Should Alito be confirmed?

[mburbank]

" This is a nomination that I fear threatens the fundamental rights and liberties of all Americans now in for generations to come. This President is in the midst of a radical realignment of the powers of the government and its intrusiveness into the private lives of Americans. This nomination is part of that plan. I am concerned that if confirmed this nominee will further erode the checks and balances that have protected our constitutional rights for more than 200 years. This is a critical nomination, one that can tip the balance on the Supreme Court radically away from constitutional checks and balances and the protection of Americans' fundamental rights."

Patrick Leahy.

I don't really care what you think about Leahy, that's not the reason I'm posting this, I could easily have said the same thing. I certainly believe it. My only comfort is I do not think a majority of the Justices, even with Alito on the bench would agree that the Executive should have supreme authority during war.

I believe the entire reason W et al have always marketed our current dilema as a war was speciffically to justify supreme executive power.

But Alito seems to believe in it. I cannot for the life of me see why a Republican senator who does not believe he will one day be president would want Alito. I cannot for the life of me see why any Republican at all who does not believe the Republican party will hold the presidency from now on would want Alito.

Are there any Republicans here that would be comfortable with Kerry or God Forbid Hillary Clinton wielding the power W is arguing for?

[Kulturkampf]

I would be comfortable with them having that power, because I believe it is nt that large of a power -- there is an entire judicialsystem in place that protects us from invasive acts against us. I do not really think of it as a threat to hunt terrorists. If they tried to hunt me, they would find some phone sex calls to Wales, talk of politics and punk rock, and alcohol.

Do you really think they will jailyou for your politics?

I vote:

YES ALITO.

I vote:

NO M. BURBANK!

My last name and your last name are similar:

Ver - Bur

thiswould sound the same coming out of a Korean's mouth.

Bank - Ville.

This is not so similar, but it would sound similar enough.

So why can't we be friends?

[mburbank]

Are you kidding? You're my new favorite! Our names are similar! Wht better basis fro friendship is there?

Do you get American papers in Korea?

"there is an entire judicialsystem in place that protects us from invasive acts against us"

The NSA is spying on American citizens WITHOUT WARRANTS FROM THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. And W. says it's perfectly legal. And Alito believes a President has a right to form interpretation of laws that trumps the Judicial system.

Now maybe the Bushies are only spying on bad guys connected to Al Quaeda like they say. But we have no way of knowing who they're spying on, because there no oversight by the judicial system!

If Hillary Clinton were president, would you be comfortbale with her saying, "I can listen to the phone calls and read the emails of any amrican citizen whenever I want, but trust me, You have my word, I'll only use that power on bad guys. But you have to take my word for it, because no one is allowed to check on me" Because that's the power W is claiming right now, and thats a power Alito feels presidents should have.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

you're arguing with someone with the IQ of pudding, Max....give it up

[Geggy]

I'm convinced Kiki is a character...there's no way in hell this guy is for real.

I admit I'm not following the whole Alito thing but I know a few about it for me to disprove Alito because...

Bush and Alito goes a-ways back. Its already been proven through photographs of the two going out on dates pre-first term of Bush's presidency. When you have boyfriends in the judicial system, they can do a lot of sexual favors for you.

The two share similiar political views and philosophy of life that all should have their freedom stripped...

Alito is pro-life/anti-abortion and have strong desire to prevail agasint the pro-choice (or anti-life as they like to call them). It can get scary when you have someone like that in the judicial system.

Harriet Mier doesnt sound so bad now, does it? eh, eh?

[mburbank]

If he's a character, he's a dedictaed perormance artist. The two Blogs are masterful and a lot of work has gone into them. More maintenance than your average character gets.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Geggy

I'm convinced Kiki is a character...there's no way in hell this guy is for real.

Dude......Careful of the glass house, my friend!

[Preechr]

You should go to Korea and see if he is really there, max.

The government already wields a tremendous amount of power and we already trust politicians not to abuse it and they already do every freakin day. I say confirm Alito or some random cartoon character or whatever. It makes no difference. As a matter of fact, I WANT a terrible person on that bench. The worst, most vile and least qualified person possible would be perfect for the job as far as I'm concerned. Roy Moore is still available, isn't he? No... too reasonable... How about Michael Moore? Perfect. Our government is completely dysfunctional, yet perfectly reasonable people, like you max, are still laboring under the illusion that with just this or that little patch or tweak everything will be just fine. It's obviously gonna have to get much, much worse before it's ever gonna start getting better.

That said, I honestly and sincerely doubt that you would have as big of a problem with this were the guilty party Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Kerry.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yeah, the best way to have prevent Alito from getting nominated would've been to, I dunno, win the election? :/

[Preechr]

pthpthpth

[mburbank]

I'm all ablush you think I'm reasonable. My parole officer disagrees.

AND I'll have you know I'd be even MORE outraged if a Clinton or a Kerry assumed these powers, since nominally I'm a democrat and expect at least the appearance of better behavior. And for the record, I really, really, really don't like Hillary Clinton, for about the millionth time I was not a fan of her husband, although the little weaselly fuck we've got now makes me very nostaligic.

I am WAY more a fan of checks and balances and separation of powers than I will ever be of any party. Hell, if Dean were president, shit, if McGovern, if Clean Gene McCarthy rose from the dead Christ-like and became president, I would never, ever want them to claim the power to spy on US citizens without a warrant. How dare you sir!

And while in general I share your cynicism and disdain regarding government in general and politicians in particular, I would still say that one could draw a degree or two of difference between, say, Calvin Coolidge and Pol Pot.

[Preechr]

At the risk of sounding like a complete nutjob, I believe the only difference between Calvin Coolidge and Pol Pot is what they were allowed to get away with. I don't trust any politician to limit his or her own activity to that which is just. It's not cynicism. It's the foundation of our country.

While I'm already on record as being more or less ambivalent toward the whole NSA spying "scandal," that's not because I like the idea of it happening as much as I understand that much worse abuses of power happen all the time. MUCH worse. ALL the time.

[mburbank]

GOOD LAWS, YOU ARE A COMPLETE NUTJOB!

"I don't trust any politician to limit his or her own activity to that which is just. It's not cynicism. It's the foundation of our country. "

I agree compeletly! The constitution is ALL ABOUT removing any occasion to trust politicians. The three branches are supposed to watch each other like rabid dogs equally distanced from enough food for one of them.


"I understand that much worse abuses of power happen all the time. MUCH worse. ALL the time."

I don't doubt that in the least, but here's my problem with it. The envelope of evil extends as far beyond the legitimate as the powerful can reach. W et al are trying to move the line of legal legitimacy WAY forward to cover warantless spying, torture, detention without charge, disapearance. If they succeed in making thse things, (which I'm sure they've done before in countless administrations) solid, legal, unasailable ground to stand on, think how much further into the darkness their reach would extend.

Nixon said he was not a crook. Clinton sad he did not have sex with that woman. When it became crystal clear they'd lied, Nixon had to leave and Clinton got impeached. Bush says "I did it, I'm going to keep doing it, and I can do whatever I want". That HAS to be challenged. It changes the game completely. Until now it has been 'I can do whatever I want until I get caught'. That makes Presidents a whole lot more circumspect than 'I can do whatever I want.'

[Geggy]

You guys misunderstood. When I said Kiki was a character I meant in a sense that he is an unrealistic, political poser who thinks he knows what he's talking about, well enough to start a neonazi socialist movement

I don't know a lot about Bill Clinton because before Bush was elected, I was politically retarded as in clueless and indifferent. But I'm not so crazy about that war-mongering hypocrite Hillary either. My question is what do I say to the women who don't know shit about politics and only want Hillary to win the next election because they're all so pro-femnine and would like to see first woman president elected? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for female president but Hillary is far from it.

[mburbank]

Hey, Geggy; Here's a little something from a Texan I like, Molly Ivins.


AUSTIN, Texas --- I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.

If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it. In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the little boy who said out loud, "Look, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes." Bobby Kennedy -- rough, tough Bobby Kennedy -- didn't do it. Just this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry.

What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

I listen to people like Rahm Emanuel superciliously explaining elementary politics to us clueless naifs outside the Beltway ("First, you have to win elections"). Can't you even read the damn polls?

Here's a prize example by someone named Barry Casselman, who writes, "There is an invisible civil war in the Democratic Party, and it is between those who are attempting to satisfy the defeatist and pacifist left base of the party and those who are attempting to prepare the party for successful elections in 2006 and 2008."

This supposedly pits Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, emboldened by "a string of bad new from the Middle East ... into calling for premature retreat from Iraq," versus those pragmatic folk like Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman.

Oh come on, people -- get a grip on the concept of leadership. Look at this war -- from the lies that led us into it, to the lies they continue to dump on us daily.

You sit there in Washington so frightened of the big, bad Republican machine you have no idea what people are thinking. I'm telling you right now, Tom DeLay is going to lose in his district. If Democrats in Washington haven't got enough sense to OWN the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely.

Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress. I'm serious as a stroke about this -- that is the only reform that will work, and you know it, as well as everyone else who's ever studied this. Do all the goo-goo stuff everybody has made fun of all these years: embrace redistricting reform, electoral reform, House rules changes, the whole package. Put up, or shut up. Own this issue, or let Jack Abramoff politics continue to run your town.

Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. I've said it before: War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them elegantly, as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless "string of bad news."

Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.

[Kulturkampf]

The act allows the monitoring of terrorists and other scum, essentially, and how it is described in law, simply allows that if people receive calls from known terrorists people are going tolisten to what is said over the phone as opposed to simply note "Shit, a phone call from a terrorist is being placed to someone in our country."

I do not think i tis irrational.

You would have to be as paranoid and as ludecris as Michael Moore in order to eblieve this law is going to be turned into a 1984 state; we are so far from that it isabsurd

(rather what would brign us closer to 1984 is if we all begin giving our private property to the gommint in the name of wealth redistribution)

mburbnak = loser of the debates!

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

The act allows the monitoring of terrorists and other scum, essentially, and how it is described in law, simply allows that if people receive calls from known terrorists people are going tolisten to what is said over the phone as opposed to simply note "Shit, a phone call from a terrorist is being placed to someone in our country."

I do not think i tis irrational.

You would have to be as paranoid and as ludecris as Michael Moore in order to eblieve this law is going to be turned into a 1984 state; we are so far from that it isabsurd

(rather what would brign us closer to 1984 is if we all begin giving our private property to the gommint in the name of wealth redistribution)

mburbnak = loser of the debates!

You are an idiot. You are a Bush sac rider, nothing more. You pretend to be a cultural revolutionary, but in reality you're a closet Nazi with a RNC membership card in your wallet. Your pathetic attempts at reason and debate are almost as ridiculous as your blog. What you do is take typical Republican talking points gleened for those stupid right wing "News" web sites you keep quoting and delcaring yourself the winner. You are a moron, plain and simple. If you were in my home town, you would be the jackass with a "W:the president" sticker on your SUV, hanging out at Appleby's drinking Sam Adams and calling anyone who dares disagree with you a god hater or accusing them of hating America. You have yet to present an original idea, or a meaningful debate, or for that matter, a halfway legible post. You should probably consider a couple of grammar classes...maybe a political science class or two...until then, just shut up.

[mburbank]

Hey Kiki; ever hear of the Nixon presidency? Did you know he frequently wiretapped politicl enemies and peace activists without a warrant? Thank GAWD we know for a fact W. would never abuse his power like that. OF COURSE he says he only listens to Al Quaeda phone calls, but if that were true, why not present is evidence to FISA, who have only ever turned down four wire tap requests in more than twenty years! If there's no FISA and there's no way of knowing who he's spying on accept what he tells us. And the next democrat in office would have the same power! Golly, what if a LEFTY HOMO got to be President! Would you take their gay lefty homo word that they wouldn't abuse their unquestioned authority?

You may not care because you're already a perfect little grunt cog proto brown shirt robot slave unit ready to take any order without question, but I like my freedoms.

[Geggy]

Yeah Kiki is at where he is at now because he is not asking enough questions but plays along with the authority like a lost puppy.

Good article Max. Pretty spot on. Hillary is all about PR stunt and she knows it too. Everytime we (regular citizens) complain about the way things are being handled by the current administration, she comes right into the scene after she looked at the stats that more people are complaining than those who aren't. She's doing it all for political gain whereas in reality she doesn't give a shit about what we say or want. Also I can't trust anyone who stays with their husband after he's cheated on her hundreds of times. Something's just fucked up about that.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by mburbank

I don't doubt that in the least, but here's my problem with it. The envelope of evil extends as far beyond the legitimate as the powerful can reach. W et al are trying to move the line of legal legitimacy WAY forward to cover warantless spying, torture, detention without charge, disapearance. If they succeed in making thse things, (which I'm sure they've done before in countless administrations) solid, legal, unasailable ground to stand on, think how much further into the darkness their reach would extend.

Nixon said he was not a crook. Clinton sad he did not have sex with that woman. When it became crystal clear they'd lied, Nixon had to leave and Clinton got impeached. Bush says "I did it, I'm going to keep doing it, and I can do whatever I want". That HAS to be challenged. It changes the game completely. Until now it has been 'I can do whatever I want until I get caught'. That makes Presidents a whole lot more circumspect than 'I can do whatever I want.'

The fact is that whether or not most people understand ALL, much less any, branches of our government routinely abuse the powers entrusted to them, that's what they do. If Dubya chooses to avoid impeachment by doing it out in the open, I guess I just have to think of that as transparency. It's the same kind of cantilevered logic that helps me like the Medicare Rx entitlement or Illegal Immigrant Amnesty... instead of drowning government in a bathtub, let's just pull out the stops and see just how big and dangerous this sucker can get before it reaches critical mass. Will it implode or explode? Fizzle out or pop?

Those that are not willing to protect their rights lose them. Most Americans could give a rat's ass that TeamBush© has been paring down what it means to be an American citizen since Jose Padilla. Nobody cared then, and they still don't. Nobody cared about Janet Reno. Nobody listened to Bush41's New World Order speech or the 1000 points of light and got a little sick and shivery. We have amply proven that we do not care to protect our rights. The funny thing is: we still have most of them, almost as if on loan from a government to which we've already surrendered them.

Inalienable was a bad choice of wording. Sounds nice, but something more tenuous might have painted a more accurate picture.

But look at me! Having this discussion with a died in the wool Taxachussetts Pinko! All good things emanate from government, right? It's our government that makes us the greatest country evar! If only we could just somehow get the right people to run our lives, everything would be just hunky-dory and all the trains would run on time.

To me, gubbermint is as gubbermnt does. What you see is what you get. It is simultaneously the most dangerous and inefficient machine ever devised by man and the largest criminal enterprise on Earth. As you said, the Constitution was all about using it as sparingly as possible... well, that's not exactly how you said it... But what else is our government if not us using our elected representatives to do stuff for us?

The constitution is ALL ABOUT removing any occasion to trust politicians. The three branches are supposed to watch each other like rabid dogs equally distanced from enough food for one of them... ~mburbank

So, we shouldn't trust politicians except for when we are supposed to trust them to watch each other. It's just amazing that a plan that cleverly engineered broke down! Wait a minnit... Maybe it was supposed to be US watching them!

Step over the line, max... Join me on the dark, libertarian side... You know you want to. All the cool kids are doin it.

[mburbank]

Not a chance. Although I mostly agree with everything you've said, I still believe in banding together to protect ourselves as a group from ourselves. Why? Because the alternative leads rapidly to my being killed and eaten.


I'm more puzzled and frigthened by how much more it takes to wake the culture up than it used to. The worm turned on Mccarthy, it turned on Vietnam... is the current gang so much better, or is the nation so much more fat and complacent?

I'm highly cyncial about anyone with a taste for power. But here's what I'm saying, and I'll keep saying it. This bunch has expanded the nevelope dramtically. way more than anhthing I've seen in my liftetime. I've never seen a president I liked, and I've seen a few I outright hated, but I never thought before 'here's a gang who's intention is to topple the country as we know it.' That might have been a biproduct of other Presidents, but I never saw it as the singular intention. I never imagined Bush I or Reagan or even Nixon wpuld establish a facist state if they could. I feel like these guys haven't tried yet because they don't think we're in the proper position for it to succeed. So in the meantime they keep seeing just how much they can push in that direction, waiting for the next big terrorist attack or bird flu or whatever other excuse they can use like they did 9/11 to solidify their power and make it permanent. Of course they will fail, there are no thousand year reichs. But man, fuck these bastards and fuck everyone who doesn't see them for the lying, coniving, sould dead bastards they are.

[Preechr]

Definitely fat and complacent.

BTW, I'm not an anarchist, man... I just want government to be no bigger than it has to be in order to do just what we need it to be doing. Think of it like sometimes you find yourself in need of a chipper/shredder... one of those big, industrial suckers they pull behind a truck. It's an extremely dangerous, violent machine that will certainly fuck you up completely if you use it for the wrong thing, like, say, shaving your nuts.

Of course, in this world, there exist certain reprehensible characters as the amoral industrial-sized, truck-pulled chipper/shredder salesman and his cousin, the politician... each dying to sell you and everybody else on the idea that their product is much more universally useful than it actually is.

Anyhoo... I still hold out hope for you. You do know that you can still call yourself a populist (even a Jew) once you become a libertarian, right? It's a freakin big tent over here. Not a very filled tent at the moment, now that everything wrong with everybody is now officially someone else's fault...

If you are so critical of those seeking political power, why are you so quick to look in that bucket for solutions to all our problems? I don't care who might have been in office since 2000, the only thing stopping any politician from doing exactly what Bush has done was the expediency of each abuse toward whatever that person's ultimate political goal might be. No ultimate political goal is ever all that different from any other.

I understand what you're pissed at, and I totally respect your point here. I still say the only difference here is that Bush is being much less obfuscatory than have his predecessors. I say great. Bring it on. Fat and complacent, meet arrogant and running your life. I'm only a little disappointed that he didn't recommend Jesus Christ for the Supreme Court. That would have rocked.

I want a slap fucking crazy president. Let's kick this pig, dammit.

[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Hey Kiki; ever hear of the Nixon presidency? Did you know he frequently wiretapped politicl enemies and peace activists without a warrant? Thank GAWD we know for a fact W. would never abuse his power like that. OF COURSE he says he only listens to Al Quaeda phone calls, but if that were true, why not present is evidence to FISA, who have only ever turned down four wire tap requests in more than twenty years! If there's no FISA and there's no way of knowing who he's spying on accept what he tells us. And the next democrat in office would have the same power! Golly, what if a LEFTY HOMO got to be President! Would you take their gay lefty homo word that they wouldn't abuse their unquestioned authority?

You may not care because you're already a perfect little grunt cog proto brown shirt robot slave unit ready to take any order without question, but I like my freedoms.

LOL>

The NSA listens to calls. Pres. Bush is not saying:

"Hey, can we get the Republican Party the right to monitor phone calls?"

What are you talking about?

You think the NSA is going to invite the RNC in to listen to rival politician's conversations and use this power to destroy us all?

Go back to the conspiracy theory book section you crawled out of.

[Geggy]

Ahhhahaha of course you're going to easily dismiss him as a conspiracy theorist.

He is trying to tell you that Bush has been telling the public they've been monitoring phone calls for the sake of our safety from future terror attacks and keeping their ears open for any al-qaeda suspects. If that is true, then why couldn't they have just simply asked FISA for warrants when , like max had confirmed, they've turned down only 4 requests in the last 20 years? Sounds reasonable enough to me to grant them warrants if they're so concerned about terrorism. But they had never asked for warrants. It has already been proven through list of phone numbers that they've been illegaly spying on millions of innocent Americans across the country, who are supposedly have ties to al-qaeda, starting BEFORE 9/11. If they had been spying before 9/11 then why weren't the attacks prevented? Why weren't any al-qaeda members has been detained? In fact why hasn't any one of them had been detained since at all? Doesn't that make you suspicious? Of course they've been invoking 9/11 as an excuse for spying without warrants. It seems pretty clear to me not to think of it as conspiracy theory like you've so cowardly accused him of. You're just too scared to see the picture.

I'm sorry but we do not have any puppy treats here for you so could you please just go away?

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

LOL>

The NSA listens to calls. Pres. Bush is not saying:

"Hey, can we get the Republican Party the right to monitor phone calls?"

What are you talking about?

You think the NSA is going to invite the RNC in to listen to rival politician's conversations and use this power to destroy us all?

The whole damn point of the FISA court is to make sure that WHOEVER is President is using these wiretaps in a legal manner. We can't just say, OK we trust you, Mr. President, we don't need any agency to make sure you aren't wiretapping political enemies!

The point isn't that anyone thinks Bush is wiretapping political enemies. The point, that seems to be totally lost on you, is that there is a system in place to make sure ANY president doesn't and our current one seems to be circumventing it.

The ONLY reason to do this would be if the FISA court was infiltrated with terrorists. So trying to justify the president's actions seems more like the job of a conspiracy nut to me.