The Rude Pundit is at it again, this time lambasting Democratic senators for their horrible no-show at Alito’s nomination hearings:
How about this for a Democratic strategy now and in the debate after - act like the general public is fuckin’ sick of the Republicans and how they’ve led the nation. Act like Americans are begging for someone to stop the crazy train we’re on. ‘Cause if you can’t pull the emergency brake, then you need to get thrown onto the tracks. Slam this motherfuckin’ Alito for being the weaselly bastard he is. Stop making him into some noble, nice guy - fucker defended a warrantless strip search of a ten year-old - what more do you need?
Alito is one of the scariest sons-of-bitches to come along in a long, long time. His nomination for the Supreme Court needs to come to an end ASAP. Unfortunately, the Democratic Senators sure don’t seem to be in a hurry to do so. Yet they would have the good will of the American public if they were to do so! C’mon, Dems, show some spine!
If there’s any doubt whether Alito can be partial regarding Roe -vs- Wade or not, Alito’s own words from the past should dispel them.
Documents show Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was pleased about anti-abortion efforts he backed while working in the solicitor general’s office.
Alito wrote in 1985 that he was proud of his Reagan-era work helping the government argue that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”
Alito wrote the comments in a document while applying to become deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. He said he was proud of his government work helping to “advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly.”
Ignore the lip service Alito is trying to give to his respect for long-held precedent. He will try to reverse R-v-W the first chance he gets. One more reason for the Dems in the Senate to re-find their spines and filibuster this neanderthal thug.
Anyone wo still believes that Harriet Miers can be impartial on abortion issues if appointed to the Supreme Court needs to take a look at this:
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged unflagging opposition to abortion as a candidate for the Dallas City Council in 1989, according to documents released Tuesday. She backed a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure in most cases and promised to appear at “pro-life rallies and special events.”
Asked in a Texans United for Life questionnaire whether she would support legislation restricting abortions if the Supreme Court allowed it, Miers indicated she would. Her reply was the same when asked, “Will you oppose the use of city funds or facilities” to promote abortions?
Impartial? Unbiased? There’s no way she will be! It’s obvious that, back in ‘89, Miers was staunchly Anti-Choice. Why should we believe she’s changed since then?
Technorati tags: bush, adoption, Supreme Court
Hmmm… I have no idea how to take the news that Harriet Miers has been nominated for the open Supreme Court position. On the negative side, do we really want one of Bush’s buddies assigned to yet another important role in government? Didn’t we learn just how bad that was with Michael Brown and FEMA? And is it possible to trust anyone in Bush’s inner circle?
On the other hand, there’s this:
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid was complimentary, issuing a statement that said he likes Miers and adding “the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer.”
At the same time, he said he looked forward to the “process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.”
Reid had personally recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination, according to several sources familiar with the president’s consultations with individual senators. Of equal importance as the White House maps its confirmation campaign is that the Nevada Democrat had warned Bush that the selection of any of several other contenders could trigger a bruising partisan struggle.
An endorsement by Harry Reid? I can’t imagine Reid endorsing someone who’d try to lean the court to the right. But I can’t imagine Bush nominating someone who wouldn’t lean the court to the right. So just what the fuck is going on here?
So what does the Rude Pundit think of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts? A lot, and it’s all friggin hysterical. Bottom-line: “Instead, glory be, he presented America with another Harvard-educated white guy, one more privileged D.C. lawyer who was Daddy’s boy once, and a motherfucker. Someone who you can bet was given a list of issues by Rove and asked point blank how he’d rule. Did we really expect anything more?”
