Monday, October 31, 2005

Trick? Or Treat?

Depends on which side of the current political landscape you call home, I guess.

People for the American Way says: "the judicial philosophy of Samuel Alito is far to the right. In fact, he has been given the nickname “Scalito” by some who practice before him and liken him to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He has demonstrated hostility toward the principles undergirding a woman’s constitutionally protected right to govern her own reproductive choices – most notably in the Third Circuit’s attempt to limit or overturn Roe v. Wade in the context of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. In addition, he has issued a number of troubling opinions that seek to undermine established civil rights law, especially in the areas of gender and race, and that seek to severely limit the federal government’s ability to protect its citizens. Alito claimed that the federal government could not apply the Family and Medical Leave Act to state employees, a decision effectively reversed by the Supreme Court, and even argued that Congress could not enact a ban on the possession of machine guns. It is clear that Alito’s confirmation would seriously jeopardize Americans’ rights."

On the other hand, MSNBC is reporting that Pat Robertson has called the nomination "A grand-slam home run."

For what it's worth: I think this is exactly what I predicted would happen. Bush has offered the Conservative's a golden boy. Someone with impeccable Conservative credentials.

In other words: Pro-business, anti-rights, anti-women.

Just what we need to hasten this country's race down the toilet bowl.

Some liberals bloggers are saying that this nomination is a gift, and I agree:
Absent a 'consensus' nomination, we at least have a judge with actual judicial history. At least now we know where this guy stands.

So the question now becomes: Do we have any Democratic Senators with the balls to dissent?



Blogger Shawn said...

1. Blackmun pulled the Roe v Wade decision from his behind.
2. Alito is probably attempting to keep people equal, since women and minorities now have MORE "rights" than others.
3. Applying FMLA to states is federal intrusion.
4. What's wrong with machine guns?

7:46 AM, November 01, 2005  
Blogger Shawn said...

One more thing about guns. They are not only for killing. Many times all one has to do is pull a gun and the criminal flees without a scratch. Just a thought.

7:47 AM, November 01, 2005  
Blogger doodlebugmom said...

Pro-business, anti-rights, anti-women speaks volumes. And its right on target, as much as I hate to see it be this way.

It bugged me how Sen Kohl looked so chummy with Harriet Meirs. Oh I hope Herb has balls!


10:15 AM, November 01, 2005  
Blogger Balloon Pirate said...

Talking about pulling things from your behind, shawn.

From where did you get your statistics?

Isn't the Federal Government allowed to decide in many cases what is and is not in its purview? This isn't a Confederacy.

And if minorities and women have "more" rights than others (re: white men), then why are white men on the whole better off than minorities and women.

The stuff you're putting out here is brown and smelly, shawn.


10:44 AM, November 01, 2005  
Blogger Shawn said...

I did not cite any statistics. What are you talking about?

I don't think it's a good idea to allow the Federal Government to decide on its own what it can or cannot do. Checks and balances, and the CONSTITUTION, are important.

Universities give "points" to someone who is a woman or a minority when considering applications. They have bestowed that "right", which is not available to me.

12:07 PM, November 01, 2005  
Blogger Balloon Pirate said...

You wrote: "Many times all one has to do is pull a gun and the criminal flees without a scratch"

from what dark and smelly place did you pull this factoid? Or is this just something you feel?

And as far as 'points,' I'm all for anything that gives minorities a chance to compete. It's called levelling the playing field, and I'm all for anything that allows us to tap the greatest underutilized resource in this country.
Don't you?


1:13 PM, November 01, 2005  
Blogger Shawn said...

"Many times" is not a statistic. Proof is not needed to know that if you point a gun at an assailant he will probably run away.

11:07 AM, November 02, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

As a 2nd amendment supporter I believe pulling a gun is a coward's answer. The VAST majority of Americans do not need a gun for protection.

Give me a 6 foot bo and night and my house is safer than any house with guns.

If you are a hunter and like to kill things or like the feel of a gun in your hands or feel that guns give you a sense of size that you lack in reality just be honest about it. Don't try to sell guns as a safety issue. Every other country that controls gun ownership has a lower violent crime rate the us.

7:35 PM, November 02, 2005  
Blogger Philip Morton said...

pull a gun and the villain flee. Wow, this guy doesn't know the reality - pull a gun, and likely the villain will be scared shitless of you and shoot towards you so he won't die, because he doesn't know you're just flashing the gun to scare him. Shawn, it's not like the cold war, both sides having arms and therefore not using them. It's more like the wild west. If you show it, you better be planning on using it, or the other guy will assume you are and will use his on you so he won't die.

10:52 AM, November 03, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home