Scalito to Dobson: I Love You

Did everyone see this? Stripsearch Sammy Scalito wrote a thank-you note to James Dobson, of Focus on the Fetus Family, expressing his "heartfelt thanks" to the sanctimonious asshole for, among other things, his "help and support during the past few challenging months".

He also thanked Dobson for all of the people around the country who were praying for him and his family during that oh-so-trying nomination hearing, where his wife had no choice to break down and cry. Oh boo hoo.

I can't recall an instance from my 50+ years of court watching (ever since Brown v. Board of Education; I attended a segregated grade school in rural Oklahoma) wherein a newly-appointed justice wrote such a blatantly political missive-- of any kind, let alone such a smarmy and obsequious thank-you note -- to the leader of a crackpot political faction.

Not only is it just bad form, but it tears down that illusion that we'd all like to keep, that the SCOTUS is somehow ensconced on some Olympian heights, well above the political fray. (Okay, so I'm a dreamer; sue me.)

But here's the kicker: he also said to Dobson in the letter, "As long as I serve on the Supreme Court I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me." I think I know what that's code for...

So, do I have any takers on a $1000 bet that Scalito will be the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and return us to the dark ages of women's reproductive rights?

Holy Sheepshit, Batman!

As if the lying weren't enough, as if the dissembling over abortion rights weren't enough, the LA Times has a story about Scalito that ought to make your blood run cold.

While he was a Reagan administration lawyer, Scalito wrote yet another in a series of memos that ought to be personally embarrassing (but aren't), this one stating that police were justified in shooting in the back an unarmed teenager who was fleeing a crime scene -- and it probably goes without saying that the teenager was black.

Signifcantly, the US Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision eschewing Alito's reasoning, used that very same case to establish a precedent on the use of "extreme force".

Justice Byron White, writing for the majority, said, "It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape."

Of course all that can -- and will -- change when Scalito joins his fascist brethren on the bench.

Like I've said before so many times, we are so fucked.

John Kerry to Filibuster Scalito!

He must have been listening to those of us out here in the blog wilderness. Just one day after I posted my "John Kerry, you piss me off" entry, he stood up and said he will lead the filibuster of Scalito!

Now it's up to the rest of us to contact our senators and tell them to stand up with John Kerry and filibuster Alito. This is a nomination that cannot go forward, and we need to tell them that we stand behind the filibuster.

Go to contact your congress and make a phone call to your own senators.

Also, Save the Court has put together a list of critical senators who need to be contacted. Surf on over to that website and fax these senators. Please help in any way you can.

And while you're at it, send an email to John Kerry and thank him for standing up.

And finally, take a look at this Google news search for the phrase "Kerry filibuster Alito". Any doubts you might have had about the SCLM/MSM being "liberal" should be immediately put to bed when you count up the vast majority of completely negative stories criticizing Kerry.

The Five Dwarves

There are five senators who have expressed an interest -- or who are widely believed to have an interest -- in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination:

Evan Bayh (IN)
Joe Biden (DE)
Hillary Clinton (NY)
Russ Feingold (WI)
John Kerry (MA)

So far none of these five has taken a leadership role in keeping Scalito off the bench.

So my question for these five dwarves is this: How in the hell do you think you can lead this country if you can't step up to keep this rightwing fuck off the Supreme Court?

I'm waiting for an answer, but I don't think it's going to be forthcoming. And if one of these hapless morons happens to be the lucky nominee in '08, well...

But things have a way of working themselves out. There's still a primary season to go through before they can lock up that nomination, and I'll be god damned if I will vote for -- or give money to -- any of these spineless fucks if they don't filibuster Scalito.

Period, end of story.

Dems Set to Cave on Scalito?

I knew it was too good to last. After showing a big pair of brass ones last week, now the Dems are ready to cave in on the Scalito nomination, virtually guaranteeing that there won't be a filibuster.

The Seattle P-I says that liberals are going to fight back in other ways -- and there are plenty of them, from his lying to Congress in 1990 over whether he would disqualify himself from ruling on Vanguard Funds (in which he held about $80,000 worth) and then, just 12 years later, going back on his word, to his questionably vague statements on Roe vs. Wade ("I have respect for the decision", whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean).

Sorry, but those are issues that will go nowhere. The Moron-American voting bloc doesn't own mutual fund shares and can't relate to them, and they are easily convinced that "respect for the decision" means he won't vote to overturn it.

Like I said all along, poor Harriet was just a stalking horse, spread out there by Baby Doc to muddy the waters and confuse the issue, then conveniently swept aside when she was no longer useful, replaced by someone the wingnuts had in mind all along, knowing they would have the willing compliance of a sufficient number of weak-kneed Democrats to ensure that the fascist control of a majority of the court would be complete.

The Mojave Cross

In a case that is sure to set precedent for the lawsuit brewing over that huge ugly cross at the National Cemetery in San Diego, the Supremes have agreed to hear a case stemming from the erection of a smaller cross in the Mojave Desert east of LA.

Because it's on public land, it's an issue, and this will give us our first look at where a Roberts Court is going to come down when it comes to church-state issues.

And frankly, I'm not at all optimistic, given the current makeup of the court. Recall that it was Sandra Day O'Connor just four years ago who cast the deciding fifth vote in the 5-4 Kentucky Ten Commandments decision (McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky).

Since then O'Connor made her precipitous -- and in my opinion nearly-fatal-for-civil-liberties -- departure from the court, to be replaced by our old buddy, "Stripsearch Sammy" Scalito. And I think it's pretty clear how he'll stand on church-state issues.

This will bear watching. Arguments will be heard in October of this year, so here's hoping that we have some changes on the court before then. While I'm not wishing for anything bad to happen to any of the Fatal Five (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy) so that Obama can appoint a liberal to the court in their place...

Oh, bullshit, of course I'm wishing for that. It's a long time to October, and anything can happen.

The Mormons and the Constitution

It's an article of faith -- or a "prophecy" from one or another of the old "prophet, seer and regulator revelator" guys at the top of the Mormon hierarchy -- that one day the US Constitution will "hang by a thread" and it will be up to a Mormon to save it.

Could it be we've already found our boy? Newly-elected Teabagger senator from Utah, Mike Lee, a scion of "Mormon royalty"-- he is a direct descendant of John D. Lee, infamous for being Brigham Young's scapegoat for the savage Mountain Meadows Massacre of white settlers who had the gall to cross Mormon land -- says that the Constitution is "divinely inspired" and he personally knows ('cause god told him, presumably) how to interpret it.

Here's Buzzflash's Mark Karlin:

What is the difference between religious fundamentalists and so-called "strict constructionists"? Actually, they are two sides of the same coin.
First, they both believe that the Constitution and the Bible are divinely granted documents. Secondly, they believe that there is a literal interpretation to both, and that they are the ones who know what that is. Thirdly, anyone who disagrees with them is either a heretic or un-American, or both.
The New York Times makes note of one newly elected Tea Party Republican senator:
Mike Lee, a 39-year-old Republican from Utah, has the most impeccable establishment legal credentials: the son of Rex Lee, a solicitor general under President Reagan, he attended law school at Brigham Young and later clerked for Samuel Alito on the U.S. Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court. But on the campaign trail, especially during his heated primary battle with the three-term Republican incumbent Bob Bennett, Lee offered glimpses of a truly radical vision of the U.S. Constitution, one that sees the document as divinely inspired and views much of what the federal government currently does as unconstitutional.
This radical viewpoint is what characterizes the "Repeal Amendment" movement, which I wrote about yesterday. It is the fanatical, cultist viewpoint of those who believe that only they have the divine knowledge to understand "God's word" in the Bible and in the Constitution.
For these extremists, the Constitution is not a document of men and women that threw off the shackles of a Europe still governed by the claim of divinely sanctioned royalty, but rather, like the Ten Commandments (an apt analogy), a manifestation of the will of God - and an exclusive Christian God at that.
"As your U.S. senator," Lee promised during the campaign, according to the Times, "I will not vote for a single bill that I can't justify based on the text and the original understanding of the Constitution, no matter what the court says you can do."

Of course Lee is just the one, having labored in the august halls of the SCOTUS as a clerk for Scalito, to know exactly (and rather smugly I might add) just what the Constitution allows.

BTW, be sure to read that inner link to How Radical Is the Republican Leadership in Congress? Very.:

How radical is the Republican leadership in Congress? Let's just say that some of them make anarchists look like "centrists."
Eric Cantor, who was elected incoming house majority leader by the GOP caucus, is backing a plan, according to Talking Points Memo (TPM), "to blow up the Constitutional system and replace it with one that would give state governments veto power over federal laws."
A few years back, such an anti-constitutional notion would have been considered the province of unbalanced individuals and extreme, right-wing cultists. Now, the notion of states overriding the Constitution and federal law has apparently become mainstream for the Republican Party.
Of course, it would take an amendment to the Constitution, called the "Repeal Amendment," to eviscerate the founding document of our nation and our legal system. Cantor, for his part, thinks that this is a good idea, saying: "The Repeal Amendment would provide a check on the ever-expanding federal government, protect against Congressional overreach, and get the government working for the people again, not the other way around. In order to return America to opportunity, responsibility, and success, we must reverse course and the Repeal Amendment is a step in that direction."
According to TPM, one of the main goals of the Repeal Amendment is to overturn the 17th Amendment, which allows for the popular election of senators. This is an objective both the Tea Party and Antonin Scalia share, as BuzzFlash pointed out in a recent commentary. This fits in well with the perplexing notion that the "rabble of democracy" is a danger to the Republic!

So back to little Mikey Lee. He probably believes -- truly believes -- in the kind of crap he's spewing, and since he's already part of Mormon royalty, how hard can it be for him to already think he's The One who will save the Constitution?

Stripsearch Sammy's True Colors

It didn't take long for the BFEE's newest stealth justice to show his true colors. Voting with the minority in a 5-3 decision over the rights to a real trial of "enemy combatants" in the Gitmo case, Scalito sided with -- suprise -- Scalia and Thomas, the two most reliable allies of the BFEE and the forces of repression.

And this was only the boy's first partial session on the court. Wait until next year when the fun really starts. Activist judges? The rightwing has 'em up the yingyang, and they'll slowly raise the temperature of the water until all of us liberal frogs are boiled alive.

More on the Death Penalty

No, I am not talking about the so-called "Death Tax". What I talking about is the real old-fashioned death penalty, wherein the state takes it on itself to commit a murder. And don't talk to me about that "eye for an eye" crap, or about how it's a deterrent blah blah blah(demonstrably it isn't). I've argued before on this blog about the death penalty, for example here and here, and nothing has happened in the meantime to change my mind.

Now our newest Supreme, Stripsearch Sammy Scalito, has sided with his other BFEE surrogates in a 5-4 decision upholding the Kansas death penalty, even though many people will inevitably be put to death in cases where the "aggravated" requirement of the Kansas death penalty law has not been proved to the jury. See the confusing details in this story in a Seattle paper outlining the case.

Anna Quindlen, writing in Newsweek, says that "last year only four countries accounted for nearly all executions worldwide: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States."

Are we really proud of being in that company?

Pelosi Says No to Impeachment?

This is an interesting development: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Chickenweasel) says that impeachment is "off the table" if the Dems win in November.

What the fuck? What the fuck is she up to? Has she drunk the koolaid, too?

The Repugnicans, when they impeached Clinton, had a master plan. They set out to raise the bar to a ludicrous height, and by so doing they gut-shot the Constitutional separation of powers that have served us well for over 200 years. They knew going in that they had a flimsy trumped-up case against a popular president, with absolutely zero chance of winning a conviction in the Senate, but they went ahead and did it anyway.

And it was a brilliant plan -- they pretty much guaranteed that unless their boy, Baby Doc (yes, the fix was in even way back then), was caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, impeachment would always be "off the table" because the weak-kneed girlie men (and women) in the Democratic Party would be too afraid their own shadows, too chickenshit to actually bring impeachment proceedings against Baby Doc, for fear of being accused of political retribution, of just wanting to "get even" with the Republicans for the Clinton impeachment.

Word on the street has it that Pelosi wanted impeachment off the table so the Rethug strategists couldn't run against it in November. You know, vote Republican, save the republic, that kind of shit.

What the fuck was she thinking about? Democrats ought to stand for something, and with this corrupt and evil bunch of outlaw BFEE assholes, impeachment ought to be just the beginning. Instead it's stillborn.

Once again I find myself in a party that lacks the balls to stand up for its own values. I guess I'm in the democratic wing of the Democratic Party, the faction that still believes in democracy, still believes that we have a government of laws, still believes in the United States Constitution. And I am sharing the party with a bunch of neo-right Republican-lite corporatist hacks who are nothing more than eager, willing lickspittles to their corporate overlords (can you hear me, Maria Cantwell?).

If we want to win in November, we have to be true to our roots and our core values. Nobody wants to vote for a me-too crybaby who votes progressive only when it doesn't matter -- like voting for cutting off the filibuster of Scalito, but also voting not to confirm. They want it both ways, and they will end up having it neither, and the rest of us will continue to suffer under the oppressive yoke of the neofascist Bushco Cartel.

Another SCOTUS Surprise

Jeez, nobody saw this coming, either. It turns out that the very first case out of the chute for Scalito will be ...[drumroll] ... an abortion case. Watch the excitement and follow the fun as Stripsearch Sammy joins his flinty-hearted pointy-headed misogynist fellow justices to issue a ruling that will be the first in a long line of decisions that will chip away at a woman's right to choose.

I don't know anything about the case, I've only seen the headlines on Google News, and yet I am confident in my prediction that he will join Roberts, Scalia and Thomas in their ruling on the case, with Kennedy an extremely likely fifth, for a majority 5-4 decision.

Anybody wanna bet some cash that it won't happen? Yeah, I thought not. As I've said before, stare decisis my ass.

And all of those Vichy Democrats who backed down from the filibuster? You already know what I think of them, but it wouldn't hurt to let them know once again, after this comes down, that they are the ones who are responsible for it.

What's Eating Diane Feinstein?

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Wimp) said that she would vote against Sammy "The Liar" Scalito, but that she wouldn't support a filibuster.

Feinstein has a reputation of being a strong supporter of women's rights -- including their reproductive rights -- but she is on record as saying something extraordinary concerning the Alito vote before the senate:

He is clearly qualified and...I am very impressed with his abilitiy to maintain a very even demeanor during this entire thing and his ability not to specifically answer any questions.

Uh, Senator... isn't that a good reason to filibuster the dissembling asshole? The very fact that he won't come clean on Roe -- practically the only issue he was unwilling to discuss his views on -- ought to be a gigantic red flag.

So what's eating Diane Feinstein? Could it be that her husband is a big-time defense contractor?

Just asking.