SCOTUS | MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Archive for the 'SCOTUS' Category

(Chronologically Listed)

Obama Finds That Pick. . .

Obama stated on the campaign trail that he would look for bench picks for the courts that had “empathy” for various groups. In selecting Sonia Sotomayor, Obama established one thing, compassion for competant firefighters who qualify for well deserved promotions is not one of his prerequisites. Hopefully Anthony Kennedy isn’t a douche who comes to the conclusion that a Title IX approach to affirmative action (eliminating programs and practices because you can’t achieve equality of results) is just fine by him.

And the Other Shoe Drops

So, while you were all busy saying “good riddence” to Arlen Specter, the wheels of fate were in motion to kick us in the ass once more. In specific, the news is now reporting that Justice David Souter will be retiring from the Supreme Court. Now, had we not been total fuckwits with Specter, we might have been in a position to filibuster the next Ruth Bader Ginsburg clone that the Dems will put up for the court. We might have been in a position to pay back the Dems for the many judicial filibusters we endured while Bush was president. We might have been able to demand a somewhat less sickening liberal. Now, Obama is going to put up someone to the left of Karl Marx and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. So, are we at rock bottom yet? Or can we make this any worse for ourselves?

4th branch of government

So, are y’all aware of the black hole of economic death that we’re screaming towards? Forget the crazies in the media. They’re bad, but they can only mold the minds of weak and stupid people. Yeah, I know, it’s working. There are a lot of Barack supporters. But they can be made smarter and they will leave the Obama camp and the media will have failed. Congress problems? Nothing we can’t and haven’t taken care of previously. Remember 1994? 2006? Congress we can handle when we get mad enough. No, our problem is with uncontrolled, unaccountable government agencies sticking us with mandates and regulations that will kill our economy. Today’s problem child is our very own EPA. I call it our own, because it was approved by Nixon. So, for better or worse, the EPA is a “pandering republican looking for love from the left” caused issue.

About 18 months ago in Mass vs. EPA the SCOTUS said in a 5-4 decision that the EPA must use the 1970 clean air act to regulate greenhouse gases, siding with lefty states, the Sierra Club and other lunatic enviro-wackos. I do want to be clear here. The EPA lost. The (Bush appointed) head of the EPA declined to regulate carbon dioxide under the clean air act. The SCOTUS basically said they had to. The EPA went to work and came back with a 200 plus page blueprint containing 33 programs to regulate every aspect of the economy. Tractors, cars, lawn mowers, RV’s, boats, planes could be subject to permitting from the EPA. Think about that. Do you need a tractor? You will have to fill out a form and send it (with a nice check too) and hope you get a permit. Want a boat? Fill out this form and send in your dough and hope that the person who gets your application has had a decent day. Run a landscape company? Well, get ready for a dozen or so permits for everything: Your mowers, your cars, your weed eaters, chainsaws. Use natural gas in your company like a restaurant? Or someone who sells and installs water heaters or gas furnaces? If you go over some vaguely defined threshold that can be redefined on an EPA decree, you’ll have to beg for your permits.

Here’s the worst part: the vagueness of it. If you own a company and want to expand to a bigger place and it’s over 100k sq ft (a 10 story 100×100 building) well, you have to have installed “appropriate carbon control technology” before you can get the permits. What is appropriate carbon controlling technology? Well, there is no definition and no guarantee that such technology even exists. The EPA wouldn’t define it in the package. They’ll know it when they see it and if they don’t see it, you can’t get the building. It will be possible to get an EPA person who basically strings you along because you don’t have the right technology for your “widget” factory when in reality the person just doesn’t know what it is.

The US Chamber of Commerce looked at it and found that over 1 million new companies (small businesses) that have never had anything to do with the feds other than taxes would now be regulated by the EPA. Welcome to Al Gore’s utopia.

All of this will be ours without a congressional vote or a presidential decree. The EPA will say it must be, and that’s the way it is. It is entirely possible that the EPA, without congress even voting on it, could enforce it’s own version of Kyoto. You remember that one, right? The pact that the senate voted down 98-0 or something like that. Doubt it? Well, look the fun in DC a couple weeks ago. The Warner-Lieberman bill had a cap and trade system in it and did other things to combat the myth of climate change and was voted down overwhelmingly. Blown out of the water in bipartisan fashion. Right after, the EPA came out with it’s own cap and trade system that it said it was going to mandate and enforce going so far as to say it didn’t need permission from congress because it interprets the 1970 clean air act as allowing it. Think on that one for a while. If it doesn’t need congressional approval to enforce certain levels of carbon output, who can stop it from changing the levels? They already have changed the levels for ozone measurements and mandates. When the air quality improved and started resulting in fewer red days, they lowered the standard to get more. On a whim. New standards. Right now it’s run by pseudo business friendly Bush appointees. If Barack gets in, he will bring in an Al Gore wannabe to run the place. Still think an EPA mandated Kyoto is out of the question?

The EPA is not bad now, but when the next liberal gets in, we’re screwed. They will use this ruling to set the EPA above the congress. We need to take this back and the way to do it is through the SCOTUS. One SCOTUS nominee will change everything. One of the majority of Kennedy, Stevens, Breyer, Souter or Ginsburg leaving and being replaced with a thinking conservative would roll this ruling back. What do you think Barack will appoint to the court when one leaves? McCain may be a risk, yes, but Obama is a certainty. He will put as many Ginsburgs on the court as possible. As government claims more and more of our life, every thing that we can do to stop them needs to be done. At this moment, that is the defeat of Obama. Obama’s defeat is a must.

McCain and the Supreme Court

Excerpted from the Wall Street Journal, by Steven G. Calabresi and John O. McGinnis; without commentary because I’d just be cheerleading:

We believe that the nomination of John McCain is the best option to preserve the ongoing restoration of constitutional government. He is by far the most electable Republican candidate remaining in the race, and based on his record is as likely to appoint judges committed to constitutionalism as Mitt Romney, a candidate for whom we also have great respect.

We make no apology for suggesting that electability must be a prime consideration. The expected value of any presidential candidate for the future of the American judiciary must be discounted by the probability that the candidate will not prevail in the election. For other kinds of issues, it may be argued that it is better to lose with the perfect candidate than to win with an imperfect one. The party lives to fight another day and can reverse the bad policies of an intervening presidency.

The judiciary is different. On Jan. 20, 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70. Most of them could be replaced by the next president, particularly if he or she is re-elected. Given the prospect of accelerating gains in modern medical technology, some of the new justices may serve for half a century. Even if a more perfect candidate were somehow elected in 2012, he would not be able to undo the damage, especially to the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, for judicial conservatives electability must be a paramount consideration. By all accounts, Mr. McCain is more electable than Mr. Romney. He runs ahead or even with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the national polls, and actually leads the Democratic candidates in key swing states like Wisconsin. Mr. Romney trails well behind both Democratic candidates by double digits. The fundamental dynamic of this race points in Mr. McCain’s way as well. He appeals to independents, while Mr. Romney’s support is largely confined to Republicans.

With many more Republican senators up for re-election than Democrats, the nomination of Mr. Romney could easily lead to a Goldwater-like debacle, in which the GOP loses not only the White House but also its ability in practice to filibuster in the Senate. Thus, even if we believed that Mr. Romney’s judicial appointments were likely to be better than Mr. McCain’s — and we are not persuaded of that — we would find ourselves hard-pressed to support his candidacy, given that he is so much less likely to make any appointments at all.

MUST READ the whole thing.

Please do note their Northwestern University faculty profiles linked above. These two are solid originalists, like Scalia.

(Sooper-seekrit message to the Anchoress–this is another reason for you to vote for McCain.) ;)

In case you missed it–Conservative lawyers for McCain

I saw the news about Ted Olson at the Contentions blog last night, along with the news that Miguel Estrada, Steven Calabresi, and Charles Fried have endorsed John McCain.

What a buncha libs!!!1!1
/eyeroll

Here’s Ted Olson:

Take that, Mark Levin. You aren’t fit to shine any of those mens’ shoes, and neither are the other children on the playground.

Since people are building a strawman in homage to John McCain, regarding how they think he’ll appoint liberal judges to the bench, I’ll offer these quotes. Snagged from the comments at the Volokh Conspiracy:

New York Times, October 6, 1987.

“One should remember that, if our courts are free to go beyond the terms of our cherished Constitution to create new constitutional mandates that some might find acceptable, the Supreme Court in later years could use that free-roaming power to create mandates we don’t like. Neither course is sound. The only sound course for the courts is to apply the law as it’s written, not create it as they might wish it to be.

“Again the issue is not whether Bork is anti-abortion or anti-privacy. The question is this: Is Robert Bork unfit for the Supreme Court because he believes this decision [Roe v. Wade] is logically and constitutionally flawed? I think not.

“Of course we must protect minorities and even majorities from societal discrimination. But this doesn’t mean that, because he’s criticized the methodology the Court’s used, he’s any less committed to full and fair enforcement of the equal protection clause. All it means is that he’s a smart and outspoken enough legal scholar to point out some of the very real problems with the Court’s legal reasoning.”

Los Angeles Times, July 25, 1990.

Republican Sens. Phil Gramm of Texas and Don Nickles of Oklahoma each gave tentative endorsements to Souter. But Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona expressed frustration that the President had nominated a low-profile judge, apparently to avoid the kind of blood bath triggered by the nomination of Bork.

“Any first-year law student would tell you his chance of an eventual appointment to the Supreme Court is directly related to the paucity of writing or speaking on controversial issues,” McCain said acidly. “It gives us a largely unknown quantity in appointments to the bench.”

1.23.2008 9:14pm

QED.

McCain + “The Bitch” = Manufactured Outrage!

Okay, I finally saw “the” video where the woman asked, “how do we beat the bitch.” Talk about manufactured outrage. If you missed it, here it is.

Remember when John McCain made the “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” joke? Remember his response to the manufactured outrage from the nutroots then? He said, “Get a life.” I think that this is yet again another good time to say “get a life” to the ridiculous hacks on the Left. They’re a joke.

To put it in the words of a leftist hero, “Screw ‘em.” I plan on referring to Hillary as “the bitch” now just to jerk their chains, since they’re so full of feigned heartache about it. This is possibly the world’s silliest “issue” ever.

I mentioned earlier that I listened in on a McCain bloggers call earlier today, and as you might expect, someone asked a question about it. I don’t remember his exact words, but the essence of it was that some people need to lighten up. He actually said he knows Hillary well and doesn’t think of her as “a bitch”–in saying that it was a good question, obviously he was referring to the question of beating Hillary. All I can say is that if a word uttered by a supporter is going to be held against a candidate, then no candidate is above reproach–especially those supported by the nutroots. Liberals are a freaking joke.

Now, about that conference call. I didn’t ask any questions, but I didn’t need to. (Again, here’s Jim Geraghty’s recap.) What stood out for me was what he had to say about foreign policy and the ilitary, particularly with regard to Pakistan. McCain said exactly what *I* would want a President to say. That is, he wants the democratic process to move forward, but emphatically noted that elections in themselves are not always going to give the desired outcome. In particular, he mentioned what few others have the moral courage to say: that Benazir Bhutto is not necessarily the best option either. It must be remembered that the Bhutto administration was obscenely corrupt and Pakistanis weren’t happy with her, either. The stakes are unbelievably high with Pakistan having nukes and a large violent Islamist population, so while McCain is absolutely for Pakistan having a healthy democratic process, he noted that “elections do not always mean democracies.” I think the rest of the region pretty much proves that as fact.

He also discussed Iran and the nuclear situation there, saying that he supports sanctions and believes sanctions could have an effect on Iranian policy. McCain also wants to increase funding (recently cut by the State Department) to the pro-democracy forces in Iran. (I didn’t even know State had made the cuts. Color me unsurprised.)

Like I said, Geraghty has the wrap-up, and I’m glad I did call in–it was a sort of spur of the moment thing, and I was very comfortable with what he had to say and quite impressed. You know, we always hear the candidates in debates and speeches, and this was different. I’ve always thought John McCain came across well in the debates, but this was better. I’m going to see about getting in on all the candidates’ blogger calls who have them (except for you know who–there’s no point) from now on so I can hear them out in that venue as well.

One last thing, so I can gloat about something I knew I was right about at the time (heehee). He mentioned the Gang of 14 deal, and said people still are mad at him about it but he knows it was the right decision. So do I. Can you imagine having the nuclear option available to the Democrats now, especially with The Bitch™ Hillary looming on the horizon? Notably, McCain said that he doesn’t think a single GOP senator would support the nuclear option now–and that’s what “the Coalition of the Chilling” was saying all along. (Sorry, I can’t resist–I TOLD YOU SO!) :twisted:

So some of you are asking, why am I shilling for John McCain now, right? Put it this way: I am not going to attack any of the Republican candidates; I don’t have reason to do so. I am comfortable with any of them, and will have no problem voting for any of the current candidates should they be the nominee (except, of course, for RP, but I don’t think I need to really even say that–you all know). There are enough people on our side mimicing the nutroots and Paultards right now, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to do it. I can argue honestly for voting for any of them, some more than others, and frankly, I think it would be a travesty if McCain were to not have a good shot at the nomination. Yes, I’ve warmed considerably to him in the last several months, and the order of my preferred candidates changes at least every month or so, so I’m giving all of them a much more serious, in-depth look. I’d encourage y’all to do the same, even for those you think you could never support. (And yes, I have even given RP a very close look, possibly even more than the others in order to understand the online phenomenon. I’m even more strongly anti-RP the more I learn.) Go look around for yourselves.

UPDATE: Well, that didn’t take long. Heeee.

SCOTUS Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Megyn Kendall said on Fox News (TV) that “any other day this would be getting wall-to-wall coverage.” That’s how important this is.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long- awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

5-4, with the usual suspects dissenting: Stevens, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg, who wrote:

“Today’s decision is alarming,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling “refuses to take … seriously” previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said the latest decision “tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.”

I’m no constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me that if all Supreme Court decisions were to absolutely be based on previous decisions, America would look quite different from how it does today–and nobody would be too happy about it. Obviously I’m not dismissing precedent, but whatever. The American College of Obstretricians and Gynecologists isn’t a higher authority than the Constitution. Her “tolerates, indeed applauds” commentary means nothing to me, because it’s based on her own personal opinion. Furthermore, the “procedure found necessary and proper” by medical authorities isn’t completely ruled out when it is “necessary and proper.” From Bloomberg News:

The court stopped short of overruling the 2000 case, Stenberg v. Carhart, saying the federal statute was narrower in key respects than the Nebraska law. The majority also left open the possibility that doctors could ask a judge for permission to use the disputed procedure for particular medical conditions that pose a health risk to the mother.

Anyway, constitutional law aside, since I’m not a lawyer, partial birth abortion is barbaric, violent, gruesome, and painful for the baby. It’s appalling that it has ever been considered a “choice” for anyone who doesn’t need it. And yes, even in the cases of those who need it to save their lives, it’s still the same horrific procedure; I just can’t say a mother should have to die without it. (I do question how many are “medically necessary,” though.) Either way, this is a good day for humanity, and a bad one for demagogues who put ideology before the value of a child’s life.

The law, which has never taken effect [due to legal challenges --Ed.], is the first federal abortion restriction since the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision established the constitutional right to end a pregnancy. The case didn’t challenge the validity of Roe.

The measure outlaws procedures in which a fetus is partially removed from the mother before being killed. Although the law is aimed primarily at a procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, or intact D&E, critics faulted the statute for not tracking the medical definition of that technique.

Legal analysis and discussion at SCOTUSblog.

Lots of hysteria on the left; you can find links to that and other commentary (and news articles) at Unpartisan.com.

A commenter at Feministe illustrates why some of these abortion activists think they “need” partial birth abortions in this nauseating bleat:

This generates an anger of unspeakable depth in me. I have 3 year old twins, and I classify my pregnancy as “invasive.” It was poorly timed, I didn’t have any support systems in place to handle the changes it made necessary, and it was medically high-risk. Which ultimately meant a lot of tests, a lot of doctors, and a lot of stress for me. I handled it, meaning that I just decided that pregnancy is just one of those weird physical conditions to be endured and that I was going to be fine and that I would deliver healthy children. And they are.
…

Two years after my children were born, I had a kidney removed. It had failed due to a defect that occurred in childhood and had been left unchecked my whole life.

My whole life. Including my pregnancy. While every organ in my fetuses was investigated and tracked with an eagle eye, no one once thought to run that sonogram over my own kidneys. Basically, I was a glorified suitcase for nine months. My health care was extended only to the capacity of supporting those fetuses. And that pisses me off.

So her argument is basically that she would have aborted “those fetuses” (her three year-old twins) if she had “support systems” in place to handle changes in her body that happen during pregnancy once they became particularly stressful? I don’t know how anyone can even *think* of their own children in that way. But I guess if you believe your child wasn’t your child until the umbilical cord is cut… Sick. That’s just sick.

Supreme Court says no to NYT “reporter’s privilege”

Beldar explains it all to us non-lawyers:

This decision was a battle won for the United States on the home front in the global war on terrorism. And it’s another fine example of how the mainstream media, led by the New York Times, is absolutely willing to let you be blown to bits by terrorists in order to protect your “right to know.”
[...]
Here it is in two sentences: The FBI was prevented from freezing terrorists’ assets and catching terrorists because somebody leaked what they were about to do to the New York Times, and the NYT proceeded to warn the terrorists themselves! Now the NYT says that because it was just promoting the “public’s right to know” and the First Amendment, its phone company should be immune from having to give evidence to permit a grand jury to decide whether any crimes were committed as part of this debacle.

Must read the whole thing, because this isn’t the last we’ll hear about it.

He’s got more today about the New York Times’ loose lips here. And as an aside, damn, I’m glad to see Beldar is back.

New York Times jihad treason

Rumor Control: Justice John Paul Stevens

OK, I’ll admit it–I’m not buying it. Still, I’m passing it on anyway, ’cause you never know until you know.

Presented without (much) further comment:

The Rumor About John Paul Stevens (Human Events)
Send your good vibes (*snicker*) to Justice Stevens (The Democratic Underground)
A Rumor (Confirm Them)
Casey, Webb, Ford, and Tester agree to Filibuster Pact (Stop the ACLU)
Rumors swirl about Justice Stevens

Ahem. “I question the timing,” as they say. It’s worth thinking about the implications, even if it’s BS, anyway. And anyway, the Confirm Them “logo” made me giggle like a fool. :mrgreen:

UPDATE: It’s also worth noting that Stevens has been present in court this week.

Kerry, Miserable Failure

Many of you will catch that joke, but it’s becoming more and more a reality when dealing with Senator John Kerry (D-MA). After losing the Presidential election in 2004, he’s been on a tear of losing. The latest in the string of defeats being that really good job he did getting that whole “filibuster” thing going, as described by Matt Margolis at Blogs for Bush:

John Kerry’s failure to convince his fellow Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito proves once and for all his irrelevency politics. It wasn’t too long ago when he was his party’s presidential nominee, and now he doesn’t have the clout to get 40 of his colleagues to join him in a filibuster, which, if you believed his rhetoric, would have prevented return of segregation, slavery, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of women.

No, it didn’t happen. A mere 25 voted to sustain a filibuster. Just like Ohio in November 2004, Kerry didn’t have the votes. The moment Kerry’s filibuster failed so handily was the moment his political career got flushed down the toilet. John Kerry may not be ruling out another presidential run in 2008, but his party certainly ruled it out for him.

Perhaps now he’ll have to take care of that “I’ll release my 180″ thing. No? As Ed Morrissey puts it at Captain’s Quarters (Warning: hilarious picture alert!):

You’re a former presidential candidate from one of the major political parties and a member of the Senate. You’ve called for a party-line vote on a major issue against the opposition, investing your reputation and your credibility into the effort. However, you can only convince half of your caucus to vote with you, and even half of those tell reporters what a stupid idea it was from the outset. What happens afterwards?

Kerry: Am I done?

Yes, Senator, you’re done. We only wish you’d realize it.

This was originally supposed to be a gloatfest over how the Supreme Court is now going to be packed chock-full of ultra-right-wing conservative extremists who will discriminate and take away our rights and force everybody to worship Jesus and no more drinking or smoking or fun or staying out late or lighting up or snorting something. This IS how Hitler started, you know. Fascists.

Heh.

UPDATE: IMAO says what I wish I had.

UPDATE 2: More on from the fish in the barrel from Right Wing Nation. (Yes, I take requests)

For the record, here’s the vote, with who voted fer what (kinda not surprising 58-42):

JUSTICE Alito!

Let the celebrations begin!

Justice Samuel Alito

It’s a good feeling when justice wins over partisan politics, isn’t it?

And I think I’m going to take a pass on watching the hysteria and mental breakdowns by the alarmist lunatics on the Left, although it would be amusing. Hey Lefty, is this going to be the “final straw” for you, the apocalypse that makes you finally decide to move to another country? Or check into a mental institution? Please? Heh. “Screw ‘em.”

(Smell the bait for moonbattery at the Washington Post with an AP report, naturally.)

Tags: Alito, Supreme Court

Court-Packing To Commence Tomorrow

al-Reuters “reports”:

The Republican-led Senate on Monday defeated a Democratic bid to block Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito — clearing the way for confirmation of the 55-year-old conservative who could move the high court to the right.

The needed 60 votes were mustered in the 100-member Senate to approve a motion to end debate on President Bush’s nominee. A confirmation vote is set for Tuesday. Alito has a commitment from a required simple majority to be approved.

A conservative federal appeals judge since 1990, Alito would replace the more moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. O’Connor, who is retiring, often has been the swing vote on the nine-member court on abortion, civil rights and other social issues.

Take out all them red parts, and you’ve got yourself an un-biased article. Thanks, al-Reuters!

Six Meat Buffet with the tip-off

SCHADENFREUDE UPDATE: Daily Kos: Cloture Vote Open Thread and Teddy Goes Wild at Expose the Left (First Post)

EVEN SCHADENFREUDER UPDATE: It just keeps get better and better at Daily Kos. It’s gonna be a good night watching them melt down. There’s a tear in my eye! A tear! (Link from Schroman)

NEXT ON THE SCHADENFREUDE EXPRESS: Decision ‘08 is picking the choicest Krazy Talk from the Kossacks. (Fish in a Barrel - Excellent)

HONEST, LAST SCHADENFREUDE…TODAY….: WuzzaDem covers the AMERICAblog meltdown

Oh, boo-hoo. Kerry appears to lack votes for Alito filibuster

Wah. I mean it, Wah. Capital W. Wah.

From CNN.com

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has urged his Democratic colleagues to unite and filibuster Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, but senators from both sides of the aisle said Friday that isn’t going to happen.

Kerry’s mission was further hampered by the Gang of 14 — a group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans — most of whom said they will not grant the former presidential candidate’s wish.

The Gang of 14 formed in May, with the Democrats of the bunch agreeing not to filibuster President Bush’s judicial nominations in most cases, and the Republicans promising not to support any GOP attempt to abolish filibusters.

Hah. Horse-face can’t seem to win anything, can he? Jeez, he’s the kid that the other kids picked last, because they KNEW if he was on their team, they were going to lose. And, once again, he lost.

Something else: how in the world did he think HIS mighty powers of persuasion were going to work? The only reason people voted for him in the Presidential election was because his name wasn’t George W. Bush! Now, he’s campaigning for 2008, trying to have something on his record other than them 3 Purple Hearts and countless political losses.

NOTE: If you’ve noticed me being a lot meaner and rantier lately, it’s because I’m in a mean, ranty mood. Not grumpy, just meaner. And rantier. I like it.

[Former Klansman] endorses [abortion hater]

No, I have not lost my mind. See [the explanation]

From SignOnSanDiego.com

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court [anti-choice] nominee Samuel Alito, whose confirmation seems certain in the [RethugiKKKan]-run Senate, padded his [whimpering baby] support Thursday with endorsements by Sens. Robert [Sheets] Byrd and Tim [we don't know who he is, either] Johnson.

Alito already was assured the votes of at least 51 of the 55 [Evil] Republicans in the 100-member chamber – enough to be put over the top – when West Virginia’s Byrd and Johnson of South Dakota [oh, that's where] joined Nebraska’s Ben Nelson in saying they’ll vote [to overturn Roe vs. Wade].

Alito would become the nation’s 110th justice, [packing the court] replacing retiring [right-wing extremist] Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Throughout her years on the high court, she often has been a key [ultra-right-wing] fifth vote on contentious social issues including abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty.

“I am [scared] by Judge Alito’s [right-wing nuttery] on matters such as executive power, his past opposition to the principle of [one person, one vote], and his narrow interpretation of certain civil rights laws, [since he, being not a minority, wouldn't know nothin' 'bout us minorities],” Johnson said. “Even so, I [don't want to be put on the record that I voted for ANOTHER loser...jeez, Kerry...].”

Johnson and other senators also are advising Democratic leaders against attempting a filibuster, the only chance the minority party would have to stop Alito’s confirmation [because they would have to go until Hillary got into office in 2008, then nominate somebody everybody can vote for].

“Because we have such a full plate ([unlike the citizens of my State]) of pressing issues before Congress, a filibuster at this time would be, in my view, very counterproductive, [what do you guts think? Is that a good idea? I don't know. Can you give me a hint?]” said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who wants the Senate to concentrate on Hurricane Katrina [funding] programs.

[Chimporer Bushi'iteler II] praised Alito during a [staged publicity event on] Thursday. “He understands the role of a judge is [] to advance a personal and political agenda,” Bush said. “He is a[n] [evil] man. He’s got a lot of experience [just like that FEMA guy] and he deserves an up or down vote in [that votey place. It's in Washington somewhere. Look, I'm a monkey].”

The [biased, racist, homophobic] confirmation debate on the Senate floor [bowchickabowbow] continued Thursday, but Republicans and the White House are so [biased, racist, homophobic] that Alito will be approved by the Senate that they’ve already started [figuring out what to do with all the room that getting rid of Roe vs. Wade will give them].

There’s more…but I feel just too much like an editor at the New York Times…

And…stay classy, San Diego!

UPDATE: Since UnPartisan linked in here, I thought I’d point out that while I originally wanted to point out the silly way they censor news to put a particular spin on it, I find it rather amusing that story I quote doesn’t have this quote from Sheets:

“My considered judgment from his record, from his answers to my questions, and from his obvious intelligence and sincerity, leads me to believe him to be an honorable man who loves his country, loves his Constitution and will give of his best. Can we really ask for more?”
- Robert Byrd, (D-WV)

Good grief. Did he really say that? And yes, I checked…he did.

Patrick Leahy warns of court-packing

My political ranting is really taking a sharp turn up in the past couple of weeks, for some reason. Maybe it’s because of the constant drones from the out-of-power Democrats. Case in point: Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Committee On The Judiciary, The Alito Nomination, The Supreme Court, And Presidential Power. Such an excellent title, long and boring, rambling and dull. Just like Leahy!

But, I was listening to a certain radio station with a…heh heh…certain talk show host…we won’t rush to conclusions about who it was…but he pointed me to this “Statement” in which this unbelievable phrase didn’t get edited out:

No President should be allowed to pack the courts, and especially the Supreme Court, with nominees selected to enshrine presidential claims of government power. Our system was designed to ensure a balance and to protect against overreaching by any branch. The checks and balances that should be provided by the courts, Congress and the Constitution are too important to be sacrificed to such an agenda. The Senate stood up to President Roosevelt when he proposed a court-packing scheme. And today, the Senate should not be a rubber stamp to this President’s effort to move the law dramatically to the right and to give him unfettered leeway. I will not lend my support to an effort by this President to move the Supreme Court and the law radically to the right and to remove the final check within our democracy.

Radically to the right? You mean, like the Christians? Because, as we all know, Judge Alito is going to come in and use his magical judging powers to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and creating a law that no abortions can happen, ever. You know, because all the other 8 Supreme Court justices will be powerless to stop Alito’s evil whims. CHECKS AND BALANCES ARE OVER!!!!! MWAHAHAHHAHAAAA!!!!

And, to answer your question, yes, two appointees is what you need to “pack the court.” I mean, not like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. That wasn’t packing the court at all. Nor was it moving the court “radically to the left.” You have your history down to a T, Mr. Leahy.

In fact, the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 was adding people to the SCOTUS, not changing the flavor, as it was obviously done in the Clinton administration. Those two judges, who are described as liberal, only changed the flavor of the court. They did not control anything, any more than adding two conservative judges would. On top of that, they are human beings, who have their own ideas. They are not party line robots, regardless of what people want you to believe.

No, Leaky, just keep on saying stuff like this. Do your delay tactic to keep that applause line out of President Bush’s State of the Union address. It’s one line in a speech, and Judge Alito got out of committee this morning, and he’ll be approved when he comes before the full Sentate.

And there’s nothing you can do about it.

Older Entries