Senators Should Press Alito on Bush v. Gore

When the Senate Judiciary Committee begins questioning Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, Americans will again be reminded of the limitations of the confirmation process for presidential picks to serve on the federal bench.

Alito will lie to the committee, intentionally and repeatedly.

In keeping with the standard set by all recent high court nominees, he will treat the hearings, and by extension the American people, who the confirmation process is intended to serve, with utter and complete contempt.

Alito will be asked direct questions and he will claim that he cannot answer them for two reasons.

First, in order to avoid broad questions about his legal philosophy, he will claim that he is not able to comment on cases that might come before the court. This is a deliberate dodge, designed not to protect Alito's ability to judge impartially but to avoid revealing whether his ideas are within the mainstream of constitutional interpretation and judicial responsibility.

Second, despite the fact that his proponents would have the Senate and the American people believe that he is a brilliant man with broad executive branch and judicial experience, Alito will claim that he has not seriously considered fundamental questions of law, politics and public policy. This, too, is a deliberate dodge, designed to prevent an examination of how he approaches issues.

If the recent past offers any indication, Alito's refusal to cooperate with the committee will be extensive. When Chief Justice John Roberts faced the committee during his confirmation hearings last fall, he refused to answer more than 60 questions in a single day.

As members of the Judiciary Committee approach what should be their most solemn duty--since they are being called upon to accept or reject a nominee who could serve on the high court long after they have left politics--senators of both parties should be looking for a way to crack the facade of deceit and disrespect that Alito will erect.

Here's one suggestion for how to do that:

Ask the nominee how he would have ruled in the case of Bush v. Gore. Does he agree that the court was right to intervene, for the first time in history, to stop the counting of the ballots that could have determined the result of a presidential contest? Or does he believe, as University of Virginia professor and Supreme Court scholar A.E. Howard has suggested, "Prudence would call for letting the political process run its course"?

Does Alito believe it is possible to reconcile the high court's intervention in an electotal battle with a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution that says Congress, not the court, is charged with settling disputed contests at the federal level?

Does he believe that Justices Antonin Scalia, whose sons were associated with firms that represented George W. Bush's campaign, and Clarence Thomas, whose wife was working with Bush's transition team, should have recused themselves from the deliberations? Does he worry that the decision to intervene in the case might have damaged the court's reputation as an independent body that stands apart from the partisan politics associated with the executive branch?

Of course, Alito will try to avoid such questions, just as Roberts did when Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin, made a tepid attempt to raise the issue last year. But Alito has no excuse for refusing to answer.

The case of Bush v. Gore will never come before the court again. And the court itself has ruled that the decision should not be interpreted as setting a precedent. Thus, it is one of the few court decisions that is entirely, and appropriately, open to discussion by a nominee.

And what if Alito claims he hasn't taken the time to consider the case or its issues?

Considering the fact that the case involved the question of who would be the most powerful person on the planet, if Alito claims he wasn't paying attention, there really would not be any question that he is too disengaged to be confirmed to so substantial a position.

Note: If you were a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, what would you ask Samuel Alito about his record and judicial philosophy? Send us your questions, and as the hearings unfold, TheNation.com will publish the best of them.

John Nichols is the author of Jews For Buchanan (The New Press), an examination of the 2000 recount debacle in Florida and the Supreme Court intervention that settled the dispute for George W. Bush. Jews for Buchanan can be found at indpendent bookstores nationwide and at www.amazon.com

Comments (245)

1. So, Mr Nichols....will Judge Alito do ANYTHING differently from what Judge John Roberts did?

   If not....does that mean he'll get the SAME treatment from your friend Russ Feingold?....if not, why not?

   Posted by Mask at 01/09/2006 @ 11:49am

2. I like, John. Thanks!

   B.

   Posted by Blinky at 01/09/2006 @ 12:02pm

3. It's really too bad that Supreme Court nominees are allowed so readily to dodge substantive questions. I say that the appropriate means to avoid this problem is to treat any non-answer as a mark against the nominee, to interpret a non-answer as though the nominee had answered "wrongly." Some leaway must be allowed for the possibility that a senator will ask poor questions that shouldn't be answered.

   Nevertheless, refusal to answer legitimate questions should be construed as reason to refuse to confirm. If all senators on the committee agree to this process, then the hearings will be much more interesting and will also be a more valid means for seeking truth.

   Lifetime appointments to a very powerful body must be held to much higher standards than any other office. It's the one time when the candidate must be presumed unfit until proven fit.

   Incidentally, the same standard must hold for appointees from any party's president. The tendency to bend (over) for the president's whims must be conteracted if our constitution is to mean anything.

   Posted by adr at 01/09/2006 @ 12:08pm

4. JOHN

   Alito will lie to the committee, intentionally and repeatedly

   Thats quite a statement, but if you are so against Alito, then he MUST be a good choice.

   Bush v Gore? Please for the love of all things, get over it! Hey I voted for Gore in 2000, I stayed up late at night, waiting and hoping my guy had won, but alas he didnt. I mourned and bithced for a day, and got over it.

   Needless to say, since then, I have had a conversion, I see the light.

   Posted by CPT at 01/09/2006 @ 12:10pm

5. "God…is interested in what goes on" in the nomination hearing, Rev. Schenck said. -- Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/09/2006 @ 12:08am

   I am truly amazed at the enormous egos of people who claim to know God's mind. What's next? Claiming that they are God?

   Posted by adr at 01/09/2006 @ 12:13pm

6. ADR

   Incidentally, the same standard must hold for appointees from any party's president. The tendency to bend (over) for the president's whims must be conteracted if our constitution is to mean anything.

   Posted by ADR 01/09/2006 @ 12:08am | ignore this person

   Its remarkabley funny, ADR you profess to revere the Constitution by re-writing its, already stated requirements, with your post.

   You dont see that?

   Posted by CPT at 01/09/2006 @ 12:16pm

7. FRANKGITS

   Ok, I walked into that one, damn funny.

   Posted by CPT at 01/09/2006 @ 12:17pm

8. CPT, I felt that Gore should be better than Bush in 2000. I wasn't sure. Now, I am very certain. Bush will definitely go down as the worst President in 100 years, perhaps in history.

   The point is not obsessing over who won, but in examining the process. It's over. We cannot rerun history and make Gore Presiden in 2000 today. The process and the implications for our future are not over.

   Are you in favor of unlimited power for the executive? Do you wish to see Congress reduced to a powerless debating society?

   Posted by adr at 01/09/2006 @ 12:21pm

9. Its remarkabley[sic] funny, ADR you profess to revere the Constitution by re-writing its[sic], already stated requirements, with your post.

   The Senate must "advise and consent." What's unconstitutional about that?

   Posted by adr at 01/09/2006 @ 12:23pm

10. With Alito's confirmation coming up I am reminded of my old acting teacher's instruction - sincerity is the most compelling virtue on stage, once you learn to fake that you can do almost anything.

    Posted by audiojoebob at 01/09/2006 @ 12:43pm

11. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/09/2006 @ 12:05am

    To which Alito responds "A woman in that chair today, Senator?....Well, as long as it's not the PASSENGER SEAT, eh?"

    To expect anybody to take Ted Kennedy serious...or the Dems for that matter on a filibuster is naive.

    Why did John Roberts not only get a pass from Dems...but Russ Feingold's vote? Were his views any less offensive than Alito's?

    No...they just didn't want to 'waste their ammo' on a supposedly 'indestructable target' and preferred to go up against a 'easier' target....within memory of the November elections.

    Here's a prediction for what Kennedy and the Dems will REALLY do....grill Alito some, but nothing worse than when Sam took the bar exam....threaten filibuster...then the "Gang of 14" (including Dems) says they won't support it....then a party-line vote out of the Judiciary....then Alito gets all the Repubs, plus 4-5 Dems like Robert Byrd in the Senate vote....

    and we get "Associate Justice Alito" by MLK Day!

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2006 @ 1:00pm

12. Mask -

    I still cannot understand why you blog on the Nation website - unless it is simply that you wish to have people to banter with, and knowing that the braindead ditto heads on the right can hardly match your intellectual prowess you must come here.

    In any case, as for Alito. I think it is important that Democrats press him as hard as they can on the issues that are of interest to, in their view, the American people.

    Issues such as:

    one man, one vote: do you support the concept or are we instead a democracy of the chosen few - with the majority deciding who should have the right to vote and who should not.

    How do you apply your considerable intellect? Do you actually delve into the constitutional issue that is before you - or use your knowledge of the law to shape the decision that you want to arrive at.

    How can we protect the minority rights, not only of political parties, but of others who do not share the majoritarian view. Or is the idea of America as a secular nation a passe notion.

    Posted by audiojoebob at 01/09/2006 @ 1:12pm

13. This SC made a monumental misjudgement in 2000 in Bush vs. Gore. Not Renquist is dead but we as a nation have to live with the damage he did. I think if the court had to decide that case again, knowing what they now know, they would refuse to hear the case and would have let Florida take care of it's own business. That was the most flawed decision of any SC in any judgement ever.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/09/2006 @ 12:31am

    Frank,

    You need to take some time and re-engage your brain or at least let your brain take dominance over your emotions.

    Bush v Gore is worse than Dredd Scott? Plessy v Ferguson? How about your beloved liberal justices and the recent horrific Kelo v City of New London giving cities Emminant Domain rights purely for developers? How about Lochner v New York which struck down NY laws prohibiting companies working laborers more than 10 hours was a violation of the employers due process rights under the 14th amendment? Surely liberals think that a critically bad ruling against American workers?

    Or How about Korematsu v US giving FDR the right to inter Japanese citizens?

    The fixation by the left on Bush activities and ignoring history brings a constant smile of amusement to this writer.

    BTW, regarding the subject of a "nuclear option" and constitutionality, the answer is yes it is constitutional and SCOTUS probably would not even hear the case. The 2/3 vote on judicial appointments is a Senate Rule, not an enumerated power in the Constitution. Any Senate Rule may be deleted or modified based upon the Rules of the Senate.

    Lastly, any judge, liberal, moderate, or conservative that would provide a definitive answer to the Senate on any issue that could come before the Court would be guilty of lacking the proper judicial temperament and therefore not qualified to sit on the Court. Justices must not prejudge any issue that could come before the Court. It must be judged on the merits of the fact and the Constitution.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/09/2006 @ 1:28pm

14. Dear Love -

    Same question as to Mask - you blog on the Nation -- why? But you are right we on the left are too concerned about the Bush decision/Gore decision - but my issue is not with the Federal Court, but with the States who allow people who are openly campaigning for one side, while being in charge of ensuring a free and fair election. Surely, everyone can see where that road leads.

    Posted by audiojoebob at 01/09/2006 @ 1:54pm

15. Love Liberty, not only did the SC intervene in an election overseen by State government breaking literally dozens of precedents they themselves had established, but they wrote a decision which specifically said future courts could not use it as precedent. This is the only time in the Nation's history that a Supreme Court has issued a decision it says is too weird to even use as precedence.

    Now that we know Al Gore actually won the State of Florida, Bush v Gore is even more of an outrage. But since we're cataloging outrageous rulings, why have you left out Southern Pacific v Santa Clara, one of the most blatant examples of judicial activism in our history?

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 2:15pm

16. So what? Just arrest them for vandalism and be done with it. The Alito hearings are about executive authority and the right to privacy. You don't need to muddy the waters.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 2:33pm

17. As much as I hate to admit it, John Nichols is suggesting an interesting strategy here for Democrats. Nonetheless, Alito is unlikely to be grilled on the SCOTUS ruling in the 2000 election. There are far too many cards for them to play first (abortion, due process in the War on Terrorism, race etc.).

    Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer are already taking shots at this highly-qualified conservative, but it's difficult to tell if their efforts will amount to anything other than chest puffing to impress their constituents. More than anything else, these walking cartoons simply love to be on television.

    I suspect that the libs would have had a quasi-reliable swing voter in Harriet Miers (though, who among us can be sure?). Now that that baffling misstep is behind us, however, those on the right can put their confidence in Alito with few reservations. As conservatives go, he's the real deal.

    At the risk of making predicitions, I anticipate that he will be confirmed with a slightly less reassuring margin than our cool, sqeaky-clean Chief Justice.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 01/09/2006 @ 2:34pm

18. WARNING: OFF-TOPIC COMMENT

    The highest court in Texas refused to dismiss the charges against Tom DeLay.

    So much for the claims of "overzealous prosecutor." Looks like many of our conservative legal experts were wrong about that call several months ago.

    Back to Alito . . .

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2006 @ 2:36pm

19. In contrast with (oh, for example) that dreadfully b-o-r-i-n-g embittered celibate NACL, furiously "composing" "important!" "manifestos" on the walls of his rooming house dwelling in his own ripe defication, I find MASK occasionally cogent and amusing. But with some distinct qualifications. In a recent case, MASK writes:

    So, Mr Nichols....will Judge Alito do ANYTHING differently from what Judge John Roberts did? If not....does that mean he'll get the SAME treatment from your friend Russ Feingold?....if not, why not?

    I could take MASK's self-appointed iconoclasism more seriously, however, if:

    (1) MASK did not enable the ostensible iconoclasm by reflexively denuding himself of clothes, getting on all fours, and scurrying backwards to impale himself on the (soft, squishy, and legally-vexed) "phallus" of GOP talking points. In other words, the "iconoclasm" is uni-directional. And, I would similarly regard him with greater seriousness if,

    (2) MASK did not nearly always employ the same method. In particular, MASK generally alleges "hypocrisy" on the part of Democrats --- often pasted together in a collage of mediatized "unchallangable" memes --- as the "clue that solves all crimes". That is, MASK generally either finesses or forces the oppositions' words into an alleged inconsistency thereby short-circuiting argument in advance of argumentation reaching the desired conclusion: Hyprocisy, case closed!. Others percieve this?

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/09/2006 @ 2:38pm

20. AUDIO

    Well, first...who says "The Nation" blog is the ONLY one I come to?

    Second, lots of guys on the Right could probably beat me in "intellectual prowess"

    Third, I think if you read my posts on Alito and Bush's judges, you'll see that I'm in agreement with you and many of the Left here....s'why I voted for Kerry in 2004.

    But fourth, I think you'll also see that I agree with some here that think that the Dems new "tough act" is just that...an act since they failed to employ it with Roberts, who I thought was just as bad as Alito.

    Mr Nichols, always good at towing the Party line and rah-rahing Russ Feingold, apparently didn't have much of a problem with the treatment the Senator from Wisconsin gave Roberts....but (like the Dems) wants to "sound tough" on Alito as "this one" is "important".

    Well...they BOTH were important, but sadly, the opposition is more sound and fury signifying nothing. Alito will get hammered a bit by Leahy, Schumer and Kennedy....get a party-line vote out of Committee...no filibuster (given "Gang of 14" leader Lindsey Graham's statements against it)...and gets all the Republicans and maybe 4-5 Democrats (including Byrd) in the full Senate.

    Then, some brief moaning from Mr Nichols, Ms vanden Heuval, et al...and then back to "Abramoff-gate", "Plame-gate", or whatever the NEXT "bright, shiny object" is that's going to "seal the doom of Bush and Co."!

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2006 @ 2:44pm

21. GLENN

    After careful examination of your analysis of me....I found a few things-

    1. an odd homophobic reference???

    2. no specific examples cited

    3. a failure to look at ALL my posts, including ones on that idiot Pat Robertson in Ms vanden Heuval's latest

    and 4. a rabid defense of Democrats that I'm somehow wronging...on a blog where 80% of the bloggers, Right AND Left, here say that the Dems are tepid, hypocritical, or even dupliticious.

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2006 @ 2:48pm

22. HMAN23

    off topic response

    Your right, but Ronnie Earle is more loathesome than Delay, ask Jim Maddox (D) former Texas Attorney General, Earle is a man who has used his office for political retaliation, Dems and Reps. And I dont even particularly like Delay. Besides, I doubt there will be any conviction.

    But your right back to alito.

    Posted by CPT at 01/09/2006 @ 3:42pm

23. ZERO

    As to your last post, starting to sound like Justice Kennedy.

    Posted by CPT at 01/09/2006 @ 3:43pm

24. CPT:

    My point was not to predict a conviction, only that the refusal to overturn the denial of DeLay's motion to dismiss indicates that the charges have legal merit - not that they are the baseless claims of an overzealous prosecutor run amok, like so many conservatives predicted months ago. If that was the case, the charges likely would have been dismissed.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2006 @ 4:03pm

25. It should be apparent to us all that the purpose of congressional hearings is to create the image of an inquiry rather than an actual inquiry. This is made absurdly clear by the fact, as you point out, that Judge Alito won't even answer the questions posed to him. Obviously, revealing Alito's positions is not the point. Rather, the point is to extend the illusion that the state is responsive to the people, which, we know from recent and historical experience, it is not. As the collective that wrote Afflicted Powers might (or might not, for all I know) point out, it's the spectacle of the hearings that counts, not the substance, which is non-existent.

    Posted by kcheyfitz at 01/09/2006 @ 4:54pm

26. Heres how it will go:

    I cant answer that. It would be inappropriate. You cant ask me about my views.

    All you can ask me about is whether I want to strictly interepret the Constitution, or legislate from the bench. You already know the answer to that.

    So with regard to torture, executive power, abortion, all I can say is screw you.

    Repeat that about 150 times - theres your hearings

    Posted by reidsucks at 01/09/2006 @ 5:04pm

27. Mask: we dont believe that you voted for John Kerry - each day of the week you attack Democrats from a different side. One day youre a libertarian, one day youre a Naderite, one day you say hell with it and come out Fascist.

    Posted by reidsucks at 01/09/2006 @ 5:06pm

28. The Supreme Court said over and over again, that there is no 'actual' right to vote in America, the right to vote is left up to the states.

    Democrats need to get behind a right-to-vote ammendment, where are they with this?

    Posted by reidsucks at 01/09/2006 @ 5:12pm

29. RIO:

    What I think is that DeLay's lawyers tried this creative argument (distinguishing between checks and cash) and Judge Priest did not buy it. Neither did the appeals court. The opinion cited to several other state and federal cases of money laundering involving checks. Unless you contend that all of these judges are in on the conspiracy (as well as the judges from the other cases cited as precedent), I guess the "sham of these charges" is not "as plain as day."

    But, hey, I am sure you conservatives are happy with the result. We wouldn't want a defendant getting off on a legal technicality, would we?

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2006 @ 5:43pm

30. RIO:

    If it is so clear, why weren't those charges dismissed?

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2006 @ 5:53pm

31. If you find yourself watching the Alito hearings unfold and thinking, "What do I do?" I'll give you one simple answer - pick up the phone.

    I came out to D.C. to do everything I can to keep Alito off the court, and what I keep hearing from the different Senators offices is that they need to get more phone calls opposing Alito You might not think that your opinion will make a difference, but it will. And it will only take a minute out of your day.

    And while you have the phone, call all the democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Not every person has a representative on the Senate Judiciary Committee and thus these Senators not only have a responsibility to their constituents, they are responsible to all Americans. Feinstein herself said during the Roberts hearing that, as the only female Senator on the Judiciary Committee, she felt like she was representing all the women in America.

    So pick up the phone and call 202.224.3121 or visit www.senate.gov.

    Posted by abc123 at 01/09/2006 @ 5:53pm

32. ABC,

    Thank you for reminding we conservatives that we should also call and cancel out the liberal calls.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/09/2006 @ 5:56pm

33. If you find yourself watching the Alito hearings unfold and thinking, "What do I do?" I'll give you one simple answer - pick up the phone.

    I came out to D.C. to do everything I can to keep Alito off the court, and what I keep hearing from the different Senators offices is that they need to get more phone calls opposing Alito You might not think that your opinion will make a difference, but it will. And it will only take a minute out of your day.

    And while you have the phone, call all the democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Not every person has a representative on the Senate Judiciary Committee and thus these Senators not only have a responsibility to their constituents, they are responsible to all Americans. Feinstein herself said during the Roberts hearing that, as the only female Senator on the Judiciary Committee, she felt like she was representing all the women in America.

    So pick up the phone and call 202.224.3121 or visit www.senate.gov.

    Posted by abc123 at 01/09/2006 @ 6:01pm

34. If you find yourself watching the Alito hearings unfold and thinking, "What do I do?" I'll give you one simple answer - pick up the phone.

    I came out to D.C. to do everything I can to keep Alito off the court, and what I keep hearing from the different Senators offices is that they need to get more phone calls opposing Alito You might not think that your opinion will make a difference, but it will. And it will only take a minute out of your day.

    And while you have the phone, call all the democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Not every person has a representative on the Senate Judiciary Committee and thus these Senators not only have a responsibility to their constituents, they are responsible to all Americans. Feinstein herself said during the Roberts hearing that, as the only female Senator on the Judiciary Committee, she felt like she was representing all the women in America.

    So pick up the phone and call 202.224.3121 or visit www.senate.gov.

    Posted by abc123 at 01/09/2006 @ 6:01pm

35. RIO:

    1. I understand the argument quite well - thanks for the needless clarification. Like I said, it obviously wasn't clear to Judge Priest, or the appeal court, or the several other courts where money laundering involved checks.

    2. Oh, I see, it was all a setup by Judge priest in cahoots with the appeals court. Yes, judges often setup prosecutors like this. Judges also love taking a chance that they will be flipped on appeal by issuing clearly erroneous rulings. Maybe DeLay's lawyers should argue this at trial. Any other conspriracy theories?

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2006 @ 6:13pm

36. Rio Bravo, as a Christian, does it bother you that your Tom Delay was taking money from corporations that were forcing women into the sex trade and then forcing them to have abortions when they got credit? How can you support a politician like that? As a Christian.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 6:47pm

37. When the Clinton administration tried to impose American labor standards in Saipan, republicans took lobbying money to prevent that and preserve a system of forced labor, forced sex labor and forced abortions. I want to hear from Christians. Why do they support a party that did this.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 6:50pm

38. LL, Re your 1:28 post: Yes, I stand by what I said and my brain is working just fine thank you. The SCOTUS negated the right to vote of thousands of Americans. Democracy in America died that day. When The Sc stopped the vote count in Florida they in effect said that the election process was not good enough. They would decide who the next President would be, not the people. Yes, that was by far the worst decision in the history of the court and I would feel the same way if it were the other way around and the court stopped the count and awarded the Presidency to Gore.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/09/2006 @ 5:09pm

    Actually Frank, despite your comments, SCOTUS did not negate the right of anyone to vote. What SCOTUS did was to step in where a State Supreme Court was 1)violating the equal protection clause and specifically 1 man, 1 vote, 2)violating the Federal requirement to have it's electors selected by December 12th.

    What Dems and other critics like to ignore is the 7-2 ruling of the court that the Florida Supreme Court decision violated the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause. What was disagreed in SCOTUS was the remedy. The 4 dissenters were actually in error with the Constitution and Federal Election law on the Selection and vote of the Electors to the Electoral College.

    Further note: The language in the majority opinion did not specifically say the decision could not set precedent.

    The decision was widely criticized for the following sentence in the majority opinion:

    Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities

    In other words, SCOTUS declared the immediacy requirements of satisfying Federal law to have Electoral College voters selected by December 12 did not leave time for a more complex opinion which would lend itself to stare decisis.

    Finally, the recount investigation done by 8 major news organizations showed that Bush still won. Only if using different standards then the Florida law that was in place in 2000 could Gore get a different interpretation of the vote.

    I recommend the following analysis by a former Reporter and Editor from the LA Times (he was there 26 years and is no conservative).

    http://www.newsthinking.com/story.cfm?SID=102 [url]

    Posted by love liberty at 01/09/2006 @ 6:54pm

39. When the Clinton administration tried to impose American labor standards in Saipan, republicans took lobbying money to prevent that and preserve a system of forced labor, forced sex labor and forced abortions. I want to hear from Christians. Why do they support a party that did this.

    Posted by BBATTEN 01/09/2006 @ 6:50pm

    BB,

    I've answered you and you ignore my response. The only thing the Republicans in Congress have done is to not put in a higher minimum wage in the Northern Marianas. I've asked you to provide documentation that Republicans were involved setting up or changing the government system regarding your charges of prostitution, forced labor, abortions, and forced sex labor. You have only provided sites that complain about this activity on the islands.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/09/2006 @ 6:59pm

40. Love Liberty: "Finally, the recount investigation done by 8 major news organizations showed that Bush still won. Only if using different standards then the Florida law that was in place in 2000 could Gore get a different interpretation of the vote."

    That's a lie. The consortium found that if they had recounted the three counties Gore asked for, Bush would have won using the existing rules for analyzing ballots. But, the consortium also found that if all the votes in Florida had been recounted, Gore would have won under ANY standard. In addition, the consortium did not consider the 146,000 "overvotes" that a judge was considering counting when the Supremes stopped the counting. A new study reveals that about 100,000 of these "overvotes" were someone checking the Gore box and then writing his name to make sure everyone would understand their intentions. Gore won Florida. Bush stole the election. Christians: maybe the chaos which has followed was God's way of punishing us for allowing the wrong candidate to take the presidency?

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 7:02pm

41. Love Liberty you have never answered the question. Here is another way to put it. If you were convinced that republicans worked with lobbyists to preserve a system of forced labor, forced sex and forced abortions, would you still support republicans?

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 7:04pm

42. LL: "The only thing the Republicans in Congress have done is to not put in a higher minimum wage in the Northern Marianas."

    There are no minimum wage standards at this time in Saipan, even though it is a U.S. Territory. There are no labor standards even though garment manufacturers can legally put "Made in U.S.A." on their labels. Do you support slave wages which would be illegal in this country for the citizens of a U.S. Territory?

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 7:09pm

43. When the Justice Department tried to initiate an investigation into these labor practices, the prosecutor was removed from the case by the Bush administration and the case was dropped. MaryBretbrad: since you are so sure Bush "means well" and is "sincere," maybe you can explain why he would block an investigation into slave labor practices in Saipan.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 7:12pm

44. Republicans on Harriet Meyers: there's nothing we can look at in her background! All we have to go on is what she says at the hearings! Rejected!

    Republicans on Alito: It is purely political to go pouring through his background 361 decisions! All we need to go on is what he says now at the hearings!

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 7:21pm

45. LL, I finally guessed your real identity. You're Ted Olsen.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/09/2006 @ 7:01pm

    You got me Frank. Barbara and I have set up a little hideaway on the Big Island of Hawaii. Please don't tell anyone.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/09/2006 @ 7:22pm

46. Frank, he's definitely not Olsen. If he were, he'd probably know that his wife was killed on 9-11.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 7:29pm

47. Sorry, Frank. I should have known.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 7:33pm

48. The court stopped the process of "re-counting" the ballots over and over again.

    A far cry from what some of you claim happened.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 7:37pm

49. USAPride, the 146,000 overvotes were never counted by anyone during the election. They were analyzed after the election. As I posted, on over 100,000 of them, a voter had checked the box next to Gore's name and then wrote his name in just to be sure people knew who they were voting for. By any standard, the intention of these voters was as clear as possible, but the system didn't count their votes.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 7:41pm

50. After the election, a few newpapers went back and researched what would have happened if the counting was not stopped.

    All reported back that Bush still would have won.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 7:44pm

51. To be LIBERAL is to be ignorant of history...Mo one will elect these fools to run national security (THANK GOD)

    Posted by fuclibs at 01/09/2006 @ 7:49pm

52. USAPride: "All reported back that Bush still would have won."

    Again, someone is demonstrating the power of propaganda. Mr. Pride, if you would bother yourself to go look at the media consortium's results, you would find that you are incorrect. What the consortium found was that if all of Florida's votes had been recounted as the Florida Supreme Court intended, Gore would have won under ANY COUNTING STANDARD! Yes, the consortium found that if they only recounted the three counties Gore asked for under the most strict standards, Bush would have still won. Many of the articles about the consortium results even put "Bush would have won anyway" in their headlines, so I undersand your confusion. It's widespread and a complete result of media obfuscation of the issue.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 7:50pm

53. Fuclibs: "Mo one will elect these fools to run national security (THANK GOD) "

    Yeah. It's just a good thing republicans were in charge when the Nazis and Japanese tried to take over the world. Those democrats would have screwed that one up, right?

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 7:52pm

54. BBATTEN: Don't kid yourself. You are forgetting to count the overseas military ballots. To count all the ballots means to count all the ballots.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 7:54pm

55. USAPride, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you. The consortium's analysis included all overseas ballots. If you would just check the facts, you would see that I am correct about this. Don't get me wrong. It doesn't change a thing. But just for the sake of understanding reality, you should get it through your head that Gore actually did deserve to win the election. Every single full analysis of that election has come to the same conclusion.

    Back to the subject at hand, maybe the republicans here can explain why Harriet Miers was unacceptable because she had no background to discuss, but delving into Alito's background is somehow unacceptable and partisan even though he has 361 rulings to consider.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 7:59pm

56. BBratten...you are the very FIRST LIB that has made sense on here in the year I have been reading this miserable blog. Congradulations!! I totally agree with you that the kind of democrat FDR was and I dare say presidents since him up to JFK were tough and very strong on National Defense and security. If todays LIBS had any balls like their forefathers I would surely consider voting for them. BUT HELL NO...not these weakling anti-american assholes that run the DIMS these days. They are detestable fools that only belong in a circus. Not our goverment protecting my family and friends THANK YOU

    Posted by fuclibs at 01/09/2006 @ 7:59pm

57. Bravo, I only know what I have read. The prosecutor will have people who have actually been in on these deals. It's not going to be pretty. If it comes out that I'm right about forced labor, forced sex and forced abortions, will you continue to support these republicans who made this possible?

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 8:01pm

58. Fuclibs, how well did your republican president protect you on 9-11. What did your republican president do in the months leading up to 9-11 to protect you? What steps has he taken to make us safer?

    Posted by BBatten at 01/09/2006 @ 8:02pm

59. How well did clinton protect us from the WTC bombing in '93....

    Have there been any attacks in the USA since?

    The answer is self evident

    Posted by fuclibs at 01/09/2006 @ 8:04pm

60. BBATTEN: Florida law says that the election has to be certified within a specified timeframe. This was done according to law.

    Anything after this is mute.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 8:04pm

61. It's so easy to point out how clueless libs are.

    Just wait until they start blaming Bush for 9/11.

    Hello BJ.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 8:13pm

62. Hey Frank, you got a point. Just let your hair grow and nobody will notice.

    It's been a long day, give me a brake Skippy.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 8:18pm

63. Skippy: Any pinhead that takes cheap shots.

    There is one in every crowd. Congratulations.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 8:21pm

64. Frank: I understand.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 8:29pm

65. REIDSUCKS:

    That is just a scary idea! The last time the Demoncrats got up in arms about states rights they started a cival war!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/09/2006 @ 5:24pm

    Umm...not a history major here, but....apparently, neither are you.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    ABC123:

    Only the very small percentage that are pro-baby killing!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/09/2006 @ 6:12pm

    Yes, I am sure the majority of women out there want a bunch of old uptight, backwards ass, religious freaks making important, personal, decisions for them. Most women make that VERY hard decision on their own, based on their desire to control their own destiny. Thank dog, as a man, I need not even worry about such things. Oh yea, the ones who like to kill babies, prolly like the law too!

    LL, "Only if using different standards then the Florida law that was in place in 2000 could Gore get a different interpretation of the vote" I thought one actually counted votes....i didn't know math was "interpretive".

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 01/09/2006 @ 8:30pm

66. About politicians and their motives. Yes, they all have them and they are always self-serving when the moment to exploit presents itself.

    Like I said, Skippy.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 8:33pm

67. About those looney Christians and all that is their fault.

    If we who believe in God are wrong, then we lose. When we die, there will be nothing.

    If you who believe there is no God are wrong, you are fucked for an eternity. That's a long time people - enjoy.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 8:46pm

68. Never seen it put that way before Frank. If you are sincere, more power to you.

    I respect your beliefs.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 8:57pm

69. Frank: It is the ultimate sin to take your own life. Or for that matter, the life of the innocent.

    Get it?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 9:02pm

70. out those looney Christians and all that is their fault.

    If we who believe in God are wrong, then we lose. When we die, there will be nothing.

    If you who believe there is no God are wrong, you are fucked for an eternity. That's a long time people - enjoy.

    Posted by USAPRIDE 01/09/2006 @ 8:46pm

    Is it not enough to lay claim to the afterlife? Must there be religious control in this life? It is not the belief I despise. It is the attempts to legislate from that point of view. What if you are wrong? Don't we have a responsibility to take care of the Earth and our fellow humans, as though this is all there is? In case it is?

    What if god doesn't "rapture" anyone, and we are stuck on this rock? Isn't it prudent to live this life as if that's all there is? Especially when there is no evidence of anything else. Only your faith. (Which I am glad you can take comfort in, but not all share your faith.)

    I always thought it specious for religious types (and, admittedly, not all do...but most)to claim they have the "moral high ground" and athiests have no basis to behave "moraly". Then they set about praying for the end times (and the inevitable damn-nation of the majority of mankind)...doesn't ring "moral" to me.

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 01/09/2006 @ 9:15pm

71. MAL: Let me be clear. I claim no moral ground whatsoever.

    Don't sterotype me please.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 9:20pm

72. USA, Jaysus don't like you much. You be pikin on hertics and unbelevers. He ain't be likin thissums. You best be burnin with the brush out back.

    Slobbers ain affection,

    Bloppy

    Posted by bloppy at 01/09/2006 @ 9:21pm

73. Bloppy: Don't even know how to respond.

    I'm confused by your wisdom.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 9:23pm

74. MAL: Let me be clear. I claim no moral ground whatsoever.

    Don't sterotype me please.

    Posted by USAPRIDE 01/09/2006 @ 9:20pm

    OK...fair enough...rereading your posts...this was the first to allude to god. I was mostly responding to Rio and you popped up with some god stuff, so...

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 01/09/2006 @ 9:31pm

75. I'm confused by your wisdom.

    Posted by USAPRIDE 01/09/2006 @ 9:23pm

    ...and I am strangely aroused. ;o)

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 01/09/2006 @ 9:34pm

76. There's quite a few things our Senators should do. Managing to grow one complete set of testicles between them would be a good starting point.

    Press Alito on Bush v. Gore? Cool. But it would have been nice if they had pressed Bush on the invasion of Iraq, missing WMD, 9-11, New Orleans, the economy, the appointments of Rice, Chertoff, Gonzales, Abrams, etc.

    I think we should just get used to the idea that Judge Alito will be sitting in Sandra's chair and that the Democratic party is in the stinky stage of decomposition. Just think of Hillary as a maggot and it all makes sense.

    Posted by opeluboy at 01/09/2006 @ 9:36pm

77. Mal: All I am putting forth is the idea that maybe he may exist...

    C'mon, give me a maybe.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 9:44pm

78. ITS HIS RELIGION, IDIOTS

    ALITO'S DILEMMA - AMERICA'S QUANDARY

    Blog on the nomination of Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Judge.

    The considerations below are not based on judgments about Alito personally. I assume he is decent, respectable man, competent within his sphere. It is, however, about his prima facie (un-)fittingness, as an open Roman Catholic, for the position, as an archetypal psychological factor.

    First of all, he would make three of them. Scalia, Roberts, Alito; and there is a rumor that Thomas is a member or associate of Opus Dei. You don't have to be a descendant of the Gustavus Adolphus, Lion of the North, conquerer of the Hapsburg Vatican conscripts – for all time, one would have supposed -- to notice that this influence on the bench of 9 justices far, far outstrips their proportion of the population. I don't have figures at hand, but 1–in-3? – couldn't be, not even close by 10x.

    Apart from that, which is significant enough, as if Roman Catholicism was being tacitly installed as the official-unofficial philosophy of jurisprudence in America, there is the fact that a member of the Opus Dei sect of that religious group penetrated the highest levels of government and betrayed it to Soviet Russia. This was Robert Philip Hanssen, co-member of the same conservative church as ex-FBI director Louis Freeh, who used the bureau to frame the Lewinsky-Clinton impeachment episode; and Antonin Scalia, who undertook to do the right thing for America, at least in his eyes, and the eyes of the George W. Bush's God, and cut off the Florida vote recount in 2000. Hanssen was liason man between several agencies of government for 25 years; Freeh and Scalia claimed to barely known him, however.

    All that smells to high heaven, and is a terrible embarrassment to his family. The lawyer Plato Chiceris took over his defense, worked out the deal, and it was never determined whether he might not have been a 3-way spy, giving secrets, or arranging mischief, for the Vatican through his contacts with both. All who knew him testified to a sincere, if not fanatical, streak of religiosity in the man, and he was always gung-ho with the patriotic, pro-America rhetoric. Somewhere in there he is acting a knowing lie, living a duplicitious, or triplicitous existence. The question is: how do we know this is not true of Alito? Has anyone asked him if he owes allegiance to any power of principality higher than the U.S. Constitution? Would he take such an oath? Would he personally, as a citizen, support legislation requiring such an oath of all elected and appointed officials, lest the federal government become infected with subversives, fifth columnists or outright traitors, from this or some other source.

    Beyond this, there is the matter of injecting right-wing Vatican-centric issues into American politics. Of specific impending interest are abortion rights and executive powers. Can Sam Alito swear his religious affiliation will not color his rulings on these issues? --calling on him to be a savior of the unborn, if he can, and preserving the prerogatives of the Father who protects and punishes for sin. Of course he can't. And would probably take umbrage and feign indignation in being called upon to respond to such "anti-Catholic attacks". That's how far it has gone. But it cannot be allowed to go further.

    Still further, there is the whip-saw way he is being sold to the public. The CNN TV ad is a straight negative attack ad – "Every day, liberals attack Sam Alito for his conservatism." That is the first line you hear. "Those undisciplined, immoral liberals attacking The Man of Justice!" the sub-text reads. Then: seque to today's hearings. Picture of Sam I am speaking! Saying (words to this effect) "I ask to be judged by the reasonings in my opinions, not according whether I am ‘left' or ‘right'." See? This juxtaposition of TV ad and snipet of the Senate Judicial committee hearings was not accidental; it was arranged, on the same program (Lou Dobbs). The effect is to have it both ways: he is above politics in his thinking, even while under scurrilous attack by the ideologues – leaving ‘liberals' standing accused of obstructionist partisanship!

    And how do they do it? – you wonder? It is to answer that I write. The answer is coming out on the blogs at sidthomas.blogspsot.com. (Where this will appear) The stunning realization of metaphysical crises; a bubble of systematic delusion about to burst, they show.

    Finally, returning to the question of the prerogatives the constitution gives the executive branch, the question of Bush's injection of personal religiosity into American group life, politics and war justification demands to be addressed, and will be addressed in one way or another in issues tracing directly to the Supreme Court pertaining to use of "God". Did G.W. Bush have the authority to declare that federal funds could be used to support the charity work of those who used "God" in their mission? This was done prior to 9/11, with his actually declaring the reversal, "this uses God to discriminate." This should have been litigated then, must be revived for litigation now. Do U.S. President's have instrinsic authority to declare which things are and are not of God in the name of the people? I would like to hear what Judge Alito says on that.

    If he says "Yes", he is unfit for the position because he confuses leadership of the state with leadership of the ‘church', as if America were his congregation. I guess the Khazars were obliged to stand for it when the head honcho (or head-chopping honcho) declared "you are all Jews", back in 10th century (story in Arthur Koestler's amazing book "The 13th tribe") central Asia. But there is an ever-expanding group of Americans from the old order, reaching across to the youth of the new generations, who don't need Gustavus Adolphus, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, or anybody else to tell them what stinks. One has only to sense the merest snatch of what is happening in Iraq to almost pass out. If Sam says "Yes", down the road to forced religious conversion he would take us. "We'll tell you who God listens to."

    If he says "no", then Bush must go. He must be impeached for taking the Torah in his own hands, YHWH be damned. The attack from Bin Laden came almost immediately, as if it was Allah's reply. He had no right to overthrow established barriers between church and state merely by reason of his personal zeal. He had no right to announce that Catholics and Jews would be the swing-votes for the '04 re-election campaign, which he did mid-summer '01. This skewed political statements on issues toward these groups, as judges. It is far from the only link between Catholics and Jews – not all of either, of course; but openly identified by prominent ones to rally the troops, as it were. This is the core of religious ingression into American politics from external influences. These are powers and principalities foreign to America, imported as a self-other absorbed complex working out WWII trauma on our psyche. I, for one, passed long ago from being tired, to being sick of it; especially the unction, a substance than which no more noxious can be conceived.

    Inexorably pinned on the horns of Alito's Dilemma. If asked about presidential power to issue statements using God's name,

    if Sam says "Yes", he gets no dress (robe); if Sam says "No", then Bush must go.

    Posted by jones at 01/09/2006 @ 9:53pm

79. If there is no God - why worry about it?

    Relax, at best you got 100 years. Hell, that's a long time.

    Did I say hell - sorry...

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2006 @ 9:57pm

80. Off topic kinda:

    Just had a thought while listening to the KO countdown interviewing someone about satellite radio, the progression from AM to FM to XM radio and how it's commercial-less. I was thinking how the SP doesn't have to deal with congressional type lobbying and under the table roundabout payoffs (as far as we know, ok sans Scalia), why that's a problem with congress raising money as I was also thinking about the natural progression of the XM radio delivery system. What if there's a natural progression to petitioning congress that's somehow parallel to the progression in radio to XM? Normally doesn't the SP just listen and weighs arguments without the wine and dining? Ok I know they want more money too and they're LIFETIME. BUT what if congress could progress to being petitioned without the commercials? There's the right to petition but the form can change so that the way money is filtered to the congressional membership isn't a determiner via modern technology. Not saying exactly what that could look like but figuring outside the box may yield a congress without the commercials, no fund raising-- more time to do we the peoples business, maybe.

    Ok on topic:

    Dem's should go full steam ahead and maximus agrillus Alito. My thought is that the repub's are going to continue to be covered in negative controversy and that if the dem's shout about repub hypocrisy from the top of their lungs and tie it to the BC BS regime's need for more power and corruption via this nomination, that even if dem's filibuster and repub's go nuclear, the negativity surrounding the repub's--especially if the Delay and Abromoff scandals, illegal wire tapping, lying us to war, war dead and maimed, housing and dollar tank,…etc. continue. I see a zillion worse leaks a comin' so tarnishing the repubs that pushing Alito hardest but ‘professionally' will force the repubs to react in keeping with their other bad behavior. The worse thing the dem's can do is be weak on this. Timing is all and now.

    Posted by Bushfools at 01/09/2006 @ 10:02pm

81. I assume this same standard would be applied to Ruth Ginsburg. Oh, it wasn't? One word- Hypocrite.

    Posted by scottlinton at 01/09/2006 @ 10:22pm

82. Waaaay off topic questons for FG

    FG:

    I've never commented on religious matters before (mainly because I don't care what others' beliefs are) but after reading your "belief system" I am a little curious.

    Is incredible wealth a reward for past lives? Most people here seem to be anti-wealth-accumulation and it's surprising to read a "liberal someone" view it as a reward.

    Is giving millions considered that "great" if you have hundreds of millions/billion to give?

    Would someone who is destitute but still gives what he can be considered on the same level as B. Gates or higher?

    One of your comments sounded almost anti-abortion. Eh???

    What happens if you're an aborted baby that keeps returning as an aborted baby? Ok, that one was just a joke.

    Posted by usc1 at 01/09/2006 @ 10:36pm

83. Hello? Guess I'm just Mr. ignored. It's an out and out systematic delusion. They've nothing to say but it's OK (not).

    Posted by jones at 01/09/2006 @ 10:42pm

84. i guess this thread is kinda dancing around everywhere. will you people who put time and energy into opposing abortion please go get as many hungry babies as you can and bring them home and feed them. please do this for the rest of your lives. or do you only care about them til they're born?

    Posted by loveloki at 01/09/2006 @ 10:43pm

85. One thing I can't stand is the left's insistance that by "dodging questions" or refusing to answer trap questions he is somehow unqualified for the bench. If Kerry had won the last election Kennedy and Schumer would be making the exact same arguement republicans are currently making, i.e. that the nominee should not be forced to answer questions about cases that could possibly come before the court and that a nominee's personal beliefs should not matter because the very nature of being a judge is to have the ability to put aside personal beliefs and decide cases according the rule of law (obviously something that democratic nominees are capable of but not republican). I wish the the left would admit they are just playing there part of the political game. It is incredibly disingenious (sp?) and appauling. Politics should be a place of honesty, not partisan grandstanding. Now to be glib and partisan, ELECTIONS MATTER. Whether people like it or not, a large part of the 2004 election were supreme court vancancies, and guess what, Kerry ran a horrible campaign and lost. Go cry in your milk. Finally, two response that I would love to here, yet never will--"The good Senator from Mass. has accused me of being unethical with regards to my ruling on the vanguard case, I would argue that nothing is more unethical than leaving a 20 year old women for dead after I crashed my car in a drunk driving accident" and "In response to Senator Kennedy's accusation that membership in a club could disqualify me for a post on the court (see Wasington Post editorial), I submit, and am sure the Senior Senator from West Virginia would agree, that youthful membership in a social club, even a leadership position in such a club, should not disqualify a candidiate from a seat for life in one of the three branches of government" I realize that these comments are glib and do nothing to further the arguement that Judge ALito is a well, qualified, thoughtfull jurist who should become a fantastic Supreme Court Justice, but hey, my should Schumer and Biden have all the fun?

    Posted by twinlab at 01/09/2006 @ 10:57pm

86. FG:

    Interesting thoughts. Although I would have to put Gates way down the list relative to Mother Teresa. No question he's given much, but technically he could give SO much more. (Think the end of Schindler's List).

    Incidentally, where are you in the process?

    Light-hearted observation: Your "I'm not pro-abortion" comment reminds me of an exchange my wife and I had with some friends years ago. When they asked if we were trying to have a baby, we told them that we "weren't preventing." They laughed and said "If you're not preventing then you're trying."

    Thanks for your kind indulgences.

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread

    Posted by usc1 at 01/09/2006 @ 11:11pm

87. Needless to say, since then, I have had a conversion, I see the light.

    Posted by CPT 01/09/2006 @ 12:10am

    and it is a train

    Jump

    Posted by Will C. at 01/09/2006 @ 11:16pm

88. CPT, That is the light of the oncoming train you are seeing. Better run like hell.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/09/2006 @ 12:14am

    what is that idiot CPT doing out on the tracks?

    no more shots for him

    Posted by Will C. at 01/09/2006 @ 11:17pm

89. frank, i understand your point about alito and i agree. i'd also like you to know i think of the troops every day and pray.

    Posted by loveloki at 01/09/2006 @ 11:21pm

90. That is just a scary idea! The last time the Demoncrats got up in arms about states rights they started a cival war!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/09/2006 @ 5:24pm

    and then become republicans starting around 1973.

    and over almost the same issues

    Posted by Will C. at 01/09/2006 @ 11:30pm

91. If you who believe there is no God are wrong, you are fucked for an eternity. That's a long time people - enjoy.

    Posted by USAPRIDE 01/09/2006 @ 8:46pm

    does being fucked for eternity mean I don't have to hang with you boys for eternity?

    A small price to pay

    Posted by Will C. at 01/09/2006 @ 11:45pm

92. Frank: It is the ultimate sin to take your own life. Or for that matter, the life of the innocent.

    Get it?

    Posted by USAPRIDE 01/09/2006 @ 9:02pm

    Original Sin

    the ultimate in get of jail free cards.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/09/2006 @ 11:47pm

93. Yeah Baby!

    Posted by Will C. at 01/09/2006 @ 11:48pm

94. How does one begin? Can you get more "pussy" than Rio or CPT, (or little guy 'todd". I doubt it. Maybe you gasbags should go back to the roots of your inconsequential existences.

    Go back, before it is too late. Become one with the soil.

    Worse than "night soil"

    But I love you all!!

    regards,

    bloppy

    Posted by bloppy at 01/10/2006 @ 12:01am

95. As I am goning through this mentally I am becoming both saddened and enraged. I see why America is in such deep trouble. People like Washington, Jefferson and Thomas Paine did not lay it all on the line and take on the mightiest power of the day for THIS!!!! While watching a foreign news channel, you know, the ones that still have real journalism. It was revealed that Alito feels it OK to strip search a 10 tear-old little girl without a warrant. Why would anybody strip search a ten year-old little girl? And apparently warrants are becoming a thing of the past. Look at the bush wiretaps. To the colonists the most imporatnt Amendment was the 4th., which deals with search and seizure. Isn't it funny that the 4th. Amendment is always the first to be destroyed by fascists. And why are Americans and the media so afraid to call Bush et al what they are? FASCISTS. But don't worry. We have Joe Lieberman and Chris Dodd to save us. That is when they are through counting their PAC money from Alito's corporate pals.

    Posted by bobbo2452 at 01/10/2006 @ 12:39am

96. I always find God comments so interesting. Like that the only use of profanity I have seen here is from a christian. The "f" word is not popular with God and it is not up to you to judge others. I am not a christian because of people like you and the constant errancy and lies in the Bible. Also remember that the man who wrote our Constitution loathed the church and our first six Presidents were not christians, but Deists. But now that we have Alito coming in maybe they will force us to be Christians.

    Posted by bobbo2452 at 01/10/2006 @ 12:45am

97. Freiheit, conclusion..you are a double agent, aka troll...big time!

    smarty pants kisses, Bloppy

    Posted by bloppy at 01/10/2006 @ 01:30am

98. FRANKGRITS:"Mr. Alito if you continue to dodge our questions in this most historic of proceedings, I will personally filibuster this nomination and I assure you, you will never sit on the SCOTUS." The dems should pull no punches with this nomination and if they do, they will be looked on as abettors to a contradiction of their own values and standards. Also, this should be a woman in that chair today.

    I agree entirely with your scenario, FRANKGRITS...I had thought of this tack when listening to ALIETO sling his bull today. The man is a hazard, a liar, as is anyone remotely tied to Bush & Co. Dems must come out swinging, delivering a TKO if needed. A filibuster is definitely in the cards if he pulls what Roberts did with refusing to answer legitimate questions about his horrendous opinions on searches, Presidential power, parental consent for abortion, etc. Nail this horror to the wall, bigtime, with out and out attacks on his integrity, of which he has none. Dems must tell him to answer, because if he doesn't there will be two choices: a no vote or a filibuster...take your pick! We've been played once, but not again or ever again!

    Posted by MCENJ at 01/10/2006 @ 01:52am

99. The question that Alito can't dodge, at least without looking silly, would be whether Bush v. Gore comported with prevailing equal-protection analysis as it then stood. It clearly did not, as any attorney with an ounce of intellectual honesty has to admit. If Alito would make that concession, he could be asked about his understanding for the departure, whether he thought it was justified, etc.

    Posted by nagelbush at 01/10/2006 @ 08:26am

100. Little curious about some analysis of the Dems' options with Alito....

     a commentator said that if the Dems try to filibuster, and the Gang of 14 under-cuts them, and the filibuster fails....then the threat is gone forever and then Bush essentially can nominate any and everybody he wants, with no worries about "Democratic response".

     So that ONLY the "threat" of filibuster actually helps....an actual filibuster (very likely to be voted down) would be disasterous for the Dems.....Comments?

     Posted by Mask at 01/10/2006 @ 09:03am

101. BLOPPY

     You know, you dont dare, have the courage of your conviction to debate anyone. Yet you call others "pussy" and other disparging remarks.

     What can one say, other than to call you what you are.......... a COWARD.

     Its really quite simple. Thats why its so hard to take you seriously.

     Essentially you are fake, but that is your favorite M.O., cowards often chose the path of least resistance.

     Its always good for a pitiful laugh at your expense.

     As always, with warmest regards

     Love eternally,

     CPT

     Posted by CPT at 01/10/2006 @ 09:11am

102. MASK:

     Interesting argument, but not realistic. Yes, a failed filibuster would look bad in some circles. But an actual one will not happen unless it is known that it will carry enough votes.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/10/2006 @ 09:27am

103. USAPRIDE:

     You said:

     If you who believe there is no God are wrong, you are fucked for an eternity. That's a long time people - enjoy.

     My response:

     If your believing in Christ as savior is only to escape eternal damnation, you're out of luck. I guess the non-believers will be seeing you there.

     I, on the other hand, believe that while there may in fact be a hell, that doesn't necessarily mean anybody is there. I hate to jump into religion here, but what the hell, I'm bored at the moment. The argument goes as such. When Christ died for all our sins, his salvation covered all the sins of everyone who had and ever would live. Hence, he raised everyone from hell up to heaven, bearing their sins, therefore saving everyone from eternal damnation. This does not preclude judgment, mind you.

     I think my view (and it is strongly backed up by much theological work, particularly that of Origen, among many others... so it is a very old concept) is a view of a much more loving God, which, as we all know, is the primary difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New. This also does not exonerate you or allow you to perpetuate whatever crimes you see fit. It just means that you won't necessarily go to hell for them.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 09:44am

104. Just a few thoughts watching Sen. Leahy question Alito. This portion looks like a sad dance. Did Leahy got ANY preparation at all from … say an attorney … on how to question a witness? He asks open-ended broad questions (that are more of a statement of his own views), with no effective follow-up that would force Alito's hand. Regarding the FISA law and Bush's NSA program, Leahy asked questions in such a way that Alito could not be able to answer (and everyone had to know Alito's answer "I cannot comment on how I would rule on a potential case" was coming). Leahy is trying to get straight to the heart of whether Alito thinks Bush is violating the law of the 4th Amendment. Sorry, you can't just blow your way through with a witness who is obviously prepared ("Mr. Defendant, did you murder the victim? No, ok, then I will move on here.") Leahy needs to ask questions about Alito's positions on the underlying legal arguments that would be made for/against Bush's program. One example would be to ask Alito whether he thinks Youngstown Sheet (the executive's authority is at "its lowest ebb" when Congress has spoken) is good law.

     Leahy also allowed Alito to wiggle out of explaining his previous stance that the AG had immunity from suit for illegal surveillance ("I do not question that the attorney general should have this immunity" is what Alito wrote). Alito said he did not want to make that argument but his client wanted the argument made. Leahy let that answer slide without any obvious follow-up regarding what Alito actually wrote. Leahy should have said, "Why did you not want to make the argument, if you said yourself you did not question it?" Or, "So, what did you mean when you said 'I do not question?' Did you believe there was a legal basis for your position or not?" Leahy needed to make Alito either own the statement or not.

     I'll be interested to see how others do, but Leahy seems more concerned with making his own statements than actually working Alito for real answers.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/10/2006 @ 10:46am

105. Alito should be waved through and installed onto the SCOTUS.

     Once on, he, Roberts, Scalito, et al will overturn Roe V Wade and then the opposition party to Republican's will have the vote getting simple subject that the Republicans have had for decades.

     If anybody here thinks that the Republican party as an institution actually wants Roe V Wade over turned then you need a large dose of reality. The legality of abortion gets large numbers of people to dispense with rational thought and vote Republican entirely because they think such a vote is a vote against abortion.

     If Roe V Wade were ever over turned those voters would then be left to vote in their own best economic interests.

     And obviously, once abortion was illegal there would be massive numbers of people voting for a party that promised (election cycle after election cycle) to make it legal once again.

     If you don't like what Republicans do to the stature and competitiveness of the country, if you don't like that they give much of your hard earned tax money to rich people and hand your taxes out as corporate welfare and you don't so much mind an overturn of Roe V Wade then you should be gunning for Alito's approval.

     Posted by colmes at 01/10/2006 @ 10:51am

106. Sorry, some typos in the first para:

     "Leahy asked questions in such a way that Alito WOULD not be able to answer ..."

     "Leahy is trying to get straight to the heart of whether Alito thinks Bush is violating the law OR the 4th Amendment.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/10/2006 @ 10:52am

107. Colmes:

     This issue came up last week. I totally agree. I also think Karl Rove, et. al know this as well. As such, I am sure they also know that neither Roberts or Alito will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade - just keep up with certain restrictions. When the religious right freaks out after it is not overturned, act surprised - and hint that the NEXT appointment will be the one.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/10/2006 @ 10:56am

108. FRANKGRITS:

     To answer your question about credibility of "conservatives" with their constituencies, the answer is, the power brokers would find a way to blame the "vast left wing conspiracy" on their supposed failure. We've seen it done in the past. Why should the future be so different.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 11:16am

109. FRANK:

     I see what you are driving at, but I would change part of the question to "circumvent (or disregard) explicit laws of Congress" rather than the Constitution in the first instance. If the question is framed in terms of the Constitution, I suspect Alito would say - "Never." You see, if you are talking about the NSA program, Bush is arguing, basically, that his actions do not circumvent the Constitution because of certain exceptions to the 4th Amendment, laws passed since FISA, purported precedent regarding executive authority, and Article II. Not that I think the argument is legally correct (b/c I do not), but if Alito does, he can reconcile saying "never", with his support of Bush's NSA program. The trick again, is to see Alito's views about the underlying arguments, one by one. To try and get a feel for how Alito would rule, you have to work from the ground up.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/10/2006 @ 11:19am

110. I've pretty much given up hope on the electorate. The Republican party will never work to over turn Roe V Wade and the less they do for that cause the more that cause rallies behind them.

     The Republicans will never work to keep us safe. By all accounts Bush didn't even know who OBL was at 8:30 AM on September 11, 2001, yet he was the one chosen in 2004 "to keep us safe". Thank's to the brilliant job of elected Republican's it now appears that OBL is going to die of old age before he is brought to justice.

     The Republican's couldn't manage an economy even if it came with a set of instructions yet the electorate thinks that the Republican Party are more fiscally conservative.

     The key to political longevity is to screw things up then claim you're the best party to fix the mess!

     Posted by colmes at 01/10/2006 @ 11:22am

111. Judge Alito, Under what conditions and in what circumstances, based on your broad experience, extensive knowledge of Constitutional law and case history, is it ok for the POTUS or by direct order or indirect order, to circumvent the Constitution of the United States of America? Please be explicit in your reply.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/10/2006 @ 11:02am

     Gee Frank,

     SCOTUS did just that in Roe v Wade, so what is your point?

     Posted by love liberty at 01/10/2006 @ 11:35am

112. LOVE LIBERTY:

     Please explain, in your view, specifically, how SCOTUS circumvented the Consitution in the decision of Roe V. Wade. I am curious.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 11:38am

113. Damn it, why won't Kennedy go for the jugular?

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 11:38am

114. LL:

     Yeah, yeah. There is nothing explicit in the Constitution giving a woman the right to an abortion. We have all heard it before.

     But, there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly says the president can issue wiretap orders on US citizens without a warrant either, is there?

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/10/2006 @ 11:43am

115. LL:

     That executive authority falls under the penumbra of rights given to the presdient, right?

     Hmmmmm . . . Where have I heard that term, "penumbra," before?

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/10/2006 @ 11:45am

116. I will say this in Alito's defense. The issue regarding Vanguard is, in my opinion, a non-issue, due to the nature of the vast majority of Vanguard's investments. Most of their investments are index-based mutual funds. Since Alito's investments apparently did not include Vanguard stock, again, this is a non-issue.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 11:55am

117. Well, I think Kennedy did a much better job than Leahy.

     I agree that Vanguad is a b.s. issue. Everyone should drop it.

     Grassley seems to think that Alito, if anything, "follows precedent a bit too much." Gasp, is Grassley suggesting judicial activism?

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/10/2006 @ 12:00pm

118. RIO

     Sorry to pop the bubble on your "Mr Roger's" warm and fuzzy story...but it is just that a story. He was never in the military, and he was not a minister, but he DID have a degree in music!

     For a bio blip on him see: Mr_Rogers [rotten.com]

     To see a blip on the "urban legend" of him as a Navy Seal go to SEAL [urbanlegends.about.com]

     and while it is true that both Lee Marvin and Capt Kangaroo (Keeshan) were both marines in WW2, they did not serve together in Iwo Jima. Again, urban legend: see myth [tinyurl.co.uk]

     Do your homework or we'll have to give you detention young man!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/10/2006 @ 12:00pm

119. FRANKGRITS:

     I agree with that one hundred percent. But, I must ask, do Democrats ask softball questions of more "liberal" appointees (under CLinton, for example)? I am asking because I honestly don't know. Perhaps you, or someone else, does.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 12:01pm

120. Frank

     I'm an Alito opponent too....but gotta ask

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/10/2006 @ 11:52am

     Would liberals tolerate Republicans attacking the physical appearance of a Judicial nominee's spouse?...or even the nominee?

     Posted by Mask at 01/10/2006 @ 12:07pm

121. FRANKGRITS:

     I wasn't asking whether it would be wonrg. Of course it would be wrong. I am asking if you remember whether they did ask softball questions of CLinton's more liberal judicial appointees.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 12:09pm

122. Who is attacking Alito's appearance, or his wife's?

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/10/2006 @ 12:09pm

123. To me, the reality is that Bushco is never going to appoint a pro-choice justice. Period. Flapping our lips about abortion is pissing into the wind - the issue of unfettered executive power vs. our constitutional rights seems so much more urgent. And this leads me to what I think is a logical (or simplistic) question:

     In light of the fact that Judge Alito has a published record of supporting an all-powerful executive, what's wrong with having a dignified delay of the process until we can have a definitive judgement on whether or not the president broke the law? Filibustering & "nucular" options be damned. If Bush broke the law, then the legal "scholar" that supports his actions is not fit for a SCOTUS slot either.

     Posted by drhammer at 01/10/2006 @ 12:11pm

124. The LIB CRACKUP is so beautiful to watch

     Posted by fuclibs at 01/10/2006 @ 12:13pm

125. Dems did ask easier questions of Breyer and Ginsburg than Reps did.

     I actually do not think Grassley's questions are that bad. Considering that he probably agrees with Alito's judicial philosophy from the outset, it is a little much to expect him to grill Alito.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/10/2006 @ 12:16pm

126. FUCLIBS:

     DO you think you could actually add something substantive to the debate? You remind me of that guy in Happy Gilmore, whose sole reason for being around Happy was to be an asshole so Happy would screw up. Grow a brain.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 12:25pm

127. Damn... Biden is making a really good point right now.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 12:39pm

128. I was surprised by these numbers in the latest CNN poll:

     The poll, conducted over the weekend, shows that 49 percent of all Americans support Alito's nomination, while 30 percent oppose it. But when asked if the Senate should confirm Alito if he would overturn Roe v. Wade, only 34 percent responded yes, while 56 percent said no. And just over half of all Americans, 53 percent, described themselves as pro-choice, compared to 42 percent who said they were pro-life, the poll showed.

     So if he screws up and lets it slip that, gosh, he really did mean it when he said there's no right to have an abortion - a filibuster would work quite nicely in terms of public opinion.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 01/10/2006 @ 12:45pm

129. And if you'll pardon the impertinence, how can you all stand to actually listen to senators talk? I'd rather chew on tinfoil.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 01/10/2006 @ 12:48pm

130. MYPARADIGM:

     I'm a politics geek. When I was in 4th grade I stayed home from school, feigning sickness, in order to watch the Iran Contra hearings.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 12:50pm

131. We'll do what we have to do if they try to ban abortion. We will push them back. We will create underground networks as we had before. We will not cooperate.

     Posted by Sweetdaddy at 01/10/2006 @ 12:51pm

132. RIO BRAVO/LeftOCENTER

     I love those "urban legends," heard them all, but not quite sure if any are true. Its doubtful though.

     Mr. Rogers was a Green Beret in Nam.

     John Denver was a sniper in Nam.

     Lee Marvin stormed the beaches at Iwo Jima

     Had not heard of Captain Kangeroo, but did hear the Mr. Greenjeans stormed the beach at Normandy.

     It's all good fun.

     Posted by CPT at 01/10/2006 @ 12:52pm

133. The now universally recognized image of the men raising the flag over Iwo Jima was simply a photo op. Complete fabrication. The taking of Iwo Jima, however, was not. Just wanted to drop that little tidbit.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 12:55pm

134. JORCHIEM

     Lol, How ironic, I did too, for the Iran Contra hearings, though I was a little older. Still in high school. Taking a long lunch to check out the hearings on Alito.

     Posted by CPT at 01/10/2006 @ 12:55pm

135. JORCHIEM

     Yeah, your right it was, but it was a damn good photo op.

     Posted by CPT at 01/10/2006 @ 12:57pm

136. Jorcheim:

     Agreed that Biden had some good moments, but, jeez, he is long-winded. He would be much more effective if he got to the point and dispensed with the pretext of "I'm not a judge here; I do not mean to offend you" line of crap before each point or question.

     MYPARADIGM:

     Junkie here too I guess. Many on both sides will criticize the hearings for different reasons, but I prefer to watch myself, rather than form my opinions based on sound bites and what talking heads will say. People should watch.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/10/2006 @ 1:01pm

137. CPT:

     I agree, it was a fantastic photo op. But it simply illustrates the problem with our society, and history in general, as Orwell so eloquently described in the acticle I posted earlier. There are plenty of actual battle photos from the Pacific War specifically, and World War II in general which were just as iconic, and not staged whatsoever.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 1:02pm

138. For HM and Frank,

     Why do I say it was an unconstitutional decision? Well many of the best liberal legal scholars and reputable liberal journalists agree:

     "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." Laurence H. Tribe, "The Supreme Court, 1972 Term--Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law," 87 Harvard Law Review 1, 7 (1973).

     "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe's author like a grandfather." Edward Lazarus, (former clerk to Harry Blackmun) "The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell's Nomination Only Underlined Them," FindLaw Legal Commentary, Oct. 3, 2002

     "Blackmun's [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference." William Saletan, "Unbecoming Justice Blackmun," Legal Affairs, May/June 2005.

     "What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it. . . . At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking." John Hart Ely, "The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade," 82 Yale Law Journal 920, 935-937 (1973).

     Roe "is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply." Benjamin Wittes, "Letting Go of Roe," The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.

     Richard Cohen's critique, in which he called Roe "a bad decision," was in his Post column, titled "Support Choice, Not Roe."

     Alan Dershowitz attacked Bush v. Gore as illegitimate by likening it to Roe in his book, Supreme Injustice. He wrote that the two decisions "represent opposite sides of the same currency of judicial activism in areas more appropriately left to the political processes[.] Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)[.] [C]lear governing constitutional principles . . . are not present in either case." (p. 194).

     Posted by love liberty at 01/10/2006 @ 1:02pm

139. JORCHEIM and CPT, no one is fooled. You were in love with Ollie's secretary, admit it.

     http://www.ishipress.com/fawnhall.htm

     Posted by MyParadigm at 01/10/2006 @ 1:05pm

140. JONES, The fact is that this is the people's court. If the people, as in all of the people lose the court to idealogues, then this great experiment in democracy is over. Stick a fork in it. It's done.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 0 **** ....as if what is taking place in the Senate hearing were the people's court, redeeming democracy. You are certainly right to insist on THAT. But That is the bird the fork's sticking in, unless Alito is challenged precisely on religious grounds -- the unsuitability of one with Roman Catholic connections, in the present context. (as I argue fully at 9.53pm p. 3 above) Maybe if Scalia hadn't appointed Bush, and R.P. Hanssen hadn't penetrated the entire security apparatus)

     For the people's court -- and I ask your support in pressing them, forever -- the questions he/we must face are about non-democratically empowering religious minorities with overseas/offshore controllers taking over the culture and hudicial philosophy of America, our country. I am referring to political Catholics, Jews, and TV whore Protestants -- not the uncorrupted faithful of these hi-jacked congregations, if there are any. The rest of the hated repubes hide under the skirts of these one's honest devotions. Although wholly predictable, they (the hated repubes) cannot be regarded as having a human psyche, at all, it's as if some kind of mechanism was implanted in their collective non-brain, or along its spinal column. Bunch of Smiths.

     Time to confront their "God" as Satan, himself, if ever one was.

     Posted by jones at 01/10/2006 @ 1:08pm

141. HMAN23:

     I agree he would be more effective if he would dispense with such niceties. However, remember, this is Washington, and no matter what, it always will be. Hence this is more of a "show trial"than anything of real substance.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 1:08pm

142. RIO BRAVO:

     Latrobe, home of Rolling Rock beer, is about 10 miles east of where I live.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 1:09pm

143. MYPARADIGM:

     I must admit, she was pretty darned hot.

     Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 1:11pm

144. JORCHEIM 01/10/2006 @ 1:08pm

     I hear ya. I hear ya.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/10/2006 @ 1:11pm

145. In response to MASK,

     2. no specific examples cited

     I did not spell it out explicitly from your quote that (in fact) I pasted into my missive, but ... Once again you were harping on an alleged inconsistency that you cobbled together in the style of a Rube Goldberg device while on the proverbial fishing expedition. In this instance, it was Mr. Nichols' "inconsistency" with respect to Senator Feingold that somehow demands "explanation". While it is obvious and explicit that Mr. Nichols holds Senator Feingold in very high esteem, you have been writing as if the former is under some otherwise unheard of obligation to be another lobe of the latter's brain. If you want to know why Senator Feingold voted in favor of Justice Roberts's installation, call the Seantor's office and find out, the staff will undoubtably explain; it is within their remit to explain and not anyone else's. But pretending that a difference of opinion between Mr. Nichols and Senator Feingold is some breach of ethical conduct (Why? Is "Nichols" a devious alias for "Feingold"? Should all people from Wisconsin arrive at the same conclusions?) is an entirely contrived charade that you have regularly lobbed out when there are truly pressing matters at hand.

     and 4. a rabid defense of Democrats that I'm somehow wronging...on a blog where 80% of the bloggers, Right AND Left, here say that the Dems are tepid, hypocritical, or even dupliticious.

     I challenge you to evidence a single syllable of "rapid defense" in the posting. In other postings, I have said vanishingly little about Democrats (i.e., one favorable comparison --- and in passing, at that --- of Clinton to VanityWarBush), as is the case here and now.

     Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/10/2006 @ 1:19pm

146. FUCLIBS (formerly LIBSARENUTS, BUSHRULES, *BUSHRULES, etc) has spoken:

     The LIB CRACKUP is so beautiful to watch

     Watch? Son, don't you know there is a war going on? When are you going to break from the passivity of voyeurism and haul ass on some right-wing IslamoFascists (who, to boot, wear diapers on their heads --- how UnAmerican! --- and won't let hot Middle Eastern babes wear skirts and disco dance)? Do you not realize that this is the signature conflict of your generation, like Viet Nam but much, much bigger and even existential (as sage Tony Blair has reminded us)? Do you need someone to read the yellow pages to you in order to contact the recruiting office? Or dress you before you before you go down for an interview? When are you going to stop throwing spitballs on blogs and step up to the plate, bigtime? Don't do a Cheney/Bush/Delay/Champbliss on us, no SpringTimePatriot or SummerTimeSoldier shit, the time is now: Sign the Dotted Line for Uncle Sam, March to Your Position Against the Axis of Evil, Earn that Welfare Check You've Been Cashing ... or Shut the Fuck Up...

     Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/10/2006 @ 1:33pm

147. LL, Everybody has an opinion. But the only one who counts is the young girl who doen't want the pregnancy. Everyone else is just a bystander.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/10/2006 @ 1:22pm

     First of all Frank, we are discussing the constitutional validity of Roe v Wade. A pregnant girl will not be asked to make the legal ruling on it's constitutionality.

     Secondly, you can talk all you want about some woman's choice about an unwanted pregnancy as if it's like choosing what dress to wear or which school to attend; what it is and will always be is murdering her child.

     Liberals who favor abortion are guilty of rank hypocrisy on this issue. When they are pregnant and want the baby, they call it the baby in their womb. When they don't want it, it is invading tissue.

     Until America repents of this genocide, it will never regain it's moral compass. Abortion to me is the greatest genocide of Western Civilization in particular and mankind as a whole. It remains the greatest shame of our nation.

     And yes for those who will pose the question, I would try Doctors for Murder, I would try any woman and those who assist in an abortion for murder or manslaughter depending on the results of the investigation.

     Every one of you liberals that rants against Bush and the war on Terrorism including Iraq while supporting abortion, show yourselves to be hypocrites about the value of innocent life.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/10/2006 @ 1:45pm

148. GLENN

     1. My comments about Mr Nichols are based on his incessant compliments of Sen Feingold, yet odd SILENCE when same decided in both the Judiciary Committee AND the full Senate vote to vote FOR John Roberts for Chief Justice....despite EARLIER articles by Mr Nichols laying out the case against the Roberts nomination.

     So, I ask, why is Sen Feingold a "champion" to Mr Nichols on things like the Patriot Act, which can be easily voted down, when something with LONG lasting consequences, like the Roberts nomination is a blatent sell-out. Imagine this, some parts of the Patriot Act (that Sen Feingold "heroically opposes" ...to use words Mr Nichols surely would)...go before a ROBERTS court that upholds them?....do we call Feingold a "hero" then?

     2. So Democrats have only "slightly" more favorability than Republicans....okay. I think if you check you'll see that that's about the BEST you'll get from ANYBODY on this blog.

     I support the Dems when they're doing something I support....in fact, stating again (despite the disbelief of REIDSUCKS), I voted for Kerry in 2004...primarily on what's happening now with guys like Alito and Roberts.

     Posted by Mask at 01/10/2006 @ 1:46pm

149. MASK wrote:

     My comments about Mr Nichols are based on his incessant compliments of Sen Feingold, yet odd SILENCE when same decided in both the Judiciary Committee AND the full Senate vote to vote FOR John Roberts for Chief Justice.

     Is this the "odd silence" you were talking about?

     http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=23797

     Posted by MyParadigm at 01/10/2006 @ 2:25pm

150. If Love Liberty was serious about the abortion issue, he would have figured out by now that Democratic policies do more to reduce the amount of abortions than republican policies. The rate and amount of abortions declined every year under Clinton until it reached a 25-year low in 2000. The rate of abortions has been increasing every year since Bush took office.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/10/2006 @ 2:50pm

151. I think we're going to have to rewrite the rules of demographics for Mask. He says he voted for Clinton twice and now he says he voted for Kerry in 2004, but I have never seen even the slightest indication that he supports any democratic party positions... mendacious or strange, possibly both.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/10/2006 @ 2:54pm

152. Love Liberty: "And yes for those who will pose the question, I would try Doctors for Murder, I would try any woman and those who assist in an abortion for murder or manslaughter depending on the results of the investigation."

     Would this be some kind of religious tribunal or an "inquisition" that would try doctors for performing a centuries-old procedure? Would it be manslaughter, Murder 1 or murder 2? Would the woman in question be tried as an accessory before the fact or for murder as well. I'm assuming this wouldn't be a standard American-style court, since the charges would be based on the Old Testiment.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/10/2006 @ 2:59pm

153. Secondly, you can talk all you want about some woman's choice about an unwanted pregnancy as if it's like choosing what dress to wear or which school to attend; what it is and will always be is murdering her child.

     Liberals who favor abortion are guilty of rank hypocrisy on this issue. When they are pregnant and want the baby, they call it the baby in their womb. When they don't want it, it is invading tissue.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/10/2006 @ 1:45pm

     Part of the problem with the ,so called, abortion "debate" is we are not really debating the issue, on the same terms. It is pointless to debate, unless all sides acknowledge that it is a religious issue.

     If you believe you have a soul, which outlives,(and thus, I would imaging predates) us, then life must begin at conception. I mean, after all, you already have a soul or 'self'.

     If you believe that you are the arrangement of molecules in your brain, then until you have an organized brain, even beyond the formation of a spinal cord/brain stem and circulatory system, you have no self awareness, and hence do not exist yet.

     Unfortunately, in my view, we don't actually really know if our laws are applicable, because we refuse to acknowledge what we are debating. Thus we never even defined the topic of the debate.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 01/10/2006 @ 3:00pm

154. He,y a senator just asked it.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/10/2006 @ 3:06pm

155. I love how Love Liberty talks about hypocracy when he's more guilty of it than anyone here. Hey LL, YOU CAN'T BE PRO-WAR AND PRO-LIFE AT THE SAME TIME, asshole. Can anyone believe this snake? He talks of religion and how sophisticated, morally upright and magnanimous he is, how he detests prostituion, poverty, abortion and the 1001 other plagues that occur the world over, especially in the poor countries he boasts of helping, then turns around and blesses the most wasteful way of life, the blatant corruption honed by his sacred party, he justifies the lies fed to the public about the latest war (and though plenty of other wars have been based on lies, none was ever so overtly sinister and obviously planned with corporate avarice in mind, he applauds bombings apparently sanctioned by God, he swallows state-sponsored propaganda like a fish swallows a worm and calls it "truth" and "fact", and preaches his venom on this blog like the arrogant and greedy SOB he is.

     Yeah LL, you're so full of shit about helping countries in which you apparently have set up shop, planting chapels for your cult bullshit in exchange for them submitting to brain washing and God knows what else. Because the next minute you talk of the justification and need to blow innocent people to Kindom Come by backing this and that military excursion the US engages in, and don't tell me it's only bad guys that get bombed, because everyone knows innocent women and children are always suffer the most when it comes to warfare. You do nothing but propagate the lies and corporate bullshit you stuff your head with on the airwaves and boob tube. How many abortions have your wife's family members undergone in their shit-poor country of El Salvador? Maybe you should start by trying them before you go ranting on some moral crusade here.

     BTW, you use the word genocide in your post. Tell me, what do you call what happened in El Salvador or Guatemala thanks to your great government and their death squads trained and financed by Uncle Sam? How about those in Chile, Indonesia, Argentina or Brasil? You fucking hypocrite. It's only genocide when your enemy commits it, but just and necessary when your side performs it. Try talking genocide to your wife's paisanos, dickhole. Why can't you just lose control of your SUV and drive off a cliff?

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/10/2006 @ 3:20pm

156. MASK, I had a little italics problem in my earlier post. Here's where Nichols criticizes Feinfold, contrary to your claims:

     http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=23797

     Posted by MyParadigm at 01/10/2006 @ 3:20pm

157. Feingold, sorry (not Feinfold)

     Posted by MyParadigm at 01/10/2006 @ 3:21pm

158. what a joy the little dicked wonder CHIMI graced us with his presence...The best example yet of a severe case of penis envy

     Posted by libzsuk at 01/10/2006 @ 3:26pm

159. MYPARA

     Actually READ http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=23797

     It is the QUINTESSENTIAL "slap on the wrist with a wet noodle" from Mr Nichols....true, I was wrong about it being "silence"...but READ his descriptions of Feingold ("bold", "courageous", etc.) in the article.

     Sound like a "harsh rebuke" to you?

     Posted by Mask at 01/10/2006 @ 3:28pm

160. LIBZSUK,

     Why don't you wipe that Dirty Sanchez off your face and bring it. Or are you just gonna sing it?

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/10/2006 @ 3:29pm

161. Love Liberty: "And yes for those who will pose the question, I would try Doctors for Murder, I would try any woman and those who assist in an abortion for murder or manslaughter depending on the results of the investigation."

     Would this be some kind of religious tribunal or an "inquisition" that would try doctors for performing a centuries-old procedure? Would it be manslaughter, Murder 1 or murder 2? Would the woman in question be tried as an accessory before the fact or for murder as well. I'm assuming this wouldn't be a standard American-style court, since the charges would be based on the Old Testiment.

     Posted by BBATTEN 01/10/2006 @ 2:59pm

     BB,

     I seem to remember that prior to the Civil War, a white man could not be charged with murder for killing a black man since the black man was considered property and not a human being. Liberals like yourself are guilty of the same rationalization.

     I would restore it to the civil/criminal courts; Each case would be evaluated by District Attorneys exactly as they are done currently for any homicide. While religion plays a role for many in society in positing a value to human life, the mark of any civilized society is a respect for all human life.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/10/2006 @ 3:39pm

162. I have lingered too long today and I leave you now to your various discontents. I will be out of town for several days.

     Happy Trails

     Posted by love liberty at 01/10/2006 @ 3:41pm

163. More phony slogans from LL. Respect the life of those who agree with me, have no mercy on those who don't. Though I can see why he uses the slavery comparison, as to him slavery one, was and where possible is a good thing, especially when it's of the intellectual and religious type, and two, a live slave is better than a dead slave. Surely he practices what he preaches here - he values the little Phillipinos and Caribeños who make him drinks, fan his fat face and feed his pie hole while reciting the crap he's required them to learn in order to get their next meal. This is why development, especially when initiated by a religious organization, is so great.

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/10/2006 @ 3:50pm

164. What a resentful third world Nitwit....You have no problem taking our money though do you asswipe.

     Posted by libzsuk at 01/10/2006 @ 3:54pm

165. LIBZSUK,

     I'm an American residing in South America. I put my money where my mouth is, see, I didn't like what I saw there so instead of whining and left and haven't looked back, though I admit it is still painful to watch from a distance. What great balls do you have, huh? Join the army and support the troops or shut the fuck up, because anything else that comes out of your mouth is just cowardly lies and bullshit hiding behind jingoistic jargon and pathetic patriotism which you glean and recite as your corporate masters require you to.

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/10/2006 @ 4:02pm

166. Good grief....Let me be the 1st to thank you for moving...the more you detestable anti-american assholes leave this country the better off this county will be..Go sit on a banana shithead

     Posted by libzsuk at 01/10/2006 @ 4:10pm

167. In other words, you're a little person full of hot air, unable to answer the question directed at you because doing so would make evident your lack of balls and therefore right to voice a real opinion backed by pride. Ahhhh, how ignominy thirsts for respect. Go ride shotgun with LL, moron.

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/10/2006 @ 4:15pm

168. AP-WASHINGTON - The nation's emergency care system itself is ailing, warns a new health care analysis.

     "The emergency health care system's in serious condition. We have a safety net for health care that is frayed," said Dr. Stephen Epstein, an emergency care physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

     Epstein was a member of the American College of Emergency Physicians task force that studied the nation's emergency care. Their report is being released Tuesday.

     The panel found a system that is overcrowded, with access to emergency care declining and with poor capacity to deal with public health or terrorist disasters.

     "Americans assume they will receive lifesaving emergency care when and where they need it, but increasingly that isn't the case," said Dr. Frederick C. Blum, president of the physicians group.

     Overall, California, Massachusetts, Connecticut and the District of Columbia were rated best in emergency care, while the lowest grades went to Utah, Idaho and Arkansas.

     The number of emergency departments has declined by 14 percent since 1993 despite an increasing number of people coming to them for treatment, the report said.

     Hurricane Katrina showed the critical need for surge capacity in emergency medical care when a disaster occurs, the report noted. In addition, every year people suffering from flu crowd emergency rooms.

     The compact District of Columbia, which includes several emergency care centers, ranked first for access to emergency care, along with Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. No state received a failing mark for access.

     Even so, emergency care is one thing and getting a specialist in an emergency may be something else, Epstein noted.

     He recalled an incident in which a Massachusetts 8-year-old was hurt in a sledding accident. The emergency physician concluded that the child needed a neurosurgeon, but none was available in that part of the state that day.

     The child had to be transported, during a snowstorm, to a Connecticut hospital for treatment.

     Emergency patients tend to be sicker and more unstable than others, causing some specialists to be reluctant to see them because of the higher liability and higher malpractice insurance rates, Epstein said.

     The result is that some specialists, like neurosurgeons, leave certain states or refuse to provide emergency care.

     In addition to access to emergency care the report also looked at quality of care, efforts to prevent injuries and improve public health so emergency care wouldn't be needed and the medical liability climate in states, such as caps on non-economic damage awards and protection for physicians who provide emergency care.

     _______________________________________________

     Uh oh, looks like we need to elect a full slate of Republicans to fix another mess!

     Posted by colmes at 01/10/2006 @ 4:20pm

169. Frank

     Ya suppose that'll get Rio into hell as "bearing false witness"

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/10/2006 @ 4:21pm

170. Stupid fuc suk,

     What has happened to the utopia of America that your ilk always reminds us of?

     How could Chimi leave such a place of hope and opportunity?

     Can it be that America has no problem attracting the uneducated masses from Mexico, but is losing people like Chimi and now (unlike in decades past) losing the highly educated foreign students back to their own countries just after we've spent years teaching them?

     Positive immigration v emmigration numbers will not suffice if we are trading high skill for low skill.

     Posted by colmes at 01/10/2006 @ 4:51pm

171. MORE LIB LAWBEAKING AND HYPOCRACY

     Submitted by Bob Fertik on January 8, 2006 - 4:39pm.NSA Wiretapping

     The Bush Administration, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement all think it's perfectly ok for Big Brother Bush to spy on Americans.

     Of course, angry Americans are demanding hearings to stop this spying. But will the Republicans who control the White House and Congress stop their own spying? Of course not - just look at how the White House sabotaged John McCain's effort to stop torture, even after 90 Senators voted for it.

     So what can we do that will actually stop Big Brother Bush?

     We can turn the tables and start spying on them - thanks to commercially available phone records, as John Aravosis reports.

     Anyone can buy a list of your incoming and outgoing phone calls, cell or land-line, for $110 online...

     So I went to their site, plopped down $110, and within a day I had a list of every single phone number that called my cell, or that I called from my cell, for the month of November. I even had the dates the calls were made, and for a premium I could find out how long the calls were.

     Aravosis highlights all the people who should be especially worried about this massive invasion of privacy - FBI agents, police officers, journalists, Members of Congress, Bush administration officials...

     Hmm.......... think of the possibilities!!

     The trick, of course, is to find the phone numbers we want. Obviously the phone numbers for Bush, Cheney, and other top White House officials are carefully protected. But lots of the people we're interested in are outside the White House, and they are all busy people who run around with cell phones.

     Phone records are available from companies like these

     * Cell: http://locatecell.com/celltoll.html ($110 for 100 calls) * Landline: http://www.locatecell.com/lltoll.html ($125 for 100 outgoing long distance calls)

     If money is scarce, Democrats.com will reimburse you if you buy the records for an important phone number and discover gold when you get the records.

     PATHETIC EXCUSES FOR SO-CALLED AMERICANS ARE YOU PROUD OF YOURSELVES????

     Posted by libzsuk at 01/10/2006 @ 5:08pm

172. Colmes

     Unfortunately, we now educate many foreign students in areas like science and engineering and then send them home. (I work at a university, and its not like many foreign students aren't trying to stay, I'll assure you of that.)

     So we train and send away the bright, and then some of the educated citizenry end up ex-pat'ing like Chimi. I think this throws off the "intellect ratio" in our nation over the long term. I mean if we have more educated folks leaving, (and those that do tend to procreate less-than average - affluence relates more-or-less to education, and affluent families tend to have lower birth rates than average,conversely poorer people by-and-large have less education and have higher birth rates)

     SO: we end up with fewer reproducing intellectuals over time and more people like LibZ_sucker / Aludra / "Nutbag" who marry their cousin in the trailer down the way, thus proving evolution by their mutant offspring (while not believing in evolution, ironically enough) leading, over time to a 1984-ish "dumbing down" of the masses.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/10/2006 @ 5:10pm

173. PATHETIC ELITIST TURD

     Posted by libzsuk at 01/10/2006 @ 5:12pm

174. Feingold got Alito on the ropes.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/10/2006 @ 5:23pm

175. Really????Seems likes he is talking circles around your LIB leaders...It doesnt matter anyway...he will go through no matter how much shit you throw at him...

     Posted by libzsuk at 01/10/2006 @ 5:26pm

176. the only immigrants coming today are the wretched refuse. the germans, the french, the irish, the italians are no longer coming. why should they? give up health insurance, government pensions, civil libertities, a free press, etc. take a look at what america has become, and shudder.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/10/2006 @ 7:08pm

177. .

     JOHANNESROLF 01/10 @ 7:08pm

     the germans, the french, the irish, the italians are no longer coming. why should they? give up health insurance, government pensions, civil libertities, a free press, etc. take a look at what america has become, and shudder.

     I didn't know the Statue of Liberty says: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning for health insurance and govt pensions.

     Incidentally, if the Germans, French and Italians have civil liberties, and a free press, it's not their doing, but ours.

     And you really don't know what you are talking about if you think a savvy Frenchman compares our media invidiously to his. Much rather the opposite.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/11/2006 @ 06:35am

178. I open my eyes to see.

     That this isn't the way it should be

     America the land of the free, people cheer with obsession

     So blind they can't see the opression,

     For two hundred years we struggled to make it right

     Some say the future doesn't look so bright

     Others turn a blind eye

     While our fathers, our sons, our brothers are sent off to die,

     And the reason was why?

     Everyone has answers to that,

     Does all of us have heads that fat?

     This nation was built as a haven for all

     And steadily our actions bring it to fall

     If you are an American and your heart and soul are dedicated to this land,

     Don't sit with your head in the sand.

     Also I leave you with this, it's liberalism at it's core. It's raging fanaticism, and because I'm a liberal myself I think it's probably one of the best things ever written, perhaps you will too.

     With time people forget, and with time history repeats itself

     When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

     We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

     Posted by Treyvan at 01/11/2006 @ 07:50am

179. TREYVAN 01/11/2006 @ 07:50am

     Thanks for this rich and added value words, just good to put back into balance the discussion. I am amazed to read how some of my fellow bloggers experience an unstable relationship with reality. To my point of view the USA is now in its lowest moment in history, not because conservative or liberal ideology, but because power has been taken over by a buch of bandits who do not care for their people nor for the world, it is time to clean up the house.

     Posted by areyouok at 01/11/2006 @ 08:18am

180. Rio

     Guess I gotta give you the minister one. Not surprising all things considered...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/11/2006 @ 08:31am

181. Lib-sucker

     Shouldn't you be watching Jerry Springer or something?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/11/2006 @ 08:32am

182. Fool NACl. A free press that lets coal operators in this country get away with instititional murder. You stupid right wing bastards aren't worth the time it takes to type this. See you on the barricades, motherfuckers.

     Posted by Legba at 01/11/2006 @ 11:30am

183. Fuck y'all right wing dingalings. You ain't got the decency of a maggot.

     Posted by Legba at 01/11/2006 @ 11:30am

184. NACL: "I didn't know the Statue of Liberty says: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning for health insurance and govt pensions."

     NACL and his ilk figure that what we're trying to say to the poor and huddled masses is we need you for cheap labor. Forget about that promoting the general welfare thing.

     And NACL proudly calls himself a "Christian."

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 12:59pm

185. You can make all the snide comments you want about Johannesrolf, but every industrialized society on the planet treats healthcare as a right except for us. Conservatives believe we are unable to provide something to our citizens that every other country provides. They truly do hate America.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 1:01pm

186. alito will be confirmed. unless they find human remains in his freezer or something.

     election irregularities? since when have congressional dems gone there? good try mr. nichols, but all that matters in terms of alito has been summed up in the first sentence of my post.

     and no one will know how he will decide until he's sitting on the bench.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/11/2006 @ 1:19pm

187. PATHETIC EXCUSES FOR SO-CALLED AMERICANS ARE YOU PROUD OF YOURSELVES????

     Posted by LIBZSUK 01/10/2006 @ 5:08pm | ignore this person

     have u not already posted this elswhere? skree! skree!

     ...he will go through no matter how much shit you throw at him...

     Posted by LIBZSUK 01/10/2006 @ 5:26pm | ignore this person

     well, when your right your right, ms. coulter...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/11/2006 @ 1:26pm

188. and no one will know how he will decide until he's sitting on the bench.

     Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/11/2006 @ 1:19pm

     True, nobody can predict exactly the future, but it is pretty safe to assume that a leopard cannot change his spots. Take a look at an analysis of Alito's decisons done by Yale Law School - Alito Decisions [campusprogress.org]

     Pretty scary.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/11/2006 @ 1:55pm

189. HMAN

     oh i fear u r right, but who knows, we might get a souter. doubt it, though. will check the link...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/11/2006 @ 2:09pm

190. 84% of his decisions have favored government or corporate power over individuals. I don't think he's a Souter or even an O'Conner.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 2:40pm

191. BBATTEN--Our decisions supposed to work out to some percentage that you can be comfortable with? Maybe the people who did not get Alitos vote did not deserve Alitos vote. That 84% crap means nothing.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 01/11/2006 @ 2:50pm

192. I am no Alito fan, but be careful using raw statistics. This is not baseball. As was pointed out at the hearings (correctly, I must admit), many cases that get to the appellate level are ones in which the individual, who most often is the plaintiff, had its case thrown out pretrial. Given the deference given to rulings of the trial court, and the heightened standard for reversal, it is not surprising that the raw percentages are where they are. I would wager that for even a so-called liberal judge, the numbers skew in favor of upholding decisions in favor of defendants (who are often the corporations).

     The substance of Alito's rulings are another matter.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/11/2006 @ 3:18pm

193. .

     BBATTEN 01/11 @ 1:01pm

     You can make all the snide comments you want about Johannesrolf

     You, a specialist in snide comments, might have noticed that the snide comments came from Johannesrolf. That he cannot back them up and needs you to speak for him, shows in what a pickle he is in.

     You cannot defend your own impertinence and stupidities, as for example in Rothberg's thread.

     every industrialized society on the planet treats healthcare as a right except for us. Conservatives believe we are unable to provide something to our citizens that every other country provides.

     I don't know whether any of that is true. I know that the Soviet Union guaranteed health care to all, yet half of the hospitals outside its big cities lacked hot running water, and men's life expectancy fell into the mid 60s. That according to Emma Rothschild writing in the NY Review of Books.

     I know that while other countries say they guarantee health care, the US actually has the the medicines, equipment, and know how to do so, and does so. It spends considerably more for health care, per capita, than any other country. The 40 million uninsured notwithstanding, no one need do without health care. For those beneath the poverty line there is Medicaid. For the aged there is Medicare. There are free flue and pneumonia vaccination clinics. Moreover, any physician or hospital which for any reason denies a patient essential medical care, is by law subject to loss of license and or accreditation.

     We have a medical insurance crisis, not a health crisis, in this country. Insurance costs have been hemorrhaging since 1965. That needs to be fixed, I agree. One of the problems, as a NY Times editorial in December pointed out, is the labor unions. They have arrangements with and investments in large insurance companies. Which is why they have been supporting the medical insurance status quo.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/11/2006 @ 3:29pm

194. Salt boy,

     Wow I'm almost impressed that your not arguing about some petty minor thing (at least in the second half of your posting).

     Unfortunately your logic is awful.

     We're better than Russia because we have longer life expectancy....then according to CIA world factbook we are WORSE than 45 other countries because the life expectancy ranking of the USA is 46th.

     That might be good enough for you, but I, and most of the true patriots on this blog would like to see the US be a little bit better than 46.

     Posted by colmes at 01/11/2006 @ 4:09pm

195. NaCl

     "40 million uninsured notwithstanding"

     So we have health care for all in spite of the fact that 14% are uninsured? Do you not consider that marginally oxymoronic. You cite "the poverty line", yet millions live close to that edge and remain without "normal" health care. Sure, if you are lucky enough to live in an area with a functional emergency room, they won't let you die. But does that constitute "normal" medical care. I think not. Preventive medicine, pharmacological needs, dental, visual....many folks have to pick and choose between things like rent and medication. It happens every day. Is this "normal and reasonable" medical care. I say not foa nation that, per you own claim, has the best potential for care in the world. Now if we can just deliver that to the citizens therein...

     You are quick to point out the Soviet Union as an example (which I would argue is an outlier), yet you ignore the rest of the industrialized world which DOES have some variety of "universal" health care. So at one level I agree...it is a medical insurance crisis...the fact that we have medical insurance at all constitues a crisis that the rest of the industrialized world (the former Soviet Union notwhthstanding) seems to have avoided.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/11/2006 @ 4:13pm

196. Nacl, the primary reason why we pay much more per capita for healthcare is the insurance industry overhead as opposed to a government-run overhead. Please compare the operating costs of Medicare to that of private insurance industry operating costs and you will understand. And, the primary reason why we have a system where for-profit corporations are middle-men between us and our healthcare goes back to the influence of corporations in our government policy. You mentioned the Soviet Union -- that's a pathetically simple straw man. Why don't you look into Japan, Austrailia, Germany, France and yes, Canada and England. You conservatives love to talk about Canada, but polls consistently show that Canadians would never give up their system for ours.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 4:45pm

197. Mary, I don't even know if you have a point in all of that. In my mind the best system is one in which public servants working for you help PROVIDE you with healthcare to PROTECT your wellbeing. The purpose of our citizen-government is to provide for the general welfare and defense. If you don't believe healthcare ranks as part of the general welfare, that's certainly your right. I happen to think healthcare should be a right and that when it is a right, the population of a given society is more healthy.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 5:15pm

198. And Mary, Social Security is not "giving people other people's money." Social Security is a contract between the government and its working-class citizens. The fact that phony suppy-siders appropriated this money to pay for other things is irrelevent. Social Security is not an "entitlement" unless you believe all pension plans to be entitlements.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 5:18pm

199. Mary, there is no anecdotal evidence you can dream up that changes the fact that people in industrialized nations which treat healthcare as a right feel that their systems are superior to ours. We pay twice the average per capita that other countries pay and our system isn't close to the best when measured by statistical, as opposed to anecdotal, evidence.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 5:24pm

200. Mary says healthcare is "not a right, because it can't be a right." What??!! Mary, I hate to break it to you, but we decide which "rights" we get. You're not in charge, thank goodness. But, a person in the 19th century might have said that African American voting is "not a right, because it can't be a right" or that womens' sufferage is "not a right, because it can't be a right." The majority of good citizens came to their senses and decided these things were rights. Now, all a single-payer system does is it replaces the insurance industry with public servants to provide the middle-man between you and your healthcare. And since it's a middleman for all of us, we enjoy the power of population and get the associated volume discounts on drugs.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 5:32pm

201. Mary, I guess my question is why don't you want to take care of aged and infirm American citizens, some of whom have given their lives in service to their country and most of which were paying contributing members of society for their entire adult lives.

     Plus, many of your "indisputable facts" are actually disputable. If SS were a pay as you go plan, why did we increase the payroll tax rates in '83? What was that all about, Mary? And, in spite of what you say, SS was meant to be and designed to be a government-run pension plan. We pay into it with payroll taxes so we can get something later on.

     The only reason you see a contract with our government as one between a parent and infant is because you don't believe in or appreciate the foundation of what our government is supposed to mean. Our government is us, Mary. It's a citizen government. E Pluribus Unum. No kings. No mullahs. No oligarchy or even plutocracy. Sure, right now it's not working out that way, but I think that's because people with your mindset have been running things for a while.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 5:51pm

202. BB, NaCl, MBB

     Point of fact is that there is an inherent downside to healthcare as a "business" as it necessitates putting people into a cost-benefit analysis model. Doubly-odd, is that while screaming to protect "life" at all costs (i.e.; abortion or assisted suicide), the right finds no problem in reducing people to dollar figures in insurance computations of risk.

     The nation shouild adopt a universal / single-payer system focussed mainly on pro-active (sensible) and critical (necesaary) care. The rich can still be free to have lifts, tucks, sucks, etc. that they want to pay for. But let's give the country the same level of healthcare for its people as the UK or Malta does. Healthcare for profit might bring dollars into the game, but it does so at the expense of accessibility. Research could as easily be done in academe (where most originates anyway) and serve the public good at a lower cost.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/11/2006 @ 5:55pm

203. Mary: "Anybody who thinks that Canada, England, or France have a higher customer satisfaction than the US is a fool or is willfully ignorant or reality."

     The latest international Gallop poll (you can find this at their site) taken last year actually has Canada, England and France at higher ratings than us when asked if they are satisfied with their system. So, I'm not sure where you get the information that shapes your reality, but I'm guessing right-wing pundits are lying in your face. It's happening all over the country.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 6:27pm

204. How efficient is it for the healthcare industry to employ millions of workers with the express intent of denying people healthcare? What does that cost? What is the benefit to the public that insurance companies employ people to work to deny healthcare?

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 6:30pm

205. It may be time for people who think they understand capitalism to go back and re-read Wealth of Nations. Smith made it clear that the free market was NOT a model which would work for everything. He also had a real problem with chartered accounts (what we call corporations) and he also made it clear that government should not run like a business and businessmen should not be running government.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 6:34pm

206. watching the msm here (abc).

     oh lord - bush is blabbing his propaganda to a 7 year old...

     9 dems who are iraq war vets running for congress

     ok - what the hells the deal with alito's wife bawling in the hearings? oh lord....

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/11/2006 @ 6:43pm

207. Bibble, she started crying when Lindsey Graham asked Alito if he was a "bigot."

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 6:47pm

208. My 2¢.

     I understand a ‘right' as one where no one, esp. our state/fed gov., gets in ‘my' way to accomplish, but it's still up to me to have the will to do it, vote, speech, privacy, pursue happiness. An entitlement is something that the gov, like a parent, does for me or is viewed, even in the animal kingdom, as an obligation in order for survival (protection, food, shelter, education) or for a better quality of life. One trumps the other though. Roads for instance are needed, but it wouldn't matter whether or not I had a right to drive on them, within the est. rules of course, if there are none to drive on or they're so dangerous it negates the ability. Roads or modern transportation, like health care, are larger than an individual, or even a small group, and thus rises to the common good nationally, if not globally, to be an agreed condition and make a common goal. The argument is the solution. Knowing that corporations don't get sick, have babies, etc., it quickly becomes an ‘us', the individual, vs. them, the corporate lobby. Them may be winning.

     As for the current senate SC confirmation hearings, ouch. Just being able to watch a little but I have to ask what the hell is going on there. Surely they can form better questions on both sides. Nail this guy down. If he's confirmed it'll better if there's no questions remaining.

     Like just now, the question of abortion, ‘what's the dif between an accident, crime and choosing to terminate, not a crime'--duh. Just like a legit pulling of the plug, it's intent and context. Why do they think we're so dumb not to understanding they're framing the questions to be either so vacuous, as to protect or so leading, so as to beg a non-response or an obvious lie…

     It would be so refreshing if Alito would just tell the truth like: Yeah I listed that wacko extreme CAP(stopo) just because I wanted the job, that's all. That's why I'm saying and not saying other stuff here-- because I want this job, duh. OK prove I'm lying.

     Would the repub's not vote for Alito even if the dem's find that he lied about something or proves he's too extreme? Would the dem's vote for him if they cannot? HA.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/11/2006 @ 6:51pm

209. Mary: "I'm basing it on personal experience."

     Come on, Mary. None of us have any way of knowing about your personal experience. We can look for facts. There may be statistical polls, comparisons, numbers. As an "actuary" I would think you would understand that numbers are more persuasive than personal anecdotes. And, I'd be careful about developing public policy philosophy based on anecdotal evidence.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 6:52pm

210. Getting back to the purpose of this thread, I think the question of Bush v Gore should be given to every nominee, not just this one.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 6:54pm

211. Ok I type slow and as interupted a lot.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/11/2006 @ 6:56pm

212. BUSHFOOLS 01/11/2006 @ 6:51pm

     Please disregard my first paragraph on that one as I reread it and seems I lost track on what I was thinking... Got to stop doing this, too little time. Apologies.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/11/2006 @ 7:03pm

213. Bibble, she started crying when Lindsey Graham asked Alito if he was a "bigot."

     Posted by BBATTEN 01/11/2006 @ 6:47pm | ignore this person

     bb

     yeah - but still, what the hell? it was just wierd. mean ole demoncrats!!!!

     oh - and apparantly the msm acknowledges that global warming is real and offing lots of species.

     and tomorrow on gma a piece on sexy pregnant models. allright.

     and baby boomers getting lots of surgery

     but i think its time for the dems to reel it in now. alito's wife boohooing, he's getting approved anyway, all negative from here on...

     dont get me wrong...i want em to fight, to draw a line and die on the ramparts if need be, but not sure this is the time or place. maybe i'm wrong, but i think the fights about over anyway.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/11/2006 @ 7:04pm

214. MBB:

     "Canadians tell pollsters that they would never give up their system for ours because they technically have both as it is. They tell themselves they have universal coverage (in theory), but they don't (in practice)"

     Faux News polls MBB? Canucks don't have a national health care system that works? Talking out of your ass again, I see.

     Revenue collection for health care is administered by the federal govt. Each Cdn province has its own Health Ministry. Each province has legislation governing fee structures.Funding comes from a combo of tax revenues and remittances from employers and self insured residents. It has never been a free system. However, the cost is spread out throughout Canadian society. As an actuary, I presume you know how costs are spread overall.

     As to the rest of your comments.....bullshit. I lived for several years in Whitehorse Yukon....I suspect you probably don't know where that is....right next to Alaska. Every year, hundreds of Alaskans traveled to Whitehorse for health services, delivering babies, surgery etc. Why? Half the cost of equivalent services in Alaska.And, better patient to health care professionals ratios.

     You mentioned the fact that some indian tribes travel hundreds of miles to recieve health care. That is somethimes true. Case in point, the Village of Old Crow in northern Yukon. There are no roads. Yet the territorial govt sends health care profs in regularly to conduct clinics. Those requiring additional care are flown at govt expense to the closest medical facility.

     Yes, there are some Canadians who travel south for whatever health service they need. From my experience, these people are for the most part very well to do and don't quite agree with the socialized system. Pretty stupid demonstration of prinicples if you ask me.Who cares? It works well for 99% of the population and no, Canadians will never give it up.

     Posted by doumer at 01/11/2006 @ 7:14pm

215. Mary: "The reason we need to ration care is because our pre-paid care system (not true insurance) is a third party payer system and these are tremendously inefficient in allocating scarce resources among a population."

     Mary, that's just plain wrong. What our insurance-based system is doing is deferring cost. That's the insurance business, Mary. The name of the game is not paying. This is not rationing. It's increasing Insurance corporation profits. The way you lower the cost of insurance is by spreading the risk as broadly as possible. The way you make profits is by not insuring high risk customers and by figuring out ways to get out of paying. This is why a disjointed system of competing insurance companies is a bad model for providing a population with healthcare.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 7:22pm

216. Yeah, Mary, it's tough for a guy like Scalia. Being carted around on the VP's special jet to exclusive hunting preserves in Wyoming is a real burden. And those limosines most of them ride in -- I've heard the heating is sub-par and the bar is not well-stocked.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 7:26pm

217. Doumer, you may be a Canadian, you may be an expert, and you sound like one to me, but as she says, you can't tell her... After all, what are facts anyway in the face of strong anecdotal stories.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 7:28pm

218. Mary: "So two people for every one doctor. Does that seem likely to you?"

     Most doctors will tell you that they have to deal with lots of insurance company people just in the process of making medical decisions.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 7:45pm

219. Mary, how on earth could an actuary like yourself even begin to argue that spreading out the risk doesn't lower the cost per customer. Please. And, we already have that model and it has shown itself to be wanting. And, of course insurance companies lower cost by trying to limit what they cover. That's exactly what I was saying and why it doesn't work. They employ people with the express purpose of denying you coverage and you know it. This is not an efficient way to deliver healthcare to a population.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 7:49pm

220. Mary, this is ridiculous. We can all see with our own eyes that our healthcare system is a disaster compared to other industrialized nations. Who do you expect us to believe: you or our own eyes.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 7:51pm

221. Mary, why do you think we should believe an actuary who probably works for insurance companies (that's what actuaries do, right?) about whether or not private insurance is the best model for delivering healthcare? After all, "it's hard to get a man to agree with something if his paycheck depends on disagreeing."

     Posted by BBatten at 01/11/2006 @ 7:52pm

222. The annual reports that he provincial health ministries prepare on wait times have many procedures that stretch into dozens of week. You can't tell me that customer satisfaction is high when there are these tremendously long waits.

     Having lived in both countries, I find Canada to be much more pro-active in its practice of health care. Check out obesity rates, life expectancy, prevalence of Hep C, diabetes etc. Americas need of medical care is directly proportional to abysmal lifestyle.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/11/2006 @ 7:24pm

     News to me MBB. Provincial health ministries don't work time lag stats. How could they? The ministries administer payments based on services rendered and per prescribed rates. How could they possibly know when Joe Schmo went in for a CAT scan and the date he was scheduled for a procedure.The wait time is certainly reflected in the dates of the procedures, but the reasons for the wait time is not public record. Believe or not, the right of privacy consistent with medical records and history is treasured in canada.

     Posted by doumer at 01/11/2006 @ 8:03pm

223. dang...screwd up that post. MBB ends at "long waits"

     Posted by doumer at 01/11/2006 @ 8:07pm

224. NACL: "I didn't know the Statue of Liberty says: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning for health insurance and govt pensions."

     they wouldn't come here for that, many of us don't have those things. maybe it says that on the french statue. we are always told how high the taxes are there. well they know what they're getting for their taxes. we get corruption, endless war and the military industrial complex for our money. wake up right wing suckers, you, and everyone else, is being had, only difference is we know it and you are in denial

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/11/2006 @ 8:19pm

225. the long waiting time is a canard and a lie. here some poor people never get to see a doctor until they're dead, now that's a long waiting time.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/11/2006 @ 8:22pm

226. I still remember when I was earning minimum wage and severely twisted my ankle, yep black and blue and twice as big. I couldn't afford the co-pay/deductible and medicine or the time off. And I know there were people a lot worse off. I hobbled around for a few weeks and my employer was just sick about it. It took several years but he did fix it eventually but only because he cared. I haven't worked there for a decade or two but I know that is what really matters apart from universal health care, is a living wage and an employee that takes the initiative and cares otherwise it's the weakest link.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/11/2006 @ 9:05pm

227. I've been reading this thread, and the others on the Nation, and listening to the Alito hearings.

     I'm--as always--late to the party. BUT!

     Is anyone here interested in commenting on Alito's patent opportunism? His rank willingness to embrace--or disavow--anything to get ahead?

     Consider his responses to questions about his listing of his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton on job applications ca. 1985:

     "I was applying for a position in the Reagan administration. My answers were truthful. I listed things relevant to obtaining a political position."

     Back then, he claimed to be committed to CAP. Today, he tells us that he was only pretending. Does no one feel a bit queasy about a potential member of the SCOTUS who will say and do anything to get a job?

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/11/2006 @ 9:20pm

228. Posted by LISAJO 01/11/2006 @ 9:20pm

     he is a true conservative

     a man of unshakable principles.

     (Ha)

     Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:57pm

229. did I forget to mention that he was brillent?

     Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 10:11pm

230. Mary,

     Out of context,(sort of). But germaine to the topic of the direction we're heading..

     "Private Pension benefits are contractually guaranteed and vested benefits cannot be reduced."

     ...until the govt. allows them to buy each other out, stuff all the capital in their pockets, lay off many...then go bankrupt and hope the govt. can handle all those failed pensions and health plans. For people, who DID work hard and long and pay into an ACTUAL retirement plan, that they'll never see....cause it went in some CEOs pocket.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 01/11/2006 @ 10:30pm

231. Is anyone here interested in commenting on Alito's patent opportunism? His rank willingness to embrace--or disavow--anything to get ahead?

     Posted by LISAJO 01/11/2006 @ 9:20pm | ignore this person

     exactly why we have no idea how he will vote once he is in. once he is there, who's butt does he have to kiss?

     question - what are we non-republicans most concerned about here? abortion, presidential power, what? if the judge's resumes are filled with follow-the-crowd, tell-the-prospective-boss-what-he-wants-to-hear buttkissings, then his decisions are all we have to judge by.

     gotta admit, though, "didnt remember" belonging to the princeton reactionary elitist club? bullshit! he could have done better than that, and if he's not a racist, maybe could have even gotten away with telling the truth...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/11/2006 @ 11:26pm

232. 1 in 4 pregnancies end in abortions - source - nightline

     fact check anyone?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/11/2006 @ 11:41pm

233. Lisajo et al .. opportunism? that's good. But lets go for the nitty gritty -- his religion.

     FARCE (..it is for Sam I Am. Do you like Green eggs and Ham?)

     A Certain Kind of Irreality ….

     Are the Senate hearings on Samuel Alito -- unless and until questions concerning his religious affiliation are addressed.

     This irreality is sustained at the unconscious level of the group-psyche under the delusion of protecting God and rescuing fallen humanity. This is the reversal of truth.

     *****

     A citizen is entitled to ask: is there a deliberate conspiracy to refusal to consider the implications of appointing another open Roman Catholic to the highest Court? --when its just-appointed Chief Justice belongs to this sect, and one of its most outspoken ideological members (Antonin Scalia) a. selected Bush over Gore in '00; and b. has demonstrably conjoined intellectual incompetence with overbearing manner; c. belonged to the same congregation as Robert Philip Hanssen, Soviet Russian spy and member of the ulta-right-wing, "No Nothing" Opus Dei sect.

     How do we know this secret clique, perhaps in laison with other off-shore, non-American influence groups (such as AIPAC), is not conspiring behind the scenes to take over our country? – like a 5th column. There is precedent. Karol Wojtyla, later Pope Paul II, conspired with William Casey's CIA back in Reagan's era to subvert authority in Poland. It was to bring down communism, which justifies it according to some, but it was nevertheless precedent for use of Church influence for political ends. Why not in atheistic, heathen America, also?

     This was the time, and these were the players who also brought religion silently, but ineradicably and just as, if not more, explosively, world-wide, when the CIA incited jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan among the Taliban in Pakistan. This is the origin of the karmic hatred of Americans by religious Muslims who admire Bin Laden. He was helped by the U.S., who was siding with Saddam Hussein in the Iraq / Iran war and therefore knew they were at opposite ends of the jihad scale. It took an irrevocable act of war, Shock and Awe inflicted on Iraq's hapless capital city, Baghdad, destroying the oldest, finest, most sacred sites of human civilization forever to jam the two together by propaganda and unleash this karmic catastrophe. Meanwhile, continents and oceans away, the right-wing of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, in Nicaragua and El Salvador, are setting up the basic understandings with local military dictators for the US to back up slaughter of political enemies, followers of Liberation Theology of Peru's priest Gustavo Gutierrez, promoting "a more viable economic option for the poor of Latin America", whose works were anathema to JP II and Opus Dei. This strain of Roman Catholicism has threaded the acts, behavior and agenda of a faction of the Republican party – probably with the help of cross-over Democrats such as Joe Lieberman -- ever since Ronal Reagan's election in l980. It re-appeared as the skeleton of international alliances comprising "the coalition of the willing" to slaughter Iraqis. Spain, Portugal, Italy (after Berlosconi's election) – and of course, Israel, but much more of that later – were Bush and Blair's meat and potatoes go-to countries to get military support and propaganda cover.

     This history and its psychological perservations, as Jung called cosmic residues – revenants of Reaganism – establishes the context, of their show of farce, ha ha. Which is what the Alito hearings are unless his connection with this clique is probed. The safeguard against foreign takeovers which was built into the constitution by separation of church and state have been breached. This is the fault of the U.S. Senate, of specific Senators who refuse to raise the question. They are the clowns, like "Scooter" Libby "connecting the roots of the trees" undergrounf for us. This is the theme the extended farce is built around: will his religion and possible entanglements with Opus Dei be pursued?

     The consequences are very much worth pursuing if not.

     First of all, it will be another irreversible put-over by the same ones, using the same methods as put over the Iraq war. They will have done it again to America, whose John Q. Public will wake up to after it's too late to do anything about it. "You went along with it; democracy was on display in the Senate hearing, largely abused by the Democrat's partisanship," the line will go. The straighter the face the funnier it gets. These are people who would, first, leave out crucial information in order to scare the elected representatives into empowering Bush to wage a previously scripted war, preemptive war; then, even after having been exposed, berates them for flip-flopping; lacking the will to follow through commitment of U.S. troops, now that blood, not oil, is flowing home from the adventure. Feckless liberals.

     No. This time it won't work. The ones who started the Iraq war, using "9/11", and the '11.-01 anthrax attack as excuses, are the ones who must pay. In every way. That is one thing hidden from the limelight by refusing to recognize the religious factor. Religion is partly what linked Bush, The Vatican, Opus Dei (which are separate entities), Tel Aviv, others; and brought on the the unprecedented virulent hatred of everything America stands for in the Muslim world, and beyond.

     This is an appeal. Won't anyone – won't all -- take up the call -- to end the farcical show? – lance the boil; scrape the scab. Don't let us descend into Re-pube hell, for Chrissakes.

     In sum: Alito's appointment would make too many Roman Catholics on The Supreme Cousrt, "opening a back door to the Vatican, through prayer" by workers of the international sect Opus Dei. The history of the Reagan era in America, coinciding with the use of religion to subvert governments and oppress the poor, coinciding with Johnny-one-note harping by the media of mass communication on Vatican-centric issues such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality (ironically), and "family values" by the same one's who brought you "All in the family" and "The Sopranos", creates a huge assumption that what we have on stage is farce as deadly as the Bird Flu.

     For other views, see the OD board thread below under "politics". It goes beyond that to control of the judiciary branch of government.

     *****/ Note. "Stick a fork in it. This one's done." -- posted by frankgrits, on-line Nation thread under John Nichols article on the Alito Senate hearing in response to my post bitching about it. (Nichol's gist: to demand that the nominee respond to issues raised by Gore v. Bush, in re the Florida 2000 vote recount. Yes, certainly, constitutional issues aplenty abounded in that, which one would have thought followers of common sense would begin with. Not to be. No way, Jose.)

     The definition of "farce" shows the word to have been used first for 'stuffing', as in cramming meatbread into the turkey's craw before baking. Then it became a metaphor for short skits of clownish actions in imaginary ("farcical") situations that were used between acts of a play to entertain waiting customers; then, for a type of extended comedic routine, for instanced The 3 Stooges, Sid Ceasar, The Marx Brothers, etc. When applied to reality, as in the on-going Alito hearing, it predicates what the American public is witnessing as similar buffoonery. A bunch of clowns sent in between the acts to stuff the the turkey's craw (Bush Opus Dei Republicans) before they decide to bake us. __________________

     Posted by jones at 01/12/2006 @ 12:40am

234. .

     JOHANNESROLF 01/11 @ 8:19pm

     they [the French] know what they're getting for their taxes. we get corruption, endless war and the military industrial complex for our money. wake up right wing suckers, you, and everyone else, is being had, only difference is we know it and you are in denial

     The Left, not least in sophisticated France, is clear-seeing while Americans are dummies, eh?

     Yes, Americans are as a rule not especially sophisticated. Yes, often they are small town hicks and slow talkers and a little naive. But at least those hayseeds did not throw in their lot with Hitler, or fall in love with Stalin. They did not spend the Cold War yelling Better Red than Dead. They were not fooled by the murderous Mao or the tyrannical People's Republics. They did not make excuses for the purge trials of the 1930s, the Gulags, the suppression of the Hungarian and Czech Revolutions, the prison empire of Khrushchev and Brezhnev. When the Wall come down, the microphones studding the brickwork of East Germany did not surprise them.

     Americans eat too much fast food, drink too much bad beer, and read comic books (although not Asterix and Obelix). They are not as clever as the Left and certainly not the French Left. Still, when they see a regime that pulls out the tongues of those who whisper against it, they don't go into the streets on its behalf. When an insurgency boasts, it is fighting democracy, religious toleration and free speech, they don't call it a "Resistance," movement.

     Two months ago I talked with a fellow who had won a MacArthur Genius award. He mentioned having fallen in love with Paris in 1961. He said he had gone to live there with his bride to escape the oppressive Joe McCarthy era.

     I reminded him that 1961 was the heyday of John F Kennedy, not Joe McCarty. The Tailgunner was dead and buried and had been censored by the Senate almost a decade earlier. I also reminded him that hundreds of corpses had floated through the Paris he fell in love with in 1961. Those bodies had been protesters against the Algerian war, whom the gendarmes arrested and then beat to death in their cellars. The Paris police commissioner was Maurice Papon, the same fellow who as a high Vichy official in Bordeaux had sent thousands of Jews to their deaths.

     The worst of it was, that news was suppressed, all those corpses floating in the Seine became a non-event. Not the French press, not the French electronic media, not France's political parties, including the socialists and communists, not the Elysee where De Gaulle, the President of the Republic resided, not the judiciary, no one mentioned the matter (let alone prosecute the murderers). Everybody who was anybody, from left to right, knew what had happened; no one spoke of it. And not just that fall.

     Copies of an Algerian newspaper featuring an anniversary article about those 200 + corpses, were yet confiscated by the police at the Lyon airport on October 19, 1998. That mass murder was still being covered up in 1998. The entire French establishment had colluded in suppressing the crime all those decades. There had been a few curt references in back pages. But nothing on the front of any French paper. Not a word on French radio or TV. That silence lasted for decades. Only when Leon Juspin became prime minister was a small brass plaque affixed on a railing over the Seine regretting the atrocity.

     Those are the French who know what is what, who know what they are getting. And you geniuses of the Left, you clear seeing humanitarians, no one pulls the wool over your eyes. Naturally you are disgusted by the stupid Americans and the wicked USA.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/12/2006 @ 08:23am

235. .

     COLMES 01/11 @ 4:09pm

     We're better than Russia because we have longer life . expectancy....then according to CIA world factbook we are WORSE than 45 other countries because the life expectancy ranking of the USA is 46th.

     That might be good enough for you, but I, and most of the true patriots on this blog would like to see the US be a little bit better than 46.

     Listen you cross-eyed petunia, I did not say, we were better than anyone, your crowd said, we were worse than everyone ("we are unable to provide something to our citizens that every other country provides" BBatten).

     It is a fact that the free medical care guaranteed to every citizen in the worker's paradise, gave everyone equally lousy medical care. That contributed, in part, to Russia's declining life expectancy .

     Now you, you logician, think that is confuted by America's 46th place on a life expectancy list. Who heads that list? Andorra with 70,000 people, and San Marino with 30,000. The top ranks include countries like Macao, San Marino, Singapore, Hong Kong, Guernsey, Iceland, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Jersey, Faeroe Islands, Aruba, Martinique. Those are less nations than gated communities. There are masses of US neighborhoods with hundreds of thousands of population wherein life expectancy rivals that of those leaders. Moreover, our 77.71 year average is within arms reach of the European Union's 78.30 years. Comparisons with Japan, Sweden, Italy consider mature and homogeneous populations that are quite unlike the US. She doubled her population since WWII. She has been importing medical problems for decades. Other cultures are often ashamed of illness, fear hospitals, refuse surgery, ignore symptoms, are lax about keeping MD appointments, about taking prescribed medicines, etc. In short racial, ethnic and socioeconomic factors, largely absent in a Japan or Norway make for significantly lower life expectancy among minority groups, and pull down America's overall score.

     Finally, the very excellence of American medicine works against our ranking. We have, for example, a very high rate of infant mortality. Because many preterm infants which everywhere else are considered unviable, they fall below the WHO minimum weight (less than 500 grams), and consequently are not counted as live births, are fought for with advanced life support measures in the US. Many of these problematic premies are saved. Still, a substantial number do die within the first year. That makes US I M rates seem terrible. They are not.

     But I am a fool for trying to explain this to you, as you do not want to understand.

     Another example of such mental constipation is BBatten. He writes:

     Nacl, the primary reason why we pay much more per capita for healthcare is the insurance industry overhead as opposed to a government-run overhead.

     The skyrocketing of medical costs began with the birth of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Suddenly the govt was paying the bills and before long the medical industry went to town. Hospital per diems shot up from under $100 to where now an average four day stay costs around $14,000.

     That is not explained by increased paper work! There was a dizzy increase in equipment purchases, staffs and everything from the cost of surgical theaters to paper cups and disposable gloves. Because the govt was paying. Costly equipment (dialysis machines, CAT scanners, lung and heart machines) previously available only in special centers, or university hospital, were suddenly being acquired by every little infirmary. Because Uncle Sam was paying. That ripped through the entire system. Private insurers were pulled along and forced to raise their premiums. The govt responded by requiring ever more documentation for every item billed. The medical industry's answer was an entirely new bureaucracy, expert in finessing medical records to justify the heavy billing. Under the law, those clerical staffs salaries were also paid by the insurance programs. Sure those salaries contribute to the overall rise in costs, but they are not the cause of the money hemorrhage, they are a symptom. The basic problem is, when the govt pays there is no incentive to keep costs down, but a great incentive to achieve ever larger bites.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/12/2006 @ 08:58am

236. Comments on NACL 01/12/2006 @ 08:58am

     It is true that statistics must always be handled with care, NACL is right in his analysis concerning mortality/natality and life expectancy. Also, concerning social security, the big problem in the european countries is that universal social security was bad managed and created large deficits, therefore today most of these countries have changed the system in order to increase the optimization of management either by privatising of "agencying", it is true that if Uncle Sam or Uncle Europe is paying the bill, the public management is under the stress of corporate world to overspend.

     In any case it is a matter of interpretation and efficiency, which is different of the whole philosophy of the issue, These "social" countries are working under solidarity principles "paradise state", the USA is working under utilitarian principles "charity - minimum state", both are quiet close, only the principle changes.

     Posted by areyouok at 01/12/2006 @ 09:14am

237. Comments on NACL answering JOHANNESROLF 01/11 @ 8:19pm

     NACL is mixing pears with apples, While the French 1961 atrocities and silence is true, as is the Algerian genocide, this has nothing to do with social security, besides the French, the Americans and many others know what they want in this issue "to get more paying less", this is the backbone of the issue, how to operate solidarity and/or charity under such a stressing bamlance as "getting the maximum by giving the minimum"?, that is a political debate.

     Posted by areyouok at 01/12/2006 @ 10:20am

238. Nacl: "Another example of such mental constipation is BBatten. He writes:

     Nacl, the primary reason why we pay much more per capita for healthcare is the insurance industry overhead as opposed to a government-run overhead."

     Before you start projecting "mental constitpation" on other posters, maybe you can explain to all of us how private, for-profit insurance companies with multi-million dollar CEO payments, huge legal departments and hungry stockholders can possibly run with less overhead than a government-run program. The operating cost of Medicare is under 5%. The operating cost for the average insurance corporation is at least 3 or 4 times that much.

     It would indeed be "mental constipation" for someone to ignore the obvious: corporations pass these costs on to the consumer -- that's one of the main reasons why healthcare costs have risen. NACL, your position makes no sense. You are trying to argue against the obvious. You are straining and grunting to "pass" this information to us even though your mind has tightened around a large chunck of conservative misinformation that blocks other more logical thoughts. Perhaps the loosening of your mind with the exlax of information will finally allow you to release these conservative myths into the toilet of public discourse.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/12/2006 @ 12:33pm

239. NACL: "The basic problem is, when the govt pays there is no incentive to keep costs down, but a great incentive to achieve ever larger bites."

     This is another logic "blockage" you have in your thinking. When our system works correctly, there is the ultimate incentive: this is the taxpayers' money. In corporations, there is far less incentive to keep costs down because you can pass them on to the consumer -- especially in oligopolies where consumers have far less choice and there is collusion in pricing. Strain and grunt as much as you can, NACL. You simply can't "pass" information to us that makes no logical sense. You've obviously been dealing with this personal problem of yours, this "mental constipation" you speak of, for quite some time -- so long that you now think everyone suffers from this debilitating condition. Not true, NACL. Some of us are able work through the "blockage" of corporate propaganda and see insurance corporations as the huge conglomerates of waste in our system that they are.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/12/2006 @ 12:49pm

240. Evidently NACL is in the can working out his logical inconsistencies.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/12/2006 @ 1:36pm

241. I'm sorry...I want the Alito nomination stopped, too, but...

     Kennedy came off silly and some might say (probably the Right wing TV and radio hosts) as "McCarthyite" with his "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the CAP Party?"

     The weak spin I heard at lunch from Al Franken on "Air America" was even worse..."Martha-Ann should have blamed Samuel, not the Dems for the CAP controversy!!!"

     Seriously, who decided to make Kennedy "point man" on this...his "er-uh" Beantown sot accent and "Answer the question, sir!!!" attitude make him seem simultaneously clownish and mean.

     Why wasn't it Schumer or Feingold? I think it's obvious now, that Senate Dems were putting on a show...to raise funds from PFAW and the other groups for November, but with no SERIOUS intentions of trying to actually FIGHT against this nomination!

     Posted by Mask at 01/12/2006 @ 2:11pm

242. .

     BBATTEN 01/12 @ 1:36pm

     NACL is in the can working out his logical inconsistencies.

     NACL is in the can wondering whether he should flush and wash his hands of you.

     I have "a logical backlog" eh? You think the medical insurance crisis is due to private insurers being less efficient administrators of the paper work. Medicare operating costs are under 5% while private insurers require a 10 and 15% bite.

     You however haven't asked yourself why the inefficiencies of the private insurers did not produce a medical insurance cost crisis before 1965? Why did the system's money hemorrhage only start after Medicare and Medicaid, with their great efficiency, entered the picture?

     Accepting for arguments sake that Medicare's operating costs are 5% while private insurers require 15%, how does that explain why the average per diem hospital cost was under $100 in 1965. But then it began to quickly and steadily skyrocket so that now the average hospital stay of 4 days costs over $14,000. How do the clerical inefficiencies of private insurers (and inflation) explain that, you logician?

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/12/2006 @ 3:37pm

243. .

     AREYOUOK 01/12 @ 10:20am

     NACL is mixing pears with apples, While the French 1961 atrocities and silence is true, as is the Algerian genocide, this has nothing to do with social security, besides the French, the Americans and many others know what they want in this issue "to get more paying less", this is the backbone of the issue, how to operate solidarity and/or charity under such a stressing imbalance as "getting the maximum by giving the minimum"?, that is a political debate.

     I'm not mixing apples and pears. You are shopping for fruit in a hardware store.

     I was responding to JOHANNESROLF. He had first said:

     the germans, the french, the irish, the italians are no longer coming. why should they? give up health insurance, government pensions, civil libertities, a free press, etc. take a look at what america has become, and shudder. 01/10 @ 7:08pm

     He had followed that up with:

     they [the French] know what they're getting for their taxes. we get corruption, endless war and the military industrial complex for our money. wake up right wing suckers, you, and everyone else, is being had, only difference is we know it and you are in denial 01/11 @ 8:19pm

     I was replying to left ideologues defaming the US as blind, brutal bullies as against alert, caring and careful Europeans.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/12/2006 @ 3:45pm

244. "NACL: "The basic problem is, when the govt pays there is no incentive to keep costs down, but a great incentive to achieve ever larger bites."

     this is an excellent description of the military procurement process and our military spending in general. thank you.

     as far as that anecdote about the french beating people to death, I refer him and everyone else to a hundred years of rule by the KKK, with lynchings in the tens of thousends. we can add the genocide perpetrated on the indiginous indian population,(even more thorough than Hitler) murdering tens of thousands in the Phillippines and so much more. but of course that's not what we were talking about, as BBatten astutely pointed out. we were talking about social conditions here and there, but NACL is a loon and he cannot keep his feeble mind on one story at a time

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/12/2006 @ 7:11pm

245. .

     JOHANNESROLF 01/12 @ 7:11pm

     NACL is a loon and he cannot keep his feeble mind on one story at a time . . . as BBatten astutely pointed out. we were talking about social conditions here and there,

     Yes, somebody surely is adrift.

     You have forgotten your post of 01/11 @ 8:19pm. It bemoaned the US lagging the French and other Europeans in among other things, the matter of civil liberties and a free press. Then you sharpened your point by posting on 1/11 at 8:19pm, that the French have a govt that serves them honestly, while ours is corrupt and suckers Americans.

     My riposte pointed to the Paris police beating to death in its courtyards over 200 protesters and dumping them in the Seine. I noted that the French establishment, the judiciary, parliament, the head of state, the political parties, everyone colluded in that atrocity. Not least the press and electronic media which covered it up for 40 years. Most Frenchmen remain ignorant of the event to this day.

     That was insufficiently direct, insufficiently focused for you?

     Now you say:

     about the french beating people to death, I refer him and everyone else to a hundred years of rule by the KKK, with lynchings in the tens of thousends. we can add the genocide perpetrated on the indiginous indian population,(even more thorough than Hitler) murdering tens of thousands in the Phillippines and so much more.

     Today's French state commits a massive atrocity and keeps the news out of the papers, and off the radio and TV for decades. That you equate with the pioneers fighting Indians on the frontier and with the KKK, which the FBI broke up over sixty years ago. I'm the one who can't keep my "feeble mind on one story at a time"? ! I'm the loon.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/13/2006 @ 07:41am