Fruit of a Poison Bush- Why I Oppose Alito

The clock is ticking- will your voice be heard?

Today is the last day in which Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito will be questioned by Senators on the Judiciary Committee. Tomorrow is the final day of scheduled hearings, and will be comprised of testimony by outside witnesses.

I’ll say this again because I think it bears repeating- today is the last time that Sam Alito will ever have to undergo public questioning of his beliefs and approach to the law. He is a hair’s breadth away from being confirmed into a lifetime appointment.

As in the confirmation of John Roberts, unless Alito is caught with a dead girl or a live boy between now and the Committee vote on January 17, he will be confirmed as an Associate Supreme Court Justice.

I urge you to contact Senator Dick Durbin and voice your opinion. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, Durbin represents you on the Judiciary Committee and in Congress. Contact Durbin and tell him what YOU think.

What do I think?

I think that the Democrats fought this confirmation battle on the wrong ground. While I agree that Alito’s record makes me uneasy- Vanguard, CAP, Roe, “unitary executive theory”, privacy, equal rights of women and minorities, etc.- I do not believe there is enough there to convince the average American that he is unfit for the bench.

I would vote against Alito simply on the basis that he is a Bush nominee.

Sam Alito is “fruit of a poison Bush,” to bastardize a common legalism.

Now, my detractors will chalk this up as “Bush Derangement Syndrome” but that is not the case. It is simple reason: if you bought a car from someone and the car turned out to be a lemon, and you returned the car and got another one which also turned out to be a lemon, how many times would you go back to the dealer? What reasonable expectation would you have, after having had 2 or 3 lemons pawned off on you, that the dealer would now provide you with a safe and functional automobile as advertised and as paid for? None.

Well, look at Bush’s track record simply when it comes to federal nominees: Bernard Kerik? Harriet Myers? Michael Brown? Porter Goss? Julie Myers? Shall I go on? What reasonable expectation do we have that Bush has, finally, appointed an individual of ethical integrity and professional competence?

Bush has shown remarkable incompetence and cronyism in the selection of his nominees for all levels of service in the government. Why, the previous nominee, Miers, was so unqualified that Republicans themselves drove a stake through her nomination, forcing her to withdraw.

Those nominees/appointees that did assume office have shown themselves to be truly incompetent- Michael Brown, formerly of FEMA (“Yes, I am aware New Orleans is utterly destroyed…How did I look on TV?”) and Porter Goss of the CIA (“The jobs I’m being asked to do, the five hats that I wear, are too much for this mortal. I’m a little amazed at the workload.”)

Furthermore, Bush has actively deceived the American people on a variety of issues throughout his term in office- from a disastrous, ill-conceived and executed war in Iraq, based on deceptions and outright lies, to illegal, warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens, to mention but two of the lowlights of his administration.

Sam Alito may be an honorable man. It is unfortunate that we will not know for sure until he is on the Supreme Court.

38 Comments so far

  1. steven (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 11:01 am

    I don’t normally have much to say about politics or politicians, except that many of them have really let us down over the years…greed, corruption, selfishness…it’s all there. But I’ll give my 2 cents here and say I completely agree with Nikkos. Except for the one judge that ruled against allowing creationism to be taught in schools (he was a bush nominee…can you believe it?), I haven’t heard one iota of support for most of the folks Bush has nominated for jobs during his tenure.

    Now, I don’t scour the news wires or listen to NPR 25 hours a day, so when I casually listen in when I can, they’re always bashing a Bush nominee. Coincidence?

  2. Ben (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 11:44 am


    What exactly makes you uneasy about Roe? For example, wouldn’t you agree that Roe is bad law? Without revealing ones feelings on abortion, you can easily say that Roe is bad law. There is no right to abortion in the Constitution. It should be overturned and voted on by the states, where it would still remain legal in probably over three-fourths of the states. What do you think?

    What makes you uneasy about “equal rights of women and minorities”? If you’re talking about CAPS, you’re playing guilty by association, which was a tactic employed by the Communist Soviets, Hitler and Pol Pot. That would be like saying because all Democratic senators serve with Robert “Sheets” Byrd, that all Democratic senators support the KKK.

    As for your comment, “I would vote against Alito simply on the basis that he is a Bush nominee,” the first thing that pops in my mind is – that’s very open minded of you. It reminds me of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who nominated by Clinton after being an attorney for the EXTREMELY LEFT-WING ACLU, received over 90 votes. The Republicans were respectful of the fact that Clinton won the election and his nominee deserved a vote. They didn’t sit there and berate her over her extreme views (legal consent to have sex should be 12!) – they faced the fact that they lost the election and acted like grown ups.

    Also, taking your analogy a bit further: “if you bought a car from someone and the car turned out to be a lemon, and you returned the car and got another one which also turned out to be a lemon, how many times would you go back to the dealer? What reasonable expectation would you have, after having had 2 or 3 lemons pawned off on you, that the dealer would now provide you with a safe and functional automobile as advertised and as paid for? None.”

    Why not apply this to our country. Your country (dealer) gave you a President (car) that turned out to be a lemon. You tried returning the President (car) after 4 years, but your country (dealer) gave you the exact same one. They didn’t even act like they were giving you something different! Maybe, following your own wisdom, if you receive a third lemon (Republican president in ’08), you should find yourself a new dealer (country). Just a thought.


    “Now, I don’t scour the news wires or listen to NPR 25 hours a day, so when I casually listen in when I can, they’re always bashing a Bush nominee. Coincidence?”

    For a more fair take on politics/culture, one where there isn’t constant name-calling, requests for assassinations and a total disregard for civility, you should try 560 AM. Give it a chance – you may find interesting.

  3. nikkos (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 11:49 am

    Ben, why should I engage in debate with someone who has just suggested I leave the country?

    While you will certainly disagree, I feel that I have been extremely charitable and tolerant in our frequent discussions.

    However, at this point, I feel no compunction in finally urging you to go and fuck yourself.

  4. Ben (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 12:06 pm

    You should engage in debate because I have posed several good points – Roe and CAPS. I’m sure all of your loyal readers would love to hear how Nick feels about the constitutionality of Roe and how the Democrats use of tactics employed by the Communist Soviets, Hitler and Pol Pot is an act of decorum.

    If by “extremely charitable and tolerant” you mean name calling and personal attacks, then yes, you have been. You can go back through the posts and see that I have been much more respectful. If you like, I can create a “Nikkos greatest hits” to post.

    I simply used your own analogy. Why are you getting so emotional and angry? It seems like you’re overreacting quite a bit. It’s not like I really expect you to leave the country. It wouldn’t bother me either way.

    Cheer up!

  5. steven (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 12:25 pm

    You mean 560AM, the ones with the billboard that reads, in big bold black letters I might add, “LIBERALS HATE US!”? Uh, no thanks, that billboard alone made sure I would never tune in. I’ll stick with my cache of stations, one of them being NPR…they were pretty fair when they mentioned that the anti creationism-in-school judge I referred to above was actually nominated by Bush. That’s fair enough for me.

  6. Ben (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 12:35 pm

    Suit yourself. But conservative radio is better than liberal radio (yes, I listen to Air America and NPR) because most conservatives take the majority of their calls from liberals, so there is an exchange of ideas and different viewpoints are heard.

    On liberal radio (I once heard Janeane Garafolo(sp) say something to the effect of – she didn’t like taking calls because she thought the callers were dumb), it is pretty much just liberals espousing their viewpoints with other liberals because they have a difficult time backing them up when confronted. Maybe some day when you’re feeling extremely open-minded, you’ll give it a shot, or maybe you won’t.

  7. nikkos (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 12:52 pm

    Ben, you’re like an abusive husband or boyfriend that beats one’s partner and then, upon realizing you actually have done harm, you retreat and back pedal, disavow your own statements, accuse the recipient of the abuse of misconstruing said statements and abuse, etc.

    In addition, once you elicit the all-too-predictable anger, you then attempt to take the high ground- as though the anger your statements arouse is somehow the fault of the angered.

    To wit:

    “I’m sorry I hit you. It won’t happen again. I’m just under so much pressure right now- stop overreacting!”

    “So you ‘fell down the stairs’ again- cheer up!”

    “I said I was sorry for beating you- why are you so emotional and angry?”

  8. Ben (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 1:13 pm

    Umm…I didn’t backpedal from any statement, nor did I apologize for anything. Pretty much every word of you last post is obviously false, as anyone can tell by reading the thread.

    All I did was explain why I thought you should engage in discussion, pointed out how you HAVEN’T been “extremely charitable and tolerant” and how you seemed to be overreacting.

    I hope you feel better soon.

  9. Danny Doom (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 1:33 pm

    Steven beat me to it about the billboards, i’ve seen those out in the suburbs. Funny that a station with those words would be considered a “more fair take” by Ben. It says all we need to know, not that we didn’t know it already.

    Do you live in a gated community, Ben?

  10. steven (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 2:50 pm

    Well, I’m not going to rely on Jeneane G for my daily dose of news, that’s for sure. I even hesitate listening to Air America because, like WIND, they have their own agenda. Which is great, but then occesionally it does indeed become “all the others are stupid”, which does no one any good. I’m sure WIND has their moments as well, no one is innocent.

    Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, I’m sticking to my own common sense, which so far has done me pretty darn good.

  11. Ben (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 3:11 pm

    Mr. Doom-

    Once again you prove my point how some people on the Left will accept anything without doing their own research or having any knowledge of the subject. I’m not saying you don’t know anything about WIND because maybe you’ve listened to it – but the fact that someone would take that sort of stance based on what a billboard says doesn’t show very good independent thinking skills. (ie. The billboard said it, so it must be true).


    I’m glad you don’t rely on Janeane(sp) for your news. The sad thing is, many people on the Left did. Yes, of course, people on WIND have their own agenda, but what makes them different is that they engage with people on the other side. Getting to hear both sides is an important thing that many people on the Left don’t take part in because, in the media, you have to actively seek out conservative viewpoints – except on this blog, of course.

    Apparently Nikkos is still giving me the silent treatment…or he’s not sure how to back up Roe constitutionally? Or he doesn’t want to support the guilty by association tactics used by Senate dems?

  12. Danny Doom (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 3:43 pm

    no, i’ve never listened to the station, but are you saying the billboard is an inaccurate description of the station? Liberals will love it? why would they lie about that?

    your idea of fair has a bit of a slant to it, yes? kind of off to the right somewhere.

    You seem to want everyone to think like you do!

    When I presented a quote from Patrick Fitzgerald you countered with a quote from an opinion columnist. Sounds like you’re getting a lot of opinions fed to you, which you then spit out over here. You don’t really want the truth, do you?

    If you want unfiltered news you have to stick to the source. The rest (WIND, Air America, Rush) are all just hot air.

  13. steven (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 4:08 pm

    They have to actively seek out conservative viewpoints? The majority of the country is conservative, and they’re not shy about voicing their opinions. Look who voted Bush into office. Sure wasn’t me.


    The billboard I saw was off of the Edens, just after the Kennedy junction.

  14. Ben (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 4:17 pm

    I don’t know if the billboard is accurate – I’m not a liberal. However, I have heard MANY liberals call into the shows (Medved and Prager) talking about how much they love the open dialogue, the intellect, the guests, the topics and the respect given to callers.

    I don’t think my idea of fair is really slanted. I mean, my political views slant to the right, but as far as fair goes, I can be fair to both sides. I just happen to think the current Democratic party is full of demagogues and people who don’t have the best interest of their constituents in mind. (Joe Lieberman is ok). C’mon, the whole Democratic platform is based on creating dependency on government. And don’t get me wrong – the Republicans are full of them too.

    I don’t really want everyone to think exactly like me, but when I have a difference with someone, I don’t mind debating it. The main problem I have is when people try to pass of lies as truths. Then I really enjoy calling people out because I feel that too many people just believe a lot of that garbage when it is said enough.

    I do want the truth, Mr. Doom. I don’t think WIND is hot air. Of course it’s opinion, or analysis of the news, so it must be taken with a grain of salt, but people like Prager and Medved are two of the most intellectual people on the radio, no question. seems like I am getting the silent treatment from Nikkos. Does anyone else want to show me how I’m wrong about Roe and CAPS?


    Yes, the majority voted for Bush, but I’m talking about the media. Obviously, we can all agree that the majority of the media is liberal, right? Take out Fox News, talk radio and a couple newspapers and pretty much everything is liberal.

  15. Danny Doom (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 4:48 pm

    i don’t blame Nikkos for not responding to you, you suggested that he should leave the country if he’s not happy with it. That’s not very nice. i’m not sure why i’m responding to you either.

    You act as if Bush was the overwhelming victor in the last election (and as if he actually won the 2000 election), but the reality is that both elections were very close and could have gone either way. and you live in a state and perhaps city, that voted heavily against this president.

    and so we have a greatly divided country in which the majority right now are very unhappy with the job, or lemons, that we have been given. You can’t deny his unpopularity. and the reason is that he hasn’t done a very good job.

    to tell Nikkos that if he doesn’t like he should leave is a form of this psuedo-patriotism that has permeated the culture over the Bush years, and it makes me sick.

  16. Gabe (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 4:49 pm

    Ben, I’m not arguing that you’re wrong but I thought I would offer a little evidence of the liberal bias in the media (since the discussion seems to be around this topic). I will also add that even some of the media considered to be more “right-wing” (i.e. drudge report) was found to have some more left leaning bias.

    A study was done by a UCLA political scientist and he found exactly what we’ve been saying; “there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left,” said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.”

    Makes for interesting reading:

  17. Ben (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 5:39 pm

    I can’t believe I have to point this out, but…the post specifically says that if he receives a third lemon, in ’08, that maybe he should follow his own advice. I was using HIS analogy. I took words out of his mouth. Is it 2008? Nope. Besides that obvious tidbit, I don’t really think it’s mean to suggest that someone try to make themselves happier. Obviously Nick isn’t happy with the direction his country is going, so maybe he would be happier somewhere else. It just sounds silly when you say, “you suggested that he should leave the country if he’s not happy with it.” Ok – big deal. If someone told me that, I certainly wouldn’t get bent out of shape. It’s not I like I sit there and berate him making personal attacks and calling him stupid like he’s does to me. A lot of selective memories around here.

    When did I act like Bush won an overwhelming victory? And he DID win the 2000 election. Don’t these catch-phrases ever go away? It’s like a little kid in the car asking, “Are we there yet?” Bush lied! Bush stole the election! Hurricane Katrina is Bush’s fault! Bush hates black people! Ok, we heard it the first ten billion times. Try something that actually has some merit. I do agree that the elections were close. It’s a fact.

    I also agree that he is pretty unpopular right now. There are many things I disagree with him on. Obviously, many of those things probably differ between you and I.

    As for Nikkos not responding – that’s his choice, but I challenged him on a few of his points and he doesn’t want to back them up (Roe & CAPS). It’s not the first time it’s happened. Also, I don’t enjoy the name-calling, as I’ve said several times, and if you look through the posts you can see that Nikkos is the one always calling people stupid.

  18. nikkos (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 6:52 pm

    Ben, as I’ve said before, if you just want to pick a fight for your own amusement, don’t be surprised by the response you get.

    Or lack of response- where in my contract does it say I have to answer every fucking question that gets thrown at me? If you want to talk about forums for political dialogue, and responsive, responsible blogging, this is about as good as it gets. I slug it out in the comments for everything I post- unlike most conservative blogs, which rarely have comments sections at all.

    Suggesting “I love it or leave it” puts your bumper sticker, talk radio politics on full display and really requires no further comment on my part. If you don’t understand, as one American to another, why that is a deeply offensive thing to say, then truly, what is wrong with you?

    I realize that part of the conservative pathology is the false perception that American conservatism is a persecuted minority which is constantly under attack from liberals and/or liberalism.

    Whether your increasingly senseless forays into the comments section are an actual pathology, a stunt or a plea for help, I haven’t the foggiest.

    If you want to have a real discussion, as I have said many times before, you are welcome here. But if you just want to pick fights and act like, yes, an asshole, the don’t be surprised when others don’t want to follow you into the muck.

  19. steven (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 6:58 pm

    Hmmm, I wonder why Nikkos doesn’t respond. Maybe it’s because he’s tired of having *every* *single* *word* *he* *says* *picked* *apart*. There’s debate, and then there’s having to invest in every edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica known to man to provide facts and quotes and proof for your beliefs. People have beliefs and opinions. Doesn’t mean they need to prepare a dissertation for each and every one of them on demand if someone doesn’t agree. Hell, it reminds me of the Alito hearings, the level of dissection.

  20. nikkos (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 7:05 pm

    Thank you, Steven.

    Allow me to clarify:

    I have no problem defending everything I post- “inexhaustibly” if need be.

    What I refuse to answer are stupid questions designed only to provoke, lies rephrased as questions and outright insults.

    Bring respect, get respect.

  21. nikkos (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 7:08 pm

    P.S.: I’ve been much more responsive than Alito.

  22. Marty (unregistered) on January 12th, 2006 @ 7:50 pm

    Nikkos: And funnier too.

    Ben: I no longer engage in “debate” on these forums. There is no debate. There is Statement, pull of context or antagonize, nasty comment. I am not innocent of this.

    In fact, I’m pretty bad when it comes to “internet discussion.” I have, on my laptop, dozens of nearly completed arguments to your comments. I never finish, let alone post them. Why? It’s quite simple really: There is no discussion, no exchange of ideas. No debate. Your arguments lack logic, substance and style.

    For instance, taken the stance that since the ACLU Defends Nambla, they endorse child abuse (let me be clear on that: They endorse ABUSE. It does not have one damn thing to do with gay sex. Gay sex implies consenting adults. Nambla endorses sex between adult men and adolescent boys. In this state, that is criminal sexual assault of a child. Do not confuse the two.)

    The ACLU defends the Bill of Rights, even when they defend those individuals, or groups, that we find repugnant. Selective defense of the Bill of Rights undercuts the bill of rights.

    The “evidence” you have sighted has only been of a conservative bent. Evidence from a moderate, or relatively unbiased, source would give your arguments credence–as of yet, I have yet to see you use anything other the the NRO, WIND, Druddge or Fox News. Oh, and World Net Daily. Each one of those sources are extremely biased. You want to make a point? Find a source that isn’t so obviously Ultra Conservative.

    (And another aside: The only reason why NPR is considered liberal is because the media outlets I’ve sighted are so conservative. NPR is, at worst, slightly left of center. NPR gives equal time on their programs. NPR’s journalists and commentators typically have 4 year degrees and a lot of experience. NPR has frequent ads for their Ombudsmen. They deal with their corrections up front. But, I digress)

    Furthermore, I find that your style is designed to aggravate. You don’t ask legitimate questions, you bait. When you say something sexist, or rude, you play it off as a joke–and then you play the part of the lone conservative hero, standing up to the evil emotional liberals. Please. I don’t buy that. I think you get off on making outrageous and inflammatory posts (The ACLU Likes Pedophiles) so you can say, “SEE! Nikkos is a name caller ! See! Liberals are too emotional and can’t handle facts!”

    If you want to have a debate, a real honest to goodness challenge of thoughts, ideas and policy, then start acting like it. Until then, I’m not going to deal with you anymore.

    In conclusion, I would like to cite my favorite John Stuart Mill Quote:

    Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.

    You may not be stupid Ben, but your arguments have been sorely lacking. If you cannot see that, but you actually want to have some discourse about that, you know where to find me.

  23. Khyle (unregistered) on January 13th, 2006 @ 7:49 am

    On the Ben\Nikkos thing. In general, I find very few people willing to change their opinion on anything having to do with politics. The people I know that are really into politics have thought out their opinions, and there is no debating with them. Which is why I personally find Internet ‘discussions’ on politics almost completely without value.

    Ben is probably just trolling. But even if he’s not intentionally just provoking, what good comes out of getting into a back and forth with him? Are you two going to come to common ground? Doubtful, when he’s telling you to move to a different country and throwing NAMBLA around.

    OTOH, Ben’s right in that Nikkos is quick with the insults and namecalling. I guess putting yourself out there and being criticized about it can give you an itchy trigger finger.

  24. Elizabeth (unregistered) on January 13th, 2006 @ 8:17 am

    I understand what you’re saying, Khyle. But I have to say – two factors are at work for me in continuing the conservative/liberal or Fox News/”liberal media” or to-Alito/not-to-Alito argument here.

    One is that – although Ben brings out the super liberal democrat in me, I registered as an independent. I can’t speak for anyone else here, but my mind isn’t made up based on what either party says or does. I don’t really feel that I voted *for* John Kerry in the last election – I more feel that I voted against George W. Bush. In other words – I’m still looking for reasoning, for political views that move me – to action, or to thought.

    The other reason is I can remember being much younger and bopping from site to site, forming opinions based on reading arguments that I never joined. There are people looking for information that come to this site. Some of them, like me, have something to say. Others don’t – but maybe one of us has given them vital information in the area of politics, art, puppies, photography, how to debate, or, my small personal contribution, how to be snarky as all hell.

    By the way – I don’t have any idea how long you’ve been posting here, Khyle. But in the time that I’ve been reading Ben’s arguments, I’ve found him to be manipulative. There are more ways to attack someone personally than to tell them to “go and fuck themselves”. For the record, I think Nikkos and Marty were extremely patient with the situation for a very very long time. I also think that Ben either has a deep streak of evil (less likely)- or doesn’t get how offensive he can be (more likely).

  25. Khyle (unregistered) on January 13th, 2006 @ 8:44 am

    Elizabeth: You bring up very good points. And if the discussions are non-personal, and are trying to advance someone’s understanding then I think they’re great. I’ve learned a lot in those kinds of situations.

    But what we have here (as you noted) is not one of those situations. Maybe Nikkos has been more patient with Ben. But on another post, I questioned him on something and he started right in with the insults.

    Maybe he assumed I was trolling. Maybe I misunderstood his point. Regardless, he was quick with the condescension. And that certainly doesn’t advance anything.

  26. Ben (unregistered) on January 13th, 2006 @ 9:16 am

    While I do appreciate you guys as sparring partners, I don’t think the intervention is necessary. I really don’t think I’m being an asshole. I comment on things that are posted. I thought that’s what happens on blogs. To address some of the points made during the lecture I received:

    Steven, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to have facts, quotes and proof of your beliefs.

    Nikkos, maybe one reason I press the issue so hard is because most of the time it’s about statements that you made first. Why make a statement when you aren’t willing to back it up? I understand that’s your right, but it’s my right to question. About the respect, as I’ve said before, I don’t believe that I’ve really disrespected you that much. You have been much more disrespectful to me. Honestly, I could go through the posts and find many instances of your name-calling. Of course, I’ve been a smartass, but I don’t believe I’ve verbally assaulted anyone. Lies rephrased as questions? Outright insults? I’m not sure I understand.

    Marty, what do you mean there is no exchange of ideas? No debate? If you feel there is no debate, perhaps you should post some of your arguments. Once again, I’m not sure I understand. There is nowhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution or anywhere that gives you the right to have sex with adolescent boys. It’s just not there. So, what to you, is a moderate, relatively unbiased news source? I certainly think I ask legitimate questions. Which ones are illegitimate? What do I say that is sexist? I don’t think any of you are evil. I never said the ACLU likes pedophiles. Nikkos IS a name caller. I thought we were having a debate about thoughts, ideas and policies.

    Elizabeth, I agree that some people come to learn, get a different view, etc. I thought that’s what this was about, even though some people don’t think so. I am also an independent and I think you said it very well, that I bring out the super liberal democrat in you. You all probably do the same to me (other way around). I feel that I bring some information to the debate that some people might not know or want to believe (ie. We don’t live in a democracy, abortion is not protected by the Constitution, etc.). Just because it doesn’t fit a liberal, utopian worldview, doesn’t mean it’s not valid. Manipulative? I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. I ask questions that most of you probably aren’t used to answering and I challenge statements that most of you probably aren’t used to defending. I consider that to be healthy dialogue. Wow, thanks for saying it’s “less likely” that I have a deep streak of evil.

    So, I guess I’ll try to not get the debate off topic as much, but as far as commenting, if I see a statement/post/comment that I disagree with, I’m going to throw in my two cents. I will try to be less of a smart ass, but I would hope that everyone would do the same and stop the name calling. Perhaps, this could become civil.

  27. Elizabeth (unregistered) on January 13th, 2006 @ 9:52 am

    Ben, this is a fine example of your tactics. Look at the way you’re talking to Marty.

    You imply that Marty said abuse was constitutional. You say, in response to Marty, “There is nowhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution or anywhere that gives you the right to have sex with adolescent boys. It’s just not there.”

    Marty never said ANYONE had a right to have sex with adolescent boys. He said people have a right to FREE SPEECH. Dave said the same thing. This is the first amendment. This is basic. People are allowed to say whatever they please, even things about having sex with children, even things about assassinating the president. I’m sure Marty can inform you, in no uncertain terms, with steam pouring from his ears, that HAVING SEX with children is illegal. TALKING ABOUT IT, however reprehensible you or I may find it, is not. How many different ways must we say this before you get it?

    You are twisting words. Let me be like Bush, and say it a few more times. Maybe then you’ll understand. You are twisting his words. You are intentionally ignoring his meaning. You are manipulating what he said to get a RISE out of him. And me.

    I don’t know if you noticed, but Marty has been very open about describing his job. I have no idea what you do for a living, but I know that Marty comes face to face with people who commit heinous crimes on a daily basis. Crimes like, for instance, raping children. He has seen the effects of such abuse first hand. If you had that sort of experience, I doubt you would have the nerve to toss around these accusations. If you had said that *I* implied it was constitutional to abuse children, I would be beyond insulted, beyond offended, beyond pissed off. I would be filled with rage. Rage that you would twist my reverence for the first amendment into a tolerance for pedophiles. I must warn you that a man who does for a living what Marty does will take your insults far less lightly than I.

    (Marty, I don’t mean to speak for you – and I apologize if it sounds that way.)

  28. Ben (unregistered) on January 13th, 2006 @ 11:01 am

    Elizabeth and Marty-

    I did not mean to imply I was talking about Marty. I was talking about the ACLU defending NAMBLA. That’s what I was calling into question. Not Marty, but the fact that a group, such as the ACLU, would stand up and represent a group, such as NAMBLA. It was not intended to be directed at Marty personally.

  29. Jason (unregistered) on January 13th, 2006 @ 1:58 pm


    Before this turned into a debate about decorum in the forum and you tried to reach a quorum,

    on the nature of the scoring, dove-points for cooing on the flooring, or hawk ones for righty’s scandalous outpouring–

    before Marty was accused of being a Gammorite (sp?), or Nikkos was offered an international flight, you were all discussing the whore of the right–

    mr. samuel alitio. (somtimes he’s called scalitio), i detest him more than a burrito–

    filled with santorum (of both kinds), and dried out baby rinds. and now this meeting of the minds–

    and this platform of debate, though not a place of hate, is an excuse to berate–

    ideas that we find apalling, and politics quite galling. But it needn’t be a mauling.

    And so it is and so it goes, whether dodging recusal or Roes, Alito, judge, was in the throes–

    of a heated questioning, doing well though, that’s the thing, except endorsing the “President-King.”

    Now it’s over and our consternation, at this crony-istic nomination, will yield naught but confirmation–

    And that just simply sucks.

  30. nikkos (unregistered) on January 13th, 2006 @ 2:08 pm

    Jason, that’s awesome! Thanks for rescuing this thread.

  31. Elizabeth (unregistered) on January 13th, 2006 @ 2:26 pm

    Finally, we’re back on topic. Thanks to the prolific rhyming Jason. Baby rinds, eh?

  32. fair and balanced (unregistered) on January 13th, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
  33. Jason (unregistered) on January 13th, 2006 @ 2:44 pm

    Dried, post-op, fetuses.

    Something the neo-cons assume I, being an outspoken liberal, put in my burritos anyway.

    Slim Jim, anyone?

  34. Ben (unregistered) on January 13th, 2006 @ 2:58 pm

    Putting aside the random accusations that will undoubtedly go unanswered, I have a question. What is wrong with Judge Alito, besides the fact that he was nominated by George W. Bush? After looking at this post, titled ‘Fruit of a Poison Bush- Why I Oppose Alito’ – the ONLY reason given in the whole post is that he was appointed by GWB.

  35. Jason (unregistered) on January 13th, 2006 @ 3:40 pm

    He provided no clear position on the following issues:

    Abortion, which everyone on the Hill dances around like some kind of festive bonfire of the policies. So. You know, whatever.

    “The Unitary Executive,” and what that notion means for Presidential signing-statements that subvert, ignore or confuse the law, and the increasing power of the executive branch in general. He indicated an ongoing tacit support for these statements, and a 1986 letter of his clearly supports them.

    Also, he was unclear how he would deal with the pending Man v. Robot-Overlords, which I think may be the most controversial case of our time.

    Plus he’s kind of dweeby. I bet Scalia’s just going to, sit on his chest, while Thomas holds a finger in his face saying “I’m not touching you; I’m not touching you,” until he caves on Roe.

    I hear Stevens has already challenged him to a friendly game of Rugby.

  36. Marty (unregistered) on January 13th, 2006 @ 4:19 pm


    I do appreciate your earlier clarification. In the spirit of civility and to prevent further hijacking of Nikkos’ thread, I am going to let the issue drop. However, in the comments, there is a link to my email; also, the side bar has more contact information for me. Feel free to use it.

    As to why I am opposing Alito, it goes beyond the Fruit of the Poison Tree argument: Which, in and of itself is wholly adequate. I am opposed to Alito because he did not clarify any of his views before the committee. He claimed to be following the same tactic that Ginsberg and Roberts followed; however, even Roberts answered some of his questions definitively.

    (While opposed to Roberts, I found him to be an extremely capable nominee.)

    I found his responses to the CAP questions to be ludicrous. “I didn’t know how bad they were” didn’t work for me. He stated he never received the letters from CAP or from Princeton’s president regarding the entire fiasco. I went to a small liberal arts college–they’ve sent me all sorts of letters. If Beloit can find me, I’m sure Princeton can find Alito. If he was serious about disavowing CAP, he would have done it he got his job working for the Gipper.

    I have more. Lots more. I disagree with his Judicial philosophy; I feel that the right’s use of the term “Activist judge” to be hypocritical and insulting to the nature of the judiciary. I find that any justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas to be a threat to civil rights and liberties and separation of powers.

    that’s what I got for now. I can go on for while.

  37. nikkos (unregistered) on January 24th, 2006 @ 12:45 pm


    Alito Nomination Goes to Full Senate

    Associated Press Writer
    Published January 24, 2006, 11:57 AM CST

    “WASHINGTON — The Judiciary Committee favorably recommended Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate on a party-line vote Tuesday, moving the conservative jurist one step closer to joining the high court.

    All 10 Republicans voted for Alito, while all eight Democrats voted against him. The partisan vote was almost preordained, with 15 of the 18 senators announcing their votes even before the committee’s session began.”,1,4661130.story?coll=chi-news-hed

  38. nikkos (unregistered) on January 31st, 2006 @ 12:40 pm

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.