Once the post is available (which will be when California, always lagging a few hours behind, starts its day), I will provide the link here. (It is now available and it's here.) The gist of it is this:
The Democrats are a party in urgent need of a good fight. And the Alito nomination presents the perfect opportunity for Democrats to demonstrate that they are willing to wage a real battle for the things they believe in. At least two core Democratic principles -- which are really American principles -- are at stake in these hearings, and are clearly threatened by the Alito nomination:
(1) whether we live in a country where the President has the right to declare himself to be above the law and can freely violate whatever laws he wants; and,
(2) whether the privacy rights which are the bedrock of individual liberty in this country will be decimated by the Supreme Court, thereby returning us to the days where women were prohibited by the state from having abortions and where the Federal Government is able to intervene in our lives and restrict our liberties in the
most personal and private spheres, from our most intimate relationships to the way we die.
If Democrats are unwilling to fight for these principles, what are they willing to fight for? And if Democrats crawl away from this battle, meekly convincing themselves before even engaging it that they are destined to lose and therefore shouldn’t even bother to try, how can Democrats possibly object when they are perceived as being weak, irresolute, and afraid of taking a stand for their beliefs?
I will also undoubtedly have some additional thoughts as the (relatively) exciting part of the Alito hearings takes place today, and will contemporaneously blog some of those observations here. For actual, full-on live blogging, see ReddHedd, who did a great job yesterday of making a rather boring day somewhat interesting.
Look forward to reading it. Honestly, the mere thought that Democrats will lie down on this one and just happily take it up the ass makes my blood boil.
ReplyDeleteIf Matt Yglesias and the rests of the bitched-up wonks want it so bad, they can take it. But the rest of us need to fucking fight for once!
A Sam Alito quote from the Senate confirmation hearings yesterday is getting a lot of air time:
ReplyDelete"A judge can’t have any agenda, a judge can’t have any preferred outcome in any particular case, and a judge certainly doesn’t have a client."
Is this the best he can do? That sounds like a summation from a high school civics text. Are we all supposed to be astounded by this nugget of judicial wisdom? Looking at how he’s actually ruled on some important cases, it’s pretty clear he doesn’t actually believe it either. Think he’s trying to get a job again? Also notice how he didn’t say, "I don’t have any agenda, I don’t have any preferred outcome in any particular case, and I certainly don’t have a client."
Agreed 100%, of course.
ReplyDeleteSo how do you square the ABA's
ReplyDelete"well qualified" assesment of Judge Alito with the CW here and elsewhere, namely that he is an unethical racist ideologue who is just champing at the bit to do something radical?
The ABA makes clear that it is only assessing the technical and career qualifications of the candidate, not his fitness for confirmation, judicial philosophy or anything else.
Alito is unquestionably smart and knowledgable about constitutional law. He is qualified. The question is whether he is an appropriate choice whose judicial philosophy is in the mainstream.
That has nothing to do with anything the ABA opined on.
And I've heard nobody call him the names you attribute to his opponents, let alone anyone "here" doing so.
tomaig said:
ReplyDeleteCW here and elsewhere, namely that he is an unethical racist ideologue who is just champing at the bit to do something radical?
___________________________________
nobody said that tomaig. But, from rude pundit:
Sammy Alito can write in his
questionnaire for his circuit
court nomination in 1990, stating plainly, clearly, that he'd "disqualify himself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies," which seemed reasonable since Alito had, like, hundreds of thousands of dollars invested with Vanguard funds. Then he can rule in favor of Vanguard in 2002, a case he got "due to a computer error" that should have warned him that Vanguard was involved. Sammy went ahead to rule on the case, even though Vanguard was the defendant, which means he either lied to the Senate or he didn't read the list of involved parties at the top of the brief, which says, "The Vanguard Group Inc., Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company, and Vanguard/Morgan Growth Fund Inc." But the White House says that if you dare question Sammy's ethics, you are just a tarnisher to the shiny essence of Alito, you tarnisher, you.
__________________________________
I will say this: he is as corrupt as Tom Delay, who seems never to have made a decision that didn't benefit him financially in some way.
Unless you can refute the fact that he lied, and then he ruled in favor of a defendant with which he had financial ties, you'll have to admit that he is CORRUPT.
And you're right, nobody here has used those exact words but the very first poster, eddie, equates
ReplyDeleteapproving Judge Alito with forcible sodomy so you can draw your own conclusions as to whether my characterization of the left's views on Judge Alito is accurate...
Right, because using a sodomy metaphor to describe acceptance of someone's confirmation to the court is definitely the same thing as accusing the nominee of being a racist.
And, of course, "eddie" has been appointed spokesman for the "left" so whatever he says in the Comments section here can be fairly considered to constitute the viewpoints of the "left".
Judge Alito has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job. In fifteen years on the bench, not one.
ReplyDeleteI imagine you'll have a ready defense / excuse for Sen. Kennedy's blatantly untrue and defamatory statement.
I'm curious to know which race discrimination cases Judge Alito did write an opinion in favor of a person of color who was alleging discrimination. Glass v. Philadelphia Electric Company? Nope. Riley v. Taylor? Nope. Bray v. Marriott Hotels? Nope. Grant v. Shalala? Nope. Now, we see a difference in Pemberthy v. Beyer, where instead of people of color, he indicated it was all right to discriminate against Hispanics in jury selection instead. So if you could trot out the cases where he did write an opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job, I'd be glad to see it. Wouldn't want you to have made a "blatantly untrue and defamatory statement."
--mds
The Republicans have quite literally dealt themselves a Get Out Of Jail Free card. And they've accomplished it with that most pernicious Republican tactic: they've done it in code. They are masters at saying one thing and meaning the exact opposite. It's what gives them the rhetorical edge that low rent demagogues like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter wield to do their hatchet work. It's their equivalent of a secret handshake.
ReplyDelete