Alito Confirmed

Alito has been confirmed, 58-42.

If you are wondering why 42 people voted against but a filibuster could not be sustained, that is because of the Gang of 14. You know- the group that the far right was screaming bloody murder about a few months back and telling me I was an idiot to support. Some disaster they turned out to be- just ask the Kossacks, who are livid with Lieberman.

Adam C. gloats, as well.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






68 replies
  1. 1
    jg says:

    Well he IS a man of honor. We’ll see if he thinks all executives are kings and not just republican presidents.

  2. 2
    ppGaz says:

    Of course executives are kings.

    Otherwise, what does “Chief” mean?

    Chief flip-flopper?

  3. 3
    Brian says:

    Chekitowt…..one of your tribe is threatening to “out” a senator if he votes for Alito. Now, this guy has done this before, to a senator from VA, who subsequently resigned.

    Classy politics, folks. And designed to lose more elections, albeit unintentionally.

  4. 4
    fwiffo says:

    Whenever I hear Democrats/liberals accused of being crude, classless, low-brow, below-the-belt, etc. I’m reminded of that anti-drug commercial years ago. A father is shouting at his son waving a bag of drugs at him “Where did you learn to do this stuff, who showed it to you?”

    “I learned it from you Dad. I learned it by watching YOU.”

    In summary: Vince Foster. Vince Fucking Foster.

  5. 5
    neil says:

    The real reason is that several Democrats wanted a chance to vote for Alito before they voted against him, and there are only so many seats on the Judiciary Committee.

  6. 6
    Otto Man says:

    Classy politics, folks. And designed to lose more elections

    Man, I love getting lectured by Republicans about how dirty politics don’t win elections. Did you have your sense of shame surgically removed?

    The Republicans have proved over and over again that dirty politics are the only way to win. Do you remember George H.W. Bush overcoming a substantial Dukakis lead in ’88 on his noble campaign of “hey, black prisoners will come rape your wife if you vote Dukakis”? Or the highbrow politics of 2000, where Al Gore was a serial liar and John McCain fathered a black baby out of wedlock? Or 2004 and the swift-boating of John Kerry (and later, Jack Murtha)?

    Very classy.

  7. 7
    Darrell says:

    In summary: Vince Foster. Vince Fucking Foster.

    Bush knew about 9/11 and Bush = Hitler. Adolf Fucking Hitler

  8. 8

    This shouldn’t be the point. The point is, Alito is on the bench now. The Conservatives now have (unless Alito or Roberts suddenly go Souter on them) a disernable majority on the Court.

    The point is, what will this new Court do? We can pretty much assume that Roe is gone gone gone, but how far back will this Court go on other social issues? On privacy in the bedroom? On health care? On religion in schools? On the systems of checks and balances not only between gov’t branches but between gov’t and the citizenry?

    I can note only this: as long as Roe was valid, the social conservatives had an issue to rally around. Once abortion rights are gone, expect the social liberals to finally rally around that and to draw the moderates over to their side in the inevitable pendulum (sp?) swing away from the social conservatives. Just remember, most polls consistently showed a majority did not personally approve of abortion, but also showed a majority did not want to ban it outright…

  9. 9
    Darrell says:

    Do you remember George H.W. Bush overcoming a substantial Dukakis lead in ‘88 on his noble campaign of “hey, black prisoners will come rape your wife if you vote Dukakis”?

    Fucking hilarious. Otto man, undoubtedly like so many others on the left are too ignorant to know that it was Al Gore, not George H.W. Bush who made Willie Horton a campaign issue.. Willie Horton being the black prisoner who who raped someone while out on furlough. First raised as a campaign issue by Al Gore

    But DKos says it was George H.W. Bush, so you believe it, right?

  10. 10
    Darrell says:

    Alito is not nearly as far to the right as Ruth Bader Ginsburg was to the left. She was an activist ACLU lawyer for chrissakes, yet less than a handful of Republicans voted against her.

  11. 11
    Paul L. says:

    I think this cover the locals feeling here.
    Alito Confirmed

    Somewhere, in the mythical back alleys of America, uteri twitch as Southerners, long held in check by the sheer egalitarian will of their liberal Democratic brethren, pull long white robes and heavy rope out of the mothballs in granpappy’s special “patriotic” hope chest…

  12. 12
    Darrell says:

    The point is, what will this new Court do? We can pretty much assume that Roe is gone gone gone

    How the hell do you come up with that genius? Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, O’Connor, Stevens, and Souter will DEFINTELY vote to uphold Roe. That makes it 5 to 4 in upholding Roe even if Roberts votes to overturn, which is a very dicey assumption. No matter how you slice it, you’re an idiot

  13. 13
    Otto Man says:

    Fucking hilarious. Otto man, undoubtedly like so many others on the left are too ignorant to know that it was Al Gore, not George H.W. Bush who made Willie Horton a campaign issue.. Willie Horton being the black prisoner who who raped someone while out on furlough. First raised as a campaign issue by Al Gore

    Yeah, I know that. Gore mentioned it in a debate, Bush ran a national ad campaign on it. A bit of a difference. I also know that the furlough program was one created by Dukakis’s predecessor. A Republican.

    So what? You want other examples? How about the ’68 “rat-fucking” squad, who spread weird lies like Ed Muskie hates French Canadians and his wife’s a whore? Or the ’72 Operation Gemstone plan to spy on Demcoratic candidates, frame them with hookers, deport antiwar protesters? Nixon’s portrayal of McGovern as the candidate of “abortion, acid, and amnesty”?

    Or more from 1988? How about the ad that claimed Dukakis was a member of the ACLU, with a visual that said “American Communist Labor Union”? How about the ad that claimed to show pollution in Boston Harbor, but really depicted a nuclear submarine yard outside the state?

    Or the Clinton years? Rep. Dan Burton shot a melon in his backyard to prove that Clinton had Vince Foster killed. Falwell and company sold tapes that insisted Clinton ran a cocaine ring out of Mesa, Arkansas. The Scaife money turned every whisper and half-rumor into a full blown scandal with no crime at the heart.

    Or recently? How about the purple heart band aids at the 2004 RNC? The claims by Cheney that a vote for Kerry would lead to another terrorist attack?

    Your party thrives on dirty politics, and with mouth-breathing idiots like yourself at the core, it’s easy to understand why.

  14. 14
    Otto Man says:

    How the hell do you come up with that genius? Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, O’Connor, Stevens, and Souter will DEFINTELY vote to uphold Roe. That makes it 5 to 4 in upholding Roe even if Roberts votes to overturn, which is a very dicey assumption. No matter how you slice it, you’re an idiot

    You’re the one assuming that O’Connor and Alito will occupy the same seat on the bench. Who’s the idiot now?

  15. 15
    Darrell says:

    Subtract O’connor and replace with Alito, then assume Alito will vote to overturn Roe, and you get 5-4 to uphold, even making the dubious assumption that Roberts will vote with Thomas/Scalia

  16. 16
    Otto Man says:

    Subtract O’connor and replace with Alito, then assume Alito will vote to overturn Roe, and you get 5-4 to uphold, even making the dubious assumption that Roberts will vote with Thomas/Scalia

    Dubious? He just sided with Thomas and Scalia, in their three-man dissent in the Oregon assisted suicide case. And that was a case where his Senate testimony would’ve led you to believe that he would’ve sided with the other bloc.

  17. 17
    ppGaz says:

    Oops. Sorry. Darrell thread. Move along, nothing to see.

    { yellow tape here }

  18. 18
    Darrell says:

    He just sided with Thomas and Scalia, in their three-man dissent in the Oregon assisted suicide case.

    yes, that’s your simpleton understanding of that ruling: “assisted suicide case”

  19. 19
    Blue Neponset says:

    Does anyone else find the gloating of the wingnuts over Alio’s confirmation to be pathetic? It is hard not to feel sorry for people like that. I think they have let their hatred of everything liberal consume them to the point where they have turned into the political equivalent of Captain Ahab or… they are just assholes to begin with. For their sakes I hope it is the latter.

    Disclaimer: Adam C. at Redstate is a really good guy and I do not consider him to be a gloating wingnut.

  20. 20
    Darrell says:

    If you are wondering why 42 people voted against but a filibuster could not be sustained, that is because of the Gang of 14.

    You haven’t begun to make the case that the Alito confirmation was a result of the Gang of 14. Dianne Feinstein, Dem heavyweight on the Judiciary committee and no member of the gang of 14, came out and said it would be an “abuse of the parlimentary system” (or similar such language) to filibuster.

    Are you suggesting that the “extraorinary cirumstances” exception means anything more to dishonest Dems than “cease fire” means to Palestinian Hamas? Please

  21. 21
    Otto Man says:

    yes, that’s your simpleton understanding of that ruling: “assisted suicide case”

    Yes, my simpleton understanding. Which is also shared by the Washington Post, CNN, the Christian Science Monitor, MSNBC, the BBC, etc., all of which refer to it as an “assisted suicide law.”

    Christ, even the people at Fox News who use the silly “homicide bomber” newspeak of the White House called it the “assisted suicide law.”

    I guess we’re all simpletons, Darrell. Whatever. I can’t believe I started talking to you again. I’ll leave you the floor to rant about whatever uninformed position you’d like to take. Why don’t you regale us with tales of out-of-control college professors again? You know, the stories that come from your considerable lack of experience.

  22. 22
    Otto Man says:

    yes, that’s your simpleton understanding of that ruling: “assisted suicide case”

    Yes, my simpleton understanding. Which is also shared by the Washington Post, CNN, the Christian Science Monitor, MSNBC, the BBC, etc., all of which refer to it as an “assisted suicide law.”

    Christ, even the people at Fox News who use the silly “homicide bomber” newspeak of the White House called it the “assisted suicide law.”

    I guess we’re all simpletons, Darrell. Whatever. I can’t believe I started talking to you again. I’ll leave you the floor to rant about whatever uninformed position you’d like to take. Why don’t you regale us with tales of out-of-control college professors again? You know, the stories that come from your considerable lack of experience.

  23. 23
    Darrell says:

    How about the ad that claimed to show pollution in Boston Harbor, but really depicted a nuclear submarine yard outside the state?

    But Boston Harbor * really was * filthy as hell at that time from what I’ve read, a relevant point as Dukakis was campaigning as an environmentalist.

    It’s not as if they blamed Dukakis in campaign ads for the racist dragging death murder of a black man or anything. Everyone knows the Dems are too honorable for those kind of tactics, right?

  24. 24

    Alito is not nearly as far to the right as Ruth Bader Ginsburg was to the left.

    LOL. Yea because believing the President should be able to ingore the Constitution in the name of Nation Security sure is mainstream..

    She was an activist ACLU lawyer for chrissakes

    Which proves what? You do know that the ACLU is much more of a libertarian orgnization than a liberl one?

    OH, wait. SHIT! Us vs Them, black and white thinking!

    My bad, the ACLU is the enemy.

  25. 25

    so many typos, but whatever.

  26. 26
    Mr Furious says:

    Alito is not nearly as far to the right as Ruth Bader Ginsburg was to the left. She was an activist ACLU lawyer for chrissakes, yet less than a handful of Republicans voted against her.

    As I’m sure has been pointed out to you many times, Darrell, Ginsburg was pre-screened by the Republicans. Clinton picked her from a list of confirmable candidates.

    I’m sure you know that, you just chose to be a complete dick.

  27. 27
    Pooh says:

    Darrell, because I enjoy watching trainwreck’s (and by extension, NASCAR), treat us to your understanding of the dissents in Oregon v. Gonzales. Specifically, tell us how Thomas’s dissent squares with the body of his jurisprudence.

  28. 28
    KC says:

    Well, I’m glad it’s over with. I know Alito is going to kow-tow to the executive branch at the expense of Congress, probably our liberties too. And I see Republicans bitching and moaning in the future about Democratic presidents who kiss off Congress. I’m just tired of hearing about abortion all the f’n time.

  29. 29
    LITBMueller says:

    I’m with you, Blue. Makes me laugh, really. There are many many people out there convinced that, with Alito and Roberts on the Court, Roe will be overturned. Despite the math associated with determining that (I’ll leave that to Darrell ;) ), here is the thing that makes me laugh:

    Do social conservatives really expect this administration to do anything that would change the status quo of the GOP’s greatest wedge issue?

    Abortion inspires religious people and social conservatives so much that they meet at their mega churches to board buses that will take them to the polls every election day. The abortion issue helps the GOP more that the “War on Terrerrr” ever will.

    Yet, there are those who have been consistently duped into believing the Repblicans will give them what they want: a nation where abortion is illegal. Despite the fact that Republican presidents have disappointed them with nominees like Souter and Harriet Miers. Despite the fact that Bush never describes himself as pro-life – he just keeps referring to some sort of amorphous “Culture of Life” (that seems particularly meaningless when compare to his “War Presidency,” the torture issue, and his non-reaction to Katrina). Indeed, I’m not sure Bush has ever said the word “abortion” publicly. I do know, for sure, though that Bush addressed last year’s annual anti-abortion rally… by phone! Granted, he was in Crawford. But, he was willing to rush back to the White House to sign the Terri Schiavo legislation. Yet, he dialed in his support for this annual rally.

    Also consider that both Roberts and Alito were pretty “stealthy” nominees. Does anyone on the right know how they will decide when actually presented with an abortion case? Certainly, there were other conservative judges Bush could have chosen that would have been more “guaranteed.”

    But he didn’t.

    So, at least when it comes to social issues, it makes me laugh that the right are cheering the Alito confirmation. They are acting on faith.

    For me, though, I opposed Alito on his conception of the Unitary Executive, because I am worried that he will allow the federal government to get more and more involved in all of our personal lives.

    You would think that more on the right would be worried, too… I guess slogans really are just meaningless.

  30. 30
    Darrell says:

    Specifically, tell us how Thomas’s dissent squares with the body of his jurisprudence

    What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in china? or this discussion for that matter?

  31. 31
    Darrell says:

    Darrell, Ginsburg was pre-screened by the Republicans. Clinton picked her from a list of confirmable candidates.

    Republicans, unlike Dems, accepted that they had lost the Presidential election and acknowledged that Clinton had the right to nominate someone qualified, even if their ideology was repulsive to them. Dems are too dishonorable to extend the same tradition of courtesy, as there is little honest doubt that Alito is well qualified to be on the Supreme court

  32. 32

    Republicans, unlike Dems, accepted that they had lost the Presidential election and acknowledged that Clinton had the right to nominate someone qualified, even if their ideology was repulsive to them.

    Really?

    You do realize that both of Clinton’s nominees weren’t just screened by Republicans they were SUGGESTED by none other than Orin Hatch.

    There goes your whole, the Dems are dishonorable theory. Clinton basically let the Republicans pick his nominees.

  33. 33

    And noone disagrees that Alito is/was well qualified Darrell. That isn’t the issue. Hell, when you have someone like John opposing such a well qualified nominee, that should tell you something.

    Oh wait! SHIT! US vs Them!

    DAMNIT! I forgot.

  34. 34
    LITBMueller says:

    That’s right, Darell! Those Dems are thieving dogs! And when they’re not picking peanuts out of poop, they’re ripping
    off unfortunate souls of their hard-earned drugs.

    [sorry for the obscure movie quote/reference]

  35. 35
    Pooh says:

    Well, Darrell, you seem to be an expert on the dissents in the Oregon case, and your theories intrigue me. How may I subscribe to your newsletter?

  36. 36
    Steve says:

    Republicans, unlike Dems, accepted that they had lost the Presidential election and acknowledged that Clinton had the right to nominate someone qualified, even if their ideology was repulsive to them.

    So Clinton’s 60 judicial nominees who were blocked by Republicans from ever receiving a floor vote were blocked for what reason? Surely the principled Republicans recognized that Clinton was entitled to nominate qualified judges of his choice.

  37. 37
    Darrell says:

    Pooh Says:

    Well, Darrell, you seem to be an expert on the dissents in the Oregon case, and your theories intrigue me

    Specifically, what legal “theories” have I presented here which intrigue you so? or were you just trying to derail the discussion by pulling strawmen out of your ass?

  38. 38
    AKA STATE says:

    Is anyone else surprised that the Senate was willing to confirm 2 more judges who subscribe to a policy that would make them irrelevant??

    Roe will not be overturned. It will be salamied to death as it now is in the process but the issue will never go away. There is no commom ground between the all or nothing pro and anti coicers. Hopefully we could come to an agreement to how we could make abortion irrelevant.

  39. 39
    ppGaz says:

    or were you just trying to derail the discussion

    What made you think you were involved in a “discussion?”

  40. 40
    Darrell says:

    So Clinton’s 60 judicial nominees who were blocked by Republicans from ever receiving a floor vote were blocked for what reason?

    My comment was in the context of SCOTUS nominees, but that distinction seems to have flown over your head.

    And regarding Clinton’s judicial nominees, there is nothing new or special about a judicial nominee not being confirmed due to lack of support from a Senate majority. If a majority of senators chooses to defer to a committee’s decision not to bring someone to a vote, that is the majority’s right under our constitutional system. Dems are a minority trying to block the will of the majority by abusing the filibuster, or threatening to use it.

    Even Corzine boasted a year or two ago that Dems judicial obstruction was “unprecedented” (his words)

  41. 41
    Tulkinghorn says:

    At the very least, Republicans will be less able to run against the so-called left-wing judiciary.

  42. 42

    What the FUG Ever!

    Alito is confirmed… And the sun did not fall from the sky. If his Senate Confirmation Hearing Testimony turns out to be true, then we on the Left have little to fear. If he turns out to be the swing…

  43. 43
    Cyrus says:

    Alito is not nearly as far to the right as Ruth Bader Ginsburg was to the left. She was an activist ACLU lawyer for chrissakes, yet less than a handful of Republicans voted against her.

    Yes, she worked for the ACLU, and we all know what a hotbed of radicalism that place is. I mean, if it could spawn a fevered Marxist like Glenn Reynolds, there’s no telling how extremist they are!

    I’m going to make the crazy suggestion that we stop using the words “activist”, “biased” and “partisan” as synonyms. They aren’t. The ACLU is activist, obviously. But this is a democracy – every one of is allowed if not expected to be activist. And they’re biased, but that by itself is meaningless; everyone has some biases. As for being partisan, they aren’t. At least, they weren’t until support for torture and warrantless wiretapping became the Republican party line. You’re correct that they probably do ally with The Left (TM) more often, but if you do a little research, you’ll find tons of examples of them filing suit on behalf of Christian students and stuff.

    Although I can tell that you’re in an unusually good mood, Darrell, from reading your comment about Roe potentially being overturned:

    Fucking hilarious. Otto man, undoubtedly like so many others on the left are too ignorant to know that it was Al Gore, not George H.W. Bush who made Willie Horton a campaign issue.. Willie Horton being the black prisoner who who raped someone while out on furlough. First raised as a campaign issue by Al Gore

    Most of the time you would have called Otto a filthy lying bastard, but this time you gave him credit for good intentions and just called him ignorant. I applaud your restraint.

    But Boston Harbor * really was * filthy as hell at that time from what I’ve read, a relevant point as Dukakis was campaigning as an environmentalist.

    Just so we’re totally clear, you’re supporting the principle of “fake but accurate”, right? It doesn’t matter that this campaign ad was, apparently, deliberately misleading, as long as it’s true that Dukakis wasn’t a saint either?

    About negative campaigning, finally… As long as it’s honest, I don’t really have a problem with it. It’s not admirable and you wouldn’t like to see it in the professional arena or whatever, but you can’t care about every damn thing. And I realize that both sides have engaged in it, both honestly and dishonestly. And in general it’s equally bad. Duh.

    But advice on winning from the people who would prefer that the Democrats lose seems like gloating at best and sabotage at worst. And this particular bit of advice seems stupid and incorrect, because negative campaigning obviously does work and it’s practiced as well if not better by the right. In fact, no one would even think of this advice if not for the deep-seated view of Democrats as appeasers, civil and considerate to a fault, blah blah blah. At the risk of channeling Amanda Marcotte, what do they think we should do, be more “ladylike”? After all, it’s expected that Republicans can handle some bare-knuckle politics, but it’s so… rude for Democrats to try to dish it out! And a real gentleman can’t hit back! Heavens, next thing you know, bloggers will be cursing!

    So when someone says something like Brian’s “Classy politics, folks. And designed to lose more elections, albeit unintentionally,” are they willfully ignorant of how their own side does business, or do they imagine that anyone who wouldn’t need smelling salts at the mention of a scandal is already a solid Republican voter, or what?

  44. 44
    Cyrus says:

    Tulkinghorn Says:

    At the very least, Republicans will be less able to run against the so-called left-wing judiciary.

    Oh, if only it were true. Unfortunately, there are still all those eeevil libruls on appellate courts, and district courts, and state supreme courts… and even if a judge is a registered Republican, if he rules in favor of the defendant in a criminal trial or against adding a Bible study course to a public school curriculum then that means he must be secretly a liberal…

  45. 45
    Perry Como says:

    And regarding Clinton’s judicial nominees, there is nothing new or special about a judicial nominee not being confirmed due to lack of support from a Senate majority.

    Blue slips.

  46. 46
    Pooh says:

    Darrell, I could never approach your proficiency at derailing discussions.

    No, I was wondering what you thought of the dissents since you decried someone’s “simpleton understanding of that ruling” upthread.

    And I wanted to make a Simpsons reference. Sue me.

  47. 47
    Steve says:

    My comment was in the context of SCOTUS nominees, but that distinction seems to have flown over your head.

    And regarding Clinton’s judicial nominees, there is nothing new or special about a judicial nominee not being confirmed due to lack of support from a Senate majority. If a majority of senators chooses to defer to a committee’s decision not to bring someone to a vote, that is the majority’s right under our constitutional system. Dems are a minority trying to block the will of the majority by abusing the filibuster, or threatening to use it.

    Even Corzine boasted a year or two ago that Dems judicial obstruction was “unprecedented” (his words)

    No, I got that you were making a point about SCOTUS. What I also got was that there was no principled reason for you to limit yourself to SCOTUS, other than the fact that it would refute your argument if you looked at the other courts as well. If the President is entitled to his pick with respect to SCOTUS, surely he’s entitled to his pick with respect to the lower courts.

    Your argument requires us to accept that the Republicans said “Well, this Ginsburg is a flaming liberal, but we have no choice but to respect the President’s choice since she’s qualified. However, these 60 judges that have been nominated to lower courts, we’re perfectly entitled to block them.”

    The idea that Clinton’s judges were blocked by a majority doesn’t hold any water at all. Most of the 60 were blocked by blue slips from a single home-state Senator. Others were blocked by means of anonymous holds, which also only require one Senator. In several cases, a nominee was blocked for years, only to be confirmed by a near-unanimous margin when they got to the floor, so the argument that they lacked majority suport is incorrect.

    This principle that every nominee deserves an “up-or-down vote” just gets more incoherent the longer you look at it. If a majority is opposed to the nomination, why the heck should that stop you from having an up-or-down vote? Why wouldn’t you just bring the nomination to the floor and defeat it? The Republican principle boils down to “you have a right to an up-or-down vote, but only if it’s going to be up and not down, and even then only if your party is in the majority.”

    The facts are really quite obvious and not open to reasonable dispute. Prior to 2001, there were a variety of procedural devices in the Senate which existed to protect the prerogatives of minorities and individual members. Over the years, both parties took advantage of these devices to block any number of nominees. Then when Bush got elected, the Republicans decided those devices were inconvenient and did away with them. There’s nothing illegal about it, majority makes the rules, but it’s deeply dishonest to pretend that there’s some overarching principle that has guided Republican behavior regarding judges ever since Clinton’s time.

  48. 48
    Steve says:

    Oh, by the way, just to prove that Darrell does nothing more than regurgitate talking points via Google, coupled with the occasional insult, I give you John Cornyn from National Review:

    But there is nothing new — or relevant — about a judicial nominee who is not confirmed due to lack of support from a Senate majority. At the end of the first Bush Administration, there were 54 judicial nominees who had not mustered majority support and thus were not confirmed. At the end of the Clinton administration, there were 41 such nominees. If a majority of senators chooses to defer to a committee’s decision not to bring someone to a vote, that is the majority’s right under our constitutional system for confirming judges.

    Now, here is Darrell, without attribution:

    And regarding Clinton’s judicial nominees, there is nothing new or special about a judicial nominee not being confirmed due to lack of support from a Senate majority. If a majority of senators chooses to defer to a committee’s decision not to bring someone to a vote, that is the majority’s right under our constitutional system.

    Here is Cornyn again, same article:

    In a November 3 fundraising e-mail to potential donors, my colleague, Jon Corzine, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, acknowledged — actually, he boasted — that the current blockade of judicial nominees is “unprecedented.”

    And Darrell’s next point just happens to be:

    Even Corzine boasted a year or two ago that Dems judicial obstruction was “unprecedented” (his words)

    Pretty shameless, Darrell. Maybe you should call Sen. Cornyn’s office to figure out how you’re going to explain yourself.

  49. 49

    Dems are a minority trying to block the will of the majority by abusing the filibuster, or threatening to use it.

    I suggest you read up on the formation of the US government. You might want to specifically read about a something called “the tyranny of the majority” and what the founding fathers put in place to protect against it.

    I’ll give you a hint, it begins with a “f” and ends with an “r”.

  50. 50

    Wow, Darrell. All you do is cut and paste?

    Ha. Oh boy.

  51. 51
    LITBMueller says:

    Oh, man…Steve, you made me spit Pepsi on my keyboard…..

  52. 52
    Cyrus says:

    You know, it’s sad because he has had some reasonable opinions. Well, sometimes. I remember a discussion about dam regulation a few months ago that was civil and open-minded by all parties by any standard, and I don’t think he’s a fan of Bush’s spending even though he does have a fanatical devotion to the belief that [insert Democrat here] would be much worse.

    But plagiarism? Ouch. You know, it’s the only thing I’ve given a failing grade for. (That’s just because I was only a teacher for about a month, but still…) From now on, Darrell is inextricably linked in my mind to a ninth-grader with round glasses and a buzz-cut who wrote his term paper on werewolves.

  53. 53
    Otto Man says:

    No wonder Darrell sounds so stupid. He’s cribbing from Cornyn?

    That’s like cheating off the special ed student.

  54. 54
  55. 55
    Pooh says:

    Oh, man, that’s got to smart. Well played Steve.

  56. 56
    Darrell says:

    Otto Man Says:

    No wonder Darrell sounds so stupid. He’s cribbing from Cornyn?

    That’s like cheating off the special ed student.

    I love how you dishonest half-wits pass judgement on me on this widely reported argument after the sh*t you post (lies that GHWB initiated the race card on Dukakis, etc). That argument, and looking at Cornyn’s original post it was a snippet of his argument, regarding a majority of Senators was posted and discussed ad naseum on countless websites.

    How many of Clinton’s nominees blocked by filibuster by Repubs? Zero?

    Far left Ginsburg sailed through with 96 votes while Alito had 40+ Dems voting against him. It’s not like both sides are equally guilty of obstuctionism here. Hence, Corzine’s boasting of “unprecedented” judicial obstruction. No shit

  57. 57
    Steve says:

    I’m sure you’re right, Senator, it’s just that everyone is too busy laughing to debate further.

  58. 58
    StupidityRules says:

    Darrell, exactly how much do you get paid for your cut&paste work?

  59. 59
    Otto Man says:

    I love how you dishonest half-wits pass judgement on me on this widely reported argument after the sh*t you post (lies that GHWB initiated the race card on Dukakis, etc).

    Read what I wrote — or better yet, have an adult help you sound out the big words — and show me where I said GHWBush “initiated” the race card on Dukakis.

    Do you remember George H.W. Bush overcoming a substantial Dukakis lead in ‘88 on his noble campaign of “hey, black prisoners will come rape your wife if you vote Dukakis”?

    You brought up the matter of who initiated it, and I readily agreed on that point. As always, Darrell, you’re only arguing against the fevered strawmen of your own imagination. (And before you go calling people “half-wits,” the preferred spelling is “judgment.”)

    You got busted plagiarizing, and worse, plagiarizing from a moron. Your act of righteous indignation isn’t going to distract from that. Why don’t you go plagiarize another defense?

  60. 60

    How can Darrell call any of us dishonest when he plagiarized a US Senator?

    Darrell, do yourself a favor and either apologize or never comment here again.

  61. 61
    Cyrus says:

    I love how you dishonest half-wits pass judgement on me on this widely reported argument after the sh*t you post (lies that GHWB initiated the race card on Dukakis, etc). That argument, and looking at Cornyn’s original post it was a snippet of his argument, regarding a majority of Senators was posted and discussed ad naseum on countless websites.

    Now, now, the problem is not that you’re mindlessly parroting an argument that was specious in the first place.

    Well, OK, that’s a problem too. But the problem that earned nine consecutive concurring comments in an hour and a half (not counting yours at 5:31) is the fact that you passed it off as your own. In a formal academic setting that’s right up there with just pulling test results out of your ass and calling them genuine, for good reasons. But since this is neither formal nor academic, we have to settle for mockery.

    Also, just because it’s yet another unsupported assertion, what is your reason for believing that Ginsberg is far left? If it’s just the fact that she worked for the ACLU, then apparently the Instapundit is “far left” too. For that matter, most things she might have said in the course of defending a client aren’t reliable evidence. So do you have a link to or quote from a ruling or judicial opinion that demonstrates that she is part of The Left (TM), rather than just libertarian?

  62. 62
    Pooh says:

    And of course, if Ginsburg is a far-left ACLU commie, Alito is a far-right, anti-intergration, anti coeducation…

  63. 63
    Sojourner says:

    Alito is not nearly as far to the right as Ruth Bader Ginsburg was to the left. She was an activist ACLU lawyer for chrissakes, yet less than a handful of Republicans voted against her.

    Two words: Orrin Hatch. Dumb ass.

  64. 64
    Darrell says:

    Also, just because it’s yet another unsupported assertion, what is your reason for believing that Ginsberg is far left?

    There’s little honest doubt she’s liberal, just how extreme left is what’s debatable

    Despite the Post’s claim that Ginsburg was a centrist, she has in fact been a consistently liberal vote on the Supreme Court. Research by Richard J. Timpone, director of the Political Research Laboratory at Ohio State, finds that she is the most liberal member of the Court on economic issues and virtually tied with Justices John Paul Stevens and Steven Breyer on civil liberties. The Institute for Justice reviewed three years of Court terms and found: “The justices least likely to constrain government power and protect individual liberties were Justices Ginsburg and Breyer.” Three years later they found the same results for Ginsburg’s first seven terms: she and Breyer voted against protecting civil and economic liberties more often than any other justice.

    Very liberal.. and received 96 votes in the Senate comparied to 40+ Dems voting against Alito. Also, no lefist no media bias here:

    Remember all those news stories in 1993 about how the nomination of former ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg to replace conservative Justice Byron White on the United States Supreme Court would “tilt the balance of the court to the left?”

    Of course you don’t. Because there weren’t any.

    In the past three months, the major media have repeatedly hammered away at the theme that Judge Samuel Alito Jr. would “shift the Supreme Court to the right” if he replaced retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

    Ginsburg replaces conservative Justice White and not a damn word about warnings of a “shifting the court to the left”. But Alito comes along replacing a center-right justice, well, the sky is falling

  65. 65
    Darrell says:

    Pooh Says:

    And of course, if Ginsburg is a far-left ACLU commie, Alito is a far-right, anti-intergration, anti coeducation…

    Actually, your side made those very smears against Alito. Just so you know

  66. 66
    Pooh says:

    Missing the point as usual, Senator.

  67. 67
    Sojourner says:

    Very liberal.. and received 96 votes in the Senate comparied to 40+ Dems voting against Alito. Also, no lefist no media bias here:

    Good job, Darrell. Ignore the fact that has been stated repeatedly as to what happened: Orrin Hatch.

    Dumb ass.

  68. 68
    Cyrus says:

    There’s little honest doubt she’s liberal, just how extreme left is what’s debatable

    Oh, I don’t doubt that she’s left of center (whatever that means in a world where some self-proclaimed libertarians can support Bush without their heads exploding). Hell, I’ll be generous, I don’t even dispute that she’s the most left-wing member of the court. I just won’t take your word for it that she’s an extremist, past the spectrum of “mainstream” political discourse in the world or in America in particular.

    she is the most liberal member of the Court…

    Well, that’s damning with faint praise. Or praising with faint damns, or whatever. If you know that someone is the most liberal member of a group of only nine upper-class senior citizens, mostly white males, then you know… almost nothing about her.

    The justices least likely to constrain government power and protect individual liberties were Justices Ginsburg and Breyer.

    Suddenly I’m confused. She worked for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is one of the few facts I know about her, thanks to reactionaries. But according to this article, she was one of the justices least likely to constrain government power. Civil Liberties Union… least likely to constrain government power… does not compute. Are you claiming that all the ACLU, every one of them, are deceitful hypocrites? Or just Ginsburg? If the latter, then don’t you think that would be a much more effective (and for that matter, more easily-supported) charge than calling her an extremist liberal?

    Or is it just possible that the article to which you linked is biased, or is using a different set of definitions from those used by most people? For example, I read your article, and I just noticed that the author is executive vice president of the Cato Institute. It’s not as partisan as some think tanks, but still.

    For that matter, this David Boaz only addresses Ginsburg’s political alignment tangentially. His main point is about the evil liberals in the media. I don’t have access to most of his sources, and as for the rest, it’s too late and I admit I’m too lazy to try to track them down. (Not that he makes it easy for us.) But mostly he takes for granted that she’s liberal and throws in literally just three sentences at the end supporting that assertion. This is your best evidence that she’s our home-grown George Galloway?

    Ginsburg most have written or concurred with hundreds of judicial rulings and opinions by now. Without taking it out of context or misstating the facts of the case in question, can you find even one place where she says “wealth is parasitism” or “Stalin had the right idea” or “I don’t know that Christians should be considered as citizens” or anything else that only an extremist would say? And if you don’t feel like it – I don’t really blame you, it would be hard – can you admit it, or will you try to pass off Jerry Falwell’s opinion as fact next?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. What the FUG Ever!

    Alito is confirmed… And the sun did not fall from the sky. If his Senate Confirmation Hearing Testimony turns out to be true, then we on the Left have little to fear. If he turns out to be the swing…

Comments are closed.