T1B

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:52 pm**

The other day (Wed.) Sen. Shumer was grilling nominee ScaLito about his 1985 application for a job in the Reagan White House, or whatever.

Shumer was pinning this guy down on the portion of ScaLito's app. where he proudly lists his membership in a group of egotistical male chauvanists from Princeton U. A group that Sean Hannity and Pat Buchanan would be ashamed to be associated today.

ScaLito's explanation left me puzzled. As Shumer wondered out loud, how ScaLito could list THAT group on his 1985 app., when now during the hearings he can barely even say he WAS a member. And that he can't remember any activity or meaningful association within the group. But, while he was/had been a member of some other groups, that were far more mainstream, and certainly of a less Right Wing Conservative bent.

Shumer asked why he didn't list those groups. And as ScaLito answered, he said (paraphrasing) - "Well; as you know, I was applying for the REAGAN job, and I listsed that particular group".....blah.....blah...... (he was then cut off by Shumer). Which got me to wonder, as I'm sure a LOT of people are now wondering.

If ScaLito feels that listing that kind of group on his app. to the REAGAN people for THAT job, what's to say he's not using that same thought proccess to lobby for THIS SC job? In other words, saying what he thinks people want to hear, just so he can get THIS job. Then once he's there, all bets are off.

After all; once you're IN, you're IN, in this job.

A job that is FAR more important and powerful than anything he could have done within the Reagan Admin. A job that could directly effect the lives and freedoms from missuse of the law, that we Americans had come to TRUST in Mrs. O'Connor's decisions. She being the oft deciding vote on the tight and controversial issues regarding abortion technicallities and restrictions, for instance.

I don't think I can trust a person to be quite possibly the deciding vote on the most important court in the world, on issues that are cemented as "settled law"; to vote inline with what we as a vast majority of Americans feel is a just law. The abortion rights for women to be able to choose what to do with their own bodies, and lives.

I'd vote to fillibuster this cad, ScaLito. I don't trust him. I hope the Dems can stop this snakeoil salesman, who would just as soon as tell people what they want to hear, just to get the job, rather than be open and honest, and actually ANSWER all the questions by the panel our constitution says can decide if they will let a candidate loose on the American republic.

NO on ScaLito.

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:31 pm**

Stop thinking so much and just lie down like a good sheepeople.

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:35 pm**

If you don't like Scalia, Alito, Thomas et al remember that the next time we have an election.

The GOP has made no bones about their goals. They are as clear as Mein Kampf when it comes to their long term goals of dismantling the New Deal and reverting back to a form of industrial capitalisim last seen in the 19th century.

Maybe now some of the sheeple will get wise?

I fucking doubt it.

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:36 pm**

Fortunatly, nobody who matters cares what either of you losers 'think' about the subject.

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:39 pm**

Diogenes wrote:Fortunatly, nobody who matters cares what either of you losers 'think' about the subject.

:)

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:44 pm**

The Seer wrote: :)

Pimping mental patient's political 'takes' is not a good career move.

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:45 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:
The Seer wrote: :)
Pimping mental patient's political 'takes' is not a good career move.

And not being able to dispute them is rather pathetic.

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:49 pm**

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:54 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:15 pm**

and again, the two board bitch nominees hijack yet another thread with their inane drivel and grade school level insults.

Shocker.

MSU,

I'm surprised the Pols are rolling over so easy on this guy, given the gray areas in his past. You'd think that they'd worry he'd flip flop the wrong way. Especially when it appears he's tailored his ideals to suit the current job.

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:36 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:and again, the two board bitch nominees hijack yet another thread with their inane drivel and grade school level insults.

Shocker.

MSU,

I'm surprised the Pols are rolling over so easy on this guy, given the gray areas in his past. You'd think that they'd worry he'd flip flop the wrong way. Especially when it appears he's tailored his ideals to suit the current job.

I missed m2's post.

The losers aren't 'rolling over', dumbfuck, they just have no viable reason to oppose him, not that that will stop them from voting against him.

The fact that they have to resort to attacking Princeton just shows their lack of substance.

Posted: **Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:55 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:

"I'm surprised the Pols are rolling over so easy on this guy, given the gray areas in his past. You'd think that they'd worry he'd flip flop the wrong way. Especially when it appears he's tailored his ideals to suit the current job."

Nice grade school level analysis.

Posted: **Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:34 pm**

I knew Babs was a fellow Dem, but I'm pleasantly surprised at the level of analysis here. Good job, Babs.

Maybe you should stay off the college sports boards and stick to politics. You occasionally have a clue here. :wink:

Posted: **Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:38 pm**

Justice Antonin Scalia was approved by the Senate 98-0 on Sept. 17, 1986

what a difference 20 years make ??

Posted: **Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:32 pm**

Wolfman wrote:Justice Antonin Scalia was approved by the Senate 98-0 on Sept. 17, 1986

what a difference 20 years make ??

And try waiting another 20.

It just occoured to me that by the time you're ready to kick the bucket, the pendulumn will have fully swung back to the left in this country.

How's that for your dying thought?

Posted: **Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:42 pm**

I'll be glad I lived my final
20 years in a country
that had some
common sense !

Posted: **Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:25 pm**

When I first heard that Alito was a member of the Concerned Alumni at Princeton 50 years ago and that Ted Kennedy was going to try to hang him for it, I was pissed, thinking that this was nothing more than another bullshit political stunt where they try to tie your political future to a "How many porch monkeys does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"-joke that you told when you were ten. But after reading that the basic tenet of the group was to voice displeasure over the admitting policies of the university that were allowing too many minorities and women into the school, I'd say that Alito owes us more than a "I do not recall" on this one. If he wants to go that route, then I think he shouldn't be confirmed, as no justice who is that prejudicial should be allowed a seat on the SCOTUS.

Granted, we all do some dumb stuff and say some dumb stuff when we're younger, but joining a group who hopes to limit the number of minorities and women in a presitgious university is something else altogether.

Posted: **Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:06 pm**

I don't agree with Mike politically too much anymore, but I gotta rack this take.

Posted: **Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:29 am**

And I am happy Terry, that you see my point.

Dio - It's not so much they're "attacking Princeton", but attacking the Man who would attempt to skate around on that important issue, because he knows how bad it looks now that he's got a shot at the SC position. They're attacking the guys character, not so much the group he was ignorant enough to join, and then LIST on his app. just so the Reagan people would want to hire him. Now; he's got foggy, if any, memory of it all. That's what they're "attacking". And to me, as I posted, that makes a person who'd be selected to the highest honorable jobs in all of our Judiciary, a very untrustworthy individual.

Haven't we seen enough of these types of people from this Bush administation? Why can't we get back to basics in this country? Instead of the covert, secret, snake oil image that seems rampant in the Beltway the last 5+ years.

Posted: **Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:52 am**

Diogenes wrote:
The fact that they have to resort to attacking Princeton just shows their lack of substance.

It figures that you would mistake questions regarding character (selective memory, membership in a group based on discrimination against women) for an attack on the group.

Posted: **Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:15 am**

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
The fact that they have to resort to attacking Princeton just shows their lack of substance.
It figures that you would mistake questions regarding character (selective memory, membership in a group based on discrimination against women) for an attack on the group.

That's what every Right Wing Conservative does. Especially recently, after what has happened with the exposing of the Presidents ass on .....oh..... just some little minor issues, ..... such as . . .. .. .. oh...A WAR! The treasonist act of possibly endangering the covert opperations, or life, possibly; of covered employee of the CIA. They deflect. Muddy up. Spin. When it's clear the issue is not Princeton, and their stupid chauvanist groups, but a man who would basically LIE about it, just to be confirmed to SC. It just follows in line though with what we've seen the last 5+ years!

Right?

Posted: **Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:38 am**

until proven otherwise I believe that
the group in question at Princeton were not
anti- anything except quotas for people who could
not meet the academic standards--
I remember that an alumnus of Princeton wanted
to get my brother in there to play football--
he was rejected becasue he "only" had a B+
average in high school ---
he went on to play at Penn State where his grades
were not so important

Posted: **Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:39 pm**

Along those lines, going back a little ways, Rehnquist got away with committing perjury -- not once, but twice -- over a memo he had written while a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. The memo basically said that Plessy v. Ferguson was rightly decided and should be upheld. Rehnquist said, in his Supreme Court confirmation hearings both in 1972 and 1986, that he had written the memo from Justice Jackson's perspective. Only problem was, Justice Jackson was on the Supreme Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education, and the decision in that case was unanimous. Rehnquist later came clean about his deception during his confirmation hearings, but never addressed the question of whether he had committed perjury.

Thing is, here, that Americans are genuinely a very forgiving people. Had he said something like, "Yes, I wrote that memo. That was what I believed at the time. I do not believe it today. Time and history have proved that the position I held in the 1950's was wrong, and I'm thankful today that a majority of the Supreme Court at that time did not agree with me," it would have been no problem.

That is what politicians of all stripes, but especially conservatives, continue not to get. And it never ceases to amaze me.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:27 am**

Along those lines, going back a little ways, Rehnquist got away with committing perjury -- not once, but twice -- over a memo he had written while a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. The memo basically said that Plessy v. Ferguson was rightly decided and should be upheld. Rehnquist said, in his Supreme Court confirmation hearings both in 1972 and 1986, that he had written the memo from Justice Jackson's perspective. Only problem was, Justice Jackson was on the Supreme Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education, and the decision in that case was unanimous. Rehnquist later came clean about his deception during his confirmation hearings

When did this happen?

If you're going to channel Alan Dershowitz...

As a law clerk, Rehnquist wrote a memorandum for Justice Jackson while the court was considering several school desegregation cases, including Brown v. Board of Education. Rehnquist’s memo, entitled “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases,” defended the separate-but-equal doctrine embodied in the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Rehnquist concluded the Plessy “was right and should be reaffirmed.” When questioned about the memos by the Senate Judiciary Committee in both 1971 and 1986, Rehnquist blamed his defense of segregation on the dead Justice, stating – under oath – that his memo was meant to reflect the views of Justice Jackson. But Justice Jackson voted in Brown, along with a unanimous Court, to strike down school segregation. According to historian Mark Tushnet, Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary called Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to “smear[] the reputation of a great justice.” Rehnquist later admitted to defending Plessy in arguments with fellow law clerks. He did not acknowledge that he committed perjury in front of the Judiciary Committee to get his job.

And the fact that Jackson didn't decide to dissent in an 8-1 decision proves exactly nothing.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:33 am**

I like the fact that, when asked by a stuent, he decided not to answer whether he has ever sodomized his wife.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:35 am**

Me too.

Unlike Ginsberg, who undoubtedly sodomizes her wife regularly.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:53 pm**

I laughed.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:08 am**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Rehnquist later came clean about his deception during his confirmation hearings, but never addressed the question of whether he had committed perjury.

Thing is, here, that Americans are genuinely a very forgiving people. Had he said something like, "Yes, I wrote that memo. That was what I believed at the time. I do not believe it today. Time and history have proved that the position I held in the 1950's was wrong, and I'm thankful today that a majority of the Supreme Court at that time did not agree with me," it would have been no problem.

That is what politicians of all stripes, but especially conservatives, continue not to get. And it never ceases to amaze me.

Terry. Rack it.

I think part of the paranoia that conservatives have with "coming clean" and being up front and exposing themselves to criticism, is because it's in their very nature, to be secretive. Shifty. Their type develops elitist tendencies. They're just raised differently. I' not a Psych.; but it's just my opinion. A guess.

They see admission of wrongdoing, caught lying; or guilt on something, as a weakness. And of course, conservatives are supposed to be strong. Rocks. Upper crust. Moral do gooders. Always right. Ya ever know someone who just ALWAYS thinks they're Right? I bet most of them are Conservative Republicans at the Polls.

Why would they ever be up front? Wear their heart on their sleaves? (enough cliche's, eh?) When all they have to do is shift, and dodge. Cover up, and deflect/deny until blue in the face, or the problem subsides and is no longer front page news. As in almost every Bush related scandal (See Plame outing. Wiretapping. Lies about Iraq war) A plethora of things. It's their 2nd nature! Why? - Hell; I don't know! But we sure have seen a LOT of it lately.

Like you said, I (and most Americans) can respect a person who admits mistakes, and apologizes for improprieties. But, to do what ScaLito has been doing up on the Hill; well; that just makes it all the more clear. It says a lot about the inner person. And that character of a person, who's going to sit FOR LIFE on the most important court in the world!? Are we sure we want that person!?

I've written MY senators. I'd hope all of you do the same.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:09 am**

Stevens is looking really old lately.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:13 pm**

Diogenes wrote:Along those lines, going back a little ways, Rehnquist got away with committing perjury -- not once, but twice -- over a memo he had written while a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. The memo basically said that Plessy v. Ferguson was rightly decided and should be upheld. Rehnquist said, in his Supreme Court confirmation hearings both in 1972 and 1986, that he had written the memo from Justice Jackson's perspective. Only problem was, Justice Jackson was on the Supreme Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education, and the decision in that case was unanimous. Rehnquist later came clean about his deception during his confirmation hearings

When did this happen?

If you're going to channel Alan Dershowitz...

As a law clerk, Rehnquist wrote a memorandum for Justice Jackson while the court was considering several school desegregation cases, including Brown v. Board of Education. Rehnquist’s memo, entitled “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases,” defended the separate-but-equal doctrine embodied in the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Rehnquist concluded the Plessy “was right and should be reaffirmed.” When questioned about the memos by the Senate Judiciary Committee in both 1971 and 1986, Rehnquist blamed his defense of segregation on the dead Justice, stating – under oath – that his memo was meant to reflect the views of Justice Jackson. But Justice Jackson voted in Brown, along with a unanimous Court, to strike down school segregation. According to historian Mark Tushnet, Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary called Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to “smear[] the reputation of a great justice.” Rehnquist later admitted to defending Plessy in arguments with fellow law clerks. He did not acknowledge that he committed perjury in front of the Judiciary Committee to get his job.

And the fact that Jackson didn't decide to dissent in an 8-1 decision proves exactly nothing.

Not Dershowitz, Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist

Rehnquist went to Washington, D.C. to work as a law clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson during the court's 1951–1952 terms. There, he wrote a memorandum arguing against school desegregation while the court was considering the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case. Rehnquist later claimed that the memo was meant to reflect Jackson's views and not his own. Rehnquist’s memo, entitled “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases,” defended the separate-but-equal doctrine embodied in the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Rehnquist concluded that Plessy “was right and should be reaffirmed.” When questioned about the memos by the Senate Judiciary Committee in both 1971 and 1986, Rehnquist blamed his defense of segregation on the late Justice Jackson, testifying that his memo was meant to reflect the views of Justice Jackson. While it was confirmed that the views were indeed Jackson's, Rehnquist was not innocent. According to law professor Mark Tushnet, Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary called Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to “smear[] the reputation of a great justice.” Rehnquist later admitted to defending Plessy in arguments with fellow law clerks.

Brown was a 9-0 vote, btw.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:32 pm**

A) Wikipedia doesn't include the perjury smear.

B) Nothing in either article backs up....

Rehnquist later came clean about his deception during his confirmation hearings

And C) of course it was 9-0.

If Jackson actually supported Plessy in private (and there is no evidence he didn't, nor would it detract from his legacy if he did) there is still no way he would make it an 8-1 decision.

How many 8-1 cases did he dissent in anyway?

Posted: **Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:25 am**

Diogenes wrote:A) Wikipediadoesn't include the perjury smear.

The charge is self evident.

Posted: **Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:40 am**

BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:A) Wikipedia doesn't include the perjury smear.
The charge is self evident.

The only thing self-evident is your stupidity...

When questioned about the memos by the Senate Judiciary Committee in both 1971 and 1986, Rehnquist blamed his defense of segregation on the late Justice Jackson, testifying that his memo was meant to reflect the views of Justice Jackson. While it was confirmed that the views were indeed Jackson's,

So he said Jackson's views were Jackson's views.

Next.

T1B

What bothers me about Judge ScaLito

What bothers me about Judge ScaLito