rw

I think it’s a mistake to suggest that undermining Roe is less important than undermining limits on domestic surveillance. Ultimately, there are a host of civil liberties grounded in the “right” of personal privacy and the concept that the individual has rights against the power of the state. An attack on any of these can be used “step by step” as an attack on all.

Whether public outrage over one aspect of this interconnected bundle of rights is greater than outrage over some other aspect is a different question, and perhaps that’s what you meant.

I think the better strategy is to oppose a nominee on the basis that he seems pre-wired to support the power of government over the rights of individuals, whether they are women seeking abortions, gays seeking equal protection, reporters seeking to protect whistleblowers, or citizens seeking not to be spied on without a valid warrant. And to oppose him because he seem disingenuous, at best, in trying to claim he still has an open mind. And further to oppose him because someone either pre-wired to simply philosophically inclined to support the power of the state over the individual is exactly the opposite of what the country needs when the head of state is doing everything he can to seek and exercise unfettered power against indvidiuals.

FITZ!!

In the prior thread, there’s a reference to a recently disclosed memo(?) by Alito making a smiliar tactical argument about how to undermine restrictions on presidential power to eavesdrop without a warrant.

scarecrow, thanks so much for your “winter solistice” letter.

The position on Roe is much less important than the position on limits on executive power in my opinion. He’s a fascist!

Possibly one of the most revolting and egregious constants to emerge from the fundamentalist diatribe is their attitude against letting a woman have control over her own body. It’s outrageous that in the main, it’s a bunch old white chauvinistc extremists, right wingers dictating a woman’s right to choose. Too bad men can’t have babies, then perhaps wouldn’t have to spend so damn much energy on what should be a non-issue. If men all of a suddden could experience child birth and were the ones who had the babies, then there wouldn’t be any people. That’s for sure!

Alito should NOT be confirmed.

Just posted at Yahoo:

Alito Defended Officials from Wiretap Suits

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito defended the right of government officials to order domestic wiretaps when he worked for the Reagan Justice Department, documents released Friday show. He advocated a step by step approach to strengthening the hand of officials in a 1984 memo to the solicitor general. The strategy is similar to the one that Alito espoused for rolling back abortion rights at the margins.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Supreme_Court

This guy’s a pip. Between his activities at Princeton (what is it about ivy league colleges?) and these new revelations, we’d better get some serious action in the senate. I’m not kidding; this guy is dangerous.

Oh, Harriet, where are you now?

Bob Kerr on MSNBC reporting on the spy case spoke about the Alito support for wiretapping and said that Leahy has already stated that this is a question that must be brought up in the hearings.

This is getting traction.

http://www.democrats.org/alitoletters

The DNC has an Alito Letter primer out ^^^

Please visit the Media Campaign here

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey

Impeachment Poll ^^^

http://www.pollingpoint.com/

^^ Help Bury Chimper McFlightsuit

Ooops. I wanted to repost this from the previous thread since it is about Alito, but reposted there instead of here. Sheesh!

Here is the repost:

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito defended the right of government officials to order domestic wiretaps when he worked for the Reagan Justice Department, documents released Friday show.
He advocated a step by step approach to strengthening the hand of officials in a 1984 memo to the solicitor general. The strategy is similar to the one that Alito espoused for rolling back abortion rights at the margins.
The release of the memo by the National Archives comes when President Bush is under fire for secretly ordering domestic spying of suspected terrorists without a warrant. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has promised to question Alito about the administration’s program.
[Â…]
That case ultimately led to a 1985 ruling by the Supreme Court that the attorney general and other high level executive officials could be sued for violating people’s rights, in the name of national security, with such actions as domestic wiretaps.
“The danger that high federal officials will disregard constitutional rights in their zeal to protect the national security is sufficiently real to counsel against affording such officials an absolute immunity,” the court found.
[Â…]
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s.....E=home.htm

NYT’s Op-Ed: “Mr. Cheney’s Imperial Presidency”

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12.....3fri1.html

This is getting traction.
siun | 12.23.05 - 10:11 am |

siun, I agree. In addition to what you post about Leahy, I think Spector wrote a letter to Alito telling him he would get questions about Bush’s Spying.

John, thanks for that.

re Alito and Redd’s thread: his common tactic re Roe v. Wade and wiretapping suggest a “stealth” nominee, who cannot be trusted to preserve civil liberties, nominated by a President who cannot be trusted, and vetted by Administration attorneys whose legal analysis and ethics cannot be trusted.

If the Dems and true conservatives cannot defeat a nomination with that background, good grief! This blows any remaining cover for those moderates who rely on giving the President the benefit of the doubt, just because “he means well.”

ReddHedd, ReddHedd,

Don’t you know that whatever happened in lives of conservatives prior to this point in time is generally not indicative of their present opinions and beliefs.

See, Bill Clinton as a young man was a draft-dodging pot-smoker who was so calculating at an early age that he deviously and with Machiavellan intent plotted and worked his way to the Presidency. All of that must be taken into perspective when viewing him now. Once a draft dodger and pot-head with an eye on power, always a draft-dodging pot smoker with an eye on power.

However, George W. Bush was a vapid, drunk frat-boy, beneficiary of “elite affirmative action” that got him into Harvard and Yale. A rakish young lad who blew-up frogs and wielded a branding-iron to seer the arses of his fellow Skull & Bones bretheren. With a DWI under his belt and a much rumored affinity for Peruvian Marching Powder. He softly landed himself in “champagne unit” in the National Guard and fell from comfy job to the next, always benefitting from the family name and never suffering even when the businesses went south.

But the George W. Bush of today, is resolute, hardworking, dedicated, tough, strong, unswaying, Christian, faithful, honest, rugged and manly, sober, loyal and above all the heroic big father figure willing to sacrifice his reputation for the safey and security of America and all Americans.

So, obviously the same rule of conservative cannon must apply to Judge Alito.

-GSD

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/.....CQQYwP7geY

Frist: Weakest Sen. Majority Leader in 50 Years… Bloomberg

Alito needs to go down in flames. We do not need any more like the 5 there already. Now I have to go cook for all thats coming here.

Link to the transcript of Jim VandeHei’s online political chat today. The majority of the questions had to do with Bush’s spying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01268.html

Granite State Destroyer

You wouldn’t happen to be running for Governor of
Texas (as an Ind. ) at this moment, would you?

ReddHedd cited an AP article in the “Update” that Alito helped defend illegal wiretapping in the Reagon WH. FORBES, yes that longtime fortress of all that is liberal, “picked up” the same AP story and printed more of it.

http://www.forbes.com/technolo.....12491.html

FORBES quotes Pat Leahy in this longer version of the AP story as criticizing Alito for judicial “activism.” That’s Leahy using a conservative uppercut to deck a conservative SC nominee.

VandeHo did not sound like a complete idiot gooper for once. Maybe he has taken a step back from Fascism?

Naaaaa…

Moi,

Nope. Just a good ole Granite State Boy and I’m not even that Kinky.

-GSD

Housing going South, hang-on, the fun will begin early next year!

-GSD

Sorry, couldn’t help myself…your great rant sounded a little (ahem) Kinky’ish.

Carry on.

Here’s a thought to mull I haven’t heard mentioned here (unless I missed it somehow):

Given that the CIA is a bright, shining model of transparency in comparison to that “Puzzle Palace” known as the NSA, what happens when an occupant of the White House pisses off significant numers of NSA analysts? What sort of “revenge” do they take — besides testifying to Congress, as one former NSA analyst has already indicated, in a letter to Congress, that he’s bound and determined to do, and besides leaking info to the press?

Are they able, for instance, to turn the tables and monitor the conversations of Karl Rove on those throw-away cell phones he’s rumored to use, or even to monitor the Boy King and Darth Cheney? Would they feel turn-about is fair play?

What a thought! Eh?

And if NSA could *monitor* their calls, surely they would be able to *tape* them, too?

I’ve felt for a while that this administration’s comparison to the Nixon WH will finally be complete when we catch them ON TAPE plotting and revealing their sneering, arrogant, traitorous attitudes when they think no one is listening.

A couple of legal experts doubt if the domestic spying case would get to courts, much less the Supreme Court. Their point is (as I interpret their remarks) that unless you were someone who knew you were unjustifiably spied on, how would you know to sue the govÂ’t? In other words, who would be the plaintiff?

Legal experts said it was highly unlikely the Supreme Court would deal with a case raising the question of whether Bush acted within his authority in ordering the domestic spying.
“How would someone know they’ve been monitored?” asked Neil S. Siegel, a professor at Duke Law School.
“The president can’t be sued for money damages,” said Siegel’s Duke colleague, Erwin Chemerinsky. “This is one of these things, it may be completely illegal, but it may never get to the courts.”

I am no lawyer but why couldnÂ’t the plaintiff be the American people in the form of a class action suit (via a bona fide civil rights organization) for breaking the surveillance laws? I mean the president not only has openly admitted this is going on, but in fact asserts he will continue the procedure. So the remainder is to determine whether his actions are unconstitutional. There must be a way to defend the constitution on principle rather than attaching to a specific instance of abuse, is there not? So the question is: How would the domestic spying case get to the courts? What is the springboard action to get this to the court’s attention? Any opinion from the legal eagles here?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....ng_court_1

Alito=Fascist

Simple math.

Not fuzzy math.

Suntzu — the problem is having any standing at all. You have to have an aggrieved part — i.e. someone who was spied on illegally, who can show that this occurred — and in this case, that is difficult. However, it isn’t impossible, especially if the former NSA staffer and others come forward and provide examples that individual citizens recognize as themselves during COngressional testimony. Via FOIA requests, there may be some hope of identifying particular individuals with standing.

Also, there may be an argument for members of Congress to bring some action, but my legal expertise in that area is not substantial. Perhaps a governmental law expert who reads here might be able to help in that regard.

So, is the Bush Administration picking Supreme Court Justices to, ah, “protect” the administration when their dirty laundry gets the inevitable airing?

This has the stink of a power grab.

Forget Roe v Wade. We need to start asking if Alito was picked to subvert the Supreme Court?

Was Alito picked to make the Judiciary a supporting wing of our authoritarian Whitehouse?

Redd,

Could I get standing simply by placing a call to Afghanistan? Then assert they would automatically monitor my call, then seek discovery to uncover the extent of it? Is that enough?

And it’s not clear to my why Congress, whose laws (FISA) have been violated, does not have standing to seek injunction of an unlawful practice. Haven’t we had cases before where a congresscritter sued the govt using that argument?

Perhaps the statute itelf expressly limits who can sue and for what.

Redd: Thanks for explaining the point on “standing.” But this also is another reason why the WH does not want to use the FISA procedure, since they would have to identify their targets.

OT, here’s a story on Cheney’s mid-flight iPod crisis, from boingboing.

Cheney is an iPod fan, and keeping it charged is a priority for his staff. Normally that isn’t an issue, even when he’s flying around the world. Air Force II is equipped with outlets in each row of seats. But when Dick Cheney was traveling home overnight Wednesday from his diplomatic mission, most of the outlets went on the fritz.
Working passengers began lining up their laptops to share the power from a couple of working outlets — particularly the reporters who urgently needed to prepare their articles to transmit during a quick refueling stop in England.

But when Cheney said his iPod needed to be recharged, it took precedent above all else and dominated one precious outlet for several hours. The vice president’s press staff intervened so a reporter could use the outlet for 15 minutes to charge a dead laptop, but then the digital music device was plugged back in. That way, Cheney got his press coverage and his music, too.

http://www.boingboing.net/2005.....rst_i.html

So what does Cheney listen to? My guess is he likes the Top 40 Hits from the latest NSA sweep. There’s so much to listen to, is why his iPod goes pfft so soon.

Suntzu — you know, I’m with Atrios on this one. If all he needed was to recharge it, he could have just plugged into a laptop. Unless, of course, he is listening to super secret stuff he doesn’t want reporters to know about.

O.o

I still think the idea of pissed-off NSA analysts *listening in on the White House* to monitor, all Santa-like, who’s naughty and nice is a great sugar-plum vision to entertain this Christmas.

Who says a girl can’t dream?

By the way, I just did a phone-in spot on my conservative libertarian friends radio show. I got him to break out in laughter when I referred to GW as “Commander Codpiece” and “Chimpy McFlightsuit.”

I am sure some of his listeners are still shocked and sputtering…..

-GSD

Holy CRAP, it worked. As per a prior thread, a bush-bot friend of mine (he’s more intelligent an open minded than most bushies) was defending the shredding of the constitution and spying on americans so I said, well, tell me then… “Where does his power end?” He thought about it for a moment and said “You’re right, noone is above the law. Im going to look more into this FISA stuff.” Ill be emailing him some FDL for christmas!!

hehehehe wtm — excellent! It’s amazing how, when the brain clicks back on to manual from Faux News autopilot, how the world looks a bit more clear, isn’t it? ;-)

This is Judge Andrew Napolitanos’ take on Alito. Napolitano is the FOX legal analyst with the hairline so close to his eyebrows he could have been an extra in Planet of the Apes without anymake-up.

“Sam Alito is just what George Bush is looking for: a big government conservative who will almost
always side with the government against the individual, and the federal government against the state.
I think Sam will be confirmed. He will come across as a less charming, less warm Roberts…
There’s no way they’ll filibuster.”
–Andrew Napolitano

-GSD

mwahahahaha GSD — good on ya. You may be single-handedly responsible for an uptick in nitroglycerin pill sales before the holidays.

GSD –

Good on you! I get so angry I don’t trust myself to place radio phone-in calls. I’d need to be tranquilized first, and I’m not gonna let Bubble Boy drive me to drugs.

From “Dover Bitch” from last night:

“Nice wmv video of Harry Truman on outlawwebdesigns via CanOFun:

“Now I am going to tell you how we are not going to fight communism. We are not going to transform our fine FBI into a Gestapo secret police. That is what some people would like to do. We are not going to try to control what our people read and say and think. We are not going to turn the United States into a right-wing totalitarian country in order to deal with a left-wing totalitarian threat.” - April 24, 1950

Give ‘em hell, Harry!
Dover Bitch | Homepage | 12.22.05 - 9:22 pm | #”

I am hoping that Congress will “drown” the MSM in this, so the WH gets the message.

This is exactly why Shrub has been carrying on about getting Alito confirmed in January. He’s going to need the vote that Sandra Day O’C will not give him.

Alito going down has got to happen, but not necessarily too quickly. Let’s have those Judicial hearings on the NSA first.

new thread: “Cracking Open the Mighty Wurlitzer.”

The Dems have been rather silent on Alito so far, but “my sources” tell me that this will be a bloody fight to the end, the Dems putting up strong and vocal objection to Alito en masse. Some Cons may join in the fight under the guise of his views on other privacy issues, like, um I dunno, maybe WIRETAPPING AMERICAN CITIZENS. In any event, Boosh is the lamest of ducks and this duck won’t float.

Let’s hope so, Terri. It’s tough to find someone to the right of Roberts, but I think the Preznit may have succeeded.

GSD:
your ‘conservatives do not have a past, only democrats do’ is a thing of beauty. impressive, as always. i so enjoy reading what you have to say.

when i first read the story about cheney monopolizing the outlet for his iPod my first thought was he just being a dick, in every sense of the word, and showing reporters who’s king of AF2.

i think of cheney as a ‘pulls the wings off of flies’ kind of guy. the iPod story struck me as wing pulling. or at least, that was a bonus for old dick in addition to any other reasons he might have had.

Several people here have speculated about whether Bush appointed Alito in an attempt to “pack the court” with members favorable to his view of the imperial presidency. I seem to remember similar speculation even before the announcement of Roberts’ appoiontment. I also read somewhere very recently that Arlen Spector was extremely put out by these new internal spying revelations because of the inconvenience of scheduling hearings in January while he was trying to get the Alito hearings going.

Spector should do the spying hearings first, particularly concentrating on the issue of WHO were the targets of these warrantless wiretaps. The information arising from those hearings might very well scuttle any later Alito hearings altogether.

My two senators are both Confederates, thus useless, but if anyone out there is in a state with a Democratic senator on the Judiciary committee, please advise them:

Spying hearings first, Alito second. This might very well save the Republic.

I love Fried’s comment re one of the Alito strategy memos: “”I need hardly say how sensitive this material is, and ask that it have no wider circulation,” Fried wrote.”
Ooops…. -:)

There was a question on Jeopardy! recently that said because of the Paula Jones/Clinton case, a President can be sued. See, TV is educational!

Perhaps one of our lawyer commentators could elaborate on this.

Why can’t a class action suit against Bush be filed….wouldn’t it be ironic that the Paula Jones lawsuit comes back to bite the Republican elves and all their ilk.

PS I like the idea that the NSA may be tapping and taping Bush, Cheney and Rove in order to protect themselves….remember the famous comments of Bush and Cheney over the NYT reporter, calling him an a*****e.

Good riddance to Roe anyway. There isn’t another developed country in the world that bans abortion and they do it without any Supreme Court decisions.
The fact is there is no such thing as an American except Native Americans. Everyone else is immigrants from countries that allow abortion. There is nothing genetic in Americans to be against abortion. If left to voters the result will be the same over time as it is everywhere else.
All Roe does is allow Republicans to pretend to part of their base that they are battling the forces of evil. All it gets the Dems is losing the religious vote which pushes the political landscape to the right of Genghis Khan and the Dems trying to appear to the centre left of Genghis Khan.