The bathouse boys see it as the end of their world.
Posted on 01/22/2006 11:46:10 PM PST by RWR8189
If Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings lacked drama, apart from his wife's bizarrely over-covered crying jag, it is because they confirmed the obvious. Judge Alito is exactly the kind of legal thinker President Bush wants on the Supreme Court. He has a radically broad view of the president's power, and a radically narrow view of Congress's power. He has long argued that the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. He wants to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and has a history of tilting the scales of justice against the little guy.
As senators prepare to vote on the nomination, they should ask themselves only one question: will replacing Sandra Day O'Connor with Judge Alito be a step forward for the nation, or a step backward? Instead of Justice O'Connor's pragmatic centrism, which has kept American law on a steady and well-respected path, Judge Alito is likely to bring a movement conservative's approach to his role and to the Constitution.
Judge Alito may be a fine man, but he is not the kind of justice the country needs right now. Senators from both parties should oppose his nomination.
It is likely that Judge Alito was chosen for his extreme views on presidential power. The Supreme Court, with Justice O'Connor's support, has played a key role in standing up to the Bush administration's radical view of its power, notably that it can hold, indefinitely and without trial, anyone the president declares an "unlawful enemy combatant."
Judge Alito would no doubt try to change the court's approach. He has supported the fringe "unitary executive" theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution. He has also put forth the outlandish idea that if the president
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
All water coolers at the NYTimes have obviously been replaced with Kool-Aid dispensers. We'll likely hear more about this from Snow, Rush, and O'Reilly tomorrow.
OMG, straight from the DNC talking points... ridiculous
The New York Slimes is against him-that's strong evidence that he'll be a great Supreme Court Justice.
The conservative agenda is a step up!
Up out of the gutter!!!!!
If you want to argue just look at Teddy. He owns the gutter, well no, he owns the canal. isn't that where he left his car???
The New YOrk Times is just attempting to make Alito controversial enough that the Democrats can effectively filibuster.
Those that believe the Democrats are not going to filibuster Alito must believe the tooth fairy is real too. The strategy is to convince those on the right that Alito is certain to be confirmed. Then at the last minute the Democrats will quote the times and other so called main stream media to justify the filibuster.
The only question is does Frist have enough votes to do the Nuclear option? We can only hope that he does.
Mrs. Alito's "crying jag." The Editors of the New York Times are despicable. To call them swine would be an insult to pigs.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
"If Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings lacked drama, apart from his wife's bizarrely over-covered crying jag...."
You can stop reading right there - - that line tells you all you need to know about a newspaper that was considered one of the most reputable publications in the country only 30 years ago. If the Supreme Court nominee was a Democrat nominee and that nominee was the subject of relentless, dishonest, and vile smear attacks by radical right-wing Republican Senators, including one who was a bloated, drunken killer, can you imagine what the New York Times would have to say about the nominee's wife's "crying jag"?
The New York Times has not simply become just another shameless shill for the most irrational elements of the Democrat Party - - though that is surely sad enough - - it has become a disgustingly lowbrow newspaper. (It cracks me up that the paper still uses "Mr." when discussing politicians, as if that somehow hides the editors' obvious angst and disguises the juvenile tone of the writing.) The editors come off like small children fighting over a cat turd in the sand box.
Its an editorial, of course its the DNC talking points. Why would anyone be shocked about that. What editorial from the North East is ever pro conservative? 1-2%?
I also hope that Frist has the votes for the nuclear option,if the rats are so cynical as to try to filibuster Alito's confirmation vote. If the Republicans wouldn't use it now,I don't know when they would use it.There's absolutely no reason for the rats not to allow the vote.I despise Kennedy with a passion,that fat hypocrite. He's so comfortable being a hypocrite(and knowing that he'll get re-elected no matter what he does,apparently)that he doesn't even care when he falsely accuses a good man of something of which he,Kennedy,is truly guilty(not that I have a problem with a men-only club---it's the arrogantly transparent hypocrisy of Kennedy that makes me wish he'd drink one too many and keel over).
NYT editors' consensus project their leftist ideological disconstruct and the subversive efforts of THE LEFTIST ACLU:
"...a radically broad view of... and a radically narrow view...to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans..."
The MEDIA establishment just doesn't get it. Ordinary Americans don't give a damn what the NY Times, Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, et al, believe. Ordinary Americans are thinking for themselves and communicating among themselves via the InterNet.
They're even more despicable because they and their cohorts are the reason,if the "crying jag" was over-covered. They trumpet it,and then accuse the poor woman for what they did?
Perhaps in a day or two Bin Laden will come out against him, too.
The Old Gay Lady is so last century.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.