VIDEO: Alito’s Quote of The Day
By on Jan 10th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
VIDEO: Alito’s Quote of The Day
This line from Alito sums up the whole day:
It’s what we call in law school the slippery slope and if you start answering the easy questions you are going to be sliding down the ski run into the hard questions, and that’s what I’m not so happy to do.
Watch it:
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Can’t blame him. I mean who likes hard questions? They make you be all honest and truthful.
January 10th, 2006 at 6:35 pmErgo… answer no questions at all!!!
January 10th, 2006 at 6:36 pmHate for him to have to think… Seeing as how it’s not required for the job!!
January 10th, 2006 at 6:36 pmSo is Judge Alito saying he shouldn’t answer any questions? Because even the easy ones might lead to hard ones? Hey Judge, this isn’t like lying on a job application. You’re supposed to demonstrate that you deserve to be on the High Court.
Couldn’t watch the hearings today. Did the good judge admit yet that believes that the president can do whatever he wants?
January 10th, 2006 at 6:38 pmThose senators have a lot of nerve asking this poor zombie all those easy and hard questions.
January 10th, 2006 at 6:41 pmAnd I thought the purpose for the hearings is that he is supposed to answer questions?
If he refuses to answer questions, they should refuse to confirm. Dems should Filibuster if the repugs try to force it though anyway, without him answering.
January 10th, 2006 at 6:44 pmUmmmmm. I thought that the job of the courts was to answer the hard questions (the easy ones get settled otu of court by any sane parties). Is Alito saying he’s just not up to the job?
Cheers,
January 10th, 2006 at 6:46 pmI wish I could use that excuse in my next job interview:
“Oh, I am sorry. I won’t answer any of your questions because they might lead to harder ones; you know, the slippery slope… Why don’t you just give me the job and be over with it?”
January 10th, 2006 at 6:48 pmCan someone please explain why this process of questioning a potential SCJ is even undertaken? They’re not going to give any definitive answers, they can’t speak to issues related to cases that may come before them, they can’t address the critical issues that We the People are interested in hearing their opinions on…..what’s the point? It’s an opportunity for egomaniacal Senators (that means you Joe Biden) to preen for the cameras and for Alito to give non-answers. It’s not democracy in action, it’s a pompous circle-jerk.
January 10th, 2006 at 6:51 pmWe could call it the “Alito precedent”… where you don’t have to answer a question under oath on the grounds that it is “hard”…
January 10th, 2006 at 6:53 pmSomeone should remind Alito that there are no hard questions. It is only the answers that are hard. If he were an honest, objective, and worthy judge and/or mature individual he would provide honest, objective, and true answers. No body cares what his answers are so long as they are true and without any hidden agenda. Given the make-up of the committee–there are a number of honest members, Graham excluded for one–I would deduce that Alito would have a better chance of being confirmed if he is honest than he will have by being evasive, obfuscative, and dishonest. All of the committee members are not as dumb as DUHbya.
January 10th, 2006 at 6:53 pmHe needs a wedgie.
January 10th, 2006 at 6:55 pmI agree Jay… some pomposity I can take but John Pompity-pomp Cornyn opening his mouth is where I change the channels…
January 10th, 2006 at 6:56 pmDid you notice how he appeared not to understand the questions? He kept intentionally missing the point. However, if you’re interested in astrology you may be interested to see what the planets say, and it’s not great news for us progressives.
January 10th, 2006 at 7:02 pmThe Senate’s job is to advise and consent on nominations.
If the nominee refuses to answer the Senate’s questions, then the Senate cannot do its duty, and must reject the nominee.
If the nominee’s answer would be too sensitive, then the Senate can hold closed hearings. But if the nominee refuses the answer, it can only be because the nominee is afraid the answer will cause votes to be cast against him.
The business about not discussing current cases is a smokescreen. There are plenty of ways, including recusal, that judges deal with such problems. In an era where a sitting Supreme Court Justice has no problem going duck hunting with a potential defendant, Alito’s purported scruples do not withstand the laugh test.
January 10th, 2006 at 7:05 pmClyde,
Reading your post reminds me how dishonest conservatives are at root. They can’t be straightforward, they have to evade and spin and distract because their ideology, and hypocrisy would make honest people sick to their stomachs!
January 10th, 2006 at 7:07 pmDate Appr Disapp
2006 Jan 6-8 43 54
2005 Dec 19-22 43 53
CNN/usatoday/gallup
January 10th, 2006 at 7:09 pmRoberts answered nothing.
January 10th, 2006 at 7:16 pmAlito answers little.
The test of SCOTUS is how well you lie and doubletalk during two days of interrogation and yet say nothing about what you think.
Game…set…match.
January 10th, 2006 at 7:20 pmI’ve seen enough. He’s a flake.
January 10th, 2006 at 7:27 pmEvery time he answers it’s to restate a previous position or clarify how he’s “different now”.
January 10th, 2006 at 7:30 pmWe should torture the answers out of Alito. See if he still backs Bush on that when we are done. Then we can follow up with strip searching his daughter.
January 10th, 2006 at 7:40 pmwe’re doomed
January 10th, 2006 at 7:43 pmGod forbid that Alito should have to answer a tough question. Roberts got away with that. It’s obvious that Alito will be a “yes man” and do the “administrations” bidding. George Bush is the worst president in my lifetime and should be impeached. Unfortunately, I believe Alito will be confirmed, the swing vote of the Supreme Court. This country is in deep shit.
January 10th, 2006 at 7:55 pmanswering questions is hard…
January 10th, 2006 at 7:56 pm#22- right on Spudge Boy
January 10th, 2006 at 7:58 pmsadly, he’ll be confirmed.
January 10th, 2006 at 8:20 pmHere is my fantastical dream scenario:
That a maverick Democrat merry little band grew something as unexpected as BALLS, and refused to consider ANY appointments to the Supreme Court until the matter of his possible impeachment trial is settled.
It seems to me that this is directly a conflict of interest for this little oil intoxicated monster to be tinkering with a body which has ALREADY given him one presidence, just prior to the time in which it may have to pass judgement arising from an indictment and trial.
What the hell!
I agree with Harald…..were doomed.
the possibility of any certifiably Balls possessing Democrat is apparently loonier than the political aims of the radical right.
Cant anyone even DRAFT a democrat with cojones?
January 10th, 2006 at 8:20 pmwhat gives?
Well, we don’t want Supreme Court Justices to be able to answer hard questions. That must be un-American, right?
Besides, Bush is the only one with a hard job.
January 10th, 2006 at 8:21 pmAfter watching today’s farce, I don’t know why we even bother with confirmation hearings at all anymore. They’re just a means for the senators to work out their floor speeches before the vote on the nominee.
P.S.
January 10th, 2006 at 8:26 pmDemocrats are worthless. Biden, Leahy, wasted their precious allotment of time blathering on about themselves, asking a minimum of questions. Have either of them ever actually used their law degrees in a court room?
#14, He didn’t seem so quick on his feet. My two favorite parts:
Schumer running circles around him on whether or not he still believes the Constitution doesn’t guarantee an abortion (which he refused for five minutes to directly answer), and
Graham trying to get Alito to comment on the previous enemy combatant cases but Alito being unable to understand what cases he meant, so Graham just finally coming out and naming the cases (Kramer to George: Why don’t you just TELL me what movie you want to see!)
January 10th, 2006 at 8:26 pmSam Alito is, what’s the word?….. unimpressive.
This is a sharp intellect, the best of the best and the brightest, to sit on the highest court in the land?
We’re in such deep deep trouble.
January 10th, 2006 at 8:31 pmCulture of Corruption.
This just in:
CNN
January 10, 2006
Police: Schwarzenegger riding illegally
California governor admits he has no motorcycle license
So, Arnie goes for a Harley ride, crashes and his spokeperson tells the press he has a motorcycle license. Turns out he doesn’t have a license.
So, the spokesperson lied.
Cover-up = corruption
Arnie was riding his motorcycle without a license.
Above the law = corruption
These bastards do it at all levels. Following the rules and laws of this nation means nothing to these people.
January 10th, 2006 at 8:32 pmthat a maverick Democrat merry little band grew something as unexpected as BALLS, and refused to consider ANY appointments to the Supreme Court until the matter of his possible impeachment trial is settled.
Comment by stephen dare — January 10, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
As soon as the NSA wiretap story broke, I said just what you have said here.
Every Democrat in Congress should have thrown up their hands and said, “That’s it! Convene some hearings or we’re out of here en masse!”
I’ve never not voted dem, but I’m done with them.
January 10th, 2006 at 8:39 pmI would be careful not to confuse “conservative” with “republican” as conservative values are not the exclusive domain of either party. Just as saying that “all” republicans are bad (and I apologize for my transgressions in that area)is an unfair generalization.
Now, with that said, ALL americans should be appalled at the way that the confirmation hearings are going. Between the blatant posturing, manuevering, and obfuscation of the republicans on the committee and Mr. Alito answers, attitude, and diversionary tactics (in a court of law he would be cited for “contempt”), the hearings are an embarrassment to the nation and a slap in the face of our system. Anyone who condones what is going on at the hearings or accepts it based upon party affiliations should be ashamed of themselves.
January 10th, 2006 at 8:40 pm#35 Optimist
Unfortunately shame is not a virtue attributed to members of the Bush administration and its obsequious sycophants.
They need to be kicked, poked, prodded, hit, punched, ad nauseum until they just sulk off to their holes and try to spend the money they have stolen. We must arise above the stink and corruption and force the buggers out, regardless of party. Our theme should be “Mutually Exclusive.” If Bush is in office in February 2007 no current incumbent will be. Let’s give them the message!
January 10th, 2006 at 8:59 pmI’m with you Clyde!
January 10th, 2006 at 9:04 pmsorry to be totally off topic, but the headline alone made me think, “Hmmmmm. Threat?”
Bush to Democrats: Don’t Slam Iraq Policy
By JENNIFER LOVEN (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
January 10, 2006 8:47 PM EST
WASHINGTON - President Bush warned Democratic critics of his Iraq policy on Tuesday to watch what they say or risk giving “comfort to our adversaries” and suffering at the ballot box in November. Democrats said Bush should take his own advice.
There are still 10 months left before congressional elections in which the president’s Republican Party could lose its dominance of Capitol Hill; a recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll found Americans prefer Democratic control over a continued GOP majority by 49 percent to 36 percent. But Bush is wasting no time engaging the battle. In his first speech of 2006 on the road, last week in Chicago, he aggressively challenged Democrats on the economy.
Tuesday’s equally sharp message represented an attempt by the president to neutralize Democrats’ ability to use Iraq - where violence is surging in the wake of December parliamentary elections and messy negotiations to form a new coalition government - as an election-year cudgel against Republicans.
Bush acknowledged deep differences over Iraq among casualty-weary Americans, just 39 percent of whom approve of his handling of the war, according to AP-Ipsos. Without specifically mentioning Democrats, the president urged campaigning politicians to “conduct this debate responsibly.”
He said he welcomed “honest critics” who question the way the war is being conducted and the “loyal opposition” that points out what is wrong with his administration’s approach.
But he termed irresponsible the “partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil or because of Israel or because we misled the American people,” as well as “defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.” With that description, Bush lumped the many Democrats who have accused him of twisting prewar intelligence with the few people, mostly outside the mainstream, who have raised the issues of oil and Israel.
Bush argued that irresponsible discussion harms the morale of troops overseas, emboldens the insurgents they are fighting and sets a bad example for Iraqis trying to establish a democratic government.
“In a free society, there’s only one check on political speech and that’s the judgment of the American people,” the president said to sustained applause from a friendly audience, a gathering of Veterans of Foreign Wars. “So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries.”
White House press secretary Scott McClellan would not say who Bush believes has been irresponsible, other than Democratic Party chief Howard Dean, who said last month that “the idea that we’re going to win this war … is just plain wrong.” In the past, the White House has also singled out, among others, Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who became a leading advocate for a quick troop pullout, and other Democrats who say Bush has no strategy.
Democrats said Bush has no business trying to define what sort of talk is acceptable.
“Patriotic Americans will continue to ask the tough questions because our brave men and women in Iraq, their families and the American people deserve to know that their leaders are being held accountable,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said loyalty demands that Democrats differ with Bush on the lack of sufficient body armor for troops and other issues. “From its inception and continuing to this moment, the absence of open and honest debate has been one of the hallmarks of this war,” the California Democrat said.
And Democratic National Committee communications director Karen Finney said: “The Bush administration’s attack, distract and distort tactics reflect a Nixonian paranoia that is un-American. It’s shameful that once again the Bush administration resorted to attacking the patriotism of fellow Americans rather than answering legitimate questions surrounding the president’s failures in Iraq.”
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who met with Bush recently at the White House, praised the president’s recent efforts to gather differing viewpoints and welcomed the call for a more civil dialogue. But Schiff said the process must begin at the White House, which he said “brought the debate down a significant notch” when it attacked Murtha, a respected veteran and longtime hawk.
“Some of the worst culprits in worsening the dialogue on Iraq have come from the White House,” said Schiff, who attended Bush’s speech. “It’s got to be a two-way street.”
It was the latest in a series of speeches by Bush aimed at giving Americans more detail and more candor. He predicted more sacrifice and more progress in 2006 in Iraq.
The still-unannounced results of Iraq’s Dec. 15 elections are expected to show the religious Shiite United Iraqi Alliance with a strong lead. The Shiites will, however, will need to form a coalition government with support from Kurdish and Sunni Arab political groups.
Bush said Iraqis must put aside political, religious and sectarian differences to be successful.
Sunnis, he said, “need to learn how to use their influence constructively in a democratic system,” while Shiites and Kurds must “protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority.”
—
On the Net:
White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:07 pmIt does not matter what Alito says or not, because he has been coached to lie and evade tough questions! The confirmation hearing is a FARCE anyways, so expect most Dems to vote NO, but a few like Lieberman will vote YES, which means Alito becomes a Justice!
January 10th, 2006 at 9:16 pmBush has a new word; sacrifice. Finally an
January 10th, 2006 at 9:19 pmexplanation for the troop losses.
I listend to the exchange that yielded that quote and alito was righly avioding falling for a republicn senators exreamly leading questions that were essentially a very base political statement that had nothing to do with the buisness at hand. This particualr republican senator was bent on using the hearing to spew his views on the current administrations use/abuse of executive power. mayby Alito is not your cup of tea but try to use your brain.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:22 pmRemember - every Lieberman begins with lie.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:24 pmI’m thinking Bush’s use of the word shows he’s
January 10th, 2006 at 9:36 pmsubliminally askeerd of being sacked from office. : 0
Yes poster 42 WaltTheMan > I never noticed till you pointed it out that Lieberman’s name has Lie in it lol. Also his name means loverman in German, so he is weird!
January 10th, 2006 at 9:46 pm#44, Jay,
January 10th, 2006 at 9:57 pmActually, it translates to rake (English) or randy (Scotish).
Walt read about polityIV
Authority Characteristics (Component Variables):
3.1 XRREG (numeric)
Regulation of Executive Recruitment: institutionalized procedures
regarding the transfer of executive power.
3.2 XRCOMP (numeric)
Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment: extent to which
executives are chosen through competitive elections.
3.3 XROPEN (numeric)
Openness of Executive Recruitment: opportunity for non-elites to
attain executive office.
3.4 XCONST (numeric)
Executive Constraints: operational (de facto) independence of
chief executive.
3.5 PARREG (numeric)
January 10th, 2006 at 10:05 pmRegulation of Participation: development of institutional
structures for political expression.
think man think -Jim
January 10th, 2006 at 10:06 pmOops, I should have said that Randal has another root.
What the heck is HAIRY THRUST drinking or injecting? Should we call in the EMT’s if we can find the cave?
January 10th, 2006 at 10:15 pmAll may not be lost!
Here is the make-up of the committee. Assuming all Demcrats will vote against confirmation there is a strong possibility that Brownback and Specter will join them making the vote 10-8 against or possibly a 9-9 tie. I don’t know enough about the others except Graham and Hatch who are yes-men (pun intended. I suspect Grassley, Kyl, Sessions, and Cornyn have surrendered their integrity, if they ever had any. Some of you may know about DeWine and Coburn. All of which may give us a shot at this never getting out of Committee. Keep those cards and letters going folks.
http://congress.org/congressorg/home
Committee Chair
Sen.
Arlen Specter (REP-PA)
Ranking Member
Sen.
Patrick J. Leahy (DEM-VT)
Republicans (10)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (REP-UT)
Sen. Charles Grassley (REP-IA)
Sen. Jon Kyl (REP-AZ)
Sen. Mike DeWine (REP-OH)
Sen. Jeff Sessions (REP-AL)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (REP-SC)
Sen. John Cornyn (REP-TX)
Sen. Sam Brownback (REP-KS)
Sen. Tom Coburn (REP-OK)
Democrats (8)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (DEM-MA)
Sen. Joseph Biden (DEM-DE)
Sen. Herbert Kohl (DEM-WI)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (DEM-CA)
Sen. Russ Feingold (DEM-WI)
Sen. Charles Schumer (DEM-NY)
Sen. Richard Durbin (DEM-IL)
January 10th, 2006 at 10:42 pmDuring the Alito hearing the term “Unitary Executive” was mentioned and it prompted me to research the term. The Bush administration contends this theory (and it is a theory) is what gives the President absolute power and the ability to disregard laws enacted by Congress and to operate without any judical oversight.
I urge everyone to visit this link and absorb the underlying doctrine of the Bush administration.
http://www.users.muohio.edu/kelleycs/paper.pdf
Samuel Alito in a 2001 appearance before the conservative Federalist Society, he said he continued to believe in the idea of the “unitary executive.” That concept holds that the Constitution gives the president all federal executive power, and means Congress likely could not grant agency heads powers outside the president’s reach.
January 10th, 2006 at 10:59 pmClyde,
No way on earth Sam Brownback opposes Alito, none. He’s a GOP rumpswab to the bone. The Dems can’t team up to agree on anything nevermind all of them vote one way. Hate to be so pessimistic but this is it, the GOP has a shot to lock up all three branches here and I have ZERO confidence that the D’s have the courage to stop it.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:03 pmGood God. That’s almost as bizarre as Lindsay Graham making that wry remark about Jack Abramoff and him threatening to say to Alito in court that they didn’t know him.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:10 pmOn a more optimistic note and despite the likelihood that Alito gets confirmed, Bush is clearly a lame duck and the GOP is imploding on all sides under the weight of their scandalous existence.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:11 pmWhat a dumbass! (Alito)
January 10th, 2006 at 11:39 pmhow about putting up the video of the exchange in its entirety?
January 11th, 2006 at 12:51 amYou moonbats sure do love to take things out of context.
“Do you think you’re qualified for this job?”
January 11th, 2006 at 1:07 am“I’m sorry, I can’t answer that. If I did, you might ask me for my resume.”
Re: #28 - A Democrat with BALLS is like a Republican with INTEGRITY.
I listened to about an hour of the hearings and got fed up with all the nice politicians playing all nice and everything. The hearings are all show and no substance.
Buy Gas Support the War!
January 11th, 2006 at 1:19 amI agree with the posters who have little to no confidence in the practicality of these hearings; they’re just another forum for senators to bloviate in public. Alito has been coached, he obfuscates, evades and generalizes when specifics are called for, and rarely does anyone call him on it. I mean, the first four questions Specter asked him were specific, and Alito gave a generalized, term paper thesis type of answer that completely avoided Specter’s thrust. Specter just moved on.
January 11th, 2006 at 1:38 amI think the hearings for a Justice should be conducted by the other Justices. They’re the ones who know what it really takes to do the job, and they ask better questions.
Going through Judge Alito’s mind at time of questioning: “Remember, only what they want to hear. Only what they want to hear, only what they want to hear, only what they want to hear…”
January 11th, 2006 at 1:44 amKirkman, I agree with your first sentence however, I let these people who work for us know that I am watching them very closely. I let them know that they will pay at the polls if they do not vote the way I ask them to.
We let them off the hook for voting for the war because we understand they were lied to as we were. No more excuses though, anyone who does not participate in removing Bubble boy from office will not have my vote, period.
January 11th, 2006 at 1:47 amIt’s actually kinda funny that so many of you are expressing concern that Alito won’t answer questions the way you want. I mean, its not like you would be for him anyway. If he says what you expect him to you can claim you hate him and yell extremist (no matter how false). If he says what you want to hear you’ll call him a liar. The likes of Schumer and Kennedy will vote against him no matter what he says so really what’s the point? The answers won’t change your minds anyway. The hearings are largely a chance for various politicians of both parties to make tedious speeches. Answers to questions only matter if one is willing to pay attention to the answers.
January 11th, 2006 at 1:55 amSusan-
January 11th, 2006 at 2:06 amyou’re right, of course about our ability to influence the process, albeit indeirectly, by letting our representatives know what we think. It’s an important part and we all need to participate. But isn’t it a little odd that the group of people most qualified to interivew a potential justice are completely excluded from the process, at least publicly? I really think the other Justices should get a chance to probe the mind and thinking of a candidate. It could at least mitigate the “tedious speeches” (thanks, Ref) and Alito would be less likely to avoid the hard questions in front of his possible future colleagues.
Yea, I can understand him not wanting to do anything he does’nt want to do. I mean it’s not like he’s applying to be on the Supreme Court or anything…..
Hey, wait a minute…..
January 11th, 2006 at 2:07 amAlito has consistently come down on the side of corporate interests and unbridled executive privilege. If the Dems don’t stop him, they can kiss their respective asses goodbye along with the rest of us. Executive immunity = fascist dictatorship and don’t anyone forget it.
January 11th, 2006 at 3:59 amPolice State with no chance of getting a fair trial here we come. Corporations will do away with worker rights. The president will no longer be elected. Religion and corporations will write and determine the laws. Gays will either be jailed or suffer huge fines. Unwed mothers will have fewer and fewer options. Outcast stigmas will be attached to the poor, the old, and the mentally old. 70 years of progress will go flying out the window.
The only redress the once proud citizens will have os violence which will be put down by armored police battalions. This will make the robber barons of the first part of last century look like milk toast.
We already have a sitting president who has lied to congress and the world about Iraq and terrorism, wire tapped law abiding Americans, endorsed and carried out torture, diverted tax payers money into religious organizations who supported their side effectively ignoring separation of church and state, used the media to plant fake stories and then reacted to those stories creating a propaganda echo chamber……
What makes any of us think that things are not as bad as they can get. This nomination is the Mount Everest of all their accomplishments. After this they are home free and we will be the cattle left to munch on whatever they will let us have.
January 11th, 2006 at 4:54 amTo Optimist, comment #35. Let me clue you in. Though not all Republicans are “bad”, as you put it, none can ever be trusted. Theirs is a culture of slavish obedience to authority. Anytime you see one acting in apparent opposition to Bushism, it’s not substantive and it’s only for political reasons, to appear independent to moderates at home. Don’t start telling me about Chaffee, Collins, Snow, McCain, or Hagel. McCain supported Bush even after Bush trashed his wife and kid. The Maine women supported Clinton’s impeachment–think they’ll support Bush’s?
Once in a great while one of these “moderates” will say or do something that isn’t outright fascistic, and normal people like you cream all over them, like they are God’s gift to civilization. They are actually the worst Republicans, because they are hypocrites and enablers of Bush’s fascism. They know he’s trash, and without their support, none of this would be happening–but they toe the line anyway. Can you even imagine one of them challenging Bush the way Howard Baker and other Reps challenged Nixon?
Wake up. The only good Republican Senator is a retired Republican senator. As for the Democrats, they should just shut down the Senate. If the president says he’s not going to obey the law–and Bush has already publicly stated this with regard to 2 laws–what’s the point of passing any? And it would start a much-needed dialogue in this country.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:01 amRight on, Bradenton
January 11th, 2006 at 5:27 amThe whole Republican dog and pony show is just a facade to camouflage their one and only ideology - rapacious greed. Don’t go looking for “nice” fascists in the vain hope that they will “improve” things. Every time I hear some so-called liberal getting behind McCain I want to puke. The man was an enthusiastic participant in the illegal air war over North Vietnam who got shot down and did a few years for his criminal activities. No one ever asks this punk how many people he thinks he killed in his terror bombing raids.
Couch it up in semantics!
Oh..where oh..is the Truth hiding?
Or has it taken leave of absence!
Thaya
January 11th, 2006 at 7:08 amYour right about McCain, running against Bushco He supported the confederated flag, the keeping of the gonzales cuban kid by his nutzo inlaws, and is now talking nice about Intellagent Design.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:48 amSomeone should remind Alito that there are no hard questions. It is only the answers that are hard. If he were an honest, objective, and worthy judge and/or mature individual he would provide honest, objective, and true answers. No body cares what his answers are so long as they are true and without any hidden agenda.
Comment by Clyde the Ripper #11
Blind Tripper,
I can see it now:
Schumer:
Judge Alito can you tell us in your own words as candidly and forthright as possible what kind of Supreme Court justice you would be?
scandalAlito:
Yes Senator. First of all- no matter where we are- I’d prostrate myself in the presence of the awesome power of my lord and master George W. Bush (or whomever the right wing neoconservative god happened to beat the time)…
Since Roe v Wade is an abomination and against my strict roman catholic upbringing i’d tear it apart piece by sorry, immoral piece…
Blacks, hispanics, and other minorities don’t belong amongst us good white people of Italian, French, German, Irish, Polish, Russian, and Lithuanian descent. I’d vote to kill any and all programs meant to ‘level’ the playing field or redress any “mythical” wrongs heaped upon minoroties because of slavery, which by the way was blown way out of proportion. What do they need to go to college for anyway, they’ll just take up space… My daddy came here as an immigrant fro italy and he didn’t feel slighted when he had to work in the pizzaria of his cousin Vito for seven years…
blah…blah…blah…
January 11th, 2006 at 9:16 amDid anyone see Orrin Hatch’s voir dire…no take that back…homage to Alito yesterday?
My goodness I thought the guy was gonna dive under Alito’s table and do him right there in front of his Alito’s) wife (Mona Lisa) and everybody…yeccch!
January 11th, 2006 at 9:21 amI think that George Orwell called this, “double speak”.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:26 am[…] Alito yesterday: […]
January 11th, 2006 at 9:33 amWho cares about Alito when you have this French response to the impending bird flu!
January 11th, 2006 at 10:13 amI lost all faith in the SCOTUS confirmation process when Clarence Thomas was confirmed. Alito is a shoe-in, unfortunately.
The three-legged pedestal on which or system of goverment rests is about to become bipedal, with the Executive wielding virtually dictatorial power (the head) and the Legislative and Judicial sharing the rubber-stamping authority (the ass).
Welcome to the Fascist State of America!
January 11th, 2006 at 10:15 amIt would be UNTHINKABLE to have a supreme court justice have to answer ANY HARD questions or make ANY HARD decisions. Like perhaps pardoning politicians for illegal wiretaps.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:50 am#72
January 11th, 2006 at 12:34 pmHatch is following the Bush game plan of not allowing Alito to say anything at all. Hatch asks the question, Hatch answers it. They’re afraid to let Alito speak because they know he’ll screw up.
if the distinguished Senator’s would stop talking, maybe he would have the opportunity to answer one of their ridiculous questions…
January 11th, 2006 at 1:23 pmThey did stop talking. He sits there looking like a smug little arrogant snit.
Alito is the kind of guy who most reasonable people want to punch in the mouth.
They don’t know exactly why they want to punch him in the mouth, they just do. :D
January 11th, 2006 at 4:31 pmI suspect the smugness comes from the certain knowledge that he is smarter than Ted Kennedy, but then, who isn’t?
January 11th, 2006 at 11:22 pmhis smugness towards Kennedy may also result from the fact that he has never killed anyone, can put together a cohearent sentence and is actually qualified for his job. Maybe Kennedy can explain in his forthcoming children’s book how being a drunk raving maniac qualifies one for service as a Senator…
January 12th, 2006 at 11:16 amhis smugness towards Kennedy may also result from the fact that he has never killed anyone, can put together a cohearent sentence and is actually qualified for his job. Maybe Kennedy can explain in his forthcoming children’s book how being a drunk raving maniac qualifies one for service as a Senator…
Comment by matt — January 12, 2006 @ 11:16 am
—
Matt, if you’re going to hold Ted Kennedy to those standards, you should also apply them to President Bush.
Both Bush (and his wife Laura) have definitely killed people. Laura ran a stop sign in Midland, Texas back in 1973 and killed another motorist. The poor SOB just happened to be her ex-boyfriend. Laura never even got a ticket, although she apparently never even slowed down before barreling through the intersection. George Bush, on the other hand, has caused the unnecessary deaths of some 2200 American service personnel in an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq based on a tissue of lies about WMDs that have never been found.
On drunks: who is worse, Kennedy or Bush? I call that a draw, even though Kennedy does have one death that came as a result of his disregard for public safety while under the influence. Bush, who has at least two convictions for driving while intoxicated, should count himself lucky that, like Ted Kennedy, he didn’t drive off a bridge with someone in the car. There’s little doubt in my mind that given the same circumstances, Dubya would have gone home, taken a shower and slept off his drunk before calling his daddy’s lawyers to get him out of trouble, just as Kennedy did.
Finally, as for the ability to make coherent statements, surely you would agree that no one is more challenged in that area than President Bush. Without cuecards and an earpiece, he is the most ridiculously inept-sounding president of the past 100 years or more (maybe ever, but then again we don’t have audio recordings of earlier presidents).
Alito is a liar, a master of omission, and a political opportunist. He is only being considered for the Supreme Court because he is anti-choice, elitist, bigoted, and a GOP lackey who has kissed ass for at least the last twenty years and is now getting his reward. That’s how the system works and he will probably be confirmed.
Compared to Bush’s last nominee, Harreit Miers, Alito looks like a shoe-in. Aren’t you bothered that your president, who could make such an idiotic choice as Miers for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, now expects the US Senate to rush his latest nominee through the process without being challenged to explain his lack of ethics, membership in questionable orgs like CAP, or even answer pertinent questions about issues like a woman’s right to control her own body?
January 12th, 2006 at 2:17 pm“strong>Samuel Alito’s terror shall rain from the sky in form the innocents blood that shall be shed.”/strong>
(A little poetic justice above ^) Its simple if Sam Alito is allowed to enter office, then we’re all doomed. Its obvious that this man should not allowed into office. He’s even flat out saying that he doesnt like answering questions. It sounds bad, but i think this is a conspiracy… Think about it, the president seems all to willing to allow Alito into office, need i not remined you that bush has strong ties* with the Sadi family, the president has managed to screw up our country by setting them back about 20 years. I know that every president has his faults but fault in this situation is an extream understatement. Also the ENTIRE republican side of the senate has showen thier support for Alito, the judges are letting him get by way to easy, it just seems to easy, and because this is Bush’s last year in office wouldn’t it be a wise choice to have someone in the supreme court? And you might say, “Well if someone was planning somthing why wouldn’t the president once in office just straight out and ruin everything or order money to a certain account?” Simply because it would be way to obvious. A slower or **Subtle** tact would be smarter. I know i probably sound CRAZY to you all, but im just throwing in my logic. But you can see for yourself, that Alito is way to full of himself, i know your soposed to not show weakness but hes treating this as if hes already court justice.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:40 pmSusan
I just wanted to write to say that you have a great site and a wonderful resource for all to share.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:31 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:25 amJack
Thanks for the post. I couldn’t agree with you more.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:26 am