We must contact those 22 "Democrats" who voted for Roberts and remind them that they can now prove if they're real Democrats or if they're not. Please contact Lieberman and Dodd in Ct. Both of them voted for Roberts, and we won't stand for a betrayal on this one. Gee, can't we get Nader to run against Lieberman in Ct.? Please.

I think the Democrats should stand their ground on this nominee, even if the Republicans threaten the nuclear option. I think in the end it will help the party, if they tinker with the filibuster and blow up the Senate.

I think now would be a good time for the Democrats to join in solidarity to fight the Republicans. There should not be any dissenters among the ranks here.

Every single Democratic Sentor and Congressman/woman should be standing up to this nominee and denying this radical conservative takeover of our supreme court.

i

We need a united message BEFORE the fight. Otherwise, dems look like they're all over the place and the SCOTUS nomination because too confusing for Joe public.

This out of the mainstream conservative jurist must not be confirmed. This man is a very extreme jurist who makes Scalia look like a saint. John Roberts was a different matter, Mr. Roberts was not like this guy, Roberts was well qualified and he's replacing a man who was a conservative. Alito is way to the right of Sandra Day O'Connor. He will be a judicial activist who will seek to overturn every law that has helped us. He must be stopped.

This Alito nomination proves once again that the Bush White House is so far removed from the needs of ALL Americans and is pandering again to his base of weirdo rightwingers. What an idiot he is. He can't even figure out that he is ruining the chances of all Rep's for next year. Is there no one who can get him under control and talk sense to his ego?!! He is stabbing in the back his own party members. Are they all nuts or what?

So, let's see. Alito is okay with racism, anti-choice, won't protect citizens against unwarranted searches, would strike down FMLA meaning he is a corporatist.

I think it's filibuster time. If the Republicans invoke nuclear option, walk out of the Senate and don't allow a quorum.

The Republicans aren't doing any good for the nation so it's no loss shutting the Senate down.

Yikes! This guy is really a creep! At least with Roberts we didn't have to scrutinize the gory details, since so much of his record was retained due to Privilege.

With Alito, though, the whole country is going to have to suffer through the embarrassment of seeing the President and the Republican Senate majority trying to ram through a cro-magnon Supreme Court nominee.

The Dems will bring some Republicans over to their side, though, and if we stand united, we will beat back the threat and leave the Republicans in even greater disarray than they already are.

Please comment on my proposed letter to senators . . .

Dear Senator:

I ask your help to do everything in your power to defeat the nomination of Samuel Alito to United States Supreme Court.

I am a thinking man. I believe if the Court is returned to a majority of far right conservative justices instead of maintaining its current balance, our country will suffer tragic consequences and those consequences will persist for many years.

Not only will Alito’s nomination start a divisive fight between Democrats and Republicans, the dispute will be costly to our country’s political future. We are a sharply divided nation today because President George W. Bush has pursued a policy of extreme right-wing politics throughout his terms. His actions range from launching a failed war of aggression on Iraq to making huge, undeserved tax cuts for the rich. It will take years to recover a semblance of comity after this divisive fight.

George W. Bush was very narrowly elected in 2000 and reelected with a very small plurality. Yet, he continues to make choices that are far outside the mainstream of American politics. Over 55 percent of our voters today disagree with him. If a Presidential election could be held today and Bush ran, he would lose.

Alito’s appointment to the Court threatens disruption and hardship to many. He could and would return our country to the days when American had no social infrastructure to protect the poor, the disabled, and the needy. His judicial philosophy is so far removed from the mainstream that his decisions would overturn critical precedents on privacy and the right to choose, such as Roe v. Wade.

Your vote on this nomination will be crucial to our country’s future. Many Democrats and mainstream Republicans are now watching. I appeal to your integrity and responsibility to vote against this crucial nomination.

Sincerely yours,

I hate to sound like a Negative Nelly, but does anyone really believe that the Democrats will do anything less than bend over and take it like a man. I think we need to unleash our own "nuclear option". Let's say that if even ONE democrat votes for this nominee, we'll all sit home on election day 2006. We're obviously shaking in our boots with doubts that the Democrats will stand their ground. And I have to wonder, why the hell do we continue to let them bow down on our behalfs?!?!?!

While you're out digging up dirt on Alito, make sure you read the things you find. Take this time.com article about the man. It includes this short anecdote:

"In that case, Alito argued passionately with other members of the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court that a disabled woman, Pauline Thomas, should be granted benefits because she had been laid off from her job as an elevator operator and could not find a new job since the position of "elevator operator" had virtually disappeared from the economy. A lower court had ruled that a narrow and technical reading of the Social Security statute did not entitle Thomas to benefits. Alito called this result "absurd" and overrode the objections of several of his colleagues and convinced the full 3rd Circuit to overturn the lower court decision.

Alito's passion didn't move the Supreme Court, however, which overturned his decision in 2003. In a pointed rejection of Alito's opinion—accusing him of "disregarding" basic grammatical rules for interpreting the law—the Supreme Court fell back on the narrow and technical reading and denied Thomas her Social Security benefits. The author of this stinging rebuke to Alito? Justice Antonin Scalia."

Filibuster this guy! We as democrats need to appear as out-of-the-mainstream as possible. Resonable candidates like Alito need not apply. Our vision for Amerika does not include judges who understand their role in our government. We can't win elections so we MUST have judges who legislate from the bench. Howard Dean - why are we not hearing your gutteral screams on this guy?

Lets see a voice of opposition on the Democrats.org website. Let's see a Dean speech in opposition. Alito is against our values of fairness, equality and opportunity. Alito is bad and we want our Senators to stand up and vote against him, but we need to take a stand as a party. Where is the message on the website? Where is Dean's immediate press release? We must move quick, the conservative spin machine is already saying bring it on you pansies, but the party hasn't said a peep. Fight, filibuster, and vote no.

Am I the only one that thinks filibustering a judical nomination is a bad idea? We could filibuster this guy, and the next guy, and the next guy. But think about the long-term effects this would cause.

Imagine 10 years from now... an empty supreme court because both parties decided to filibuster every nomination they didn't agree with.

Thats an extreme I know, but if there is a precedent of the senatorial minority filibustering SCOTUS nominations then do any of you think for a minute the republicans will hesitate to do the same when they inevitably lose the majority?

Instead of throwing a wrench in our Federalist system, we need to ensure democrats stand united and sway the moderate republicans to vote against this guy. Republicans only have a small majority, we can beat this nomination.

We should opose Alitto because he is not a nice man for Americans. He is to conservative for me.

I stand for America and Israel.

L'chaim.

Someone needs to find out what Chris Mathews is talking about: He just claimed that Democrats are circulating talking points about Alito that attack him for being Italian (of course he said that the "document" he had was forwarded to him stating that Democrats were handing it out, but the document didn't say exactly who it was from.)

Don't wimp out this time on judicial appointments. If Alitio is as far right of the mainstream as he appears, ALL Democrats in the Senate must stand their ground. If necessary, filabuster and force the Republicans to overturn the rules of the Senate. The Democratic tent does not have room for legislators who compromise on such a fundamental principle as this.

Dear Gov. Dean:

I am a senior citizen who is totally fed up with the confrontational politics in DC. I am anti-Bush, anti-war, a former Marine and extremely concerned about the future course of our country.
I believe that the confrontational attitude between the parties has reached an absurd level. Rabid opposition is the norm rather than cooperating for a more moderate center. The furor that has erupted about the nomination of Judge Alito for the Supreme Court is a good example.
I believe the Democrats should have approved John Roberts by a 100% vote. I think the nomination was a good one and Justice Roberts now sits on the Supreme Court as Chief Justice. Why were there Democratic votes against this man when it was obvious he was an excellent candidate? Opposition for the sake of opposition?
Now we have Judge Alito being nominated this morning. And the Democratic opposition to him has already reached a roar which is embarassing!
Democrats: Filibuster, Republicans: Nuclear option. Will it ever stop? There are much more important subjects for congress to address than fighting for the sake of fighting!
If the Democrats have any hope of gaining seats in both the House and Senate in 2006, this kind of opposition will defeat you! I think the american voters are sick of the Republicans but I think we will see this kind of empty opposition as a very negative thing. And your hope of obtaining votes from moderates and independents like me will go down the drain. WISE UP!
More important issues:
Deficit financing & the debt,
Re-write the Medicare prescription bill,
Treat illegal aliens as what they
are: ILLEGAL! The Hispanics are
changing the character of our
country and not for the better! Secure
the border and send them back!
Make politicians work for the citizens
first, not themselves.
Etc., Etc., ad infinitum!
Have a decent and honest hearing for Judge
Alito, STOP the fighting!

Richard J. Mullin

Three points:

First, Chairman Dean's statement as reported on KOS is right on point and earning many plaudits.

Second, any candidate for a public office who proposes that "abortion" can and should be regulated by legislation and judicial interpretation needs to be rejected because s/he's either stupid or into fraud. Abortion is, like other forms of bodily excretions, a natural process, not subject to the laws of man. The premature termination of a pregnancy, on the other hand, is subject to (one hopes) medical intervention. But, the position that medical procedures should be legislated demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the professional criteria that govern both medecine and the law.

Three, the central issue is really whether the individual or the state is more important. Does the individual exist to serve the state, or is the state organized to benefit the individual? Conservatives would argue the former because it gives them license to direct the behavior of others. Democrats are committed to the latter because their primary focus is individual liberty.

Democrats for some reason believe that the American people are on their side on abortion. While it is true most americans believe in some form of legal abortion, most don't subscribe to abortion on demand like most democrats do. I hope Justice Alito will not overturn Roe, it will cost us politically. Instead I hope he continues to chip away at the law, until abortion is reserved for people who have been raped, victims of incest or when the mothers health is in danger. Abortion should not be reserved for slutty women who sleep with every guy they can find and then get pregnant and realize they don't want the child. It's called personal responsibility, something democrats have never cared for.

Sign and support the petition!

http://www.petitiononline.com/noalito/petition.html

TELL REPUBLICANS "THAT TALKING POINT WON'T FLY!" There is a quickly circulating meme that Democrats are responsible for coming up with the nickname "Scalito", and that this is ethnically insensitive.

The nickname appears to have a long history, given to him by his lawyer friends, as evidenced in this 2-year-old article: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1046288236052

The Democrats better stand up and fight this one in unity.

On the MSNBC program "Hardball" (I know that some people call it "Softball", and some "Nerfball", but I'm using the formal name), Chris Matthews opened today's show by claiming that "within 17 minutes after the Alito nomination was announced this morning, the Democrats were circulating a dirt sheet...."

Matthews later referred to the mystery document with unknown provenance as the "hit sheet". He first interviewed Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) about the nomination and immediately asked his opinion of the "hit sheet". Predictably, Hatch called Democrats "hysterical" and "irresponsible" for issuing the unseen and unsourced document.

Does anyone have a direct e-mail address for the "Hardball" producers other than hardball@msnbc.com? I'm going to ask Media Matters and F.A.I.R. to investigate this atrocity, because I suspect it was fabricated.

Dear jdgop:
As to your comment that Democrats don't care for personal responsibility, you couldn't be more wrong.
Democrats care deeply about personal responsibility and don't want "abortion on demand". We do, however, want it to be safe and rare - and legal. It boils down to a right to privacy, to making a decision on our own without input from the government. I thought that's what Republicans wanted - less government intrusion in people's lives. It seems to me that instead, they want to make the decisions for everyone.

It's not just the abortion issue that worries me when it comes to Alito. I worry about environmental protection, disability rights, gay rights, older Americans' rights, and more. I, for one, will be on the forefront of this nomination, looking for answers from Alito on these issues. If he doesn't supply answers I can support, I will urge senators to vote against him.

The Democratic Senators must not allow Alito to be appointed. If the Democrats stay united, there is a good possibility that enough moderate Republicans will join them to prevent the "nuclear option." The Republicans are deeply fractured now (perhaps worse than the Democrats have been in the past 8 years) and the moderate Republicans have nothing to gain politically (and much to lose) from the lame-duck Bush administration's attempt to mend fences with the right-wing religionists. If the Democrats do NOT unite against Alito, the Democrats will never again in this generation regain the support of the progressive wing, and those folk have been its fire-breathing base since Attorney General Robert Kennedy used federal power to let integrated buses cross state lines in the South. While it is true that President Clinton pulled enough moderate votes two-times straight to add to the solid progressive wing support, those moderate votes would not have mattered if the progressives had stayed home on those two November Tuesdays, and if those progressive workers had not been pounding the street pavement, knocking on doors, licking envelopes, and buzzing phone lines for weeks before the vote. Whether the Democratic senators win or lose on this current test, they cannot break ranks, or the the future crucial November Tuesdays for twenty years to come will truly be tragic.

Let's not act like Republicans. Let's not fight against (or for) this nomination based on exaggerations and inaccuracies. Read Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Alito declined to overturn the notification law, yes, but did so based on a test established by Justice O'Connor. He indicated that he thought it was a dumb law, but that it did not rise (under O'Connor's test) to being unconstitutional.

The problem with Scalia is that he's the biggest judicial activist of all. Is Alito good for the country because, unlike Scalia, he honors the law? I don't know, but I intend to find out. We all should.

Has everyone seen this yet?

http://political.moveon.org/stopalito

They've only got 14% of the signatures they wanted, so come on, every little bit helps.

Same old, same old... when will they ever learn?

Judicial activism is a no-no... no matter who does it. Expressing your opinon is one thing, but that simply shouldn't taint your position on the law.

Join the campaign against Alito:
http://www.cafepress.com/politicdesign/949498

NOT YOUR GRANDDADDY'S REPUBLICAN PARTY

Here's Trent Lott's take on Supreme Court justices.

To quote from Americablog in regards to the use of the filibuster, "If you're afraid to use it lest you lose it, then you've already lost it". NOW is the time to use it; this nomination MUST be stopped.

No free thinking woman in the United States today will tolerate rolling back the clock to Puritanical America.

Any judge arrogant enough to even suggest that a woman needs her husband's permission to attain medical care belongs in a mental institution not the Supreme Court.

I can't think of a faster way to destroy the institution of marriage and create a whole generation of illegitimate children than to put this man on the highest court in the nation.

And suggesting that it is proper for any adult to strip search a 10-year-old girl is nothing more than encourging child abuse.

First the Republicans told us that torture was legal and necessary. Then they got involved in a family dispute and insisted that a brain dead women had no right to die naturally and with dignity. Now they nominate a man who thinks child abuse is legal under certain circumstances.

What next? Gang rape at the Naval Academy for those that do not pray to the right God?

Abortion should not be reserved for slutty women who sleep with every guy they can find and then get pregnant and realize they don't want the child.

Posted by jdgop on October 31, 2005 at 04:06 PM

Some men never cease to amaze me. How did this woman get pregnant? Was it an immaculate conception? You guys need to take personal responsibility for your actions, too. Who spreads their sperm around without any regard for tomorrow and then walks away leaving the woman carrying the baby?

What kind of a slutty behavior is that? If a woman can't deal with the situation you left her to deal with alone, what are you going to do about it?

Nothing, as usual, except call her names.

The only reason "slutty" women have abortions is because the fathers aren't men enough to help raise the children they so carelessly conceived and then abandoned.

Grow up, jdgop. Babies aren't delivered by the stork. And they don't raise themselves.

Hey folks,
The dark side to the whole abortion/ right to privacy issue that everyone misses is if we aren't guarunteed a right to privacy what use are the rest of our rights?

Privacy protects access to abortions, and all other personal medical decisions. Don't want to have your kid immunized, too f-ing bad, Judge Alito says you ain't got the right to make the choice. Don't want to have a doctor perform a surgery on your kid, for religious reasons, too f-ing bad, Judge Alito says you ain't got the right. Want to buy a condom, marry outside your race, or tell a cop they can't perform a search, too f-ing bad.

Subject: Rights at risk on the Supreme Court - time to speak out!

Hi, I just received an important message from MoveOn.org. Bush has caved to pressure from the far right and nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Alito is a notoriously radical judge who has attacked workers' rights, womens' rights and civil rights for years.

Please join me in signing the emergency petition to our Senators, asking them to stand up for us and block this nomination. Thank you.

http://www.moveonpac.org/stopalito

To SandyH and jdgop (and others who want to listen in):

It's not about how each gender has its population of promiscuous behaviors, it's about what our next move is in response to the nominee. Before we circle the wagons, and engage in high risk all or nothing policies, shouldn't we at least see where the chips fall as this thing progresses?

The radical right likes to dictate terms to private choices but is unwilling to assume any fiscal responsibility for those decisions. It's fine for the sluts as you term them to have their babies, but live in the streets because of the slashing of "entitlements" that would care for them. For all their faults, legal abortions while they take fetal life, do not jeopardise the lives of the mothers that the once illegal coathangar abortions did. Our society realized it couldn't stop abortions, so it opted for safety.

The tide is shifting in favor of us with public opinion leaning more and more in our direction. It's too soon to recklessly risk our political stake in one big showdown that we are not yet sure we can win. I'm not saying we shouldn't have that showdown if the hearings confirm our suspicions. The Bushies are trying to rebuild their base with the far rights. Whoever controls the center however wins the game. That's what can put us in power, and keep us there. We won't gain the center if we rally around the idea of no descenting votes. Singlemindedness is the Bushite's biggest downfall. Let's not duplicate it in our party.

Don't want to have your kid immunized, too f-ing bad, Judge Alito says you ain't got the right to make the choice. Don't want to have a doctor perform a surgery on your kid, for religious reasons, too f-ing bad, Judge Alito says you ain't got the right. Want to buy a condom, marry outside your race, or tell a cop they can't perform a search, too f-ing bad.

Can you please offer me some evidence that Alito handed down decisions outlawing the rights of people to have surgery on their children for religious reasons, or buy a condom, or marry outside one's race, or tell a cop that they cannot perform a search?

I would like to see these decisions. I have not heard of them on any tv coverage of Alito today.

All those cases were ruled on by the Supreme Court, and in the last 15 years Judge Alito has ruled on cases to overturn these precedents. Specifically "in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Alito agreed with the Third Circuit majority that Pennsylvania's informed consent, parental consent, and reporting and public disclosure requirements were constitutional." So the woman has no rights over her own body, that others can't take away. She hasn't got a right to privacy.

And if you throw out privacy then the state can decide if you can have an abortion, or if they can force your children to get immunizations, or to have surgical procedures in spite of the parents or families wishes. Just like in the Terry Schiavo debacle, one group of family members can convince one preacher to intervene in the legal process, and they can force the private decision of the husband all the way to Supreme Court.

Irving do you remeber the Schiavo crap? I don't know if that made the news in Israel, but it is directly what I'm talking about.

From the Warroom at Salon.com

Full article there.

The majority did its own math and concluded that if the prosecutors in the four cases had used their peremptory challenges in a race-blind way, five of the 48 jurors in those cases would have been black. "Admittedly, there was no statistical analysis of these figures presented by either side in the post-conviction proceeding," the majority wrote. "But is it really necessary to have a sophisticated analysis by a statistician to conclude that there is little chance of randomly selecting four consecutive all white juries?"

Alito thought so. "Statistics can be very revealing -- and also terribly misleading in the hands of 'an amateur with a pocket calculator,'" he wrote in a dissenting opinion in which he said that Riley's death sentence should be upheld. "The majority's simplistic analysis treats the prospective jurors who were peremptorily challenged as if they had no relevant characteristics other than race, as if they were in effect black and white marbles in a jar from which the lawyers drew. In reality, however, these individuals had many other characteristics, and without taking those variables into account, it is simply not possible to determine whether the prosecution's strikes were based on race or something else."

The rejoinder from the majority: In analogizing the striking of African-American jurors to the election of left-handed presidents, Alito had "overlooked the obvious fact that there is no provision in the Constitution that protects persons from discrimination based on whether they are right-handed or left-handed. To suggest any comparability to the striking of jurors based on their race is to minimize the history of discrimination against prospective black jurors and black defendants, which was the raison d'etre" of Batson v. Kentucky, the 1986 Supreme Court decision that prohibits prosecutors from using peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory way.

Converted... for now.

I'm not usually swayed to the left or the right, as I consider myself independent, but I must say... this time on your side.

This guy is scary.

JOIN THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST ALITO!

http://www.cafepress.com/politicdesign/949498

I am concerned about our party's reaction to Alito. After all, when President Clinton named Ruth Ginsburg and Steven Breyer, the Republicans in the Senate, although a minority, held their water and were quite courteous in their hearings. Both were confirmed with GOP support.

So, if we oppose Alito whole hand, we will face a backlash. We need to hold our powder and wait until the hearings before we launch any opposition. We would want the same if a Democratic President had made a nomination that Republicans did not like.

I think its pretty unanimous. The Democratic base wants to filibuster this nominee! Everybody talks about Bush's conservative "base". Well, we have a base too! Alito must not be confirmed. Democrats must pull everything they've got to make sure this guy does NOT get appointed to the highest court in our land. He is replacing a seat that is way too important for us. People, we've got to band together to STOP this nominee. EMAIL your congressmen/women. PETITION! SPEAK OUT!

I keep reading about how bad these nominees are. What do you expect from Bush. He is doing exactly what a right wing lunatic would do. If we had gotten behind a moderate Democrat last election instead of Kerry, this conversation wouldn't be taking place right now. There is nothing we can do about anything because we are outnumbered in the Senate and they will decide for this guy. If the Democratic party wants to stop this, we have to run people that can win. It is as simple as that. Like it or not, another Liberal with the same message cannot win and that should be apparent by now.What our party Liberals have to except is that "it is better to have part of the pie than none at all".You cannot change voters perceptions of Liberals whether it is the truth or not, it is the truth to the voter. Liberals are seen as weak and weak will not win. Bush's numbers are going down but Democrats numbers are not going up the same amount. That means they would still vote for another Republican. That is reality. The party has to junk the Washington bunch in favor of someone that can win or we will have this dictatorship forever.

Like it or not, we have a new nominee for the Supreme Court. I would like to offer an open mind to Judge Alito's decisions from the bench. I hope all can look at them in whole, and not as small blogs of informations. The Supreme Court is suposed to rule on the merits of the case as contained in the law. It is not a place where change starts. As for the filibuster, I would recommend reading this paper " http://www.fed-soc.org/pdf/Filibusters.pdf " . It is written by members of the Federalist Society, of which Judge Alito is a member.

Hello,

I am currently at a point in my life where I am fed up with this Republican take over nonsense.
We as Democrats need to stand up and oppose this judicial nomination of Justice Alito not because he is Italian but him violating our basic freedoms and rights as Americans. We can stand behind someone who shares in the value of overturning the Roe v. Wade decision because of the emense support it has in the country. As Democrats we need not sit down and take this punishment from these neo-fascist bi-cammeral legislator like the congress but filabuster the candidate and not give up on that. Our freedoms and rights as Americans all dependent on the nomination of this candidate. And the future of our children and grandchildren truly depend on what our generation will do to stop the control and fight back against this 'nuclear option.'

Since when were certain seats supposed to be moderate or female etc.? The party that wins gets to nominate whomever they want. There were 7 liberals on the Warren court. Thats why we are so screwed up today. You are going to have to get over the fact that there will be a conservative court for years to come. Wait until Bush gets to replace justice Stevens or one of the other liberals with justice Lutig. Lets see in 2008 just which party is out of the mainstream, and whether or not the Senate will have the 60 votes to send the Filibuster into extinction. Then you guys will really sound schrill.

As Democrats we need not sit down and take this punishment from these neo-fascist bi-cammeral legislator like the congress

Hey - we LOST the election last year. When we won in 1992 and 1996, we had the right to name Supreme Court nominees.

If we lose, we do not name nominees. That is what winning elections is all about.

Get that through your thick skull, willya?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not worried at all about the GOP threat of a nuclear option. I'm convinced the American public is overwhelmingly more concerned with preserving balance of power and stopping GOP overreaching than they are with sending this right-wing nut, Scalito, to the US Supreme Court. The George Bush and Republican political capital is now a figment of their imagination. Now is the time to demand Democrat leaders show the courage to step forward and exercise their power, standing up for what's right.

Thank you

Filibuster Alito. Let us see where the moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans stand when that happens.

If they do not support the filibuster of this nominee, the darling of the radical right wing, then wait for them at the polls.

Wake-up grass-roots!

I think we're in more of a jam than we think.

Last time we filabustered, the Rep's didn't show up. But Bush has three and a half more years to go before we get another shot at president, plus another year and a half before Senators.

If we filibuster, and the Bush administration refuses to withdraw the nomination (which knowing Bush's stubbornness is a possibility) an the Republicans show up for the filibuster every day, we're going to have to babble and babble every day for a year and a half. If we leave the room, we have to yeild the floor. If we stop talking, we have to yeild the floor.

Right-wing extremists are always going to vote right, Left-wing extremists are always going to vote left. What usually wins elections (like last ones) is getting your "base" completely there, plus the majority of the middle.

If we filibuster, we'll please our base, but seriously risk losing every else. Literally, everyone.

I don't know if the Republicans have the balls to play hard-ball like this, but if we filibuster and they do, we could be looking real bad next Senate election, and next thing you know, we'll have a 65-34-1 Republican majority ratio with a Republican president.

This is a tougher situation than I think we'd like to admit. There's simply not enough of us "base" to win elections solely on our votes.

Democrats haven't been winning elections because we do not stand up for anything; we are too scared of the swing vote; which hasn't swung our way for some time now. Republicans on the other hand care only for their base and win elections. Pandering to the swing vote is a myth that hasn't panned out.

This President didn't care about the middle, he pandered to radical right wing of the party.

Either Democrats filibuster or we will have a Supreme Court that will tear down the wall of separation between Church and State. Religious books will be the basis for Science. Individual rights will be much diluted. Truman stood for something and won the elections against all odds. The country respects politicians who have the courage to stand up for their convictions and be steadfast about it.

Cave in to this nomination, and Democrats can kiss good-bye to '06 and '08.

This shouldn't become a fight of abortion rights. It should be more fundamental than that. This should be a fight about the fundamental liberal principles and foundations of this great democracy; about the supremacy of individual rights and wall of separation between church and state. Democrats have to frame this debate appropriately and consistently.

Let's see, he was confirmed twice without dissent but now the socialists of the Democratic Party, I should say the Democratic Party because they have proven themselves to be Socialists, now want to question his qualifications!!! The lies and hypocrisy of the hijacked Dems Party continues!!!

"I can't think of a faster way to destroy the institution of marriage and create a whole generation of illegitimate children than to put this man on the highest court in the nation.

Posted by SandyH on October 31, 2005 at 11:44 PM"

SandyH, do you not possibly believe that with a 70% illegitimacy birthrate among some races, and an overall 30+% rate in the US, that your statement was a bit stupid? Think about it for a moment. How would stopping abortion on demand (please don't come up with the drivel about privacy rights guaranteed by the Constitution because it does not exist, it was given to you by a 'liberal court') create a generation of illegitame children when we have millions and millions of them now?

We have already learned that Alito isn't the impeccable, ethical jurist claimed by the Lunatic Right(eous). Suggest that folks read today's Washington Post article on his refusal to recuse himself from ruling on a case involving the Vanguard companies (page A11). Nominee Alito had assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would specifically disqualify himself from any cases involving Vanguard, a company in which he owns up to a $1,000,000 in shares. He reneged on his promise and ruled -- surprise! -- in favor of Vanguard, a serious ethical breach. The White House has tried to pass it off as a "computer screening error" LOL The case had "the Vanguard company" printed all over it! It identified the litigants as "Vanguard Group Inc.", "Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Co." and "Vanguard's Morgan Growth Fund Inc." So either Alito's integrity is highly suspect, or he's not astute enough to try any legal case, much less sit on the Highest Court.

So Scalito is not only in the radical right wing mold of Scalia, he appears to be just as ethically challenged as Scalia; the Justice who went on a hunting trip with Dick "I don't know Wilson" Cheney before hearing a case related to him.

It has become very clear this administration is a puppet of the extreme right wing of the party. When the indoctrinated radical right wing propagandists have nothing else to say, they revert to their old name calling; we have seen "Socialists". Next we will see them rediculing Ted Kennedy. Hillary and Bill Clinton will come somewhere down the line.

Scarborough today was very clear on what the radical wing wants with this nomination. They want to reverse the gains made in the Warren Court. Didn't that include Brown. So the hidden message from the radical right wing is they want to take the courts back to the "Jim Crow" court.

Don't Let Republican Leadership "Go Nuclear" on Supreme Court. Please sign the Save the Filibuster Petition. See link below:

https://www.kintera.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactcustom.asp?c=feIJKQMEF&b=297997

This is getting silly.

Almost every argument posted is based on inaccuracies and wild exagerations.

Points to consider
1. Alito is not going to reverse Brown vs Board of education. No stretch of logic will make his court a "Jim Crow" court.
2. If Roe vs Wade is reversed (not likely)then abortion won't magically become illegal. The decision will be differed to the individual states.
Side note: like its previously been mentioned, Alito voted against Planned Parenthood vs Casey based on Sandra Day O'Connor's precedent not some radical right-wing agenda.
3. Alito believes in a right to privacy (not a conservative idea).
4. A filibuster will alienate the moderate support from both sides. Also the democrats will almost certainly lose the filibuster fight.

My opinion- Quit jumping to conclusions. The "I heard from someone that this guy screws goats!" frantic reactionary approach to politics just doesn't cut it. Find out what people who know him have to say, look more in detail into his record, blah blah etc. Basically we need to know what we are talking about, not just spouting off talking points.

Also... couldn't help but notice ...

When the indoctrinated radical right wing propagandists have nothing else to say, they revert to their old name calling

Like
Indoctrinated radical propagandist?
Scalito?
'Jim Crow' court?
Eh?

This is getting silly.

Almost every argument posted here is based on inaccuracies and wild exaggerations.

Points to consider
1. Alito is not going to reverse Brown vs. Board of education. No stretch of logic will make his court a "Jim Crow" court.
2. If Roe vs. Wade is reversed (not likely) then abortion won't magically become illegal. The decision will be differed to the individual states.
Side note: like its previously been mentioned, Alito voted against Planned Parenthood vs. Casey based on Sandra Day O'Connor's precedent not some radical right-wing agenda.
3. Alito believes in a right to privacy (not a conservative idea).
4. A filibuster will alienate the moderate support from both sides. Also the democrats will almost certainly lose the filibuster fight.

My opinion- Quit jumping to conclusions. The "I heard from someone that this guy screws goats!" frantic reactionary approach to politics just doesn't cut it. Find out what people who know him have to say, look more in detail into his record, blah blah etc. Basically we need to know what we are talking about, not just spouting off talking points.

Also... couldn't help but notice...

When the indoctrinated radical right wing propagandists have nothing else to say, they revert to their old name calling

Like
Indoctrinated radical propagandist?
Scalito?
'Jim Crow' court?
Eh?

So, here's where we see what the Dem Senators are really made of. This nomination is their big chance to show they are not "GOP Lite." They must show outstanding unity and GUTS to stand up on this program to move the court to the hard right. Below is an article about how the president and the judge are out courting the "red state moderate Democrats." That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about: If those guys defect from us and vote with to confirm because they fear for re-election in their red states, they might as well just hang it up and switch parties. THIS REQUIRES MASSIVE UNITY. The guy does not share the views of most Americans. He must be painted as a rightest elite. There is no room for the Dem's usual "We're nice guys" thing this time. Fillibuster, let them go nuclear, then use it against them next year. Period. No other options. Bork this bastard.

Marc Coan,
Taos, NM

Moderates' Support Sought for Alito
White House Tries to Forestall Filibuster by Targeting 'Red State' Democrats

By Peter Baker and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 2, 2005; A06

With its conservative base now secure, the White House turned its attention yesterday to wooing moderates in both parties as it seeks to build a Senate coalition that will confirm Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court despite the aggressive opposition of liberal Democrats.

A day after President Bush nominated him to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Alito spent the day on Capitol Hill introducing himself to more lawmakers. He focused on Democratic senators representing Republican-leaning states as well as Republican members of a bipartisan coalition that headed off judicial filibusters this year.

White House strategists assume that they will lose at least the 22 Senate Democrats who voted against confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in September. But they hope to win over enough red-state Democrats to thwart any attempt to block Alito. If the Republican leadership can hold together its 55-member caucus, it would need five Democrats to break a filibuster and ensure Alito's confirmation.

At this point, it is not assured that the Republicans will stick together. More-liberal Senate Republicans who support abortion rights have kept a cautious distance from Alito, and Democrats will try to peel them away from the fold.

But the Bush team won important support from key senators yesterday. Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), a member of the bipartisan "Gang of 14" that agreed this year to oppose judicial filibusters except in "extraordinary circumstances," made clear yesterday he sees no such circumstances with Alito's nomination.

"It's hard for me to envision that anyone would think about filibustering this nominee," DeWine said after meeting with Alito. He called Alito "clearly within the mainstream of conservative thought" and said he did not understand how "anyone would think that this would constitute what our group of 14 termed 'extraordinary circumstances' that would justify a filibuster."

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), another member of the Gang of 14, said that "it's way too early to talk about extraordinary circumstances." The group -- seven Republicans and seven Democrats -- plans to meet tomorrow in the office of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to talk through its approach to the nomination.

Alito, a potent conservative voice on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, was chosen by Bush after conservatives forced the withdrawal of Harriet Miers's nomination last week. Alito began his tour of red-state Democrats yesterday with Sen. Tim Johnson (S.D.). He is to visit Nelson today and Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.) tomorrow.

None of the three sits on the Judiciary Committee, whose members are usually visited first by Supreme Court nominees, and all three said the White House offered the courtesy calls without being asked.

Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a group set up to support Bush judicial nominations, said such a strategy makes sense.

"If Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer are the face of the Democratic Party for the next four months," he said, mentioning prominent liberals from Massachusetts and New York, "I don't think that's good for Ben Nelson or Max Baucus or Mark Pryor or other red-state Democrats."

Baucus, from Montana, and Pryor are Democrats from states Bush won in both his presidential races.

No Senate Democrat has outright opposed Alito so far, but the caucus has come under great pressure from liberal interest groups that fear he would push the Supreme Court to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 that affirmed the right to have an abortion. "This weekend, we turned the clocks back one hour to observe Standard Time," said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of Emily's List, a group that finances female candidates who support abortion rights. "Monday morning, President Bush turned the clocks back 32 years with the nomination" of Alito.

Former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), who is positioning himself for a presidential run in 2008, said in an e-mail to supporters: "President Bush is making yet another divisive choice nominating Judge Samuel Alito to the highest court in the land."

Conservative supporters countered with a new television ad calling Alito "one of America's most respected judges" and a former prosecutor who went after "terrorists and corporate criminals."

Meanwhile, the White House released a letter signed by Alito in 2003, in which he asked that a 2002 ruling he made in favor of the Vanguard financial company be reconsidered by other judges. Alito wrote the letter after a widow, who Vanguard had blocked from obtaining access to her husband's accounts, sought to overturn the ruling on grounds that Alito had substantial investments in Vanguard funds.

"I do not believe that I am required to disqualify myself based on my ownership of the mutual fund shares. Nor do I believe that I am a party" to the lawsuit, Alito wrote. "However, it has always been my personal practice to recuse in any case in which any possible question might arise. Under the circumstances here, I am voluntarily recusing in this case."

Alito had promised the Senate in 1990 that after his confirmation to the appellate bench, he would disqualify himself from any lawsuit involving Vanguard. The White House said that he nonetheless had originally joined two other judges in deciding the case because of a "computer glitch" at the court that failed to detect his conflict of interest.

UnitedStates is so full of it:

"Let's just hope the younger generation is conservative and Republican for the sake of the future of this country."

Actually, the students of this country see through the lies of this administration...the President's approval rating among young people is so, so low.

Let's not forget: 70% of the public identifies themselves as "moderates" and don't agree with the Christian Right (who is neither). Never have, never will. They don't want the religious theocracy now being orchestrated by the Christian Right.

No matter which side of Moderate you're on, the pendulum always swings back and hits you in the ass.

Now, that said: The Democrats are still in disarray and are not offering any clear alternatives to the GOP status quo. Or, at least they are not getting good coverage of any such alternatives. They have 10 mos. to really get their act together, and I have my doubts about whether they can do it.

Scarborough, a staunch right wing conservative said in yesterday's show, the Conservatives have finally have a chance to right the wrongs of the Earl Warren Court through the nomination of Alito.

Earl Warren was the Chief Justice during the most profound period of our history- 1953-1969. One of the first cases he presided over was Brown vs Board of Education. The Rosa parks case was decided by the Warren Court in 1956 when segregation was abolished in the US. The Earl Warren court handed down decisions that have had a significant impact on Civil Rights in this country.

The Democrats cannot make this an issue of abortion. The Conservatives have stated they see this nomination undoing the gains of the Warren Court. Democrats and the "moderate" Republicans have to decide if they are willing to allow the undoing of the Warren Court. Conservatives have chosen the Warren Court as the battleground for this nomination. That is where the Democrats need to show up. And the "moderate" Republicans have to decide where they stand on the Warren Court! They cannot have it one way with their electorate and just the opposite with their voting record.

This nomination is bigger than short term electoral gains. It is about principles. There are times to make decisions based on polls. And there are times to show leadership. This is time for leadership. This is filibuster time.

GO NUCLEAR!

We will make sure Republican POLITICIANS pay the price for their arrogance.

IT IS CALLED ABUSE OF POWER.

An activist Warren Court went against the will of the majority and gave decisions that gave all Americans equal Civil Rights. What the politicians didn't have the courage to do, the Warren Court did. When the radical right wing talks about strict constructionism, they surely include the far reaching activist decisions of the Warren Court, including the Civil Rights decisions, don't they. Now when Scarborough talks righting the wrongs of the Warren Court, how could one ignore the "activist" Civil Rights decisions as possible targets. If that is not the "wrongs" the radical right wants to "right" then they need to list out the ones they want to right from the Warren Court. Or Karl Rove you may want to list them.

Look at the longest filibuster in the history of the nation and it was over the enactment of the Civil rights Act of 1964. Look at those who opposed that Act in the name of "States Rights" and you will see the same forces aligned with the Alito nomination. It would be interesting to find out how Daddy Bush and Dick Cheney voted on the Civil Rights Act of '64. Karl Rove, you may want to tell us.

Will the Roberts Court take us back to the days of State sponsored Segregation. I doubt it, at least not immediately. With Alito, do we have the danger of erosion in Civil Rights? Isn't that what the radical right counting on with the Alito nomination? Will we see the gradual lowering and ultimately removal of the wall that separates Church and State with the Alito nomination? Isn't that what the radical right counting on with the Alito nomination? Will we see erosion in the supremacy of individual rights with the Alito nomination? Isn't that what the radical right counting on?

A activist right wing justice as punishment for the failure of an incompetent justice? Isn't that the height of cynicism?

The radical right wing has stated its battleground- the Warren Court. The Democrats need to decide if they have the courage of conviction to show up there. The moderate Republicans and, moderate and "red state" Democrats have to decide where they stand on Civil Rights, Individual Rights and the Wall of Separation between Church and State. This nomination is a lot bigger than abortion.

Karl Rove,

The judicial branch can do nothing of its own. But the radical right wing base is all gearing up to bring up the cases of the last years back to the Roberts Supreme Court. And you would be a hypocrite if you didn't acknowledge that to be true.

How far back in history will this administration take us to "right wrongs"? The Warren Court? and whats next? Hope not "righting the wrongs" of 1863/64 and 1776!

WHY DONT WE OUT BEN NELSON OF NEBRASKA?? I honeslty hope someone can tell me what good he does to our party. we need to be united right now, he's a thorn in our side and should just be a damn republican. We need unity. we need to impeach this president who is a murderer. He has a history of turning his back on murdering people by state execution in Texas, and now that he's in the White house he's given orders to murder thousands of people in Iraq. He's ignored enviornmental protection measures, now our whole Gulf coast is gone!! WAKE UP AMERICA!! He's neglected people and allowed Americans to suffer. I could go on and on. We need unity! Tell Ben Nelson the either get out of bed with the republicans or marry them and join them!

Alito =
1. For a right to privacy.
2. For gay rights.
3. Highly qualified intellect.
4. Will beat a filibuster (will hurt the demo party).
5. Not looking to change existing law.

After checking it out I don't think he is the extremist he is made out to be. In fact, I support him, I may not agree with everything he personnally believes in, but as a judge, he seems a step above and like I said in an another topic, we need good judges not more politicians in the court.

1. "Durbin said the judge told him he saw a right to privacy in the Constitution, one of the building blocks of the court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision."

2. "Also, 30 years before the Supreme Court decriminalized gay sex, Alito declared on behalf of his group of fellow Princeton University students that 'no private sexual act between consenting adults should be forbidden.'"

Alito, back in 1971, also called for an end to discrimination against homosexuals in hiring."

3. Just my opinion, looked at his decisions and was impressed by the depth of his though. Plus his school history and record is impressive.

4. "The defection of even two members of the group, which decided earlier in the year to support filibusters only in 'extraordinary circumstances,' would virtually ensure that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, would win a filibuster showdown."

5. "Nelson said Alito had assured him 'that he wants to go to the bench without a political agenda, that he is not bringing a hammer and chisel to hammer away and chisel away on existing law.'"

Lets leave this guy alone and get back to IRAQ.

All quotes were pulled from a CNN story.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/03/alito.ap/index.html

RIGHT TO PRIVACY AMENDMENT
It's time to create a major POSITIVE party plank to protect the American people from a right-wing Supreme Court. I strongly suggest we sponsor a "Right to Privacy Amendment" to the Constitution. With this in place, The Court would lack the authority to strip citizens of the fundamental rights we've been fighting for. And if presented well, I believe that this would pass. Even in Republican controlled Statehouses.

YES!!!

This issue needs to be decided in Congress and this is exactly the kind of solid platform that will rally democrats.

More emotional then budget issues and less controversial than abortion stuff.

Who's to blame for these Bush appointees? Liberal Democrats. Liberals have taken over the party leadership and refuse to back anybody but another liberal.Kerry couldn't beat the worst president since Herbert Hoover because he was passive while being stomped by the Bush Republicans and he was not specific about much of anything. He wobbled around like a drunk going down the street and swing voters couldn't tell what he was for so they voted for Bush. They knew Bush stunk but was afraid Kerry would stink more if elected because he wouldn't fight and the voters don't like people that won't fight and who claim to protect them. Voters want to see if you are as tough as the guy that is slapping you around. If liberals would moderate their demands in favor of a party victory and back moderates that are out of the DC loop, we wouldn't be discussing these right wing Supreme Court nominees at all,and when they have had enough of this, they will understand that they are only part of this party and a Democrat victory is the most important thing. Part of the pie is a lot better than none at all.Give me a moderate Democrat any time over a right wing lunatic Republican. You can't dance your way to victory, you have to stand for something.

I think that the most important question about Alito is this: Where does he stand on holding prisoners without a charge or legal council? Where does he stand on executive power to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections?

Once Upon a Time...
About culture and politics, and the narratives that inform them

Three Strikes and We're Out: Destroying America
[I began writing this at about 3 AM this morning. I thought that, after several hours' sleep, I might decide the tone was too harsh. Reviewing the first part of this mid-morning, I've decided to leave the beginning essentially the way I initially wrote it. It may be very harsh, but the facts justify at least this degree of condemnation, and much more. I expect that some liberals, genuine civil libertarians and assorted others who take the protection of civil liberties seriously will agree with the major points. On the other hand, mere Democratic partisans will not. Too bad. (The Republicans are entirely hopeless and not worth mentioning in this context.) With only one or two exceptions, all members of Congress -- Democrat, Republican or otherwise -- have abdicated all responsibility with regard to these attacks on fundamental constitutional principles. So, too, have the "libertarian interventionists." As far as I'm concerned, and to be very blunt about it and setting aside a very few exceptions, every single one of the politicians in Washington can go straight to hell. So can all those who cheer on the destruction of the United States from the sidelines or from their warblogs, or who fail to discuss these questions because they're too terrified and/or vengeful and/or ignorant. My reasons follow.]

I'm starting to write this in the dead of night. The more I read, the angrier I get. I couldn't sleep right now if I wanted to -- and I don't want to. I'm much too angry. And I realize that almost all Americans, and most bloggers (of any political persuasion), have their heads up their asses. The groundwork is almost entirely in place for the destruction of this country once and for all, and no one even seems to know what's happening. I myself have been derelict in not addressing these issues earlier. (I wrote a great deal about them on my previous blog, but I haven't discussed these questions recently. I will attempt to make up for that error now.)

You know, it's swell that the Democrats seem to have woken up now, at least for a few days. And it's super peachy keen that they want to investigate whether the administration "manipulated intelligence" in the leadup to the Iraq war. Does any sentient being who has been paying attention for the last three years have the slightest doubt about the answer to that question? And for God's sake, don't kid yourself for one second: even if it were established beyond all doubt that Bush and all his cronies lied through their teeth, proven so strongly that even the rightwing maniacs who are convinced that Bush is the noblest leader since Jesus Christ trod the Earth had to admit it, do you think that would get our troops out of Iraq any faster? Of course it wouldn't. Almost every establishment politician and intellectual maintains that we have a moral obligation to stay in Iraq until the situation is "stabilized," or until a "real" democracy miraculously springs forth, or until...who the hell knows. And every single politician in Washington is terrified of suggesting anything like a quick withdrawal. That would be "weak." That would be a victory for the terrorists. The U.S. would be defeated. We can't have that. Never mind that we're being defeated every single additional day that the occupation continues. Most of the rest of the world knows it. Somehow, the news seems to have filtered through everywhere except here at home.

I don't mean to make light of the moral problem at all. We invaded a country that didn't threaten us; we occupied Iraq for no justifiable reason whatsoever. And the country is now a disaster, veering closer to full-fledged civil war with every day that passes. We do bear a very heavy responsibility for that. The dilemma remains. As Gene Healy and Justin Logan put it in an article which is helpful on this point:
Opponents of leaving Iraq point out that we have a moral obligation to Iraq: We broke it, and now we've bought it. This point is compelling, and difficult to face. It is indeed awful that so many Iraqis are suffering as a result of the war, and might suffer more if we left. But is there a ceiling on the costs we should be willing to pay to fulfill that obligation?

More importantly, can we fulfill it? Muddling through is simply not a policy-especially when it brings with it serious risks that five or ten years from now, we'll be in the same position we're in now, with several thousand more Americans dead.

...

Based on the administration's public statements, they have no realistic plan for victory in Iraq. And without a victory strategy, there is only one alternative: an exit strategy. It is past time we develop one.
As Todd Gitlin pointed out in an article I excerpted yesterday, the Democrats thus far don't even have the minimal wisdom to come up with a specific plan for leaving Iraq. They are apparently incapable of leading on this issue. If some Democrats think we ought to leave Iraq as soon as feasible, how do they define "feasible" -- and what the hell is the plan? Do they expect an exit strategy to drop miraculously from the skies? They shouldn't be surprised if voters still hesitate to embrace them next year, unless those voters are sufficiently disgusted by the Bush gang. It appears that's what the Democrats are counting on. There's a campaign slogan for the Democrats: "You know they're disgusting. You aren't sure about us yet." Yeah, that ought to attract the undecideds.

Face it: if the Democrats took over both houses of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008, we'll still be in Iraq in ten years, and probably in twenty. What do you think those enduring bases are for? And most of the Democrats keep voting for funding for those bases. We can hope we won't have 150,000 troops in Iraq in five years -- perhaps only 30,00 or 40,000. And they'll still be there in 2015; I'd wager on it right now. (The only reason they wouldn't be is if Armageddon intercedes, which it well might given the Bush administration's potential for world-destroying criminality. In that case, all such predictions are obviously mooted, along with possibly millions of people.)

But none of that is what I want to discuss at the moment. As profoundly disastrous as the Bush foreign policy has been and continues to be, what will determine the future of our country is whether the basic constitutional principles which have maintained the United States for over 200 years continue to be maintained domestically. The foreign threat (real or not, accurately identified and assessed or exaggerated) is intimately tied to the developments here at home that ought to concern us: the enemy outside is always used to restrict and undermine liberty at home. But it is those restrictions and outright attacks here in the United States -- the ways in which individual rights and personal freedom are being fatally undermined -- that are being largely ignored.

Strike One: A Constitutional Disaster

From an article in The Nation:
While natural disasters in the Gulf Coast and the man-made disaster in Iraq continue to grab the public's attention, a constitutional disaster quietly threatens the nation.

The USA Patriot Act's renewal is now almost a fait accompli--accepted by all but the most steadfast civil libertarians in Congress. The House and Senate have separately voted to approve the law with only minor changes, and the final conference committee action and vote is expected within the next week or so. None of the provisions of the law that were slated to sunset now appear likely to do so.

This law, enacted during a "state of emergency" declared by President Bush and intended to be revisited in calmer times, is now effectively being made permanent. ...

The Patriot Act has been and will continue to be used mainly against ordinary Americans accused of crimes unrelated to terrorism, or those who disagree with government policies or happen to be immigrants or of the Muslim faith.

The result is likely to be an enduring shift of power from the legislative and judicial branches to the executive branch--and less privacy and liberty for all.

New Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is unlikely to offer much relief; he has supported the Administration's so-called "war on terror" policies. ...

It is now well-known that truth is not this Administration's cardinal virtue. What is less well-known is how sustained and deceptive a campaign has been waged to retain the broad powers of the Patriot Act.

Going back to former Attorney General John Ashcroft's orders to all US Attorneys to defend the law (which most of them did [though a number did object]), and to the Department of Justice website repeating myths about the law in the guise of exposing those myths, the effort has been considerable.

And successful. In the House hearings on reauthorizing the law in July, a number of representatives took the floor to repeat the talking points that the law raises no constitutional or civil liberties issues; merely makes updates to track modern technology; simply gives law enforcement the same tools against terrorists that they had for mobsters and drug dealers; and has occasioned no abuses whatsoever.

New Mexico Republican Representative Heather Wilson assured Americans that they need not fear the law, since it is only directed against foreigners and because law enforcement needs "a court order in order to get any business records or library records or anything else."

Neither point is true. The law can be and has been used overwhelmingly against Americans. The national security letters under Section 505 are akin to administrative subpoenas that demand documents without any court involvement at all, and even the secret foreign intelligence surveillance court in Section 215 must issue warrants if the FBI's application is formally in order.

...

Notwithstanding the Administration's consistent protestations to the contrary, the Patriot Act implicates many other provisions of the Bill of Rights as well. These range from an overbroad definition of terrorism, chilling peaceful dissent under the First Amendment, to the allowance of potentially indefinite detention, flouting due process under the Fifth Amendment and the speedy trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment.

...

Harvard professor Laurence Tribe recently delayed the latest volume of his seminal constitutional law treatise. His reason? Constitutional law is in such flux that "profound fault lines have become evident in the very foundations of the enterprise, going to issues as fundamental as whose truths are to count and, sadly, whose truths must be denied."
The complete article has many more details about the abuses committed under cover of the Patriot Act, and the many lies told by the administration and its defenders to justify the legislation.

Have you heard any sort of impassioned, sustained outcry from politicians or our media about making the Patriot Act permanent? If there was one, I missed it.

Strike Two: Roberts' Confirmation

The Nation piece states that new Chief Justice Roberts "is unlikely to offer much relief" from this unprecedented expansion of executive power. The full truth is much worse than that. In fact, this was the primary reason I opposed the Roberts nomination from the moment his name was announced: his unquestioning deference to an omnipotent executive, at least in times of war. Since war is now our permanent condition if the administration's propaganda is to be believed, that means Roberts will defer to the executive until his retirement, 30 years or so from now.

To their eternal shame, the Democrats never voiced this objection to Roberts. For all practical purposes, they simply rolled over. Let me interject a crucial point here: don't take comfort in the pragmatic dodge that you have to "pick your fights" in politics, and that opposing Roberts was not a fight the Democrats could have won. When fundamental principles are involved, if you give a damn you have to take a stand -- and you have to make absolutely clear what is at risk. You may ultimately lose, but at least the public will have been alerted to the fact that the basic structure of our government is being attacked with the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. And with Roberts installed as Chief Justice, the Democrats and others who are waiting to fight another day may not ever have another day. Depending on how the Supreme Court rules in cases concerning executive power over the coming years, the United States as it has existed may be effectively destroyed.

The root of my opposition to Roberts can be found in the fact that he joined the Hamdan decision. Leave aside the valid questions about the propriety of Roberts joining a decision in this case while being considered for the Supreme Court by the White House. The critical point is that he joined this particular decision at all. Emily Bazelon explained why that case mattered so much:
Roberts may indeed turn out to be a wise, thoughtful, and appealing justice. Tonight when Bush announced his nomination, Roberts talked about feeling humbled, which won him points on TV. But an opinion that the 50-year-old judge joined just last week in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld should be seriously troubling to anyone who values civil liberties. As a member of a three-judge panel on the D.C. federal court of appeals, Roberts signed on to a blank-check grant of power to the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections.

...

The opinion says that Congress authorized the president to set up whatever military tribunal he deems appropriate when it authorized him to use "all necessary and appropriate force" to fight terrorism in response to 9/11. While the president has claimed the authority only to try foreign suspects before the tribunals, there's nothing in the Hamdan opinion that stops him from extending their reach to any other suspected terrorist, American citizens included.
Bazelon has more. I suggest you read it.

Strike Three: The Padilla Case

Bazelon's reference to American citizens brings us to another reason why Roberts' confirmation is such a calamitous disaster for anyone who gives a damn about civil liberties. If our media or our politicians had even the slightest understanding of the constitutional principles involved, and if they fully grasped the implications of this case, the story of Jose Padilla would be familiar to every single American. As it is, most Americans don't know who the hell he is.

Keep in mind as you read what follows that Padilla is an American citizen. If this can happen to him, it can happen to you. These are the most recent developments in the Padilla case:
Jose Padilla, held for three years as an "enemy combatant" in the war on terrorism, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to limit the government's power to detain American citizens as terror suspects without charges.

A federal appeals court last month ruled in Padilla's case the government can indefinitely hold U.S. citizens it determines to be enemy fighters in the war on terrorism. The Bush administration says Padilla, arrested in Chicago in 2002, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan and was recruited by al-Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Padilla's appeal seeks to test the power of President George W. Bush's administration to wage the war on terror inside this country. Padilla asked the justices to decide when and for how long the government can jail U.S. citizens in military prisons.

"There is no question more important in American constitutional law than the power of the executive branch to subject citizens to indefinite military detention without criminal trial," Padilla's lawyers said in court papers filed in Washington.

...

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, ruled unanimously against Padilla last month. The Supreme Court will decide late this year or early next year whether to consider his appeal.
If the Supreme Court hears the appeal, and if both Roberts and Alito are involved in the decision, I see no reason to be at all confident that the Supreme Court will cut back the president's power to the slightest degree.

It is vital that everyone understand what that power means: in terms of the constitutional principles involved and their implications, it is the power of an absolute dictator. The power is that of the president to declare that you, or I, or any other American citizen is an "enemy combatant," the power never to have to present his reasons for making that declaration, and the power never to have to charge anyone with any crime at all. And we can be locked up for the rest of our lives.

How many people do you know who are familiar with the Padilla case and why it is so absolutely crucial? Not many, I bet.

To emphasize the significance of this case, here are a few passages from an excellent article by Jacob Hornberger (written after Padilla's temporary victory last spring, a victory that has now vanished, taking our rights with it):
As I have been writing for the past two years, it is impossible to overstate the importance of the Jose Padilla case. The power assumed by the U.S. military and the Bush administration in the Padilla case constitutes what is arguably the most ominous and dangerous threat to the freedom of the American people in our lifetime. Fortunately, this past Monday a U.S. district court in South Carolina put the quietus to the assumption and exercise of such power. The court’s ruling was a major victory for freedom, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rule of law. Unfortunately, however, the government is appealing, hoping to overturn the district court’s judgment. [The district court decision was overturned last month; see above.]

...

Jose Padilla was arrested at a Chicago airport almost three years ago on suspicion of having conspired to commit terrorism. The ordinary procedure — the procedure that has been followed in the United States since our nation’s founding — would have been to charge him with federal crimes dealing with terrorism, indict him, bring him to trial before a jury, and, if convicted, sentence him. That’s the way the U.S. criminal justice system has worked for more than 200 years.

With Padilla, the Pentagon has tried to do something completely different, something that is alien to the American way of life, something that was obviously modeled on the procedures employed by the military regimes in Chile and Argentina, many of whose military officers were trained in detention and torture techniques by the Pentagon’s very own School of the Americas, during their “wars on terrorism” in the 1980s. Securing a statement from President Bush that Jose Padilla was an “enemy combatant” in the “war on terrorism,” the Pentagon took the position that it could bypass the entire federal criminal justice system set up by the Constitution, including rights and guarantees stretching all the way back to Magna Carta. These included habeas corpus, due process of law, trial by jury, and right to counsel.

The reason the Padilla doctrine is — and should be — so critically important to the American people is that if the federal courts uphold it, the doctrine will apply not just to Padilla but to all Americans. The reason that the Pentagon has limited the exercise of such power to only one American arrested on U.S. soil is obvious: it attracts much less attention from the public and, therefore, does not appear so threatening.

But make no mistake about it: If the Pentagon’s power to arrest Americans for terrorism and punish them without federal court interference is upheld by the courts, the floodgates will be open to omnipotent military power in America. American life will never be the same again. Life will be transformed by such power in ways unimaginable. No one will be safe from military arrest, including newspaper editors, government critics, and dissidents. Any person — any person — deemed to be an “enemy combatant” and taken into military custody will have no recourse to avoid punishment, except for the “good faith” of the Pentagon, the government organization that is responsible for plunging this nation into one of the most shameful torture, sex abuse, rape, and murder scandals in its history, not to mention the resulting cover-up.

...

Unfortunately, the Pentagon continues to fight tooth and nail for the power represented by the Padilla doctrine. That’s why the government immediately announced plans to appeal the ruling. The military dearly wants the power to arrest any American and jail and punish him without federal court interference. They know that Jose Padilla and the federal judiciary are the only barriers standing in their way.

We cannot rely on Congress to stand up for the Constitution and to protect us from the military. Congress has remained silent and supine with respect to the Padilla doctrine and civil liberties ever since 9/11. Even worse, the subservience that many members of Congress have paid to the Pentagon is almost embarrassing.

We can hope only that the federal judiciary stands firm in the defense of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the criminal-justice system that has distinguished our nation from all others in history — stands firm in the defense of our freedom.

Equally important, we must continue to raise the consciousness of the American people to the threat that the Padilla doctrine poses to our way of life, especially given the possibility that the president and the Pentagon might try to persuade the Pentagon’s friends in Congress to grant the military the power over the American people that it has so persistently asserted in the Padilla case.
It now appears that neither Congress nor the judiciary will defend the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I add to this list of crimes against history, and against what the United States once stood for, the fact that Congress has also completely abdicated its Constitutional responsibility with regard to declaring war, as I discussed the other day.

I will repeat the central point about the Padilla case. If the Supreme Court hears the current appeal (which I am almost certain it will), and if the Supreme Court upholds the president's "right" to throw any American in jail for the rest of his life simply on the president's word, then liberty and freedom in this country are dead. The rest is simply a matter of time. The president will have the same fundamental power that any other absolute dictator has: the only questions will be whether he chooses to use it, and whether he chooses to use it against you.

But is the Padilla case a major story, one that most Americans know about? No. Do the Democrats or any Republicans talk about it and its significance regularly? No. Does anyone in the political or media establishment appear genuinely to give a damn that our country is on the verge of destruction? No.

So, fine. Carry on the debates about the misuse of intelligence before the war on Iraq. Jockey for political advantage. Have a grand time.

Every single element is almost in place to end individual liberty for all time in the United States. Very few people know it. Very few people discuss these issues regularly.

We're almost in hell -- and almost no one understands or talks about what is happening.

I take no consolation at all from the fact that every single American will know it soon enough. Then it will be far too late. I'm sure many people will be very, very sorry.

And it won't matter a damn.

OH, THE IRONY: Nat Parry writes:
George W. Bush reacted to the indictment of Dick Cheney’s top aide, Lewis Libby, with a startling assertion about the U.S. legal system. “In our system,” the President declared, “each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial.”

While Bush’s statement was surely intended to remind the public that Libby has yet to be convicted of a crime, it was remarkable to hear Bush endorse the presumption of innocence and due process after all he has done to erode those principles.

For four years, it has been a central legal precept of the “War on Terror” that Bush has the absolute right to imprison anyone of his choosing, including American citizens, who are then denied even a day in court, let alone a fair trial or presumption of innocence.

While the “rule of law” is usually defined as the universal protection of everyone equally under the law, Bush’s “rule of law” seems to mean, “We rule, so we decide who’s protected by the law.” Those protections are denied people whom Bush deems “terrorists” or “bad guys.”

Bush’s lip service to presumption of innocence, for example, must have been cold comfort to Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held without charges and without the benefit of his day in court since May 2002.
The full article has a lot more, about the Padilla case and related issues.

The end of the world is upon us, or at least the end of basic civil liberties.

Here's what I'm curious about-- Conservative judges or strict constructionist rather (ie Roberts, Alito) profess to interpret law based on the original intent of the constitution. That is the essence of their entire judical philosophy isn't it? An intepretation that would be willing to discard the 5th, 6th, and 8th admendments isn't consistant with this philosophy. So with that in mind, what makes Roberts and Alito a problem? It seems to me, that a strict constructionist is exactly the sort of judge that America should want for the Padilla case.

You stated that in the Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld case Roberts granted the executive branch and the military a "blank check" concerning how they deal with detainees in Guantanamo Bay. That assesment seems dead-on. I disagree however with what this implies about Roberts. The law applies to conflict "not of international character." Considering that wording, its hard to imagine it is intended to applying to something like Al Queda since Al Queda is an "international" organization," not American. Roberts did not say Americans can be denied civil liberties. He ruled that Common Article Three does not apply to the Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld case. This hardly seems to indicate Roberts is willing to grant the executive branch unlimited power like you implied.
Let me add, that if the Hamdan decision goes to the supreme court Roberts is expect to abstain his vote.

I don't argue that America's future is looking dire. I do argue that Roberts, Alito, and the Supreme Court are part of the problem. Since Alito and the Supreme Court are the topics of discussion here, I'll leave it at that.

Hope you didn't stay up all night :p

I do argue that Roberts, Alito, and the Supreme Court are part of the problem.

I do argue that Roberts, Alito, and the Supreme Court ARE NOT part of the problem.

Doh.

I'm so glad Alito was nominated. He upholds the law, not creates his own like so many liberal judges do today. And there is no status quo that says that a retiring judge has to be replaced by one of the same political persuasion. Alito is more qualified than most and he will do a fabulous job. Long live the GOP!

I hope the organization will please do something to reach Members of Congress, and particularly the Judicial Committee, with something of my line of thinking. This is not my best writing, and is very direct, but here's what concerns me:

Alito does not represent the American way. Generally, he would reverse progress in America. He would take America back 50-75 years to the days before a newer majority campaigned for change in America ... and those changes came into reality because they were valid.

Mostly, I want to say ...
ABOUT THE HEARING PROCESS and the ISSUE OF POLITICAL BALANCE (or balance of "conservative" vs. "liberal)", GET REAL JUDICIAL COMMITTEE --
The TRUTH this IS POLICITAL as to representation of HOW THE PEOPLE IN AMERICA FEEL. America is equally divided in a two party system, so THE SUPREME COURT MUST BE COMPRISED OF A BALANCE AS TO CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN AND LIBERAL/DEMOCRATIC (which really isn't all that liberal, there should be another word).

GET REAL, THE SUPREME COURT MUST BE BALANCED. Stop scoffing this truth out of the picture. IT EXISTS. A BALANCED COURT REPRESENTS US. It is WRONG to make the court MORE CONVERSVATIVE/REPUBLICAN.

One more thing: CHANGE THE TENURE TO A TIME LIMIT FOR THE JUDGES AS WELL, THIS LIFETIME BUSINESS IS RIDICULOUS.

Scarborough, a staunch right wing Conservative, in his November 1 show said the "Conservatives" are very happy with the Alito nomination because he will "right the wrongs" of the Warren Court ('53 to '69).

Interesting the radical right wing hasn't chosen the Burger Court ('69 to '86) that gave the Roe decision. Interesting because the radical right wing has set its sight on something a lot more fundamental than abortion.

Very clearly the radical right wing base is dictating the course of this administration. Moderate Democrats, "red state" Democrats and moderates Republicans have to decide if they have the courage to stand up to the radical right wing agenda. They have to decide if they have the courage of conviction to stand up for the fundamental foundation of this great democracy- individual as the supreme authority and the wall of separation of church and state.

I'm a little disturbed at the current trend to assume that attornies only argue points they believe in themselves. One cannot legitimately claim that an attorney who defends someone accused of murder, supports murder. I am not saying any of your assertions about Alito are wrong. I don't know if they are or not. We have a system where advocates are ethically bound to provide the best representation their capable of, regardless of their personal beliefs. It is time to take the raw emotion out of our political arguments and think about the logical extensions of overheated emotional rhetoric.

Karl Rove,
To your usual lies, falsehoods and propaganda. Show me anywhere I have said Alito will overturn Brown. I am sure you have access to the Scarborough show. View the November 1 show and tell us if he didn't say the Conservatives are happy with Alito nomination because there is an opportunity to "right the wrongs" of the Warren Court. Mind you, it is not the Burger Court, but the "wrongs" of the Warren Court that seems to be the "Conservative" target. Without a hysterical outburst, can you explain that!

How did Daddy Bush and Dick "I don't know Wilson" Cheney vote on the '64 Act?

You seem to have access to what Joe really meant. Maybe you want to enlighten us and list the "wrongs" of the Warren Court Alito will "right" rather than indulging in name calling. Nowhere did I say Joe called for the overturn of Brown. He was just commenting on why the "Conservatives" were so happy about the Alito nomination!

RuhroGeorge,

Alito is a judge and not an attorney. His judgements should, I am sure you will agree, give a good indication on how he will vote if confirmed to the Supreme Court.

His voting record is disturbing, but not as much as what the radical right is expecting him to do when on the bench- "right the wrongs" of the Warren Court, not the Burger Court but the Warren Court. Very profound and thought provoking.

Looking at Karl Rove's hysterical responses on the subject, it must be touching a raw nerve within the RNC and higher.

"SamSarma said: "Show me anywhere I have said Alito will overturn Brown."
Who's the lier, check this out:

from the blog "More DeLay Money Shenanigans"
'Now we have a nominee for the Supreme Court, whom Conservatives are absolutely certain will "right the wrongs" of the Warren Court. The court that gave us "Brown" and case leading from Rosa Parks civil disobedience, is the target of the radical right wing.

Posted by SamSarma on November 2, 2005 at 11:28 PM"

From this blog
"When the radical right wing talks about strict constructionism, they surely include the far reaching activist decisions of the Warren Court, including the Civil Rights decisions, don't they.

Will the Roberts Court take us back to the days of State sponsored Segregation. I doubt it, at least not immediately.

With Alito, do we have the danger of erosion in Civil Rights? Isn't that what the radical right counting on with the Alito nomination?"

I credited you with more intelligence than this. It looks like you have a hard time understanding stuff. In every example you have provided, nowhere I have said Alito will overturn Brown or even anyone is expecting him is expecting to overturn Brown. In every case I have said what the radical right wing is looking forward to with this nomination(I am basing this on what Scarborough said on his program.) The reason the Scarborough commentary stuck in my mind is whereas everybody is worried about Roe through the Burger Court, the "Conservatives" seem to want to "right the wrong" of the Warren Court.

You still haven't told me based on your RNC research what "wrongs" of the Warren Court will Alito "right".

Again more lies from you. Not once have I said your ex-Congressman pal has asked for reversal of Brown. Joe was commenting on why the "Conservatives" are happy with the Alito nomination. And that is what I have said! Check your facts, my friend, before embarking a propaganda tirade!

Even though I am a Catholic, I would not like to see five Catholic men as Supreme Court justices. ceil

Even though I am a Catholic, I would not like to see five Catholic men as Supreme Court justices. ceil

It is not whether I believe in Joe Scarborough or not. Joe Scarbarough is an influential (I might add articulate and smart) voice of the right wing "Conservatives" (the social conservatives). And when he comments on why the "Conservatives" are very happy with the Alito nomination that carries authenticity and should be taken seriously.

And the reason Scarbarough said the "Conservatives" are very happy with this nomination is "righting the wrongs" of the Warren Court; ironically, the target is not the Burger Court! I am still curious to find out from you what "wrongs" is Alito going to "right". I am not suggesting Alito will reverse Brown. All I am saying is the Warren Court is famous for Brown, the case leading from the Rosa Parks disobedience and other Civil Rights cases. There are many number of cases this Court presided over. So if you can point which of those decisions the "Conservatives" expect Alito to right, it will satisfy my curiosity!.

And let us not forget the 60 odd dessenting decisions Judge Alito has cast. Most of them are Civil Rights/ Civil Liberties cases. And it is interesting to see many of these go to erode the gains in these areas. So Scarborough's commentary of the "Conservative" glee with this nomination sort of adds up.

Pray correct me if I am wrong in any of my assessment rather than launching on a shrill tirade from the "party" line. And don't distort facts. Are you part of the team who is going for the mandatory ethics refresher course that the President has ordered?

For all you Dems out there who are screaming about "turning back the clock" on civil rights, here's a pop quiz: QUESTION: What do the following current and former U.S. Senators have in common: Robert Byrd, WV (a former KKK Klansman), Lister Hill and John Sparkman of Alabama, Spessard Holland and George Smathers of Florida, Richard Russell and Herman Talmadge of Georgia, Allen Ellender and Russell Long of Louisiana, James Eastland and John Stennis of Mississippi, Sam Ervin and Everett Jordan of North Carolina, Olin Johnston and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, Al Gore Sr. and Herbert Walters of Tennessee, and Harry Byrd and Willis Robertson of Virginia? ANSWER: They were all Democrats who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That's right: The 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by Democrats AND Republicans but was filibustered by DEMOCRATS. Imagine that. The final Senate vote was Democrats 47-21 (69%) and Republicans 26-6 (81%). In the end, who was the true impediment to civil rights?

Exactly what civil right is going to be repealed when Alito is confirmed? Come on, name one. You can't honestly do it because it's just not going to happen.

I find it interesting that some Democrats are suddenly interested in honesty. Isn't the standard bearer of the Democratic Party a disbarred, serial harassing perjurer?

"I think it's filibuster time. If the Republicans invoke nuclear option, walk out of the Senate and don't allow a quorum" - rjsnj, 10/31. Uh, a quorum is 51 members present. The Republicans have 55 Senators. No good there.

I am a Republican but I do not like the idea of one party being too strong. I genuinely hope the Democratic Party will wise up, get back to its true roots and regain its strength before it is voted out of existence.

Support our troops and long live the USA.

Moderates Republicans, "moderate" Democrats and red state democrats should pay attention to the election results and remember they have to face the electorate in 2006.

Before jumping on the bandwagon to confirm Alito, they have to ask themselves where they stand with respect to the Warren Court. Obviously, the radical right wing is expecting Alito to dilute the gains of the Warren Court in terms of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Alito in his 60 odd dissensions hasn't shown too much respect for either; sort of confirming with his track record what the radical right wing is expecting of him

Moderate and red state democrats and moderate republicans have to grow a spine and stand up for their convictions. They cannot be saying one thing to their electorate and have the just the opposite voting record.

he will be bad for this nation because of
his right wing biasses and make everyone feel stupid.

I personally think, that while we Democrats, may not have a back bone (as most would say), we can say that we are not being torn apart by such a corrupt administration. I think that when we finally can find a strong enough candidate for President that we will be taking back the government and ridding ourselves of the current adminstration and any future candidates that may try and become the next "President Bush"

ALITO promised the US Senate when he was approved for the Federal Appeals Court that he would disqualify himself from any cases that involved companies or stocks he owned. This was it turns out was a fabrication.
Is there a time limit on prosecution for lying to the Senate?
I do not want another Republican, with a proven track record of deception, at the National level in any job (quota is full) no less the Supreme Court.

Remember when Scalia lied his butt off to get that job?

Why did Republicans block ALL of Bill Clinton's judicial nominees in his last two years?

Were all of those judges unqualified?

Democratic Senators need to show some backbone. They cannot accept everything Alito says to them at face value. They should not forget his pledge to them to not vote on the Vanguard case. When he got on the bench, he went right ahead and cast his decision in favor of Vanguard.

Now he goes to the Democratic Senators and says he respects the privacy rulings and assures that is settled law. Then he goes to Brownback and says just the opposite.

The issue here is of integrity. The issue with Alito is also about Civil Rights and Civil liberties.

Constituents should remind moderate Democrats and Republicans that there is an election due in '06 and their vote/ opposition to filibuster on the Alito nomination will be remembered.

Heritage Foundation...........................yeah, they are really unbiased (nod-nod, wink-wink).

Regressives think Joe Lieberman is a "true liberal".