|
by Charles Carreon
11:26am, November 2, 2005
I love it when the opposition starts crying "Foul!" You
know you're scoring real hits when Publicans start whining about being
"blindsided," "affronted" and other wimp-words. What they're saying is
"Those are our tactics, you bastards!" Which is a compliment, if properly
interpreted.
Sun Tzu said "Don't fight an army that has its back to
the fire or is going home. Under either of these circumstances, even
untrained peasants will fight to the death." Well, the Dems have played at
war like peasants looking to go home ever since the towers were razed,
their occupants incinerated, and the entire event exploited for PR value.
The Cheney-Bush Junta has decided to go with its
strengths — bravado and bullshit slinging. Don't believe the spin that
says Dick's lost his grip — he's deep in and machinating like a
son-of-a-gun. That's why they picked Alito to crash into the scene like a
garbage truck paying a society call at 5 a.m. Figured they'd take the heat
off Karl and Scooter by kicking up a big brouhaha about the Court. They'd
rather have the opportunity to rally the faithful around the right-to-life
flag, because they figure they can pull off a "bruising confirmation
battle" more smoothly than the Dems.
But I do believe they've backed the Dems up against
several fires that jointly make a well-nigh impassable inferno. The first
fire is the Iraq war death toll. The second fire is the blatant cronyism
that was revealed by the Katrina-FEMA-clusterfuck in New Orleans. (Yes, we
use that word in Oregon as a term of art.) The third fire, fueling the
second, that seemed like it might blow itself out like a hurricane,
received new life from the Fitzgerald indictment. That fire is the
revelation that the Cheney-Bush Junta is staffed with real criminals like
Libby, DeLay, Abramoff, and Bill Frist. The fourth fire is the condition
of the economy, in which most Americans are earning wages that force them
to lean on credit every month to make ends meet. These fires are at the
Democrats' backs because they have got to avoid the blame that is going to
be heaped on the architects of this disaster we call our national domestic
and foreign policy. Hard times on Main Street are coming, and the rank and
file are about tapped out.
Reid has chosen the right moment to launch a surprise
attack, and if going into closed session doesn't communicate the
likelihood of a filibuster to block Alito's confirmation, then the
Publicans should stick a wet finger in the wind, because they wouldn't
want to be caught pissing against it.
My favorite strategy at this point in the game is simply
to OPPOSE EVERYTHING THE OTHER GUY WANTS. With the Publicans, you must
assume that if they want something, it will be bad for the good people,
and good for the criminals in power. We have huge issues to deal with. We
can save the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens. We can put a
halt to the looting of the US Treasury. Because the Publicans still have
the momentum of being in control of the House and Senate and the New York
Times-Fox News- Time-Life Spin Machine, it is all about breaking their
momentum and showing them unable to move.
The people will not blame the Democrats for "gridlock in
Congress," so long as we educate them in the idea that we must STOP THE
BAD THINGS FROM HAPPENING. It's like hunting down a criminal. First you
stop him doing bad things. Then you turn to healing the harm he caused.
In order to do more than fight our way out of the
immediate danger of getting a packed Supreme Court with a hard fascist
wing (count 'em — Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito), we need a long term
strategy. In our case, it's obvious — go for a complete rout in the
midterm elections. Harry Reid needs to get the wood piled high around
Alito's feet, tie him to the stake and Burn, Baby, Burn!
» Click
here to download 15_-_White_Train_(Showdown).mp3.
"Deeply Held Beliefs" Are Nothing to a Judge
|
9:23pm, December 3, 2005 Back
to Top |
Okay, Anti-Alito forces, remember my number one rule:
"When they're runnin', pop a cap in their ass!" Unload on this piece of
crap! Blow up the outhouse he's hiding out in, and drag him butt nekked
thru the fields. Call him a liar first thing in the morning, a liar at
noon, and a liar again at midnight. Repeat until done.
WAPO wrote:
Alito Distances Himself From 1985 Memos Senator Says Nominee Drew a Line
Between Expressed Views and Potential Rulings
By Charles Babington Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 3, 2005; Page A01
Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. yesterday
tried to tamp down criticisms of several past statements — including his
assertion that the Constitution does not protect the right to abortion —
by saying they were personal views or an advocate's work and not
necessarily indications of how he might rule if confirmed, according to
a key senator who quizzed him for more than an hour.
Alito's effort to distance himself from the recently
disclosed 1985 documents came as liberal groups said the writings show
him to be much more conservative than the newly confirmed chief justice,
John G. Roberts Jr. Alito's explanation was meant to lessen the
documents' impact, but it may expose him to accusations of insincerity
or irresolution, advocates said. Document
In this May 30, 1985, memorandum, U.S. Supreme Court
nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr., then a Justice Department lawyer in the
Reagan administration, outlined his strategy for attacking the landmark
1973 Roe v. Wade abortion ruling:
President Bush nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to
the Supreme Court on Oct. 31, 2005. If confirmed, Alito will fill the
seat currently held by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Left-leaning groups, and at least one prominent
conservative, said it is ludicrous for Alito to play down the
significance of memos he wrote as a Justice Department lawyer in the
Reagan administration in which he said he was "particularly proud" of
fighting affirmative action programs and was looking forward to the day
the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling is overturned.
Alarmed that commentary on Alito, from the political
left and right, was getting increasingly negative, Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) asked the nominee this week to
answer several questions in writing. The White House asked
Specter to meet with Alito, instead, and then relay his comments,
which the senator did in a news conference at the Capitol.
At issue are two memos that Alito, 55, wrote in 1985.
In the first, a bid for a promotion, Alito wrote that he was
"particularly proud" of contributing to cases arguing "that racial and
ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not
protect a right to an abortion." He was pleased, he wrote, "to
help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very
strongly."
In the second memo, he outlined a strategy for
attacking the landmark 1973 court ruling that legalized abortion
nationwide. "What can be made of this opportunity to advance the
goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in
the meantime, of mitigating its effects?" he wrote, after
volunteering to help in the matter.
Specter, referring to notes as he briefed reporters,
said Alito discussed both memos "and raised a sharp distinction, as he
put it, between his role as an advocate and his role as a judge."
Especially concerning the second memo, Specter said, Alito "said he was
writing it as an advocate; that his role as a judge would be different."
As for the earlier memo, the senator said, "I asked
him about the line here, 'The Constitution does not protect a right to
an abortion.' And he identifies that as a personal opinion . . . and he
said that his personal opinion would not be a factor in his judicial
decision."
Asked whether Alito's explanations satisfied him,
Specter said, "I'm here to report on his answers. . . . I am not
satisfied; I am not dissatisfied."
Specter, who supports abortion rights, said Alito
appeared sympathetic to the argument that Roe should be treated with
great respect because it has been the law for 32 years. "Judge Alito
says that when a matter is embedded in the culture, it's a considerable
factor in the application of stare decisis ," Latin for "to stand by
that which is decided," Specter said. Asked for details, Specter said:
"I'm not going to interpret his words. I think those words are very
meaningful as to jurisprudence and as to weight." He added: "I did not
ask him whether he would push to overturn Roe v. Wade. "
Several liberal groups said it was absurd for
Alito, a federal appeals court judge, to try to distance himself from
the memos because he clearly described his views as deeply held.
Judith C. Appelbaum of the National Women's Law
Center said Alito applied his sentiments about abortion rights in 1991,
when he ruled in a major case — Casey v. Planned Parenthood — that a
married woman must inform her husband before having an abortion. The
Supreme Court in 1992 overturned that provision of a law.
Conservative lawyer Bruce Fein, who was a Justice
Department official in the Reagan administration, said he is baffled
that Alito is pulling back from his well-argued 1985 memos. "I think the
administration is misreading the Senate and the public, because you end
up losing more if your credibility is strained and people think you're
playing them for dupes," Fein said.
But Janet M. LaRue of the conservative group Concerned
Women for America said she is not bothered that Alito is putting space
between himself and his 20-year-old memos. "I would have been surprised
if he had said anything else," she said. All her group wants, she said,
is a judge "to make an objective ruling based on the law and the facts.
It's a joke for the left to pretend that none of their favorite judges
have deeply held beliefs."
Several conservative groups, meanwhile, plan a major
push beginning Monday to portray Alito's opponents as anti-God. Talking
points for the effort, which will involve ads and grass-roots
organizations, were laid out in a strategy memo by Grassfire.org, which
opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. Alito's opponents are united by
"an agenda to purge any and all references to religion from our public
life," the memo says.
The coalition, which includes the Judicial
Confirmation Network, plans to send 2.3 million e-mails on the subject
and hopes to "flood Senate offices with letters, faxes and phone calls."
It will be joined in the effort by Fidelis, a Roman Catholic
organization that describes itself as "pro-life, pro-family and
pro-religious liberty."
Staff writer Jo Becker contributed to this report.
Return to
Table of Contents
|