrate had authorized a search of all occupants'

                        All occupants? Why not all occupants of an apartment building or city block. Specifically now, why not?  Some houses are now apartment buildings."

                        This is just plain bad reasoning.  There's a very obvious reason behind "why not all occupants of an apartment building or city block" -- there's a logical difference between the size and scope of a house and the size and scope of a city block.  Your hypothetical is offbase and irrelevant.  The two items are merely different.

                        And actually, I did go to law school, that's why your post brought the smile to my face --- it so sounded like a bad hypo from my crim law class.

                        "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                        by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:46:21 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So why not? (none)
                          This guy believes in the rubber search warrant that covers everybody in the house because it's a house.

                          I don't need you to admit defeat. Although it seems like you just did when it comes to you vs. finishing law school. Of course I don't know if you did or didn't or will and it doesn't matter. If you're able, then answer the question:

                          If a warrant can be applied to people who were not named in a place that was named, why can't it be applied to places that weren't named as well?

                          •  So bizarre (none)
                            "This guy believes in the rubber search warrant that covers everybody in the house because it's a house." --- That's not the case, it had to do with the affadavit and the police's conduct, etc.  Not because merely because it was a house, but because of the warrant application, etc.

                            "I don't need you to admit defeat. Although it seems like you just did when it comes to you vs. finishing law school."  --- hahahaha!  What??!?  What implied that I didn't finish law school?  You baffle me.

                            As for this simplistic hypo: " If you're able, then answer the question:  If a warrant can be applied to people who were not named in a place that was named, why can't it be applied to places that weren't named as well?" ---- Obvious reasons.  The search warrant application made the logical argument that, given there was probable cause to believe that the house was a meth den, then there is probable cause to believe that occupants are there for the purpose of being drugs and therefore may also have illegal drugs on their person.  And just because a warrant for House A can be applied to unnamed occupants, a warrant for House A can't be applied to House B, because there is no logic behind it.  These are not parallel circumstances in any way that would lead you to conclude that the warrant should include other places as well.

                            Seriously, poor thinking, now I aim my legal ed curiosity at you ---- may lawschooldar is pointing towards SMU, you have a very Miersian quality.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:31:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  we're all occupants (none)
                            The search warrant application made the logical argument that, given there was probable cause to believe that the house was a meth den, then there is probable cause to believe that occupants are there for the purpose of being drugs and therefore may also have illegal drugs on their person.

                            So it's because they occupied the house? If house A is next to house B, this same logic can and is being applied for searching house B. It's touching the same ground that House B is, just like the people in House A. House B is just as unnamed in the warrant as poor Ms. Doe was. This was an obvious case of prejudgment that anyone in a dirty place is a dirty person. This world can be a dirty place.

                            What implied that I didn't finish law school?  You baffle me.
                            You've been baffled quite a bit all day today. Let's start with the fact that you don't seem to grasp the crux of the matter, continue on with your apparent inability to separate legal issues any better than a non lawyer like myself, and wind up here.

                            Search warrants still mean something in the day & age, and folks like you visiting from freeperville seem to think that they can be wished away, no matter how blatant the violation of human rights. America is hardly a beacon of human rights these days, with people shot dead in their tracks on the bridge to Gretna and childrens' privates searched for being in the wrong house. What I find baffling is your dogged defense of the indefensible.

                          •  Seriously weak analogy (none)
                            Your "same logic" to allow the search of House B because it touches the same ground as House A is absurd and amazingly dense.  Laughable.

                            Ah, and you're a non-lawyer, of course.  That explains it, I guess.

                            I actually did go to law school (and graduate), and I understand the issues here far better than you -- and I say that, not due to my legal education and your lack thereof, but because you've demonstrated such poor analysis throughout.

                            And you're such a fool to think I'm a freeper.  What brought you to that conclusion?  Obviously nothing in the substance of what I've written, it probably just makes it easier to try and dismiss my view.

                            What's funny is I've never defended the substance of Alito's position --- I've merely pointed out when people are getting his arguments wrong and misrepresenting the legal issues involved.  There's plenty to attack Alito on, substance-wise, you are just missing the mark here.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:45:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hmmmmmmmmm, a REAL lawyer spending the (none)
                            better part of a day here with me freeping on this guy? And the whole while freeping while not being a freeper. What's wrong with this picture? How's the billable hours thing going? Not so good at my place. I've been doing too much of this today. The top line is that a little girl got stripped search by the cops, and the bottom line is the Alito thought it was fine because information in an affadavit is pretty much as good as warrant. So, in substance, what's wrong with this?
                            The warrant provides the license to search, not the affidavit. Cases such as Bianco, Towne and Carlisle may allow us to rescue an overbroad warrant if the police forbear from exercising the full measure of its excessive scope. It does not follow that we can rescue an overbroad search if the police exceed the full measure of the warrant. Bluntly, it is one thing if officers use less than the authority erroneously granted by a judge. It is quite another if officers go beyond the authority granted by the judge. Were we to adopt the officers' approach to warrant interpretation, and allow an unincorporated affidavit to expand the authorization of the warrant, we would come dangerously close to displacing the critical role of the independent magistrate.
                            Your boy said that this was wrong, wrong, wrong. Why don't we just get rid of search warrants and say an affadavit is just as good just so the we can say everybody in the house gets an ass search? Who here wonders what got up slim's today, and is willing to sign an affadavit?
                          •  Haha (none)
                            Calling me a liar?  Don't think I'm a real lawyer?  Because I'm wasting some time proving people wrong on kos?  Like I would be the first lawyer on this site to do so.

                            He's not my boy, sorry to disappoint, and I'm not a freeper.  I'm just that (apparently) rare liberal who can see the substance of an opponent's view and respond to that substance, rather than be distracted by non-issues or engage in spin.

                            You're a fool, you think this has anything to do with my view?  I merely tried to point out what Alito's argument was, since fools like you misrepresented it and made poor legal arguments.

                            I responded to you in the first place because of the terrible slippery slope argument you made about searching houses and city blocks, as if they were the same.  Terrible, illogical.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:21:42 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Aww. I came back here, hoping that (none)
                            ... you had some lawyerly thing of substance to say.

                            You: lawyer or not, liberal or not, liar or not, with your boy or not, might at least say something of substance from the pull quote of the majority opinion. You don't agree, I guess. Maybe you do. Perhaps we'll never know. Why?

                            Say something lawyerly, please, about what we're talking about, that doesn't involve suing me.

                          •  Heh (none)
                            This all stems from your comment I first responded to, simply because I had to, given how irrational it was.  Every one of your substance-free, illogical, freeper-accusing responses shows the lack of any real critical thinking.

                            You give liberals a bad name, stop posting.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:08:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So I guess we'll never know (none)
                            Not the first time the blogosphere bottoms out while seeking substance.
                          •  What is it you'd like to know? (none)

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:17:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ah, talking about the quote you pulled? (none)
                            I agree with the majority.  That doesn't stop the fact that your arguments are weak and nonsensical.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:19:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Snatch? (4.00)
            No one looked up anyone's snatch. Here are the facts of the case from the majority opinion against which Alito dissented:

            "The officers decided to search Jane and Mary Doe for contraband, and sent for the meter patrol officer. When she arrived,  [237]  the female officer removed both Jane and Mary Doe to an upstairs bathroom. They were instructed to empty their pockets and lift their shirts. The female officer patted their pockets. She then told Jane and Mary Doe to drop their pants and turn around. No contraband was found. With the search completed, both Jane and Mary Doe were returned to the ground floor to await the end of the search."

            Remember, these are the facts as described by the judges who *opposed the search. If there were any snatch-gazing, it would have been described to strengthen their case.

      •  Canard? Just wait until your ten year old girl (2.80)
        is in the wrong place at the wrong time. You later find out that she went straight to the stirrups due to official curiosity.

        At one time, the test of what the police should do was, was it shocking? I'm shocked. This guy wasn't. What an asshole.

        My God! We need a video spot that has stirrups in it.

        •  asdf (none)
          look, the police, with a proper warrant, are allowed to search 10 year old girls, 8 year old girls, 5 year old girls.

          the issue here was the warrant properly executed, not if kids can be searched.

          ergo, the depiction by kos is a canard.

          I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

          by The Exalted on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:07:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You may have found a canard within a noncanard (none)
            asdf, Yes, I agree that kids can be searched, and saying that kids can't be searched is a canard.

            But this issue is not a canard. It's real. When a search warrant leaves a judge's bench and goes out into the world, it can take on a life of its own. There's a big mean world of searchophiles that would love for every one of these warrants to mean the police can go a little further than they should.

            Here, a mom and a little girl who had nothing on them and were not named in the warrant got a really good look taken of them. They existed in the wrong piece of real estate. A teeny bit of crack on a visitor to your house makes your house a crack house. Do you search all of your visitors? The cops went too far. So says nearly everybody and every judge but this wing nut, and there's nothing the least bit canardy about it.

            •  Heh (none)
              Not a great comeback.  Having nothing on you following the search has nothing to do with the validity of the search in the first place.  They "existed" in the wrong piece of real estate?  They were found in a house targeted with probable cause (backed up by a valid search warrant of that house) as a meth den.

              You are confusing a disagreement with his legal analysis with the validity of arguing that Alito is "pro-strip search of 10 year olds" --- that's the obvious canard that deliberately makes Alito seem like a degenerate

              "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

              by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:10:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not confusing anything but you (none)
                All judges are pro kiddie strip searches if they're warranted for being reasonable. I made it quite clear and I don't think you read my post.

                But you are Mr Rubber Reasonability, as is Alito. Cops get a warrant. Every human anywhere near the meth den, named in the warrant or not, gets whatever we don't want to think of as a full body search. It's OK. They're probably meth den aliens, too.

                Visiting freepers might think touching the floor of a meth den without a great and obvious reason makes a person a great candidate for the cavity search. I knew it would come to this all along.

                •  Wrong (none)
                  You seem to be confused --- I haven't expressed MY view at all (as in Mr Rubber Reasonability) --- I was pointing out Alito's argument and the general logic behind a search warrant.

                  And, of course, you're setting up strawmen and nonexistent absurdities --- in this opinion, Alito never argued that "every human anywhere near the meth den, named in the warrant or not, gets whatever we don't think of as a full body search.  it's OK."  ---- Alito never argues this, it was a narrow question on the interaction of the warrant request, affidavit and search warrant itself on the probable cause to search other inhabitants of a specifically designated target house for search.  You WISH Alito argued that anyone anywhere near that meth den should be searchable, because that would make it even easier to argument that he's a wingnut.  Sorry, though, he didn't argue that.  Stick to the facts and his actual legal analysis.

                  I'm still curious to know why you think I didn't finish law school.  Please explain.

                  "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                  by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:14:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (none)
        Purswarden, I agree. This is not a canard. Read the majority opinion by Michael Chertoff (of all people!) He repeatedly refers to the "10 year old child" and the unreasonableness of inferring any authority to strip search this particular child within the four corners of the warrant presented.
      •  I mut remember (none)
        to hide my

        cocaine
        guns
        bloody gloves
        stolen documents
        yellowcake

        on my children the next time the police want to search. Thank goodness for the right to hide ciminal evidence.

    •  General Bradley (none)
      During the final push into Tunis in the North African Campaign, General Omar Bradley made a detailed survey of the topography of a key position, then ordered his tank divisions to attack along the TOPS of the spine-like mountains leading to Axis fortified positions.  The senior German officer who survived told his interrogators "We had defeated you until you cheated".  "Cheated?", he was asked.  "Why yes - everyone knows tanks cannot operate in steep mountain terrain".

      sPh

    •  I agree (4.00)
      I was coming into the thread specifically to make that comment. There appears to be plenty to dog Alito's nomination on a caselaw basis; resorting to a rather distorted or narrow view of the Doe v Greedy case isn't necessary, and could get Alito opponents into trouble.

      From what I read, the warrant did not include the right to search the entire household, but the accompanying affadavit did. Alito ruled that it was not an unreasonable assumption on the part of the officers to search all occupants. Furthermore, the phrase "strip search" to me implies nakedness; the case summary appears to indicate they were stripped to their underwear. The girl was searched by a female officer, with the mother present.

      Maybe this strikes me a bit differently because it was a meth house. Unfortunately for her, a 10-year old girl is neither immune to being a meth user, nor (the more likely scenario) is she immune to being used as a place to secret contraband by other members of the household. Sadly, to properly bust John Doe, it may have been wise to search his daughter for drugs he may have forced her to hide.

      On balance I don't know that it was proper for Alito to rule the way he did, but to use his ruling in such a sensational and IMO fairly distortive way--particularly when there are many other highly disturbing rulings to pick from--is not wise. I'd urge Kos and other members to refrain from making this a meme on Alito. It may only serve to make opposition appear shrill.

      •  I agree (none)
        And as a side note (not that it has much to do with this case!), I'll add that I doubt the denizens of drug-infested neighborhoods would be happy with a blanket rule that children can never be searched. That just turns children into a great place to hide the drugs.
        •  Considering (none)
          constituency of both Republican and Democratic party consists of people who, you know, have children and who, if Alito's worldview is to become the letter of law ,could be searched without valid warrants, I'm not sure this is such a bad trade-off.
          •  Of course, (none)
            The search warrant was valid, the legal question went to the scope of the search of occupants.

            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:48:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Search warrant ,as (none)
              it was used, was not valid. The cops were wrong in their assumptions that the search warrant included that girl and her mother. It didn't.
              •  No, (none)
                If Alito's worldview took hold, the search warrant would have been valid and therefore he would allow searches of a mother and girl with a valid search warrant.

                Alito has never argued that anyone can be searched by an invalid search warrant; his legal argument in this case hinges on the validity of the warrant in the first place.

                "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:58:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And his assumption (none)
                  was clearly wrong as the precedence is established by Ybarra v.Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979). Alito wasn't arguing in favor on invalid search warrant but the warrant and scope of search that he was upholding was clearly invalid and already struck down by precedence.
                  •  Exactly (none)
                    You disagree with his legal reasoning.  That's fine.  But for you to argue that he's in favor of invalid strip searches is disingenuous and dishonest; you misrepresent his world view so you can make the inflammatory, spinster argument that he's in favor of strip searching 10 year olds.  Go after him on the substance of his legal reasoning, but don't act like he's in favor of invalid search warrants.

                    "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                    by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:05:27 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That stripsearch (none)
                      was invalid and it was held as such by courts. I'm not misrepresenting his worldview, just reading them aloud from his decisions.
                      •  Actually, you are (none)
                        Because in his worldview, the search warrant all the way through to the individual searches would have been valid.

                        Again, disagree with his legal reasoning, but to go after him as pro-strip search of 10 year olds is inaccurate and dishonest.

                        "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                        by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:32:31 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Who cares about his worldview? (none)
                          I am not arguing what he believes or what he thinks, you are. I am critiquing his decision which was to upheld an invalid search of a 10 year old girl. He was going against the legal precedence and the letter of law.
                          •  If you actually were (none)
                            going after his legal analysis, then you wouldn't have to stoop to the "he's in favor of illegally stripsearching 10 year olds" --- because that's disingenuous and very foxnews-esque

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:48:06 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That quote (none)
                            isn't mine. How Newsmax-esque!
                          •  heh, touche (none)
                            sorry, that quote was meant embody the entire attitude of kos, most commentors, and you --- not a direct quote

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:02:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  meant as in: (none)
                            diaries titled:  "Alito Believes in Strip-Searching Ten Year Old Girls"  by chumley

                            Such dishonesty and spin

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:04:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We don't know (none)
                            what Alito believes in. He did upheld the unauthorized search of a 10 year old. Sorry but you cannot spin the facts. Not even fabricated quotes will help you out.
                          •  Seriously (none)
                            Your dishonesty on pursuing this is disturbing.

                            He upheld as valid the search of a 10 year old.  He did not uphold an invalid search.  That's a fine distinction but an important one.

                            More importantly, he held as valid the search of anyone (of any age or sex) in that circumstance --- the fact that a 10 year old was there is besides the legal point.

                            You are spinning this completely.  It is dishonest spin to talk about Alito in this way, because the age and sex of the person in this case is irrelevant to the legal question --- the outcome would have been the same, regardless of age or sex.

                            You are spinning, like O'Reilly does, in order to make an ad hominem attack.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:21:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The search (none)
                            , as established by precedence, is invalid. That's the US law we are talking about here. Fact. And the fact that 10 year old is NOT beside the point as the affidavit (which was not incorporated) mentions- has frequent visitors that purchase methamphetamine. These persons may be onthe premises at the time of the execution of the search
                            warrant and many attempt to c o n c e a l c o n tr o l l e d substances on their persons.
                            The age , as referenced by Chertoff and other courts repeatedly, therefore is not immaterial in this case even if we chose to go by the wording of affidavit alone. That Alito upheld the unauthorized invalid stripsearch of a 10 year old is a fact. You can't spin it away but keep on trying.
                          •  You are spinning (none)
                            Face it, you want the headlines to read "Alito Favors Strip Searching Ten Year Olds", not because it's material, but because it's true in the most superficial sense.  It's deliberately obfuscating the circumstances of the legal question involved.

                            The search was held to be invalid by the majority court --- Alito argued that the search was valid, despite what was established by precedent (not precedence).

                            Look, you want to smear the guy, admit it.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:35:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He did what he did (none)
                            and I want the headline to read- "Alito upheld the unauthorized search of 10 year old girl" which is the accurate headline. There is no smear, it is just the fact and he'll be questioned on this in the committee anyway. And this will be featured in Civil liberties ads run against Alito, anyway.
                          •  Ha (none)
                            That's not an accurate headline!  He didn't uphold the unauthorized search, because his view wasn't upheld at all!

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:40:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  His views were (none)
                            shot down but he did upheld the unauthorized search but you have to admit, your biases aside, that this will make one killer of an ad campaign. You see, people don't want their 10 year old daughters strip-searched by Cops especially if the cops are abusing their authority.Like I said, his record is there for everyone to see.
                          •  Once again, wrong (none)
                            Yes, his views were shot down, but NO, he did not uphold the unauthorized search.  That's what you keep tripping up on.

                            Not sure what you think my biases are, other than I don't want us to employ cheap spin to go after him (when there's plenty of substance to attack).

                            I do admit it would make a killer ad campaign, but that's just the point -- the Swift Boat Vets had a killer ad campaign, that doesn't make it right.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:58:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why is it wrong? (none)
                            He chose to go against the grain of American jurisprudence, interpretation of fourth amendment and legal precedent. Swiftboaties were liars and we won't be lying if we were to run this ad campaign so I call bullshit on your analogy. The point isn't that Alito is a pervert , the point is that he is outside of American judicial mainstream and such an ad campaign will easily get this point across.
                          •  If your focus actually was on the substance... (none)
                            of his legal analysis, then you'd be honest --- but you want to focus on the inflammatory aspect of the story.  It's true, but it really is besides the point.

                            Face it, it's spin, you're literally spinning his argument about search and seizure into a "he is okay with illegal strip searches of 10 year olds" --- you don't actually want to present the poor legal analysis.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Two different issues. (none)
                            Cold,legal analysis is bad subject matter for ad campaigns. There has to be a human element that people identify with. This girl will be someone people identify with and we can make our legal argument-that Alito is outside American jurisprudence mainstream- through such ad campaigns. There is absolutely no spin here.
                          •  Halfway there (none)
                            Yes, this puts a "human" face on his legal position --- but it IS spin, you can deny it all you want, but for Alito, the age and sex of the searchee were completely irrelevant, so to paint him as in favor of unauthorized strip searches of 10 year olds implies otherwise, beyond the fact that the point is to make him seem like a moral degenerate.

                            It's spin --- now, you might as well admit it and argue, yes, I'm in favor of spinning this decision for this purpose.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:22:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope, it is NOT (none)
                            a spin. This is what he supported and if you have a warped legal reasoning , you'll  more often than not end up in a soup. It is quite simple, if you argue that police should be allowed more leeway than 200 year old legal precedents allow, you are actually arguing for more innocents getting caught up in this web. There is no better way to illustrate this than by presenting the Alito case- He who was okay with a 10 year old girl being stripsearched because of his faulty legal reasoning.
                          •  It is spin (none)
                            He made a legal argument that did not hinge on the sex or age of searchees.  You are sidestepping discussing his (faulty) legal argument by pointing out one consequence (the search of 10 year old girls under his reasoning) - it is spin, pure and simple.

                            Face it, you're wrong, you want to spin his otherwise age-sex neutral argument into an inflammatory comment about his views on the legal treatment of minors.  You do this because it's easier than talking about the substance of his decision.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:34:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dude. (none)
                            I have been talking about the substance of this argument throughout this thread. I think you are taking issues with Markos and his frontpage diary as he is the one who didn't go into the legal analysis. Me, just read my posts upthread that deal with his legal analysis. Secondly, judgements don't apply to hypotheticals, real people are affected. Why shouldn't we use this judgement to highlight the fact that if Alito's legal analysis is the rule of law, cops will have authority to stripsearch 10 year old girls like they did in this case without proper authority. Where is the spin here? Face it, you are spinning for Alito but the sad thing is that you don't have a valid argument. His legal analysis was crooked and I don't have a problem highlighting the case where he made these regressive dissent. None whatsoever.
                          •  It is spin (none)
                            You keep getting fundamentals wrong.  If, as you say, "Alito's legal analysis is the rule of law," then NO, they don't have the authority to stripsearch ANYONE without proper authority, b/c in Alito's world, they WOULD have legal authority.  You keep getting this wrong.  Think harder.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:48:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, in Alito's (none)
                            world fourth amendment would be further abridged. Why is to wrong to point out the consequences of a judgement taken to its full conclusion?
                          •  Heh (none)
                            Yes, in Alito's world, the 4th amendment would be further abridged.  That is a substantive argument against Alito.  Pointing out the consequences in the most sensationalist way possible (he supports stripsearching little old ladies! etc.) is spin.

                            We agree that he should be judged for the substance of his judgments, but it's clear that the 10 year old stripsearch thing is an incendiary way of spinning his substantive legal analysis, and given that the age and sex of a searchee are irrelevant to his legal view on this issue, it's unfair and dishonest to spin it that way.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:01:35 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope. (none)
                            There is nothing sensationalistic pointing out the facts of the case that brought forth this reading of fourth amendment and Supreme Court precedents by Alito.None at all. I'm talking facts here and you are the one who is moving into the bizarro world of spin.
                          •  Fool (none)
                            I can't believe you seriously think I'M doing the spinning here.  You consistently misstate the truth of Alito's legal analysis (saying that he's in favor of unauthorized strip searches) and, even though the substance of Alito's opinion had nothing to do with the age or sex of the searchee, you want to push this singular fact above all others because this puts the most negative face on the decision.

                            You should just embrace the spin, don't deny it.  You've cherrypicked the most favorable fact (notice nothing about the strip search of the woman alone or the searches of other occupants, the focus clearly on the most inflammatory part) in order to make him look as bad as possible.  That is spin.

                            Sorry, just admit it, embrace it and run with it.  I just disagree with the tactic.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:08:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You may want to (none)
                            re-read the case. The case was about the fourth amendment right infringement of mother and daughter. There may not be legal distinction but there is a social distinction between a 40 year old and a 10 year old. This battle will be fpought in social domain not the legal domain so I have no problem highlighting the case of daughter over mother. This doesn't make it spin or you don't know what spin is. Secondly, I am saying that he accepted the unauthorized stripsearch of a ten year old girl not that he favors .....
                          •  haha (none)
                            you lost the argument at "There may not be legal distinction but... "

                            Guess what --- Alito answered a legal question, not a social question.  That's what the court does.  Game over.

                            And again, he did not ACCEPT the unauthorized stripsearch --- he said that it WAS authorized.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:23:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That search was (none)
                            unauthorized and it has been established. You are fighting windmills here, friend?

                               And you misread my first point. I was talking about the legal distinction between a 40 year old and a 10 year old not the legal status of the case itself. A premature gotcha, I'm afraid.

                          •  Wrong again (none)
                            Getting tiresome.

                            Yes, the court found that the search was unauthorized.  Alito did not argue that unauthorized searches are allowed, he argued (in the minority) that the search was authorized.

                            You keep missing this legal distinction.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:28:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The distinction (none)
                            is that Alito is legally incompetent on issues of fourth amendment. Any questions?
                          •  Heh (none)
                            Tons of questions, mostly dealing with how confused you are.

                            I will agree, however, that Alito is incompetent, in all areas of con law.  The man is a wingnut.

                            "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

                            by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:32:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  His views were (none)
                            shot down but he did upheld the unauthorized search .However you have to admit, your biases aside, that this will make one killer of an ad campaign. You see, people don't want their 10 year old daughters strip-searched by Cops especially if the cops are abusing their authority.Like I said, his record is there for everyone to see.
    •  But (none)
      I'd rather do less thinking and just go with the O'Reillyian talking point that Alito is a degenerate!  It makes it all so much easier!

      "I don't know how to put this ... but I'm kind of a big deal."

      by Slim Tyranny on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:41:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There's so much to hate (none)
    Just when I think I've learned all I need to know, I get five more reasons to oppose him vehemently.
  •  War (none)
    Bush has declared WAR. And by God he is going to get one.
  •  Excellent, excellent summary. (none)
    This is definitely a fight for the soul of the country, and both sides (often arrogantly) insist that the nation is with them and them alone.  

    But remember, on many issues, the country HAS been moving to the right.  Therefore, you neglect to allow for one scary possibility -- what if they continue to win?

    •  well (none)
      Every single poll I have seen on important issues, health care, taxes, education, abortion shows that the Amercian people are with the democrats and are surprisingly liberal. We are NOT moving to the right. That is complete right wing non-sense.

      If the dems fight (and I hope they will) we cannot lose. If the Judge is rejected, then it's a hugh win. When the thugs try to run on this one, using Alito as an example of how "out of control" the dems are, most people will think of his views and put those on the candidate. If they force him through by violating the constitution, hopefully people will finally get pissed and the thugs will be out for a generation. Here is hoping we fight.

      Impossible is nothing

      by DrSpike on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:33:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Don't forget Plame (none)
    The Bush administration to threaten our safety by revealing an uncover CIA operative.
  •  Democrats have to be FORCEFUL here (4.00)
    The Democratic Party, and its senators, have to be forceful and relentless in drawing the picture for the public and the media here.

    It is imperative to stay on this message:

    Samuel Alito is the GOP's vision of America.  This is the direct and unavoidable consequence of filling the White House and the Congress with conservative Republicans.  This is not what the majority of Americans want, but if you want to do something about it, you have to help us get the Repubs out of there.  Starting now.

    If the message gets muddled, or if the Dems look like they are opposing just because their advocacy groups say so, then we will be wasting a golden opportunity.

    ModestNeeds.org Response For Hurricane Evacuees

    by socal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:51:36 AM PST

  •  Filibuster him (none)
    Alito must be filibustered.

    Evan Bayh 2008
    Miller for KY Governor 2007
    http://kydem.blogspot.com

    by dsolzman on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:51:43 AM PST

  •  Keep it simple (3.60)

    We should tout THREE THINGS over and over about his record:

    -Strip searching 10 year old girls
    (there are a lot of dads on the left and right that would serve a few months in jail to prevent this humiliation of their daughter- imagine what the wingnits would be saying if Janet Reno said this was OK???)

    -Overturning Roe v Wade

    -Family-Medical Leave opposition
    (All the busineess people I knwo actually LIKE this- they don't have to make tough choices about leave for employees).

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:51:44 AM PST

    •  Simple=Good (none)

      inspire change...don't back down

      by missliberties on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:55:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  One thing-- Alito thinks a woman should have (none)
      her husband's permission before she is allowed to have an abortion.

      George Bush doesn't care about Black people.... and Andrea Mitchell doesn't care about the Truth....

      by DeanFan84 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:09:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Bet 50 Cents He Actually Believes (none)
        she need's God's permission.

        We've only seen him rule on the husband question.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:15:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Just hit em on R v W (none)

        That is too specific and gets into too much side debate that is not productive--

        there are a lot of soccer and NASCAR DADS that don't get this issue-- that there are men who beat their wives and that a woman may truly be afraid to notify-- we need to simply say OVERTURN R V W and that is sufficient.

        Bush will be impeached.

        by jgkojak on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:26:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's a positive in some camps (none)
        Based on the Republicans I know, his idea that a woman must get her husband's permission before an abortion would be welcomed.  Some of these Republican guys I know are positively Neanderthal when it comes to their wives... and the Wives go along with it.  That's what we're up against.  Are Alito's ideas out of the mainstream or not?
      •  no he doesn't (none)
        please double check that.

        (BTW, we know very little about what he thinks. We know how he has ruled.)

        Judges who follow the law may well make rulings that are required by the law that they disagree with.

    •  Even simpler (4.00)
      Just hammer away at FMLA - that's a nonpartisan winner. Even a pro-lifer can get on board against that.
  •  If we don't fight to the very end on Alito, (4.00)
    just WHEN would the Democrats ever fight?  This is it, folks.  This is for all the marbles.  

    Social Security and Medicare, not to mention the Endangered Species Act and everything else that those who believe in the Constitution in exile would prohibit are TRULY at risk here.

    No, Alito would not take us back to the 50s.  He'd take us back to the 30s before the fucking New Deal.  This may be the most important political fight of our lives.  Who cares who the hell we get as President in 2008 or Congress in 2006, if we have a Court that rules all of the legislation unconstitutional.

    "As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." Justice Kennedy, Lawrence v Texas

    by HillaryGuy on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:52:23 AM PST

  •  Another College Republican Jerk (none)
    At least that's what he reminds me of.

    See for yourself

  •  Our horrible insensitivity (none)
    Remember, WE are all ethnically insensitive for calling him Scalito-- oohh, I was just ethnically insensitive by typing that.  I'm sorry, Drudge, I'll apologize for calling him what others having been doing with NON-ethnic intentions for years, Scalito-- whoa, there, I did it again.  We liberals have to stop being soooooooo insensitive to minorities and other ethnicities, racist white-power types that we are.
    •  Man, woman, or minority... (none)
      Trent Lott said he wanted a man, woman, or minority.

      Looks like we got the minority candidate.

    •  on the other hand (none)

      We are rather fair.  Alito is a guy whose basic point of view is essentially that of, say, seventeenth century or earlier Italians.  Scalia's is that of the people who ran the Roman Empire.  

      Apparently Medieval Europeans need ever more Affirmative Action in American society these days, such underprivileged minorities that they are.

      Renewal, not mere Reform.

      by killjoy on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:45:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Perhaps on of Kos's BEST posts ever (none)

    i really need to see a silver-lining in this. Kos is right. 100%

    "You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. Yo

    by AmericanHope on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:53:06 AM PST

  •  The Wingers (4.00)
    seem a little defensive about how out of the main stream this guy is. Sheepishly defending his rabid rulings of this man who is hostile to most of America's ideals. He is definitely an activist judge dead set on ruling and legislating from the bench.

    Give the WingNut BullDawgs a bone to chew on, so as not to think to much about the Treason that has just been brought to light in the WH.

    How ridiculous that the country is forced to be sidetracked from the many serious challenges it faces with by this contentious and divisive nominee.

    I guess WH thinks we won't notice that the country is going broke,
    morally and financially.
    And all we get is Wingers with a gleam in their eye for a fight.

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:54:27 AM PST

  •  Please remind me never, never, never to play poker (4.00)
    with this man:

    In the long run we are all Keynes. (dead)

    by MarkInSanFran on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:54:33 AM PST

  •  Get focused! (3.33)
    Just my $.02, but I would push one point over and over: "women need their husband's permission for a legal medical procedure."

    That's, like, pre-dinosaur.  Everything after that is just added stench.  Seriously, isn't this one idea enough to defeat him?

    "I didn't have good intelligence!"

    by el fuego on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:55:14 AM PST

    •  Yes, get focused and don't give an inch (none)
      Pre-dinosaur is right of course.  1899 looms large for women with this nominee.

      The marriage notification is heinous in so many ways.  Once again, women can't be trusted making decisions about their own bodies.  It also doesn't take into account why women often don't tell their husbands.  Doesn't it stand to reason that those who can safely tell their spouses most likely do so?

      On the flip side of the coin is the women who don't tell their husbands usually have something to fear.  They don't tell them for good reason.   Every nine seconds a woman is the victim of violence or sexual assautl by their spouse in this country.  How many of those women are pregnant?  How many of those women fear for their lives and the lives of their children?

      The outrage of people of color, of people with disabilities and the outrage of women will be heard loud and clear.   Our leadership better equal the strength of our voices.  We deserve nothing less than an out and out war on this confirmation fight.  We should settle for nothing less.

      Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less. Susan B. Anthony

      by caliberal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:28:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And you'll be just as bad as them. (3.50)
      It's not "permission", it's "notification." You're sitting there writing an effective right-wing talking point as long as you get it wrong.

      http://higherfrequency.blogspot.com

      by Bensch on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:44:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No (none)
      It's recipe for our defeat.

      Even dim-witted voters who get riled up about "women needing their husband's permission" and then learn a few days later that it was really about "notification" will understand that there is a difference. And then feel like we tried to deceive them. And then their elected senators will cave.

      Now is NOT the time to exaggerate with inflammatory words. If we want our words to matter longer than a sound-bite, we must speak accurately.

      •  Whoops! (none)
        75% right is my goal before the first cup of coffee.  Still, assuming I had transcribed the point correctly, the message to women is about the same: YOU ARE NOT IN CHARGE OF YOURSELVES!  Notification is slightly less blunt than what I thought I had read, but gets us about to the same place.  I'm not too up to speed, but my point is that above all other snippets of his decisions making the blogs right now, this is the one that brings his true awfulness home.  Even the strip-searching 10-year-olds could be explained away on more technical grounds, since there he is refusing to get involved in preventing abuse of civil liberties.  With the notification requirement, he would impose duties on women that can ONLY speak to their role as second-class citizens, in his mind.  There is no technical-sounding way to explain this one.

        "I didn't have good intelligence!"

        by el fuego on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:04:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Kos: (none)
    This is one of your best post in a long time.

    Democrats and moderates need to pay attention here.  This is our chance to bring the talking heads back to where the country is, in the middle.  No, not the right wing we are all religious,hate taxes and love CEOs middle.  The true american hard working get government out of my face, protect our country and educate our children middle

    Midwest Center for American Values - Progressive ideas in an easy to swallow pill.

    by ETinKC on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:55:20 AM PST

  •  As i said in another thread (none)
    (apologies to those who've seen this already)

    I've already written to Specter, Snowe, Collins, Warner and Chafee.  

    We must be relentless in going after any GOPer who has a modicum of "moderateness" -- to buck them up, to be squeakier wheels than the reactionaries, to point out that they are actually in a political position to put principle over party.

    Our noise machine MUST out-do the reactionaries.  It SHOULDN'T just be the Dems or usual-suspect interest groups fighting this one; it should be anyone who cares about limiting government interference in our private lives while supporting government efforts to ensure our liberties. (That includes all those progressive/moderate congregations out there, too!)  

    It's time to fight fire with fire!  If not now, when?

    regards,

  •  Unopened Gift (none)
    Prediction: either the Dems will fail to filibuster or, when the Republicans cheat and resort to the nuclear option, they will get away with it.  

    Also, I bet few prominent Democrats will take the opportunity to make braod characterizatins of Republican values.

  •  stop the business of Congress (4.00)
    If they choose to employ the nuclear option, we can stop Congress.  It is not the desired route, but it has some positive side effects.  Think of stalling Bush's agenda between now and the 2006 elections.  I think that this is the consequence he tried to avoid with his first two nominations.  But we need to clearly educate the American people as to what we are doing.  They have already forgotten the good education they received on the filibuster earlier this year.  (Just as they have moved on from Katrina and Pakistan.)  The Dems can do little to improve the country until they take back Congress or get some real moderate Republicans to join us.  But our Congresspeople can help stop the continuing undermining of all that we hold dear.  I hope they are willing to take this risk if it becomes necessary.
    •  You are absolutely right, but (none)
      do the Dems have the balls to stand tall and fight for what is right.

      Disabled Viet Vet ret. My snark is worse than my bite

      by eddieb061345 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:03:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How Long... (none)
      How long would the Dem and Moderate Republican Alliance have to hold out here? Until Nov. 2006? Um, there's a little matter of a budget that has to be passed... etc...

      Part of me thinks we messed up big in 2004 when we let the race get so close by nominating Kerry. We should eat our crow and regroup for 2006. Even if we manage to oust Alito, who would come next... how many times can we do this before we have to cave and let someone through?

  •  So we get our ideological showdown (none)
    but who really thinks this guy won't get on?  I mean, I know the moderate R's will have some serious soul searching to do but in the end I think he'll be in.  

    and then we are fucked.

    i mean, really fucked.  bye bye new deal.  bye bye 60 years of social progress.  probably bye bye any chance of reigning in the coorporate-politician bed sharing that has led us to this point.  ugh...

    what chance do we have?  they are about to lock it in here folks...

    R for Reverse, D for Drive

    by leftwords on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:56:34 AM PST

    •  i dont think he will get on the court (none)
      but some of you, and there is a sizeable number here at d kos, are good at the gloom and doom.
      •  and if he doesn't get on the court (none)
        whats to say the next nominee won't be about the same?  

        I personally think this was bush's game all along.  Meiers lets them say "well gee we tried a moderate, we are not completely one track minded here".  

        R for Reverse, D for Drive

        by leftwords on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:23:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  whats your point (none)
          that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. i was planning, and still am planning to write a meta diary about the gloom and doom progressives such as yourself. you aren't offering solutions just what you are afraid can go wrong. that's all y'all ever seem to offer to debate. americans, and some progressives (liberals, whatever you want to call me) such as myself don't want to spend all day, everyday being afraid anymore. you can live your life like that, but please stop projecing it into every discussion. there is every reason to believe that if we fight this- the democrats can win it, but it can't be won with your attitude. i am glad to hear that thus far it's not the approach being taken by reid and company.
          •  fear and loathing can be motivating (none)
            it is to me, if it is not to you just ignore us.

            i know there is lots we can and must do and i am participating.  but reminding myself what we are up against is useful to some.

            R for Reverse, D for Drive

            by leftwords on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:43:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  yeah actually at this point (none)
              that's going to be part of my thesis- to suceed the party needs to ignore you becuase irrational fear leads to inability correctly access risk and figure out what to do next. you can't get a head of the curve being afraid of your own shadow all the time. it'sthat way in life, and htat way here too.
              •  i do not believe you can win a battle (none)
                if you do not properly know the size, strength and nature of the enemy you face.  i think what you are talking about is exactly what we did in the 90s and it is why we didn't really get much progress.  

                we need more anger, more fear, more worry.  to solve problems you must acknowledge them.

                R for Reverse, D for Drive

                by leftwords on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:58:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  thats what they did (none)
                Bush ignored the part of his party that he didnt like, choosing instead to marry himself politically to the far right wing of his party, what he calls his base, while ignoring the vast majority of republicans that are more moderate.  We shall see what happens to the Republican party as a result of this.

                You now propose to do the same thing, ignoring those who disagree with you, or who see different paths to reach our common objective.  I hope we shall not have to see the results to the Democratic Party as a result of this.

                Many of us will choose this battle to fight, and we may well loose.  Others will sit and watch, hoping we do well, but still, just watching.  I say let them watch, and bitch and moan if they want too.  Thats kinda what makes us Democrate, IMHO.

                •  yeap i propose to do the same by ignoring (none)
                  gloom and doomers who sit around treating politics like group therapy rather than a way to organize to change things. this will be my last comment on this because armando hits the nail on the head with folks like this on the front page. i am starting to do a little research and finding out what i can do to help stop alito rather than continuing this pointless discussion w/ you two. good luck with your fears. peace.
    •  maybe you are already (none)
      FUCKED.

      It's a little too early to whine about being too powerless to keep a lil' Hitler off of us.

      Nobody really wants to live under his rules. It's just that the wingnuts are pretty sure that the rules don't really apply to them.

    •  We can all move to Canada (none)
      If all that you claim comes true, that is really our only option.  Until 2006 - when we take the House and/or Senate back and then in 2008 when we put in a few young progressive, fair-minded judges of our own.

      "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

      by adigal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:25:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  what supreme court seats will open (none)
        from 2008 to 2012?

        At LEAST we would get a chance to appoint a new Fed chair (instead of keeping the previous one as Clinton did) which I hope to GOD the next democrat president would do.  

        But yes, we would absolutely get some lower seats filled which is no small thing.

        R for Reverse, D for Drive

        by leftwords on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:32:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  UUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHH (none)
        If we all move to Canada, then who will vote to take the House/Senate back?

        Just asking.

        •  I'm not moving to Canada - I was kidding (none)
          But if our country is so right wing that even after all of what Bush has done, they vote in more republicans, then what?? What does the future hold for our kids??

          "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

          by adigal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:54:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  House is no longer your private domain (none)

    Years ago I thought this was a conservative principle, my how times have changed.

    The new family values

  •  This guy sounds positively frightening. (none)
    Is this the best that Princeton (AB) and Yale (JD) can produce?  

    "If you compromise the truth, the whole system is lost." - Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney

    by Rona on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:56:48 AM PST

  •  How does it get any better from here? (none)
    If Bush is willing to nominate a radical wingnut like this, what happens IF he is successfully opposed?  Can we really expect Bush to back down and nominate someone who won't espouse the same ideas?

    Things look quite bleak, I think.  Perhaps if enough Republican moderates switch and send the clear signal that they've drawn the line in the sand and no nominee like Alito will pass, will we get out of this mess, but we all know how Bush never backs down and admits failure.

    The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. Somerset Maugham

    by verasoie on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:57:28 AM PST

    •  2 Supreme Court defeats in a row... (none)
      Would cripple Bush.
    •  We get Sandra Day back (none)
      If this fails he'll have to go to the center....
    •  Payoff for opposing Alito (none)
      The immediate payoff is that this nutjob won't be on the court.  That's reason enough for me.  Here are some other results:

      1. Seriously pissed-off and bitter Christian right.  This is their big goal, the opportunity they've fought for all these years.  If a knock-down, drag-out fight takes place, they will go absolutely ballistic, threatening any Senator who stands in their way with total destruction and (probably literally) damnation in hellfire for opposing Alito.  For them to lose after such an effort would be devastating to their movement and to their relationship with the GOP.

      2. You say that Bush "never backs down and admits failure".  But if his flip-flopping from Miers to Alito isn't admitting failure, then nothing is.  He went from arguing that the SCOTUS needs someone from outside the "monastery" of the courts to bragging about how Alito has more judicial experience than any nominee for 70 years.  He went from saying that Miers would definitely get confirmed to letting her walk away and quickly forgetting that he had said that she was the most qualified candidate.

      If Alito is defeated, Bush will just go through the process again.  But the Fundie nutjobs will have suffered a bitter loss, and if Bush finds another person as bad as Alito we'll just have to beat that nominee, too.

      "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

      by Pesto on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:39:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So wait. (2.00)
    Alito is a Super Judge now with 6 votes on all matters in front of the Court?  I mean how does he overturn all theese rulings by himself?
  •  Clash of ideas (none)
    This may be the best piece Kos has ever written.

    Two more to add to the Republican Mythology, from Krugman:

    The administration has, instead, built its power on myths: the myth of presidential leadership, the ugly myth that the administration is patriotic while its critics are not.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:57:47 AM PST

  •  Debate? (none)
    Maybe . . . but it seems more like war to me. One I'm fully prepared to fight. Our powder is dry. Our base is outraged. Our cause is just.

    How many women's lives have to be destroyed while Father Scalito blithely requires them to check with their husbands on matters of personal choice?

    How many search warrants must be disregarded, along with the civil rights of their targets?

    How many families have to suffer the unthinkable choices of work vs. childcare for their newborns?

    The answer my friends, is blowing in the vacuous wind that emanates whenever George W. Bush opens his lying mouth.
    .
    .
    .

  •  Reuters: Libby court appearance this week! (none)
    Breaking...
    Libby arraigned this week.  Must appear in Court.
  •  Btw, let's not fight this guy on guns (none)
    There's so much that is egregious in his record, we do not HAVE to even bring up guns on this one.  Even if they are machine guns.  We lose that fight.  But we'd win on all the others.

    "As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." Justice Kennedy, Lawrence v Texas

    by HillaryGuy on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:59:03 AM PST

    •  Machine guns =/ "assault weapons" (none)
      I think we can win a lot of points there.  Lots of people are afraid of Al Queda using machine guns to take people hostage, for instance.
      •  No, because when the word "guns" is used (4.00)
        those pro-gun people in key states shut down and have a knee-jerk reaction against anyone who mentions it.  It will not help us.  Civil rights and government programs are where the fight will be best for us.  Period.

        And we must narrow our focus to three or four main points and hammer them home EVERY chance we get so they sink in.  We must be on the same page to get our message out.  If we bring up too many points, the people get fatigued and nothing with sink in.  

        "As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." Justice Kennedy, Lawrence v Texas

        by HillaryGuy on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:16:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I am a life long Dem and ex-military. (none)
        Do not even mention guns, even if they are "machine guns". This will lose us folks.

        "Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundary condition." -- Alan Turing

        by Hibernian on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:21:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly... (none)
        Lots of people are afraid of Al Queda using machine guns to take people hostage, for instance.

        And that's why gun sales jumped after 9/11.

        Sorry, no dice. I was America was sensible.

        Driving through Ohio that December, a farmer called in to describe what he would do to a-rabs he caught on his farms with rifles. Maybe they'd be hunting, but it would be shoot first and ask questions later for this patriotic farmer.

        I wish Americans lived in the real world, but it seems a lot of them live in the world of Delta Force and Charles Bronson...

        If we could just invite the monster from "Lost" in for a few weeks to sweep them up into the trees...

      •  Machine Guns = Gangsters (none)
        .
    •  how about tanks or nukes? (none)
      The 2nd admendment never mentions the word guns, it says "arms".  Tanks, F16s, and nuclear weapons are "arms" and if the federal government can not regulate arms, I don't see how anyone (including terrorists) can be prevented from building their personal stockpile of nuclear weapons...
    •  HillaryGuy, please explain the difference (none)
      between an F-16 and a gun under the the language of the 2nd amendment.   You rated me a one but I suspect that's because you you know I'm right.  Any ruling that federal government can not regulate "arms" under the 2nd amendment would logically apply equally to a handgun or an F-16.  

      All the write ups on the Alito's ruling in question did not show Alito proposed any kinda of test to determine if the weapon was destructive enough to warrant sufficient government interest to ban it.  As such, the only logical inference is that Alito thinks the federal government lacks the power to regulate any weapon regardless of its destructive potential.

      •  I do owe you the favor of responding (none)
        to you in regards to the "1" rating.  I rated your comment a "1" because it always seems that people can never have a mature, cogent, and logical discussion with someone on the issue of gun rights without someone who is for gun control predictably bringing up the foolish argument of equating the right to bear arms with tanks and B-2 bombers.  It's an old and foolish argument that dumbs-down the entire discussion, thus not accomplishing anything.  It's tiring.  Yawn.

        "As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." Justice Kennedy, Lawrence v Texas

        by HillaryGuy on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:03:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm returing the favor (none)
          with regard to the one.  With out an articulated standard to determine state interest in regulation, any of limits that you take for granted on the right to bear arms are completely at the whim the 9 members of the Sumprem Court.  To me, this is the mark of horrible jurisprudence.

          There's a huge difference between arguing whether there should be limits or not and what those limits should be on any issue.  Repugs love the argument that you should not limit the free market.  It's a load of crap since in a truely free market, stealing is just a good of a way to make money than any other.  I'm sure you'll call that dumbed down argument but any logical person realizes that in a truely free market, crack dealing must be permitted.

  •  yup (none)
    I also can't believe how lame the bio / talking pointsare that they put out on him.  This part especially:
    When Judge Alito was appointed to the federal bench in 1990, the New Jersey Law Journal wrote of his appointment: "Mr. Alito is one of our profession's best: His commitment to public service is deep and his qualifications for his new office exemplary."

    As though that means something, that he was voted unanimously onto the bench in 1990?  ummm.... the whole point is that his  decisions after that have shown how on the fringe his views are.  This is the best positive statement that they could come up with?  Vague boilerplate from 1990?

    although it's getting late, you still have plenty of time

    by maracuja on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:59:08 AM PST

  •  Alito on Freedom of Assembly (none)
    In UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v JOAN H. KALB        , Alito votes to uphold criminal convictions for "too many people for dinner in the  woods.' The 2000 ruling, written by Mansmann, is significant as a narrowing of the right to file facial challenges to the Constitutionality of regulations affecting Assembly.

    (I'm the Masel in United States v.Masel, 54 F. Supp. 2d 903, 919 (W .D. Wis. 1999), cited throughout the ruling.)

     

    A Senator YOU can afford
    $1 contributions only.
    Masel for Senate
    1214 E. Mifflin St.
    Madison, WI 53703

    by ben masel on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:59:16 AM PST

  •  thanks for this (none)
    I have been waiting for kos to weigh in.  I certainly hope you are right.  Time to go to the congressional websites and start firing off messages.
  •  Its time to take back the House & Senate. (none)
    If the Dems are smart they can take a page from  Rover boy's play book and use this nomination to Scare the Bjesus out of women and moderates!. This can be the begining of the end for Rethuglican control. Lets be honest most americans believe in womens rights and fear the Wingnut radicals. This is our light at the end of this repiglican nitemare on pennsylvania ave.

    Disabled Viet Vet ret. My snark is worse than my bite

    by eddieb061345 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:59:53 AM PST

  •  lets be blunt (4.00)
    he probably will get on the court but this is the time for an all hands on deck war. I want the Senate shut down, if they go nuclear ,I want a boycott of the state of the union in January over this, America needs to clearly know who these people are and who's against them, if Dems aren't against putting people on the court who who would overturn the fucking family leave act and won't fight till the death over it , then fuck them too. Also take minnesota for instance, we need ads showing Coleman supporting a guy who would not only overturn Roe but force pregnant mothers to lose thier jobs. THIS IS WAR PEOPLE!

    this is your mission: TERMINATE the Bush presidency

    by nevadadem on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:00:49 AM PST

    •  Dems... (2.50)
      Are not going to be willing to carry that through in an election year...

      "[A] 'Sharecropper's Society' [is] precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us." - Warren Buffet

      by RichM on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:02:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, WAR (none)
      We must fight the battle (Alito) in order to have ANY HOPE of winning the War (Taking Our Country Back).

      Dems do indeed "stand for something".  And it's FINALLY time to show it.  

      If any of our Dem leaders refuse to fight yet again, then we must demand that they immediately switch parties.  They do not deserve to be Blue.

  •  Prediction... (none)
    Very little fight, no filibuster, confirmation in the 70-30 range.  Dubya approval near 50% as a result.

    "[A] 'Sharecropper's Society' [is] precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us." - Warren Buffet

    by RichM on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:01:29 AM PST

    •  the earth is flat, bush and rove (none)
      can walk on water and the end times are really here as a result
      •  Would love to be wrong... (none)
        But the Dems should have played this hand better.  Reid may or may not have helped sink Miers, but he should have seen this coming.  He should have had a press release that when Miers was withdrawn, he could have said 'We all look forward to a qualified moderate replacement of O'Conner.'  I have been pretty negative today, I know.  But the media seem to be back into a 'Come Back Kid' mode.  And I think the sheeple will bleat.

        "[A] 'Sharecropper's Society' [is] precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us." - Warren Buffet

        by RichM on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:18:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  you wouldn't love to be wrong (none)
          you like a sizeable sub population here likes to sit around wallowing in your fears, and being about gloom and doom. someone who loves to get things done doesn't start off a fight with- we are going to lose. i am not talking fake positivity- i am talking taking steps to help out.
          •  Just being reality based... (none)
            It is really nice that we can rah-rah and say we are ready for this 'war' and this is fight we should have, 'Yeah us!'.  But just today, Tweety asked our beloved Dean if the Democrats were the pro-choice party and Dean said 'No'.  There will be no figtht, just like there was no fight for Roberts.  Prove me wrong.  Please.

            "[A] 'Sharecropper's Society' [is] precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us." - Warren Buffet

            by RichM on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:11:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Someone gave you a 1 (none)
          and I don't think you deserve it. You just said what someone didn't want to hear. And in some ways it makes sense to be pessimistic, considering the bunch we're dealing with and how much they've gotten away with so far.

          I say let it play out and let's see where it goes.

          You are awareness, disguised as a person - Eckhart Tolle

          by steelman on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:37:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Boy, your a downer. (none)

      Disabled Viet Vet ret. My snark is worse than my bite

      by eddieb061345 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:14:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  no self-fulfilling prophesies (none)
      If we go talking gloom-and-doom, we will bring it upon ourselves.  The way to win is to FIGHT, not to crawl under a rock!

      "If you want to trust somebody with your taxpayer dollars, you'd better elect a Democrat because the Republicans can't manage money." - Howard Dean

      by CA Pol Junkie on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:36:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hey... (none)
        I agree 100%.  I just don't think our elected official believe it.

        "[A] 'Sharecropper's Society' [is] precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us." - Warren Buffet

        by RichM on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:23:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Scalito needs to be Borked. (none)
    He is a judicial extremist, just like Bork.  We need to belabor that point, as well as portray him as a "judicial activist" who will "legislate (extreme right wing ideology) from the bench."
    •  Borking (none)
      What was the ammo that really  brought down Bork?
      •  Borking (none)
        I think it was the fact that "Bork" and "Borked" and "Borking" were fun to say.

        "Alitoing" doesn't have the same ring to it.

      •  Bork (none)
        I don't really know what brought Bork down. I always thought it was sing bogus and awful, the eway republicans talked about it.

        Then, a few months ago, I was pondering it myself.... turns out that Bork was a Nixon muckity-muck who tried to fire everyone investigating Watergate. It was called the "Saturday Night Mssacre." I'm probably completely messing it up, but that kind of history -- complete lack of respect for congressional checks and balances -- hopefully scared the pants off enough Democratic senators to bork Bork. I mean, the Court is the last bulwark of process over politics. Without that, we might as well be living in Italy under Mussolini.

        Funny, though, his decision to support Nixon over democratic institutions is never really mentioned by pundits.

      •  Bork borked himself. (none)
        Lots of reasons Bork went down, but one of the key ones was the guy's own arrogance. Not only was he a reactionary nutcase -- he SOUNDED like a reactionary nutcase. The problem with Alito--one of them anyway--is that he sounds mighty reasonable, intelligent and measured. Until you actually read his opinions and digest their implications, which most Americans won't do.
  •  time to break through the (4.00)
    myth of qualifications.

    the MSM is pounding the qualifications meme pretty hard.

    arguing that police have a constitutional right to strip search 10 year olds shows to me he has no qualifications at all.

    "I don't think Feingold and Clinton are really that far apart on Iraq." -- Howard Dean, 10/23/05

    by BiminiCat on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:01:57 AM PST

  •  now we go to war (none)

    Welcome to Jamrock.

    by Albee090 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:03:23 AM PST

  •  Nonsense (1.30)
    1. 2/3 of Americans would not oppose overruling Roe if they were sufficiently apprised of the implications.  Most think that no Roe=blanket prohibition on abortion.  Which of course is not true.

    2. Alito does not support racial segregation.  That is nonsense and you know it.

    3. Alito did not strike down FMLA.  (Nor are his views on it relevant.  He doesn't get to make law).  He ruled that Congress can't force a sovereign state to abide by FMLA.  He didn't question its applicability to private employers.

    These are nice talking points but any resemblance to truth is merely incidental.
    •  Not to jump the gun.. (none)
      But I believe we have a Troll Clean up on Aisle 3.
      If not a troll, the ideas sure smell of Trollism ideals.

      America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

      by wishingwell on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:12:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Drgrishka1 (none)
        is spilled everywhere, all over the  blog this morning.  Some of us have been trying to clean up on Aisles 9, 10, and 12, too.  

        This seems to be a  leak going on from the other side made up of some sortof trollish material. It seems to be toxic, and may require some sortof an investigation.

      •  Oh good grief (4.00)
        Respond to his points, don't try to hide from them.

        On point 1 with Roe... I agree, it would not be a blanket ban, it would throw the matter back to the states.  But then we have a situation where some states are more free than others, and can a state law apply to someone who crosses state boundaries?  This question really goes all the way back to the Dred Scott decision, and matters argued by Lincoln and Douglas, with the Republicans on the wrong side of the issue.

        On point 3, with regards to the FMLA applying to the state as an employer.  Frankly, I think that's a ridiculous point of exemption, and obviously the SCOTUS agreed with me since they concurred in their decision.

        These are reasonable questions, even if you disagree with the content.

        Furthermore, if you are going to attack someone with hyperbole as kos has done, you should have at least the decency to back up your statements with further facts and points.  Hiding from such questioning just makes you look weak, because these questions are not unreasonable.

        (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

        by Steve4Clark on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:49:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Come On (none)
      Not worthy of a troll rate.
    •  Hmmm (none)
      #1 is true.  Of course, and overturning of Roe would probably result in about a dozen states completely or almost completely banning abortion.

      His reasoning on #2 is the same as #3 (and it works into #1)-it's a weak central government vs. strong central government issue.  If a state wanted to descriminate against minorities, Alito would be in favor of allowing them to do so.  He wants to overturn pretty much all Federal laws that aren't specifically described in the constitution.

      •  That is not correct (none)
        Alito does not want to overturn all the federal laws not decsribed in the Constitution.  What he will not do is strike down laws based on rights that are claimed, yet not mentioned in the Constitution.

        Nor have I seen any evidence whatever that he would let state discriminate on the basis of race.

        •  Huh? (none)
          Compare and contrast this...
          What he will not do is strike down laws based on rights that are claimed, yet not mentioned in the Constitution.

          With this...

          The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

          That's the 9th amendment.  You are saying the Alito will not abide by the Constitution?

          If that is true, then Democrats should filibuster him as he's not suitable for any judicial post.

          (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

          by Steve4Clark on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 09:53:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Well (none)
        He wants to overturn pretty much all Federal laws that aren't specifically described in the constitution

        I think that is what the constitution actually calls for here:

        Amendment X

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

    •  asdf (none)
      Eerie Eyeballs

      Yields approximately 9 dozen bite-sized eyeballs

      3 oz lemon gelatin (can be sugar-free)
      1 cup hot water
      1/2 cup miniature marshmallows
      1 cup pineapple juice
      8 oz cream cheese (can be lowfat/Neufchatel)
      1 cup mayonnaise (can be fat-free)

      Dissolve lemon gelatin in 1 cup water in double boiler, add marshmallows and stir to melt. Remove from heat. Add pineapple juice and cream cheese. Beat until well blended. Cool slightly. Fold in mayo. If you have a truffle candy mold or round ice cube trays, pour the mixture in the molds and leave to set in the fridge. Otherwise pour into a deep ceramic dish and chill until thickened or firm enough for scooping into eyeballs. Using a melonballer, scoop full balls of the mixture and set aside for decoration. To decorate, use liquid food coloring and an old detail paintbrush and get creative. You will need black food coloring for the pupils. Also, if you are in a hurry, instead of painting the colored irises, you can carefully dip the ball in a small pool of food coloring to approximate the iris, but still paint on the pupils.

      For 1999, I found rubber ice cube trays that worked beautifully with much less waste than the melonballer technique. I sprayed the rubber trays with non-stick cooking spray beforehand like you would any gelatin mold, let the gelatin mixture sit in the refrigerator to set, then I was able to carefully pop the eyeballs out to paint them. Some of the eyeballs did break, and they do have one flat side, but that actually works, since then they don't roll around while you are trying to paint them. Since 2001 I have found that Wilton truffle candy molds are even better, since the swirl design on the top is the right size for the cornea shape on the eyeball. When using the truffle molds, one recipe makes about 9 dozen eyeballs - plenty for a party crowd!

  •  Wow. (none)
    I didn't know about Doe v. Groody. That's... insane. I take back my ambivalence on one of those other threads. The guy is a whack job.

    The Baptist Death Ray (bdr[at]baptistdeathray[dot]com)
    "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
    - Edward Young

    by The Baptist Death Ray on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:07:38 AM PST

    •  Did you read Doe v. Groody? (none)
      Kos' summary sucks. Read it yourself and then decide...
      •  Well... (none)
        His specific endorsement was that the police were covered under "probable cause," which isn't nearly the same thing as considering the wife and child covered under the Warrant because they're chattel. Probable cause is something that allows the police to deviate from the terms in the warrant.

        Still... a strip search? I could understand probable cause allowing for a standard search of other people living in the house, at the very least in order to determine whether or not they were carrying weapons, but I can't see any justification for probable cause allowing the extent of the search the officers conducted.

        The Baptist Death Ray (bdr[at]baptistdeathray[dot]com)
        "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
        - Edward Young

        by The Baptist Death Ray on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:57:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  100 percent agree (none)
    This is a chance to define what the party stands for. This guy isn't even a close call.
  •  Unbelieveable (2.50)
    For Alito, workers shouldn't be able to take 12 weeks of unpaid leave to take care of newborns or loved ones.

    I just love the fact that this prick is going to force woman to have their unwanted baby and as a topper is going to insure they get fired if they already used up all their vacation days before having the baby. Then of course if going to force her to work in order to get welfare. If that's not an abortion I don't know what is.

    "Unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly there is no possible way we can remain free" - Frank Burns

    by Central Scrutinizer on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:09:39 AM PST

    •  Kos is being misleading (3.40)
      I hate to call bs on Kos, but this is not what Alito said or ruled.  Alito ruled that the FMLA could not be enforced against STATES as an employer based on 11th amendment grounds.  Based on the Supreme court's recent 11th amendment jurisprudence at that time, it was not a surprising decision.  I would note that the opinion was unanimous and also included Judge McKee (a very liberal judge) on the panel.

      I really dislike the Supreme's 11th amendment jurisprudence (though was pleasantly surprised when they reversed the decision in that case), but Alito, and his counterparts, were just following precedent.  Yeah, they were reversed, but almost every legal analyst said that the Supreme Court's decision came out of the blue.

      •  Nuts (none)
        This is the second talking point that turned out to be misleading (after the strip search red herring). Surely we have some real ammo that can't be shot down in seconds by our own side! Kos man, help us out here...
  •  My mother just called. (4.00)
    My extreme conservative red state mother who hates gays and abortion and taxes...

    and she's pissed off about this nomination. She says Bush nominated Miers and the conservatives should have trusted him on that and now we have this crazy conservative guy who will probably overturn some of MY rights (I'm in a wheelchair.)

    I'm shocked. This is the first time she's ever said anything negative about Republicans. Ever.

    This is going to be a big fight.

    "The billboards shade the flags they wave. . ." -Bright Eyes

    by indiemcemopants on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:11:01 AM PST

    •  Wow (none)
      That is very interesting! We need more Republican splits like this. She sounds like she is a very conservative Republican but realizes the issue goes way beyond abortion and this is a judge who is against equal rights, civil rights, and privacy on all levels.

      America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

      by wishingwell on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:16:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah... (none)
        though I'd disagree with her that Miers was qualified, and I'd totally disagree with her on "trusting Bush", it's nice that she recognizes that there are more (I won't say "bigger" necessarily) issues than abortion. She's kind of bothered me in the past because she tends to agree with the Republicans even when it affects my rights as a disabled guy, JUST because of abortion.

        "The billboards shade the flags they wave. . ." -Bright Eyes

        by indiemcemopants on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:24:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  At wendys... (none)
      Today thinking about what divides liberals and conservatives. I came up with this:

      Liberals believe the government is there to protect everybody, even people very much unlike themselves.

      Conservatives, of all stripes, believe the government's responsibilities extend to them and people EXACTLY like them.

      You should tell your mom to shut up and stop asking for "special rights" just because she's in a wheelchair.

      Man, I hope you're not going home for Thanksgiving. ;)

  •  Make it about ideology more than issues (none)
    One of the effective arguments about the Katrina disaster was that people tied it to something deeper.  By tying the Katrina mess to underlying ideological ideas we were able to point out that Bush and the Right have failed the country in a more fundamental way.

    Yes, Bush appointed cronies.  Yes, Bush's administration wasn't ready, etc.  But -- and here is the important thing -- people added the word BECAUSE, and tied it all to something more fundamental.  And this was effective.  Bush wasn't ready to respond to Katrina BECAUSE Republicans don't believe in government.  Bush appointed cronies BECAUSE Republicans don't believe in government.  People suffered and died after Katrina BECAUSE we need government and that is the primary thing government DOES.

    See what I mean? When we are criticizing Republicans on narrow issues we should always tie our criticisms to make a point about how Progressive values are better than conservative values.  We should learn to always drive the deeper point home.  We should always be arguing that Progressive values are better for people than conservative values.

    That's what the conservatives do, and it works.

    -- Seeing The Forest -- a weblog for Liberals who are FED UP with Bush and the Right!

    by davej on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:11:03 AM PST

  •  Lieberman (none)
    Let's keep a close eye on Lieberman in the coming weeks. In fact, we should already be drowning his office to get him on the record AGAINST Alito.

    -fink

    •  Yea... (none)
      I'm calling his office sometime this week.

      Alito ruled in favor of a Jew's right to observe the Sabbath but other than that, nothing in favor of how Jews feel.

      Evan Bayh 2008
      Miller for KY Governor 2007
      http://kydem.blogspot.com

      by dsolzman on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:13:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  joementum's policy will be based on what is (none)
      ok with the likud party.
    •  The End Times are here! (none)
      I know because I am about to defend Joe Lieberman, and I am a dyed-in-the-wool Lieberman hater, and one of the perhaps four people in the sate of CT with a "Dump Joe" sticker on his car.

      I wouldn't worry about Joe on this one. When it comes to torturing people, bombing people, or selling government to the highest bidder, Joe is always your man. But with big-ticket "Democratic" issues, especially issues from the 60's and 70's, Joe is pretty reliable.

  •  The Senate (none)
    Here's the ultimate test to see if they have a spine.

    My experience is they don't and they will let a Nazi like this in and destroy the nation 100%.

    http://www.noslaves.com http://forum.noslaves.com

    by BobOak on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:11:24 AM PST

    •  I gave you a 4... (none)
      To offset the 1's you are going to get...

      "[A] 'Sharecropper's Society' [is] precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us." - Warren Buffet

      by RichM on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:14:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  nobody is doing that (none)
        I don't think I'm saying anything out of line.

        http://www.noslaves.com http://forum.noslaves.com

        by BobOak on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:45:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I made a simular comment... (none)
          And got 1 for my efforts..

          "[A] 'Sharecropper's Society' [is] precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us." - Warren Buffet

          by RichM on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:22:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it's not always fair on here (none)
            I have trusted user status and periodically I see
            comments that are troll rated that probably shouldn't be.  Unless you're getting troll rated
            a lot I wouldn't take it personally, sometimes they just "jump on" something that isn't saying what they think or isn't that bad or they have some personal
            agenda and don't like your position, period.

            http://www.noslaves.com http://forum.noslaves.com

            by BobOak on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:48:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Time for all the cards to be laid out (none)
    on the table, so to speak.  And I don't think most Americans are going to like what they see when the Republican hand is fully exposed.

    I also keep thinking that a vote in favor of RadicAlito is NOT going to play well for many  Senators facing reelection in 2006.

    Support The Troops, Demand The Truth

    by MamaBear on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:13:57 AM PST

  •  How do we have credibility in opposing Alito? (3.75)
    We confirmed Alito unanimously for the Court of Appeals in 1990, and that's when we controlled the Senate.  And there's tons of positive quotes from everyone from Kennedy to Lautenberg supporting and praising him.  This seems like a trap to me... isn't the following the worst case scenario:

    •  Dems say he's too extreme and threaten to filibuster.

    •  Repubs pound the media and television with all the times Dems have supported him and voted for him and praised him.

    •  Repubs publicly lament that Dems have clearly lost their way, losing all conviction and honor and sense of duty, allowing Bush-hatred to change the rules of the Senate to oppose someone they only recently praised as "impartial, thoughtful, and fair."

    •  Dems say the Supreme Court is too important, and try to filibuster him anyway.

    •  Repubs gain public support for the Nuclear option, and trigger it, guaranteeing at least a year of putting through whatever they feel like.

    •  Alito gets in on a largely party-line vote, with a couple defectors on each side.

    •  Dems snap and come across as unhinged ideological zealots, making Republicans seem like the "underdog" in the 2006 election (despite currently running everything) increasing their House and Senate majorities.

    This, to me, is the worst-case scenario, and not really that far-fetched.  We have to be very, very, very careful on this -- we specifically better show, unequivocally, that Alito has gotten MORE right-wing since we supported him so vocally in 1990.  If we can't show that, then I fear the battle is already lost.
    •  Tell me something (4.00)
      Which of the rulings that we are complaining about now had he given when we confirmed him in 1990?
      •  Exactly my point (4.00)
        If we want to defeat this nomination, then we have to paint him as someone who we THOUGHT was decent but went off the deep end in recent years and now is Borkishly dangerous.  That, I think, would play a hell of a lot better than saying "well, uh, it's okay to have right-wing zealots on appeals courts but not on the Supreme Court".
    •  You raise some interesting points (none)
      Democrats have to fight and fight hard but be out there ready for those charges of being obstructionists and fickle and not come unhinged and do not look radical. Be sure to fight damn hard but do not become incoherent or out of the mainstream. Make Republicans all look radical like the Base that controls them.  Democrats have to be sure to show Republicans as being totally controlled by the Far right wingnuts and Democrats as being in the Mainstream.
      Get the Republicans to look radical and get them unhinged but Democrats can still fight like crazy..hard but do not come across as wackos or unhinged..make Bush and his ilk the wackos. Turn the damn tables and show Democrats fighting this as Mainstream with Family Values and expose the Wingers !!!!!

      America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

      by wishingwell on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:22:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What good is the filibuster (none)
      What good is a filibuster, if you REFUSE to use it?  Something thats there on paper but something you don't use-its a red herring.

      If the Democrats don't use the filibuster on this nutjob, they never will use it, and we might as well act as if it doesnt exist, which, so far as the Supreme Court picks of George W Bush, it doesn't.

      What good did the so-called "deal" that "saved" the filibuster do?  So far, the Republicans seem to be succeeding in interpreting the "deal" to mean that it means that none of George W Bush's cronyistic or extremist or stealth nominations is "extraordingary."  Nice "deal".  We can only use it if its "extradodinary", and they decide when it is "extraordinary" and we have a cabal of spineless Democrats in the "Gang of 14" who go along with it, like sheep being led to the slaughter.

      The only one on the Gang of 14 who doesn't fall into this category is Robert Byrd of West Virginia.  It will be interesting to see what Byrd has to say.

  •  Let us remind (none)
    those who say Bush has a mandate to do this, that Bush said the country was not ready for overuling Roe v. Wade.

    As always, George had two faces on this issue.  We need to remind people of what he said in 2000.

    For example, there is this from the National Review during the 2000 primaries:

    Answering a reporter's question at the unveiling of his exploratory committee, he said that abortion should be "rare" and that while the GOP should have a "pro-life tenor," America "is not ready to ban abortions." Trying to explain himself in a later AP interview, he said, "America is not ready to overturn Roe v. Wade because America's hearts are not right. And so, in the meantime, instead of arguing over Roe v. Wade, what we ought to do is promote policies that reduce abortions"-such as parental consent and a ban on partial-birth abortion-"until America's hearts change."

    Much of this is defensible on the merits: Nobody believes a Human Life Amendment is going to pass soon. The trouble is the overall, well, tenor of the remarks. Overturning Roe ought to be a priority for anyone concerned with constitutional soundness, not just for pro-lifers. And if Bush's ultimate goal is that every child be welcomed in life and protected in law, he ought to make that clearer-and social conservatives ought to give him the opportunity to do so. As it is, his remarks smack of the same defensiveness evident in his buzzphrase "compassionate conservatism."
    http://www.nationalreview.com/...

  •  "Nolite te bastardes carborundorum" (none)
    I read The Handmaid's Tale for the first time recently. What an amazing book- made me realize how important it is for the Democrats and feminists to fight the Theo-Fascists. The right is afraid of sexuality, and pluralistic freedoms. They want to create a Gilead. Don't let the bastards get you down.

    "Anyone is welcome to join adherents of the theocratic right and adopt their beliefs, but anyone who does not--gays, feminists, proponents of abortion rights, non-Christians--ultimately faces second-class status in the America they plan to build." Ian Reifowitz

  •  Gang of 14, declare your principals (none)
    If the have principals, now is the time to prove it. If they don't, now is the time to expose them.
  •  This is one of the best of Kos's diaries (none)
    The argument is not one between political lables: Neocons versus Progressives or Republicans versus Democrats.

    It is an argument about the type of society that America wants. If the nomination can be argued in this way - and somehow this argument can be both STRONG and MODERATE on the Democratic side against the extremism on the Republicn side - then a great debate will ensue of vital importance to the future.

    Good luck guys - this is a fight you wanted.

    New International Times, the place where Kossacks and the world meet.

    by Welshman on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:18:38 AM PST

  •  another rovian setup? (none)
    It's been my assertion for weeks that the Miers confirmation was a red herring.  How much more difficult is it going to be for the Dems to fight against bush's 2nd nominee without looking (at least to the majority of americans only paying peripheral attention) like they're simply not going to agree to ANY of his selections?  They're going to have to approve scalito because they've already been "blamed" by the administration and the compliant press for Miers' withdrawal.
    •  sorry, i just think that ya'll give rove too much (none)
      damn credit. he is not all that! he is on his way down with w. yup, he can do damage. but i think we hurt ourselves when we go on and on about how smart and crafty they are. just look at the mess they created. naw! we are the only ones that will do ourselves in.
      •  yeah (none)
        This reminded me of a rerun of Cheers I saw on Saturday night. It was St. Patrick's Day, and the guys at Cheers were gearing up for another prank war with Gary's Olde Towne Tavern. They saw that Tecumseh (the wooden Indian) was missing, and they swore Gary took it. And so, they all went to Gary's and put up all kinds of biowarning signs to keep people from going in.

        Soon after, Tecumseh showed up, and it turned out that Rebecca has sent him away to be revarnished. Fearing a retaliation from Gary, the guys went crazy, but heard nothing. And so, they decided to take a preemptive measure, and they shaved G A R Y into their heads and took a photo of it. That way, they thought, Gary wouldn't do something worse.

        Then, the guys found out that Gary's had been closed all the while for renovations, and Gary himself was on vacation. They got all worked up over his devious scheme ... and for nothing.

        Heh.

    •  Dems weren't blamed (none)
      What are you talking about. The radical wingnuts brought Meirs down. OUr powder is dry. Now we use it!

      You are awareness, disguised as a person - Eckhart Tolle

      by steelman on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:26:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  a bad day for many Congressional Republicans (none)
    One interesting facet of the politics of abortion is that, if Alito is confirmed (which would probably require sufficient Republican discipline to enact the nuclear option), the most likely change in abortion law would not come from a SCOTUS declaration that the practice is illegal, but from an overturning of Roe, or at least Roe's logic.  This would simply place the decision-making power in the hands of the states, and a number of the states would not choose to outlaw the practice.

    For the true-blue social conservative, this will not be acceptable.  Only a nationwide ban will placate the far-right, and this will only be achieved through national legislation.  Thus, if Alito is where he seems to be on the abortion issue, confirming him could trigger the worst-case scenario for a number of Republicans who recognize an abortion ban as a very bad political move.  They will be forced to make up some schtick about how they personally view abortion as a moral wrong, but do not want to impinge on states' rights - a stance that the far right base will immediately recognize as disingenuous.  If it comes time for these Republicans to put their money where their mouths are, I suspect we'll see a fundamental fracturing of the GOP and the growth of a genuinely moderate wing.  

    I agree with Kos on this one; regardless of where the populace may stand on the personal morality of abortion, it is a simple and unchangeable fact that the majority do not want to see a ban.  Right now this preference is lukewarm, but with a ban would come much greater salience and much stronger opposition.  

    The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. - John Adams

    by tipsymcstagger on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:19:31 AM PST

  •  mis-use of stats (none)
    Kos...
    We need to be careful about throwing around phrases like "2/3rds of Americans want Roe upheld"
    because I will bet you "2/3rds if Americans also want same-sex marriage outlawed" and do we really want such a thing--popular sentiment--to be the driver of the Supreme Court's findings of law?  How about fundmental rights (you know, those "endowed by their Creator rights") being the drivers of law?
    •  Not necessarily (none)
      But when you're fighting in the court of public opinion you often use, well, public opinion.
    •  It's all politics until confirmation... (none)
      You're assuming a pure, apolitical judiciary, which is what they taught us all in Civics.

      The ugly reality is that politics plays a huge role in the judiciary, both in terms of the public mood affecting judges and their judgements, as well as raw ideaological politics driving the careers of many judges. Hell, many justices are explicitly elected, sometimes even taking campaign contributions from people and companies they will rule on.

      If we had a system of judges whereby judges decided their own replacements, we could have an apolitical judicial system. We'd also, however, also quickly be an oligarchy as those judges consolidated power.

      Nominating and confirming a supreme court judge is an explicitly political process, hence political pressure, in terms of what people want, are perfectly valid.

      And in this case, I'm pretty sure 2/3's of American's would not sacrifice their daughter's right to an abortion to make sure gays can't get married. It's a tactical decision...

      And it's still a "fundamental rights" issue to those in favor of Roe. Just so happens we're in the majority. Why not use it to pressure the Senate to vote our way?

  •  hubris, arrogance , and lust overides common (none)
    sense with rethugs everytime.
  •  Democrats (none)
    have this chance to show they are the Party of Family Values and Mainstream, Heartland America. Expose Bush as controlled by the Far right wingnuts who are Radicals and not mainstream.
    Show Scalito as a Nut case who is against Women and Families. Show Democrats as the Party of Values and Equal rights for All!!!

    America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

    by wishingwell on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:24:18 AM PST

  •  kos, it's "forest". (none)
    "Forrest" was the Gump in the movie.
  •  Time to go to the mattresses (none)
    That was the first thing I thought this morning when I heard Alito was the nominee and started reading/hearing about him.  

    Bush and the Extreme Right Wings have made it entirely impossible to negotiate or effect a peaceful resolution.  Instead, they have declared war on our family, war on Mainstream America.  

    We should be ready.  We shouldn't shrink from it.  We shouldn't be politic or diplomatic.  This is it.  It's time.  

  •  Yay Alito! Party like it's 1499. (none)
  •  I think a point is being missed here. (none)
    There are two types of republicans.  The business republicans and the evangelical issue republicans.  Bush is a business republican and so was the miers pick.  This shows the nutjob evangelicals control the supreme court choice and if the Democrats can lay this bare to the public then we have a chance to defeate alito.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:25:45 AM PST

  •  If it's broke... (none)

    Cheney is clearly not the guy to fix it.  Hannah and Addington back from yellow cake coverup to fill Libby's shoes!
  •  GOP PR team - Frist/Alito will miss Rosa Parks (none)
    Frist and Alito will really miss their old friend Rosa Parks. The staged AP photos are here and here.

    Scum suckers, these people are.

    John at Americablog...

    "Oh, and one final question for Judge Alito. Did he ever visit Rosa Parks when she was alive?"

    •  btw (none)
      did you see when the presser/photo op between scalito and senate leaders happened.

      it was at the same time that Rosa Parks coffin was leaving the Capitol for the ride to her memorial service.

      I thought at the time, and still do, that that was poor timing at the least.

  •  When Alito makes his Senate visits ... (none)
    ... every Democratic Senator should  meet him at the door with a smile on their face and this wonderful line from As Good As It Gets ...

    "Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here."

  •  Every Democrat should be repeating this mantra: (none)
    "This nomination smacks of desperation."

    Followed by the litany of Bush failures:

    • the Libby indictment and the outing of a secret agent working to secure us from WMD,

    • the Miers nomination,

    • the Katrina disaster,

    • a failed energy policy that has led to soaring gas prices,

    • the attempt to undermine Social Security,

    • and all culminating with the ongoing trainwreck in Iraq (six more killed today).

    "This nomination smacks of desperation."

    Repeat.  Repeat.  Repeat.

    •  hmm (none)
      I donno if I agree.  I think "desperation" would be giving up on his "principles", such as they are, and nominating someone who could be easily confirmed.  Instead, he nominated someone that will cause a battle.  I think it smacks of arrogance more than desperation.
      •  I'm with Bob... (none)
        He needs a diversion...this is both a diversion and a play to his right flank...no more right wing talk of his incompetency and cronyism tendencies...

        I think Bush gets a bump up on his approval rating from this, which is just what he needs...and the MSM will be saying, "he moved to the right, and that made him more popular"...

        This is a desperation move...if he had his druthers, Miers would be on the court...but he is circling the wagons...

        TexasDemocrat
        Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

        by TexasDemocrat on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:36:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Desperation in the sense that it is a play to (none)
        ... the hard right fundamentalists after failing with a moderate Miers pick.

        It's all about him being beholden to extremists.  By saying it's a desperation ploy, the pick is painted as an extremist, and Bush is portrayed as too weak to stand up to the extremists.

  •  A Line In The Sand... (none)
    For me this will be the real test of what the current Democratice leadership and elected officials are made of... No more keeping the powder dry and let's make a deal. It does not matter that if this one gets derailed (fat chance) that there might be worse down the road. It is all about principles and standing up for what you believe in... NO Democratic senator should support this nomination. Wait to ascertain all the facts, and not make pronouncements that cannot be sustained, but once all the evidence is available to see, no cutting of deals, whether you are from Florida or Colorado or Montana or wherever. No singing the red state blues on this one.

    I will be meeting my Congressman (Adam Schiff in mid November) and while the House of Representatives are NOT in the line of attack on supreme court nominees, I want to ask him a few pointed questions about where the Dems in the House stand. Where is the spine?

  •  Thanks bush (none)
    I never gave the supreme court much thought until they selected bush in 2000.  My focus had always been on Congress and their lack of caring or support for 'we the people'.  Though I did watch the Thomas/Hill fiasco with Spector (ie: Kennedy..single bullet theory) and the absolute disrespect for Hill, I let the SP slip off my radar.  I would like to thank bushco for bringing the SP into the forefront of my consciousness.
  •  my conservative associate (none)
    this jives 100 percent with what my conservative associate has been saying.

    this is exactly what the wanted.

    A party.

    Shouting from the rooftops.

    Guess what America!

    We are in control!

    Well, as I told my conserative associate, once people realize you are in control, you will then no longer be in control.

    Pardon the shameless plug, but I got's to eat too :) VOIP service Provider

    by circuithead on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:40:14 AM PST

  •  Frickin, hell. (4.00)
    I love this:

    "For Alito, workers shouldn't be able to take 12 weeks of unpaid leave to take care of newborns or loved ones."

    Mmmkay. So how do you care for all the new babies that are going to be forced on the population when abortion is banned? Oh wait...women should have never left the kitchen, you say? They should be at home you say?

    But wait...how can the women stay home with the economy is so friggedd that everyone has to work? Hmmm. Yeah...that whole having a baby with no insurance sure can put a dent in your income. Yeah that's the same insurance that could have caught someone's colon cancer early if they had only been able to go in for a checkup. But you can't stay home to take care of him either.

    Mmmmkay. So what you are telling me is they can't take time off to breast feed...even if it is UNPAID?!

    Grrrr.

    I hate where everything is heading right now. It is making me crazy. I throw things around my office and rail at the heavens. It is unproductive...but it makes me feel better.

    The wingers say that we hate America. But I ask myself, why do these people hate Americans? They are seriously leaving us little people with no options.

  •  Fight the wingnut Rethugs. (none)
    They want Alito and his fellow wingnuts Luttig, Edith Jones, Abu Ghirab Gonzales, Janice Brown, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Viet Dinh in high judicial positions to advance their extremism.

    Tell moderate Republican senators that we won't mind a rational moderate (or even conservative) Republican like Sandra Day O'Connor or Anthony Kennedy on the court.  Even a strong Law and Economics advocate like Frank Easterbrook or that conservative legal school's founder, Richard Posner would be acceptable, even if I strongly disagree with the philosophy of Law and Economics.

    Obama, can you pitch these fellow U of Chicago professors to the Senate?

  •  Alito on gun control (sort of) (none)
    linked text
    His dissenting opinion on United States v Rybar is absolutely worth reading over.  The case is regarding a gun owner possessing and transporting machine guns.  Alito attempts to defend Rybar's rights!

    Searching through for the second instance of "alito" will bring you to the dissenting opinion.

  •  The Dems want my $$$? (none)
    After years of sending contributions to the party, now they will have to earn it on this nomination. I will be watching their every utterance and move.
  •  This is not good for us (none)
    What's good for us is what's good for America.

    Nominating wingnuts for the Supreme Court and possibly getting them onto the court is not good for America or for us.

    Sure, it's possible that getting Alito onto the court will mobilize some moderates to oppose the Republicans. But I think that, if Alito gets onto the court, what is more likely is that Alito will help push for court decisions that will create a "permanent," Republican-ruled state, that will last until global warming or a civil war or both destroy the country.

    Assuming that Alito's nomination is good for us because it will crystallize the differences between us and the wingnuts is sort of like celebrating the fact that Nader helped knock Gore out in 2000 because it would show the American people what a wingnut president is really like. Sure, eventually, Dubya may succeed at being the midwife for a 20-year Democratic ascendancy. But I don't see that ascendancy happening yet, and what do you tell the mothers of the 2,000 American military personnel who've died in Iraq, the 10,000 plus military personnel who've been permanently maimed and the tens of thousands of Iraqis who've died? We can't un-die and un-maim all these people, no matter how great President Obama turns out to be.

    I would rather have moderate Republicans, or moderate Democrats, in office and lose minor battles over parental notification and the 10 Commandments in the courtroom than have true wingnuts in office and completely lose the right to safe, legal abortions or to protect students from mandatory classroom prayers. And I would rather have moderate Republicans in office who would occasionally involve us in small, sordid Grenadas than lunatic wingnuts who get us embroiled in crazed military schemes to bring about the Rapture.

    •  Not our choice... (none)
      I would rather have moderate Republicans, or moderate Democrats, in office and lose minor battles over parental notification and the 10 Commandments in the courtroom than have true wingnuts in office and completely lose the right to safe, legal abortions or to protect students from mandatory classroom prayers.

      I agree. Unfortunately, it is not our choice. The Republican pary, under Rove, has explicitly set out to mobilize the evangelical conservative socially paleolithic base. The Republicans have gotten more paleolithic, not because of Democrats, but because of Republicans.

      At the same time, Republicans have decided that instead of sharing power, they will simply take it. Nuclear option, holding votes open late, loyalty pledges, stacking government with political cronies, replacing government employees with aparatchiks. Again, this is not because of anything the Democrats have done, but because of what the Republicans have done.

      Democrats have done nothing to create this Republican menace, it's crazy to think that we can do anything to ameliorate it. Like they say in Alanon, "Didn't cause it, can't cure it."

      All Dems can do now is fight or leave.

  •  Brilliant (none)
    Thank you, Kos, for this...  all in due time.

    For now, please follow Digby's advice and keep the focus on Treasongate.

    We don't need to be distracted by this nutjob.  He'll get his.  Thank you for underscoring what a promising battle it is for us.

    But if we turn away from Treasongate now to focus on Alito, we'll have a bitch of a time turning people's attention back to it.

  •  I couldn't agree more (none)
    The Republicans are posed for a fait accompli. They are about to seize total control. They have the House, Senate, Presidency, and it's very possible they will get the judiciary.

    They have pulled off their election victories by claiming that the Dems were incompetent, wimps, big spenders, poverty pimps, friends of the negro, deviants etc. It was easy for them to rail against the Dems when they weren't in power. Now they have the power and have been given an opportunity to govern. The country can now see how corrupt and incompetent and extreme and inflexible they are.

    In Ken Burn's Civil War documentary Shebly Foote said, and this is a loose translation, the genius of America was the ability to compromse but when it came to slavery we did not compromise and the country went to war. Well this is where we are now. We have a group of extreme idealogues and religious zealots who take no prisoners, give no quarter, and brook no opposition. They run a "scorched earth" policy. We've once again lost the ability to compromise and I can't help but think "those who do not learn their history or doomed to repeat it". Has our country come to another crossroads of the likes of the question of slavery? What will this mean for America?

    I abhor that the Repubs are in power but perhaps it's for the best that this has happened. People don't believe anything until it's before their very eyes. Liberals have tried to warn the country for years that our rights were in jeopardy but people did not listen. They are under the misguided belief that once a right is given it can't be taken away. Women and abortion rights. African Americans and civil rights. Many in these groups did not realize the seriousness of why it mattered who they voted for or whether they voted at all. Heck -- why worry about those rights when the Repubs were telling them the real issue was those homosexuals wanting to marry one another.

    And then you have the Dems who had become fat, dumb, and happy ... they had become complacent taking their constituencies like African Americans for granted. Well hopefully they have learned that in this business of politics one can not rest on their laurels.

    The extreme wing of the Repub party has been girding for this fight for a long time. They simply would not be happy until they could completely extinguish the "Left" and declare total victory.

    My mother used to say "be careful what you ask for". They now have their battle. I wonder will it end as they hoped.

    ** Stop getting "skewed" by right wing radio - ProgressiveTalk.org **

    by stlseven on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:49:21 AM PST

  •  Hmm! (none)
    I agree with a lot of what Kos wrote but this gives me pause:

    Alito would "[a]llow race-based discrimination and discrimination based on disabilities."

    I am PRETTY sure that Alito is opposed to Affirmative Action!

  •  talk to the senate (none)
    Here is a great page where you can go from senator to senator hitting their contact page and sending them your views.  I spent a half hour sending a similar message to 25 or 30 different senators, anyone I had half an idea about.  I wanted to be sure they heard me saying 'Fight'.
    http://www.senate.gov/...
  •  In their words: (none)
    Anne Coulter:
    Both Republicans and Democrats should be alarmed that Bush seems to believe his power to appoint judges is absolute. This is what "advice and consent" means.

    George Will:

    In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ``I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ``I do.''

  •  Like '04 Election, another scary-huge fight for Ds (none)
     I'm not afraid to say I cried on November 3rd '04.
     Despite having many reasons, I cried because I knew Bush SCOTUS nominees were indeed coming -- and the Dems defeats in Congress spelled a loss of crucial leverage in this matter.

    Am I ready for a fight? Hell yes. I think we must, if we're ever to forgive ourselves looking back. I agree with others that this is a major test for the Democratic legislators -- not only will they be up against current conservative power, but they will also be held to the high expectations of their base -- us. If we don't fight (and demand that they do the same), an Alito confirmation will be a loss felt on a much deeper level.

    So, those of us who want the throw-down, it's time to talk tactics.

  •  Nuclear Option Has Been Disarmed (none)
    While it might be early to be talking about a filibuster (although right now it looks like that's where we should end up), those who are afraid of the Nuclear Option should realize it's not likely to be invoked again for reasons that have nothing to do with ideology.  when it was being considered earlier, both Frist and Bush were stronger, there were a large number of Republicans who could never see themselves as the minority in the future, and there was a real (albeit misplaced) fear that Democrats would try to block ANY appointment to the Supreme Court by Bush.  Since then, Bush and Frist have both tanked, if not convinced they could lose the Senate, at least the GOP can now visualize the possibility, and Democrats handled the Roberts and Miers nominations civilly and in keeping with the constitutional mandate to "advise and consent."  And don't forget Cheney, who is one pacemaker away from indictment, would be the guy to pull the nuclear trigger.  If he did, it would be a naked power play exposed and Reid would be justified in shutting down the Senate.  And I believe the public will support him.

    So I am not afraid of calling for a filibuster, if the evidence on Alito supports that (which it does so far - and I doubt we'll see a change).

  •  In Their Words: (none)
    Anne Coulter:
    Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery. However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on "The West Wing," let alone to be a real one. Both Republicans and Democrats should be alarmed that Bush seems to believe his power to appoint judges is absolute. This is what "advise and consent" means.

    George Will:
    In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ``I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ``I do.''

  •  Olympia Snowe Isn't happy. (none)
    Link

    Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME), a pro-choice GOPer who openly lobbied Pres. Bush to nominate a female successor to Sandra Day O'Connor, today showed a strong grasp on the Senate nomination process. But Snowe gave few, if any, clues on how she feels about Bush's nomination of conservative judge Samuel Alito to the High Court.

    "Today the Senate again takes up its 'consent' role as expressed under the 'advice and consent' clause of the Constitution. The task before the Senate Judiciary Committee is to thoroughly and independently evaluate Judge Alito's qualifications, and I am confident that will occur under Chairman Specter's leadership. I will evaluate Judge Alito based on his lengthy record including all of his opinions, scholarship, judicial methodology and philosophy," Snowe said in a statement.

    "As the Senate begins considering this nomination, I will be in close contact with my Senate colleagues, including our group of fourteen senators who brokered the compromise earlier this year to move us past a deadlock on judicial nominees."

    My experience is, when a Republican senator is this vauge, he/she is not happy camper.

    "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately." - Ben Franklin

    by RandyMI on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:58:23 AM PST

  •  Bush's Desperation (none)
    This nomination surely shows Bush's desperation. He knows the majority of the country has abandoned him, he now cannot afford to alienate the rougly 1/3 of the nation, the alliance of corporate benefactors of his corporate government and the religiously intolerant right.

    Now we will see if the Democrats have the nerve to protect America.  This man is against everything progressives stand for, equal treatment for the disabled, equal rights for gays, women's rights, (and that one includes more than just abortion.

    As I have said before, I am not fond of abortion.  It is a tragedy, and anyone who does not acknowledge that I suspect highly their humanity.  However, as a man, I'm aware that this decision affects the mother in a much more direct degree than any man would ever know.  

    I think we should emphasize the broad range of issues in our opposition to this fanatic.  We cannot afford to offend a large proportion of the nation that, although they may be personally pro-life, they are pro-choice on whether to impose their values on everyone else.  But these moderate pro-life voters, while not favoring outright repeal of Roe vs. Wade, nonetheless support making abortion "safe but rare" and support some limits on abotion, such as the partial birth abortion ban.

    That being said, this nomination is political Armegeddon.  If the Democrats in the Senate will not use the filibuster on this extremist, they never will.  If the so-called "moderate" Republicans in the Northeast-the Olympia Snowes, the Susan Collins, the Arlen Spectors, the Lincoln Chafees, support this extremist then we should make them pay a very high price at their next election cycles.   We must spend millions in reminding blue-state voters that when the chips are down-these "moderate" Republicans vote for the theofascist corporate Republican leadership everytime.

    This is a scary, sad day for America.  Not because its Halloween, but because the last bastion of American freedom, freedom from total Republican/fascist control, the federal judiciary, may be about to fall if this nomination is allowed to succeed.

    What a frightful Halloween ghoul George W Bush has given the nation on this Halloween Day.

  •  Minor quibble? Key point? Maybe both. (none)
    In principle, a Justice's rulings do not necessarily reflect their personal beliefs; they reflect the Justice's interpretation of the Constitution. For example, I really doubt that the majority in Kelo were rooting for the developers to win. I believe that they concluded (correctly or not) that precedent and the Constitution itself bound them to rule in favor of the developers (ahem -- oh, yes, and the City of New London.)

    If we attack Alito's ideology, we're directly exposed to the "kill the messenger" counterattack from the Right. That's the kind of counterattack that the Rovians have used so effectively to deflect attention away from the real message.

    We can't stop those counterattacks in any case, but we can fortify ourselves against them. The key is to highlight Alito's judicial reasoning, not his personal beliefs. For instance, Kos's bullet points could be reworded like this:

    Samuel Alito believes the Constitution:

    • Does not grant American citizens the right to privacy

    • Prevents the goverment from opposing discrimination

    • Prevents the government from protecting the rights of working people dealing with a family crisis

    • Allows unauthorized strip searches

The focus is now where it should be: on our rights. The American Taliban may still change the subject, but at least we're not offering to do it for them.
  •  Markos (none)
    Pour yourself a drink, young man. You just posted the best political analysis I have ever seen on the net. This is exactly what we wanted - now we have to fight like there's no tomorrow.

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:02:12 AM PST

  •  Alito Offense (none)
    FOX News DaySide covered Alito at the top of the hour. First up Casey. The defense of Alito on Casey:

    Anchorman: Well let's look at his record on abortion, I mean the law in PA that says a woman has to get permission form her husband...Chuckles
    Legal Expert: Wait a minute, wait a minute... The voters of PA passed a partial birth abortion ban in the state. One of it's five provisions was that the woman had to just notify or show that the husband was aware of her want to get a partial birth abortion. So what he did, what he refused to do was go against the voters in that case. In fact, this is already Sandra Day O'Connor's stated view that the burden on the abortion seeker not be undue. And clearly it's not, plus the voters wanted that law.
    Anchorman: So he's the same as  O'Connor?
    Legal Expert: That's right, consistent with O'Connor.

    Get it?

  •  I just realized (none)
    how ridiculous and illogical this whole thing is.

    Republicans said Dems would nominate "activist judges" and they want to "legislate from the bench"... and I don't know how they don't realize they're doing the exact same thing.

    Someone who would get rid of pre-existing laws seems to me to be an activist.

    It's not about "interpreting" with them either... they want to get rid of laws that already exist.

    "The billboards shade the flags they wave. . ." -Bright Eyes

    by indiemcemopants on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:11:07 AM PST

  •  Alito hates family values..... (none)
    Alito is trying to destroy the traditional American family, and has shown an utter disregard for family values.  Alito, as Supreme Court Justice, would rip newborn nursing babies out of the arms of their mothers, and force those mothers out of the home and away from their children.  Alito would endanger the important parent-child bond that needs to form in the first weeks of life -- setting the stage for more family disintegration.  Alito's policies, of not allowing parents to spend time with their newborn and young children, would do far more to devastate America's traditional families than anything any same-sex couple could do.

    If you care about honoring America's families, and protecting children, you need to oppose Alito for Supreme Court Justice.

    (Background: Alito sought to eliminate the Family and Medical Leave Act).

  •  Kos is wrong, this is no gift (none)
    This is not a "gift" to the nation, as Kos says.  We must remember, that this "gift" to the nation will sit for life on the Supreme Court, throwing the balance of power to the extreme right for a generation or more.

    The nation has embraced extreme rightwing government before, in the approval of the same-sex marriage bans all over the nation, in their "re-election" of George W Bush after any sane person could see he started an illegal and fruitless war, in their continued election of a Republican corporate/religious Congress.

    They have the power to get this man on the Court.  If the Democrats on the Gang of 14 refuse to filibuster, this man will sit on the Court for life.

    It would have been a "gift" if the Republicans did not have the absolute power they now have in the Congress, if the American people would spontaneously notice rightwing extremism when it appeared and then spontaneously acted to reject it.  But time and time again the American people have shown that is not the case.  

    What a sad and frightening day it is for American democracy and human rights, for working people and for minorities, for the disabled, for anyone else outside the priviliged power structure of George W Bush's Corporate/Religious/Fascist superstate.

    I don't know about anyone else, but I am saving up my pennies and starting a fund to move out of this nation-Canada, Western Europe, Australia, somewhere out of the coming nightmare that our nation is about to enter should this man enter into the highest court in our nation.  

  •  litmus test: dinosaurs not allowed (none)
    this guy is a fullblooded, coldblooded, prehistoric, enormous freakin reptile.

    Any Dem who doesn't fight this guy to the end should GET THE FREAK OUT OF THE PARTY.

    "Fitz, don't fail me now !!" ~~Mantan Moreland, bug-eyed actor in "King of the Zombies", 1941

    by seesdifferent on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:19:49 AM PST

  •  I'm so glad Harriet Miers was shot down (none)
    Not.

    This is why Feingold voted for Roberts-because he knew Roberts was not Alito, and therefore was the best of a bunch of bad choices.

  •  "Battle of the Sexes"... (none)
    ...in the Republican Party (since they're re-fighting the 1970s all over again, I figure I might as well trot out the old slogan).

    As this develops, I can't help but wonder what is going on in the minds of non-wingnut women who call themselves Republican.  (I'm excluding the wingnut women because they seem thrilled with living in a Patriarchy.) Whether they work outside the home or not.  Whether they have any higher education or not.  Indeed, whether they are pro-choice or not.  

    I'm talking about the Republican women who, in fact, actually believe and agree with us that they do indeed have rights in this Country.  Those who believe that their views do indeed matter, that their views do indeed count for something.  (I'm not talking about whether that is the case in the Republican Party as a reality, but only about these women's self-perceptions about their views and their rights.)

    I'm talking about the non-wingnut women who at least are (or will become) aware of these facts:  

    (1) there was a woman SCOTUS nominee who had to withdraw BEFORE her Senate hearings BECAUSE there was a shitstorm swirling around her nomination [the reason for the shitstorm, and who created it, doesn't really matter for the point I'm trying to make] and

    (2) she was replaced with a male SCOTUS nominee who will NOT have to withdraw BEFORE the Senate hearings DESPITE the shitstorm swirling around his nomination [again, the reason for and the folks creating the shitstorm does not really matter for my point here].

    Well, damn.....wouldn't such a woman at least asked herself inwardly THESE questions:  

    (1) Why the hell didn't the WOMAN nominee get to speak for herself at the hearings instead of the men deciding she had to withdraw before she got a chance to stick up for herself? and

    (2) Why the hell does the MAN get a hearing even if there is shitstorm swelling around his nomination, too?

    Hell, for some women at least, I think it really will be as simple as that.  The implicit message in the Republican Party becomes an explicit message for some:  You, as a woman, don't count.  You have a place with us, but only so long as you know your place.

    Now that's a wedge issue of the highest order.  And one that is arising internally for at least some women.

    Although it might be just a few, I think it will be seen for them through that prism alone.....regardlesgs of all the "clutter" in both the Miers fight and Alito fight.

    Of course, it presumes that Republican women who care about such things even know what has gone on the past week.  I gotta tell ya -- a lot of people (men or women) are simply just not aware that any of the events of the past week have even taken place.  Seriously.  So, to reach at least a few women by getting them to see the SCOTUS nomination through the simplified prism above requires (1) that they be made aware of those basic facts above and (2) that we Dems do in fact create a shitstorm around Alito but one that still allows him to get his hearing.

  •  Kos and/or Armando and/or an attorney (none)
    Please answer this...

    The heart of ALITO's opinion in Groody is the following...

    "I would reverse the order of the District Court and direct that summary judgment be entered in favor of the defendants. First, the best reading of the warrant is that it authorized the search of any persons found on the premises. Second, even if the warrant did not contain such authorization, a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so, and therefore the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity."

    Is it not factual that if a reasonable officer believes that the warrant authorizes X, and the officer therefore does X, that officer is therefore entitled to qualified immunity with regard to 42 USC 1983 actions?

    What am I missing here?

  •  Has Anyone Considered (none)
    That we have a spirited, pointed, and meaningful debate, and let him get confirmed by an up or down vote.

    Before the 0's and 1's start to fall on me, I'm NOT a winger from ConfirmThem or RedState. I'm NOT saying that we should give up.

    Instead, we can make sure that the American people are warned about what this guy can do. And then, when civil liberties and protections start getting rolled back, we can point to the debate and say, "I told you so."

    For the Democrats, a filibuster might be a Pyrric victory. Sure, we might get him Borked. But then we've still got the specter of "obstructoninst tactics" on us.

    On the other hand, if the Republicans win, and the wingers get what they want, we can then point and say "we told you so." Voters will flock to the party in droves. And the GOP itself might fragment between "conservatives" and "relgious right," something that is like pouring gravy on... well... anything.

    Of course, I might just be insane, too. But that's my right. :)

    Fiscal Conservatives at Their Best
    (Cheers to the DKos diary!)
    Steal what you like.

    by Senor Pez on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:53:54 AM PST

  •  And expanding the (none)
    death penalty. Is'nt he supposed to be Catholic?
     "Alito has a strong law-and-order bent. A decision he penned in a Pennsylvania death penalty case was reversed recently by the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court threw out a death sentence (which had been upheld by Alito), saying that a convicted killer had not had competent lawyers. " USA Today.  Maybe he never heard this:

     Statement of the Administrative Board of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
    April 2, 1999

    The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.1

    --Pope John Paul II, January 27, 1999, St. Louis, Missouri

    the meek shall inherit the earth

    by Howaboutthetruth on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:54:45 AM PST

  •  This is our chance (none)
    to show Dems stand for something. There is no grey area here that I can see.

    Bring it the fuck on!

    Jesus was a victim of the death penalty.

    by coigue on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:52:17 PM PST

  •  GO BACK TO SLEAP! (none)

    Who are you people kidding? The Dem politicians will ask some "tough questions" [i.e., lame blustering] before caving-in. This guy will be confirmed and we all know it.

    ========

  •  All I have to say (none)
    Image Hosted by ImageShack.usImage Hosted by ImageShack.usImage Hosted by ImageShack.us

    is Bork, Bork, Bork.

    This guy seems to make Bork look moderate. Yikes.
    Same problem, same solution.

    "Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people." -Archibald Cox 10/20/73

    by justme on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:35:54 PM PST

  •  So the Dems FILIBUSTER (maybe)... (none)
     ...if the planets align correctly and then what?

    ...Frist employs the Nuclear Option (forget about that untidy mess that was agreed to during the Owens/Name the hack here by the "comprimise of 14")

    ...we lose the filibuster... the SCOTUS is now Packed with Rabid Rightwing Activists, and worse (yes worse than that)nothing has changed with the vote tabulating cough fraud cough.  We go on to find the MSM reporting that the Republicans have made a "remarkable comeback" from their numerous troubles less than a year ago on the day after the 2006 (s)Election.

    ...Have I got this right so far?  Seventy percent of America now is angry thinking the country is moving in the wrong direction but the republicans "somehow" manage to pull out enough wins in 2006 to give them super-majorities in both the House and the Senate.

    ...Ladies and Gentlemen...Welcome to Orwell's 1984.

    "Wonderful things can happen ... when you plant the seeds of distrust in a garden of Assholes" -- Elmore Leonard

    by Blue Shark on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:40:36 PM PST

  •  Italian American (none)
    All right,
    I'm pissed now!  I've read DailyKos and defended myself as a liberal at my school.  I've signed every online petition there is, but now it's personal.  
    I am an Italian American and pissed off.  What do I do?  Give me names, numbers, emails whatever the fuck it takes to make Drudge eat his own _ucking words!  Don't ever tell me that this __ickhead judge shares the same philosophy as I do because he is a Roman Catholic Italian.  
  • Close

    Permalink

    Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

    Click here for the mobile view of the site