[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
How many employees do yo have?
If your company has less than 50 employees you are not required to follow the FMLA.
[/quote]
I have only 2 employees. But my objections to the FMLA have nothing to do wiht the size of the business - 50 employees was an arbitrary number. The fact remains that it is a federal mandate that just makes no business sense at all.
Another good post by lawyer/blogger Pejman Yousefzadeh on Alito:
The Anti-Miers
By: Pejman Yousefzadeh ? Section: SCOTUS
Judge Samuel Alito ( http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050719/19alito.htm ) is everything that Harriet Miers is not. He brings extensive judicial experience–the most of any Supreme Court nominee in nearly 70 years–to the table. He has a clearly developed sense and theory of jurisprudence and Constitutional interpretation. Both Alito and Miers are intelligent but Alito is steeped in the work and skill sets that a Supreme Court Justice needs to bring to his/her work. He is an outstanding nominee and conservatives who were dismayed and outraged over the Miers nomination are and should be delighted over the Alito nomination in equal proportion.
Of course, it is clear that a fight will be waged over this nomination ( http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/31/D8DJ25TO2.html ). This fight should be welcomed. For too long, we have obsessed over finding the perfect stealth nominee and putting off a serious and comprehensive national debate over judicial philosophy. The Roberts confirmation went exceedingly well and avoided much of these conflicts but they cannot be avoided forever. Even in the Bork confirmation process, conservatives pulled their punches–trying to emphasize, as Ethan Bronner wrote ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393026906/pejmanpundit-20/103-0850389-4505427?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&link_code=xm2 ), that Bork was a middle-of-the-roader; a talking point that somehow made it acceptable and fashionable to label conservatives as a barbarian subset not worthy of recognition or respect. (It is notable, though not surprising, that this morning on National Public Radio ( http://www.npr.org/ ), Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg labeled Alito as “extremely, extremely conservative!” and pronounced the words with a hateful vigor akin to what the ancient Romans may have said about Hannibal himself.) The good news–as Patterico notes ( Patterico's Pontifications )–is that any attempt to filibuster Alito may be met with the exercise of the constitutional option/nuclear option/sanity option/whatever-you-want-to-call-it-option. Republicans should not shy away from that portion of the fight either. There is no reason to engage in a party line opposition or filibuster of Samuel Alito merely because of a difference in judicial philosophy. President Bush made clear in two campaigns that he would nominate judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Like it or not, two electoral victories allow him that right. And there had better be a far more respectable reason to oppose an extremely well-qualified and intelligent judicial nominee than a disagreement over ideology. After all, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer got on the Court with significant Republican support, despite ideological differences. Is Judge Alito not worthy of the same deference?
Incidentally, some may be tempted to start a drinking game for every time you hear or read about the nickname “Scalito” or for every time you hear or read a misrepresentation of Judge Alito’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey ( Patterico's Pontifications ). Of course, there is a strong possibility that with this drinking game will come a national cirrhosis epidemic, so perhaps it’s not the best of ideas.
Don’t you guys know, the federal government can do anything it wants, under the guise of “regulation of interstate commerce”.
We saw that just recently!
More on two of Alito’s non-Casey abortion-related decisions:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_10_30-2005_11_05.shtml#1130779540
Alito and Planned Parenthood v. Farmer:
While lots of pundits are pondering Judge Alito’s dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, no one is talking yet about the other Alito abortion opinion: Planned Parenthhod v. Farmer, 220 F.3d 127, 152 (3d Cir. 2000) (Alito, J., concurring). The opinion concurred in a judgment striking down New Jersey’s partial birth abortion statute.
Farmer involved a challenge by Planned Parenthood to a 1997 New Jersey statute that prohibited what is popularly known as the “partial birth abortion” procedure. A panel of the Third Circuit consisting of Judges Barry, Garth, and Alito heard argument in the case in November, 1999. On January 14, 2000, while the panel was drafting its majority opinion, the Supreme court granted certiorari in a Nebraska case raising the same issue. The Third Circuit panel held its drafted opinion until the Supreme Court decided the Nebraska case on June 26, 2000. Instead of rewriting the panel opinion along the lines of the Suprme Court’s new decision, Stenberg v. Carhart, Judge Barry simply added a new introductory paragraph to the opinion that she had drafted before the Supreme Court’s decision and published her opinion otherwise “as is.” The first paragraph of Judge Barry’s opinion explains what happened:
The majority opinion which follows was in final form before the Supreme Court of the United States heard argument in the appeal of Carhart v. Stenberg, 192 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir.1999). The Supreme Court has now issued its opinion in that case, finding Nebraska's "partial birth abortion" statute--a statute nearly identical to the one before this Court--unconstitutional. See Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000). Because nothing in that opinion is at odds with this Court's opinion; because, in many respects, that opinion confirms and supports this Court's conclusions and, in other respects, goes both further than and not as far as, this opinion; and, because we see no reason for further delay, we issue this opinion without change.
Judge Alito did not join this opinion. Instead, he authored a concurrence reaching the same result by applying Carhart. Here is Judge Alito’s concurrence in its entirely:
ALITO, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment.
I do not join Judge Barry's opinion, which was never necessary and is now obsolete. That opinion fails to discuss the one authority that dictates the result in this appeal, namely, the Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000). Our responsibility as a lower court is to follow and apply controlling Supreme Court precedent. I write briefly to explain why Carhart requires us to affirm the decision of the District Court in this case. This is an appeal by the New Jersey State Legislature from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey holding the New Jersey Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, 2A:65A-5 et seq., unconstitutional and permanently enjoining enforcement of the Act. Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Verniero, 41 F.Supp.2nd 478 (D.N.J.1998). The New Jersey statute closely resembles statutes enacted in recent years in many other states.
On January 14, 2000, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision in Carhart v. Stenberg, 192 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir.1999), cert. granted, 528 U.S. 1110, 120 S.Ct. 865, 145 L.Ed.2d 725 (2000), which presented the question of the constitutionality of a similar Nebraska statute. The Supreme Court recently held that the Nebraska statute is unconstitutional. Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000).
The Court based its decision on two grounds. First, in Part II-A of its opinion, the Court held that the Nebraska law is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception for the preservation of the health of the mother. See 120 S.Ct. at 2608-13. Second, in Part II-B of its opinion, the Court held that the Nebraska statute is unconstitutional because it imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose the method most commonly used for second trimester abortions, the "dilation and evacuation" (D & E) method. See 120 S.Ct. at 2612-17.
Under Carhart, the decision of the District Court must be affirmed. First, the New Jersey statute, like its Nebraska counterpart, lacks an exception for the preservation of the health of the mother. Without such an exception, the New Jersey statute is irreconcilable with Part II-A of Carhart.
Second, the Supreme Court's holding in Part II-B of Carhart is also applicable here. As noted, in that portion of its opinion, the Court held that the Nebraska statute applied, not only to the "dilation and extraction" or D & X procedure, but also to the more commonly used D & E procedure. The wording of the relevant provisions of the Nebraska statute is nearly identical to that of the New Jersey statute. Thus, the Supreme Court's holding in Part II-B of its opinion in Carhart must be regarded as controlling in this case.
In light of this interpretation of the New Jersey statute, the Legislature's argument that the plaintiffs lack standing must fail. As noted above, the New Jersey statute must be interpreted, in light of Carhart, as applying to the D & E procedure, and the plaintiff physicians in this case perform that form of abortion. The Legislature's argument that this case is not ripe because the New Jersey statute has not been authoritatively interpreted by the state courts or state enforcement officials must also fail. In view of the interpretation in Carhart, there is no reason to wait for interpretation by state officials or judges.
In a post-Carhart filing, the New Jersey Legislature has urged us to certify questions concerning the interpretation of the New Jersey statute to the state supreme court. In Carhart, however, the Supreme Court of the United States turned down a similar request for certification by the Attorney General of Nebraska. 120 S.Ct. at 2616-17. The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to deny certification in Carhart must be regarded as controlling here, both with respect to the Legislature's request for certification and with respect to its closely related argument that the District Court erred in refusing to abstain pursuant to Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941).
In conclusion, Carhart compels affirmance of the decision of the District Court.
http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/081348.asp
Re: Alito and the Blackwell Case
[Edward Whelan 10/31 10:25 AM]
Let me explain more fully why Alito?s vote in a 1995 case involving Medicaid funding of abortion, Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center for Women v. Knoll ( http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/3rd/951107p.html ), has everything to do with a threshold question of administrative law and nothing to do with abortion.
The procedural background to this case is somewhat complicated but ultimately of little bearing:
In 1994, a revised version of the Hyde Amendment provided, for the first time, that Medicaid funds could be expended for abortion when ?the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.? Under Third Circuit precedent that all the panel members recognized to be binding, states, like Pennsylvania, that participated in Medicaid were required to fund those abortions for which federal reimbursement was available.
Implementing this new version of the Hyde Amendment, the director of the Medicaid bureau at HHS sent a letter directive to state Medicaid directors. This letter said that states could impose ?reasonable reporting or documentation requirements ? to assure themselves that an abortion was for the purpose of terminating a pregnancy caused by an act of rape or incest,? but could not impose requirements ?that deny or impede coverage? for such abortions. The letter specifically said that any reporting requirements must provide for a waiver ?if the treating physician certifies that in his or her professional opinion, the patient was unable, for physical or psychological reasons, to comply with the requirement.?
Pennsylvania law did not provide for such a waiver, and providers of Medicaid abortions sued to enjoin operation of the law in the Medicaid context.
The threshold question of administrative law that divided the majority and the dissent was the question whether principles of so-called Chevron deference applied to the HHS action or whether instead so-called Skidmore deference applied. This question, which routinely arose in lots of cases involving review of administrative action, was unsettled at the time, both in the Third Circuit and elsewhere. Justice Scalia has been the most vigorous advocate of an expansive realm for Chevron deference, but his views lost out in the 2001 decision in United States v. Mead ( UNITED STATES v. MEAD CORP. | FindLaw ), which, in Scalia?s words, made ?an avulsive change in judicial review of federal administrative action? by cutting back the realm of cases where Chevron deference applies.
The dissent in the Blackwell case nowhere disputed that if Chevron principles were applicable, the majority opinion was right. Nor did the dissent state that HHS couldn?t adopt the position set forth in the letter directive. It said, rather, that Chevron deference would be accorded to such a position only if HHS adopted it through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
(There?s a second issue in the case involving Pennsylvania?s second-physician certification requirement for cases where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. Again, the divide between the majority and the dissent turns on Chevron vs. Skidmore.)
In sum, while this case obviously arose in a context involving abortion, the question that divided the majority and the dissent was a general threshold question of administrative law on which Alito was exactly where Scalia was. There is no basis for inferring from this case anything about how Alito would approach other cases involving abortion?other than that Alito would apply the law neutrally and not indulge his own policy preferences (whatever they might be). That is exactly what everyone should want in a Supreme Court justice.
It is tempting, of course, for those of us strongly opposed to abortion to want justices who will have pro-life values and will indulge those values in their decisionmaking. But that is not what proper judging is about, and seeking such justices would be a foolish strategy. The idea that justices may properly impose their own values and policy preferences is precisely what produced cases like Roe. Moreover, given the strong likelihood that the legal elites will always be to the left of the American people, any efforts to legitimate or excuse that illegitimate idea will help to produce similar usurpations in the future.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Don’t you guys know, the federal government can do anything it wants, under the guise of “regulation of interstate commerce”.
We saw that just recently![/quote]
Here’s to hoping a newly constituted Court with Roberts and Alito for O’Connor and Rehnquist (a big supporter of federal power) would put the USSC back on course for enforcing a more limited Interstate Commerce Clause power for Congress.
I believe this was all part of the plan all along. Get everyone all fired up about someone who has no real judicial record (Miers) and then have her drop out at the right time and bring in the ringer (Alito). That way it galvanizes the GOP and catches the DNC off guard again.
[NOTE]- This is just pure speculation on my part and has no real basis in fact. It is also just fun to throw that out there.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
I believe this was all part of the plan all along. Get everyone all fired up about someone who has no real judicial record (Miers) and then have her drop out at the right time and bring in the ringer (Alito). That way it galvanizes the GOP and catches the DNC off guard again.
[/quote]
I think you may have something, there. Although it doesn’t take much to catch the DeanNc off guard - they are like a drunk prom date right now as far as their balance goes.
Now if the republicans would just get their hands out from under the dress…
An excellent posting by Julian Sanchez on the Libertarian Blog Reason Hit & Run taking on the press release from Think Progress, which attempts to distort Alito’s jurisprudential record.
Wow, a Nominee With a Paper Trail to Debate!
I haven’t got a verdict one way or another on Alito yet, but ThinkProgress’ roundup of “facts” about the nominee’s views is less than impressive ( http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america/ ). (Addendum: I see the Center for American Progress is pushing the same list: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=917053 ) Let’s consider some of their claims.
[i]ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980's. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito's view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade.[/i]
As blogger Patterico explains in some detail ( Patterico's Pontifications ), it’s awfully hard to justify that initial claim on the basis of Alito’s dissent ( http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1764#comment-62642 ) in the case they’re talking about. His opinion seemed to be that there were enough exceptions (e.g. the spouse isn’t the child’s father; the woman worries the spouse will become violent) that a spousal-notification requirement for abortion?whether or not it’s a good idea?didn’t constitute an unconstitutional undue burden on the right. Now, I have no idea whether Alito wants to overturn Roe, but it seems an awful stretch to conclude that he would on the basis of that opinion. Next…
[i]ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by "immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer's belief that it had selected the 'best' candidate was the result of conscious racial bias."[/i]
That’s what the majority “explained,” but it’s sure not the impression you get reading the opinion ( US 3rd Circuit Opinions and Cases | FindLaw ). Basically, it looks like a court had to decide, inter alia, whether a hotel had failed to promote the plaintiff becaue of racial prejudice. And Alito’s argument is that you might think the hotel’s stated reasons for promoting someone else are weak, but that this isn’t enough to show they were pretextual. I don’t know enough about the fact pattern in the particular case to take sides in the instance, but again, the claim that Alito wants to “allow race based discrimination” seems a far cry from what I’m seeing in that dissent. (Requisite libertarian disclaimer: If some employer decides it doesn’t want to hire people named Sanchez, I think it ought to be able to legally?though I’d hope for it to be swiftly punished by public opinion. All I’m arguing in this post is what it’s reasonable to infer from Alito’s opinions, not what’s good policy.)
[i]ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito's dissent was so restrictive that "few if any...cases would survive summary judgment." [/i]
I can’t even find the opinion online in this case, but again, all we get here is a short excerpt of how the majority chose to characterize Alito’s dissent. From what I can see, the case involved a question of whether a disabled medical student had provided her school with adequate advance notification of the kinds of accomodation her disability would require in the classroom. Again, it’s hard to say more without seeing the opinions, but I can imagine quite a range of disagreements over what counts as adequate notification that fall short of constituting a disagreement over whether the law should “allow disability-based discrimination.”
[i]ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one." The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law.[/i]
I was faintly hoping the case ( http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/3rd/003140.html ) to which they refer might be a Commerce Clause decision in the Lopez vein?but sadly, no. It’s an Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity case, and has very little to do with the propriety of FMLA per se. So again, this is something of a red herring: Alito’s views of Congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate state immunity under the Eleventh are apparently such that he would have held FMLA inapplicable to the states. I don’t think I’d hold it against him if it were true that Alito “would strike down the Family and Medical Leave Act,” but the opinion doesn’t seem to support the claim.
[i]ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home.[/i]
Getting warmer, but looking over the opinion ( US Laws, Cases, Codes, and Statutes | FindLaw Caselaw ), it’s not quite as bad as they’re making it sound here either. The disagreement here isn’t over whether carrying out unauthorized strips searches as such violates the Fourth Amendment?if a judge thought that were permitted, it would surely be a dealbreaker. Instead, the opinions reveal a dispute over whether the officers had a good-faith belief that their request to search all occupants at the premises had been incorporated into the warrant. On the basis of my skim, I’m inclined to prefer the majority’s take, but Alito’s dissent isn’t as awful or crazy as the precis above would suggest. Finally:
[i]ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito's disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito's dissent "guts the statutory standard" and "ignores our precedent." In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito's opinion contradicted "well-recognized rules of statutory construction."[/i]
Having found the Dia decision ( DIA v. ASHCROFT | FindLaw ), I’m not all that surprised, in light of the pattern we’ve seen above, that the “hostile toward immigrants” claim seems, again, like a huge reach. Alito authored a partial-dissent there taking issue with the standard for evaluating a lower-level immigration judge’s determination of an asylum petitioner’s credibility. I can guarantee I’m out of my depth in evaluating this one on the substantive merits, but again, the bolded claim seems, at the very least, like an extraordinarily loose inference.
Addendum: Kos is recycling the same talking points ( The showdown finally arrives ), with some equally misleading commentary. Apparently, the FMLA decision tells us that “For Alito, workers shouldn’t be able to take 12 weeks of unpaid leave to take care of newborns or loved ones.” And the Doe v. Groody opinion reveals Alito’s view that “Not only is [sic] strip searches of 10-year-old girls okay, but of wives as well since they are all merely that man’s chattel.” In a lot of ways, the first complaint is parallel to the silly “why do you hate America?” rhetoric folks at Daily Kos rightly chafe at. You think the Fourth Amendment proscribes certain anti-terror measures? You must be pro-terrorist! You think the Eleventh Amendment bars applying FMLA to states? You must be anti-people-taking-care-of-sick-relatives! The thing about wives as chattel is too ludicrously disconnected from anything in the decision?which, again, I’m inclined to disagree with?to take seriously.
Can some conservative explain to me how the administration is being consistent in believeing that abortion is a state issue but physician assisted suicide is a federal issue? I am having trouble figuring out an intillectually honest way to resolve this conflict.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Bush’s comments were unprofessional and embarrassing.
I expect more out of WH speech writers.
I am not being sarcastic.[/quote]
I thought it might be fun to see if there was actually any substance to one of these ABB rants.
Here is the introduction in it’s entirety:
"THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I’m pleased to announce my nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Alito is one of the most accomplished and respected judges in America, and his long career in public service has given him an extraordinary breadth of experience.
As a Justice Department official, federal prosecutor and judge on the United States Court of Appeals, Sam Alito has shown a mastery of the law, a deep commitment of justice, and a – and he is a man of enormous character. He’s scholarly, fair-minded and principled, and these qualities will serve our nation well on the highest court of the land.
Judge Alito showed great promise from the beginning in studies at Princeton and Yale Law School; as editor of the Yale Law Journal; as a clerk for a federal court of appeals judge. He served in the Army Reserves and was honorably discharged as a captain. Early in his career, Sam Alito worked as a federal prosecutor and handled criminal and civil matters for the United States. As assistant to the solicitor general, he argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court, and has argued dozens of others before the federal courts of appeals.
He served in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel providing constitutional advice for the President and the executive branch. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan named him the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, the top prosecutor in one of the nation’s largest federal districts, and he was confirmed by unanimous consent by the Senate. He moved aggressively against white-collar and environmental crimes, and drug trafficking, and organized crime, and violation of civil rights.
In his role, Sam Alito showed a passionate commitment to the rule of law, and he gained a reputation for being both tough and fair. In 1990, President Bush nominated Sam Alito, at the age of 39, for the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Judge Alito’s nomination received bipartisan support and he was again confirmed by unanimous consent by the United States Senate. Judge Alito has served with distinction on that court for 15 years and now has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years.
Judge Alito’s reputation has only grown over the span of his service. He has participated in thousands of appeals and authored hundreds of opinions. This record reveals a thoughtful judge who considers the legal matter – merits carefully and applies the law in a principled fashion. He has a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society. He understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people.
In the performance of his duties, Judge Alito has gained the respect of his colleagues and attorneys for his brilliance and decency. He’s won admirers across the political spectrum. I’m confident that the United States Senate will be impressed by Judge Alito’s distinguished record, his measured judicial temperament, and his tremendous personal integrity. And I urge the Senate to act promptly on this important nomination so that an up or down vote is held before the end of this year.
Today, Judge Alito is joined by his wife, Martha, who was a law librarian when he first met her. Sam and I both know you can’t go wrong marrying a librarian. Sam and Martha’s two children, Phil and Laura, are also with us, and I know how proud you are of your dad today. I’m sure, as well, that Judge Alito is thinking of his mom, Rose, who will be 91 in December. And I know he’s thinking about his late father. Samuel Alito, Sr., came to this country as an immigrant child from Italy in 1914, and his fine family has realized the great promise of our country.
Judge, thanks for agreeing to serve, and congratulations on your nomination."
My GOD!!!
What an awful speech (when you realize it was W. giving it).
Can I get my blue state card now?
JeffR
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
I believe this was all part of the plan all along. Get everyone all fired up about someone who has no real judicial record (Miers) and then have her drop out at the right time and bring in the ringer (Alito). That way it galvanizes the GOP and catches the DNC off guard again.
[NOTE]- This is just pure speculation on my part and has no real basis in fact. It is also just fun to throw that out there.[/quote]
That is an interesting theory. I heard someone else propose something quite similar.
al, are you coming around? This is tantamount to admitting that W. is “dumb like a fox.”
(It can’t be Rove (he’s too busy/ testifying).
It can’t be Cheney (he’s the Minister of Propaganda/too busy)
Could it BE W.?
JeffR
Not sure if anyone else saw this story about the “talking points” memo that Chris Matthews got his hands on… but [i]if[/i] this thing is legit… then the Democrats will have pulled one of the greatest political dumb moves in recent memory. Nothing would be more ironic than those who call out Bush for not nominating a “diversity candidate” only to then question the ability of the nominee to be tough on crime based on his ethnic background.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47145
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Bush’s comments were unprofessional and embarrassing.
I expect more out of WH speech writers.
I am not being sarcastic.
I thought it might be fun to see if there was actually any substance to one of these ABB rants.
Here is the introduction in it’s entirety:
"THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I’m pleased to announce my nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Alito is one of the most accomplished and respected judges in America, and his long career in public service has given him an extraordinary breadth of experience.
As a Justice Department official, federal prosecutor and judge on the United States Court of Appeals, Sam Alito has shown a mastery of the law, a deep commitment of justice, and a – and he is a man of enormous character. He’s scholarly, fair-minded and principled, and these qualities will serve our nation well on the highest court of the land.
Judge Alito showed great promise from the beginning in studies at Princeton and Yale Law School; as editor of the Yale Law Journal; as a clerk for a federal court of appeals judge. He served in the Army Reserves and was honorably discharged as a captain. Early in his career, Sam Alito worked as a federal prosecutor and handled criminal and civil matters for the United States. As assistant to the solicitor general, he argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court, and has argued dozens of others before the federal courts of appeals.
He served in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel providing constitutional advice for the President and the executive branch. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan named him the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, the top prosecutor in one of the nation’s largest federal districts, and he was confirmed by unanimous consent by the Senate. He moved aggressively against white-collar and environmental crimes, and drug trafficking, and organized crime, and violation of civil rights.
In his role, Sam Alito showed a passionate commitment to the rule of law, and he gained a reputation for being both tough and fair. In 1990, President Bush nominated Sam Alito, at the age of 39, for the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Judge Alito’s nomination received bipartisan support and he was again confirmed by unanimous consent by the United States Senate. Judge Alito has served with distinction on that court for 15 years and now has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years.
Judge Alito’s reputation has only grown over the span of his service. He has participated in thousands of appeals and authored hundreds of opinions. This record reveals a thoughtful judge who considers the legal matter – merits carefully and applies the law in a principled fashion. He has a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society. He understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people.
In the performance of his duties, Judge Alito has gained the respect of his colleagues and attorneys for his brilliance and decency. He’s won admirers across the political spectrum. I’m confident that the United States Senate will be impressed by Judge Alito’s distinguished record, his measured judicial temperament, and his tremendous personal integrity. And I urge the Senate to act promptly on this important nomination so that an up or down vote is held before the end of this year.
Today, Judge Alito is joined by his wife, Martha, who was a law librarian when he first met her. Sam and I both know you can’t go wrong marrying a librarian. Sam and Martha’s two children, Phil and Laura, are also with us, and I know how proud you are of your dad today. I’m sure, as well, that Judge Alito is thinking of his mom, Rose, who will be 91 in December. And I know he’s thinking about his late father. Samuel Alito, Sr., came to this country as an immigrant child from Italy in 1914, and his fine family has realized the great promise of our country.
Judge, thanks for agreeing to serve, and congratulations on your nomination."
My GOD!!!
What an awful speech (when you realize it was W. giving it).
Can I get my blue state card now?
JeffR
[/quote]
Y’know, this “ABB” crap is wearing thin. Now, I’m not the man’s biggest fan, but there are plenty of people I would’t rather have as president:
Sloppy Jeff, the guy who hangs out at the hardware store with paint flecks around his mouth.
Both Curlys, Shemp, and Moe.
Brooke Burke (While really, reeeeally, hot, she is dumb as a post.)
Ronald Reagan, because his deadness presents a problem.
Diego Maradona. He is not a citizen, so, legally, he’s a bad choice.
Y’see, guys? It’s not ANYBODY but Bush. It’s just one of the millions of millions of people far more qualified who wouldn’t fuck everything up in ways that could never have been foreseen.
So, how about instead of constantly recycling this “ABB” phrase that someone probably heard on Hannity (because, let’s face it, it’s not even clever enough to have been Rush’s), how about you refer to people on the other side of the fence as PWCWFSGAFTGWBITWPSJC (People Who Can Prove With Facts, Statistics, Graphs, And Funerals That George W. Bush Is The Worst President Since Jimmy Carter)?
You know conservatives on this board love to bash New Jersey, but here comes another son of Trenton to push the SCOTU further right. So lets give it up for NJ.
Apparently if you want to be on the Supreme Court it is a good idea to be an Italian guy from central Jersey.
harris447 wrote:
"Y’know, this “ABB” crap is wearing thin. Now, I’m not the man’s biggest fan, but there are plenty of people I would’t rather have as president:
Sloppy Jeff, the guy who hangs out at the hardware store with paint flecks around his mouth.
Both Curlys, Shemp, and Moe.
Brooke Burke (While really, reeeeally, hot, she is dumb as a post.)
Ronald Reagan, because his deadness presents a problem.
Diego Maradona. He is not a citizen, so, legally, he’s a bad choice.
Y’see, guys? It’s not ANYBODY but Bush. It’s just one of the millions of millions of people far more qualified who wouldn’t fuck everything up in ways that could never have been foreseen.
So, how about instead of constantly recycling this “ABB” phrase that someone probably heard on Hannity (because, let’s face it, it’s not even clever enough to have been Rush’s), how about you refer to people on the other side of the fence as PWCWFSGAFTGWBITWPSJC (People Who Can Prove With Facts, Statistics, Graphs, And Funerals That George W. Bush Is The Worst President Since Jimmy Carter)?"
Now THAT was a great post!!!
One of the problems we (as in partisans/regular people) have is acknowledging when someone we feel is fundamentally full of sh… (aka…harris/democrats) does or says something worthwhile.
I applaud your last post.
Instead of being an ABBer you are now part of the:
IBelieveInPartyOverPrincipleIfTheDNCChairmanSaysIt’sRight
ItMustBeRightBigBusinessIsTheEnemyEvenThoughItIsMyMother’s
EmployerEveryoneExceptScottRitterThoughtThereWerePilesOfWMDLyingAround er.
Or: IBIPOPITDCSIRIMBRBBITEETIIMMEEESRTTWPOWLA er
JeffR
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Does anyone else think Miers was a smokescreen and Bush really wanted this guy all along?
For some reason I feel like there is some manipulation going on here.[/quote]
I suggested the same immediately after miers was chosen.
Robert’s was too perfect and everyone knew that the next nominee would get pasted. No matter what/who–the Dems had to prove their point.
Throw out Miers, let her take the heat, now you can put up who you want. No backlash that it’s not a woman. No complaints about qualifications.
And the guy has the qualies to go. Fro what I’ve read, he seems solid.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
Not sure if anyone else saw this story about the “talking points” memo that Chris Matthews got his hands on… but [i]if[/i] this thing is legit… then the Democrats will have pulled one of the greatest political dumb moves in recent memory. Nothing would be more ironic than those who call out Bush for not nominating a “diversity candidate” only to then question the ability of the nominee to be tough on crime based on his ethnic background.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47145[/quote]
I originally thought this was a hoax, or at least not attributable directly to the DNC. Apparently not. I guess they didn’t get the memo on erasing metadata from documents (a very big deal in law firms…). The metadata on this doc suggests it was created as soon as O’Connor tendered her resignation (though that could have just been the template focusing on the personal information of the appointee). It wouldn’t be exactly inconceivable to think they had a similar hit piece prepared for each likely nominee…
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/10/31/194827/79
Tim Chapman over at Townhall has the full text of the Democratic smear document on Alito ( http://www.townhall.com/blogs/capitolreport/TimChapman/story/2005/10/31/173672.html ).
Now, this is interesting - because even Tip O’Neil’s flack (Chris Matthews) thinks it’s not only bad politics - it’s just offensive ( http://www.shadowtv.com/redirect/notification.jsp?vid=31bb95519fffc352aedbff0b92d14722 )
"I don't know. I think the democrats, i'm sitting here holding in my hands a disgusting document, put out not for attribution. The democrats are circulating it. It's a complaint sheet against judge alito's nomination. The first thing they nail is he failed to win a mob conviction in 1988. They nail him on not putting italian mobsters in jail. Why would they bring this up? This is either a very bad coincidence or very bad politics. Either way it will hurt them. This document, not abortion rights, not civil rights but that he failed to nail some mobsters in 1988. This is the top of their list. Amazingly bad politics."
Well Chris, I agree. But despite the Democrat’s attempt to make this document “Not for attribution” - let’s go ahead and attribute it, shall we? Because the technical wizards at the Democratic National Committee never got the “don’t forward Word documents” memo. You can download the document here: http://images.redstate.org/images/ALITO.Detailed.doc
{o:DocumentProperties}
{o:Author>prendergastc{/o:Author}
{o:LastAuthor>Owner{/o:LastAuthor}
{o:Revision>2{/o:Revision}
{o:TotalTime>4{/o:TotalTime}
{o:Created>2005-11-01T00:20:00Z{/o:Created}
{o:LastSaved>2005-11-01T00:20:00Z{/o:LastSaved}
{o:Pages>1{/o:Pages}
{o:Words>1873{/o:Words}
{o:Characters>10682{/o:Characters}
{o:Company>DNC{/o:Company}
Ok - so who wants to come clean? Mr/Mrs/Ms Pendergrast? How about one Chris Pendergrast ( http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/expenddetail.asp?txtName=Prendergast%2C+Chris&Cmte=DNC&cycle=2006 )?
Update [2005-10-31 20:28:39 by krempasky]: Ah, the delights of enterprising RedStaters. We’ve got more fingerprints. Douglas Graham ( http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/expenddetail.asp?txtName=GRAHAM%2C+DOUGLAS&Cmte=DNC&cycle=2006 ) did version 2, Chris Prendergast did version 1, Devorah Adler ( http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/expenddetail.asp?txtName=ADLER%2C+DEVORAH&Cmte=DNC&cycle=2006 )did version 3.
Update [2005-10-31 21:52:50 by Dales]: They never did change the default title that Microsoft Word put on the document, which was probably the first line in the original document or template.
“how they made their $$, personal holdings, the whole deal”
That was the first thing they wanted to get into on any nominee. Personal worth. Finances. As one of the other editors put it, “naw, it’s not personal, is it?”
Actually, you know what’s really funny about reading that DNC piece on Alito? It’s more accurate in it’s characterization of Alito’s rulings than all the stuff being circulated by the left-wing special interest groups ( The showdown finally arrives ; http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=917053 ; http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america/ ) – it’s as if they took the DNC piece ( http://images.redstate.org/images/ALITO.Detailed.doc ) as their template, and then dropped out the stupid stuff about the mafia convictions and dropped any factual information related to his actual judicial opinions and added characterizations to appeal to that segment of their readership just looking to be scared by stuff (and who almost surely would never check their facts).
Just compare the DNC piece with the links from the post above from Julian Sanchez from Reason in which he debunks the talking-points emails being circulated by Kos et al. Very amusing.
A couple decent profiles of Judge Alito today from the Washington Post and NYT – if the media is going to portray him fairly and even-handedly, any idea of a filibuster will fizzle quickly.