Showing posts with label Judge Alito. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge Alito. Show all posts

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Frank Rich: The State of the Union Is Comatose

By GottaLaff

Frank Rich:

Hands down, the State of the Union’s big moment was Barack Obama’s direct hit on the delicate sensibilities of the Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. The president was right to blast the 5-to-4 decision giving corporate interests an even greater stranglehold over a government they already regard as a partially owned onshore subsidiary. How satisfying it was to watch him provoke Alito into a “You lie!” snit. Here was a fight we could believe in.

There was more to admire in Obama’s performance as well. He did not retreat into the bite-size initiatives [...] embraced by an emasculated Bill Clinton after his midterm pummeling of 1994. The president’s big original goals — health care, economic recovery, financial reform — remained nominally intact, as did his sense of humor. [...]

Good thing, too, since our union is not strong. It is paralyzed. [...] One year into Obama’s term we still don’t know whether he has what it takes to get American governance functioning again. But we do know that no speech can do the job. The president must act. Only body blows to the legislative branch can move the country forward. [...]

Obama should turn up the heat on both the G.O.P’s record of fiscal recklessness and its mad-dog obstructionism. He should stop paying lip service to the fantasy that his Congressional opposition has serious ideas to contribute to the cleanup. Better still, he should publicize exactly what those “ideas” are. [...]

It was a heartening breakthrough when Obama dismissed such idiocies repeatedly in his televised meeting with House Republicans on Friday. He mocked G.O.P. legislative snake oil that promises to lower all medical costs and “won’t cost anybody anything.” He must keep this up — and be equally tough on the slackers in his own party who stall his agenda. And he must be less foggy on the specifics of what that agenda is. [...]

Americans like Obama far more than they like any Congressional leader. They might even like more of his policies if he spelled them out. But none of that matters if no Democrat fears him enough to do any of his bidding and no Republican believes there’s any price to be paid for always saying no.

A year in, we have learned that all the conciliatory rhetoric won’t cut it. But a president with a big megaphone and large legislative majorities has more powerful strings to pull, no matter what happened in one special election in Massachusetts. If he can’t get a working government, at least he can shake things up in November.

Just look at how a sharp public slap provoked Justice Alito, threw a spotlight on the court’s dubious jurisprudence and sparked an embarrassing over-the-top hissy fit on the right. [...] Without strong medicine from Obama, we can be certain of the same result: a heedless Congress will keep doing nothing. If he steps it up, there’s at least a shot that his presidency, and maybe even the country, will be pulled back from the brink.

You can read the whole thing here.

Shallow Thoughts: SCOTUS at SOTU edition

By GottaLaff

Today's Shallow Thought:

Media punditiots and GOPers have defended Supreme Court Justice Alito's grimacing and mouthing his disagreement during President Obama's State of the Union address. If instead, Justice Sotomayor had smiled and mouthed approval, would the same people be defending her?

That was today's Shallow Thought. Thank you for wading in.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

VIDEO: Leahy rips Supreme Court

By GottaLaff



Patrick Leahy talks back to members of the Supreme Corporation, er, Court.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

VIDEO: Alito mouths "not true" as Obama criticizes SCOTUS for ruling

By GottaLaff

The Supreme Joe Wilson:



Oh my. As Glenn Greenwald tweeted, Justice Alito breached protocol in more serious way than Joe Wilson did.

Wow. Just wronger than wrong, "Judge".

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito shooked his head no, and mouthed "not true," while President Obama criticized the Supreme Court for their recent decision permitting lobbyists and corporations to exert more influence on elections. This is highly inappropriate of a Supreme Court justice - they don't even clap at the State of the Union, they're supposed to be so impartial.
H/t: AMERICABlog

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

DUELING VIDEOS: Lindsey Graham questions Sotomayor... and Alito

By GottaLaff

Lindsey Graham then and now...

It's worth noting what Graham's Supreme Court confirmation questioning was like back in 2006, at the hearings for Samuel Alito. He took his allotted time as an opportunity to apologize to Mrs. Alito, who was upset by what was perceived to be overly tough questioning of her husband.
Compare and contrast:





As opposed to:


As for Sotomayor, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said at a press conference after the hearings that the nominee best showed her temperament today, in how she calmly answered Graham's "barrage of questions."

Thursday, May 28, 2009

VIDEO-- Alito: My family’s immigrant experience shaped judicial outlook

By GottaLaff



Here's the video of the Alito quote that Keith Olbermann referred to last night:

And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position…

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

Do I smell empathy? Ruh-roh.
“Anyone who is objecting now to Sotomayor’s alleged ‘empathy’ problem but who supported Sam Alito and never objected to this sort of thing ought to have their motives questioned,” writes Glenn Greenwald.
Alito must be a racist, albeit an empathetic one.
Later in the hearing, Alito referenced his father’s experience as the basis of his view on district reapportionment:

GRASSLEY: Some have questioned your 1985 statement regarding the electoral reapportionment, that is how districts are drawn. They suggested that you’re hostile to the principle of one person, one vote. Clarify for me, nowhere in your ‘85 statement did I find that you wrote that you ever disagreed with the principle of one person, one vote. Did you?

ALITO: I never disagreed with that principle, Senator. What I disagreed with when I was in college was the application of the principle in some of — the elaboration of the principle in some of the late Warren court decisions. And this grew out of my father’s work with the New Jersey legislature. He had been the secretary to the state constitutional convention of 1966, which redrew the provisions of the state constitution relating to the composition of the legislature in an effort to bring it into compliance with the one person, one vote standard.

These provisions, however, because they tried to respect county and municipal lines, as I recall, resulted in population deviations of under 10 percent, but those deviations were much higher than the ones that the Supreme Court said in the late decisions that I’m talking about would be tolerated regarding congressional districts. There was a belief that that principle would be applied across the board, both to congressional districts and to legislative districts, and that would have wiped out the plan that had been adopted.

And I was quite familiar with all of this. And it seemed to me an instance of taking a good principle, which is one person, one vote, and taking it to extremes, requiring that districts be exactly equal in population, which did not seem to me to be a sensible idea.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

The Big Mystery: Justice Alito M.I.A. from Obama/Biden meeting with Supremes

By GottaLaff

http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/images/ruth_bader_ginsburg_and_samuel_alito_1.jpg
Yesterday, Paddy posted about the meeting between P.E. Obama and V.P.E. Biden and the Supreme Court justices. How wonderfully pleasant! How oh-so-congenial!
Wednesday's meeting was described as a relaxed, get-acquainted session. It included Roberts, seven associate justices and Vice President-elect Joe Biden.
How hunky dorily positive! How... how... wait a minute. Seven associate justices? Seven? Who was missing? Who would even think to snub the future president and vice president when they were clearly going out of their way to say a big introductory howdy-do? And why?
The absence of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who was at the court Wednesday morning for arguments in two cases, was a mystery. He has, however, voiced lingering anger over Senate Democrats, including Obama and Biden, who voted against his confirmation three years ago. When walking on Capitol Hill, Alito has said, he crosses to the far side of the street whenever he nears the Senate Office Building.
It's reassuring to know that a Supreme Court judge, a member of an august body that supposedly personifies impartiality and dispassion, holds a personal grudge and acts out his petulance like a pouting little third grader.

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Joseph Isadore Lieberman flips, wishes he'd supported Alito

By GottaLaff

Republican McJoe is at it again. I had no respect for him prior to this, but now he's not only in the Respect minus column, he's firmly in the Gag Me with a WTF column:

On ABC’s This Week today, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson called Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) “the best of the pro-choice candidates,” but added that it would be “a major problem” that Lieberman had voted against Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination.

Conservative columnist George Will then broke in, saying that Lieberman’s office told him this week Lieberman now believes “he was wrong” to have voted against Alito and that “now he likes Alito” [...]

In January 2006, when Lieberman voted against confirming Alito, he issued a statement saying that he was “left with just too many doubts” about Alito’s “judicial philosophy.” As an example of why he was voting against him, Lieberman pointed to Alito’s record on “equal opportunity and fair treatment“:

For example, in civil rights cases, Judge Alito has repeatedly established a very high bar, an unusually high bar, for entrance to our Courts for people who believed they’ve been denied equal opportunity and fair treatment based on race or gender.

In light of his stated reasons for opposing Alito, it is confusing as to why Lieberman now believes he “was wrong,” considering how Alito has voted since joining the court. For instance, Alito wrote the majority opinion in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire Co., which “made it harder for many workers to sue their employers for discrimination in pay.”

I could go on with the usual anti-Lieberman diatribe, but you know it by heart already. Suffice it to say, I'm looking for my old dart set and an exceptionally annoying photo of Isadore.

Recent Posts