Judiciary

Eight entries more than what I would have done and with 100% more snark. Blog bless her.

I tried, I honestly tried but I swear, I developed Sudden ADD Syndrome. I just could not focus on the damn thing. All I kept hearing was the list that even LT picked up on :

[via Lingual Tremors: Live State of the Union Blogging 8]:

Notable Quotables:

Terrorism: 16
Freedom: 15
History: 10

More Notables: democracy, future, economy, hope, peace, honor, isolationism

My list has : freedom, terrorists, fight, evil empire, kill, captured, nukular, historic, teeranee, idealism ... and the sucking sound-bite : "We will not be hit again."

Honorable mentions :
Rox Populi: SOTU Crystal Ball Bloggin'

Think Progress | State of the Union

Robert C. Byrd, Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad and Tim Johnson are the four Democrats who would not think twice of legalizing the reproductive enslavement of women for forced human harvesting in the United States.

Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia	Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Tim Johnson of South Dakota	Kent Conrad of North Dakota

These are the faces of our new massas.

Grouped By Vote Position

I came in just as the speaker read Lincoln Chafee's "Aye" vote for cloture.

Ben Nelson, Ken Salazar, Max Baukus and Joe Liberman have all voted for cloture. I am happy to say my senators, Clinton and Schumer voted "No".

Snowe, Hutchinson and Lincoln, all women, voted "Aye". All Republicans. Obviously none pro-choice.

In case you were wondering, I want to target the turncoat Democrats and target them hard. We need to get rid of these suckers.

Which Reid of Nevada voted "Aye" and which one voted "No"?

I wish I'd memorized all the senators names and affiliations.

BTW, my kids are watching now, trying to decide whether the milling about and calling out votes makes for good drama or not.

Senator Akaka ... from Hawaii? Just voted "Aye"

GOOD GRIEF! THIS IS LIKE WATCHING PAINT BOIL AND WATER DRY .... AAAAAAUUUGH!

The cloture has passed 72 to 25.

Jim DeMint has been given the role of soundbiter for the Republicans and they've come out swinging :

"DEMOCRATS SAY ANYTHING BUT DO NOTHING ...

THEY CANNOT ARTICULATE A CLEAR PLAN ON THEIR OWN ...

I swear, this is only for medicinal purposes. Penetrative medicinal purposes.

[via Penetrative sex the answer to speaking nerves - Yahoo! News]:

Volunteers who had had penetrative sex during the previous week or so had the least stress, and their blood pressure returned to normal fastest after their test.

Penetrative sex was far more effective in this regard than masturbation or oral sex. But those who had abstained completely from any sexual activity had the highest stress levels and blood pressure of all.

Brody also did a psychological profile of the volunteers to see whether they had an anxious or neurotic character, and evaluated their work stress and satisfaction with their partners.

But even when such factors were taken into account, sexual behaviour was clearly the best explanation for the stress responses.

So here's a bit of pondering : Does this mean that Bush don't get no action? Or more pointedly, does this this mean George Bush rarely experience the positive effects of oxytocin? There has to be an explanation for his horrid public speaking skills. Add to that the man has some serious empathy problems, I am going to take a gander that he's more into the blow the hand kind of thing than popping the mythical granadine.

Well, it seems like it's working. First The New York Times publishes an editorial where they proclaim, It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination; but now word comes from Democrats.com that John Kerry is leading the way to a filibuster :

[via BREAKING: KERRY WILL LEAD FILIBUSTER!!!!! | Democrats.com]:

Update 4:23 pm: CNN confirms my report from 1 pm and says Ted Kennedy is supporting Kerry. The White House says they have 60 votes for cloture - but they also said Iraq had WMD's... and that Bush never met Jack. Go John Kerry!!!!!

I have confirmed reports that Kerry wants to filibuster Alito, and he is talking to his colleagues to round up the 41 votes he needs.

Three Democrats (Ben Nelson, Tim Johnson and Robert Byrd) support Alito. So right now, without the support of any Republicans, we still have 42 possible votes for a filibuster.

There are 4 moderate Republicans who should be targeted (Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Ted Stevens).

Three Democrats (Mary Landrieu, Ken Salazar, and Dianne Feinstein) oppose Alito but also said they oppose a filibuster. So we must persuade them that a vote against Alito is meaningless if they don't support a filibuster.

The best way to persuade them would be for the Democratic leadership (Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Pat Leahy, and Debby Stabenow) and the five Presidential candidates (John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, Joe Biden, and Evan Bayh) to form a Emergency Save the Constitution Committee and enlist the support of pro-choice, pro-freedom, and pro-democracy activists in Louisiana, Colorado, and California) to persuade their Senators to support a filibuster.

More details soon, but keep calling the Alito 8!

http://democrats.com/alito-8

There is a little email CWA have been circulating; where they target the following Democrat senators. They are all considered conservative Democrats and they all come from "red" states.

Landrieu is the only one in the the gang of 14; who negotiated a non-party line approach to voting for judicial nominees and using filibusters.

Arkansas:
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) 202.224.4843
Contact Via Web Form: http://congress.cwfa.org/cwfa/webreturn/?url=http://lincoln.senate.gov

Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) 202.224.2353
Contact Via Web Form: http://congress.cwfa.org/cwfa/mail/?id=31613&type=CO&state=AR

Florida:
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) 202.224.5274
Contact Via Web Form:http://congress.cwfa.org/cwfa/mail/?id=10892&type=CO&state=FL

Louisiana:
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) 202.224.5824
Contact Via Web Form: http://congress.cwfa.org/cwfa/mail/?id=273&type=CO&state=LA

New Mexico:
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) 202.224.5521
Contact Via Web Form: http://congress.cwfa.org/cwfa/mail/?id=397&type=CO&state=NM

North Dakota:
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) 202.224.2043
Contact Via Web Form:http://congress.cwfa.org/cwfa/mail/?id=453&type=CO&state=ND

Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) 202.224.2551
Contact Via Web Form: http://congress.cwfa.org/cwfa/mail/?id=454&type=CO&state=ND

South Dakota:
Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) 202.224.5842
Contact Via Web Form: http://congress.cwfa.org/cwfa/mail/?id=537&type=CO&state=SD
Senate Switchboard: 202.224.3121

Bill Frist has declare Alito a Democrat's worst nightmare. Why not then tell it like it is on that little email they've suggested? I have gone ahead and did y'all a favor by rewriting the CWA email :

Dear Senator,

Judge Samuel Alito has demonstrated remarkable ability, during his confirmation hearings, in denying his ambition to restrict civil and reproductive rights as well as give unlimited powers to the President and the Executive branch. I vehemently reject this extremist judicial activist to the United States Supreme Court.

Judge Alito has earned his distrust by the American people through his record alone. I hope that you will not allow him to be a further embarrassment to the American people by turning our Constitution into a victim of his radical political agenda.

As a concerned citizen and as a voter, I ask that you help to ensure that Judge Alito receives a speedy rejection in committee. If that fails, then I expect you summarily reject his nomination in the floor debate by any means necessary, including a filibuster. It is wrong to allow his rejection to be stalled any longer.

Thank you for your action regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Address]

You want to take a gander at it with your own version? Then check it out the original email sent by all those concerned women:

Martha-Ann, believe me, I too would have cried.

I would have not had the poise or the streght to have walked out of that room. I would have wailed. I would have rend my blouse and gnashed my teeth at the thought, at even at the hint of my husband being called a bigot.

Senator Graham was out of line.

We know you have black friends that appreciate you. We know that even though the National Association of Women Lawyers consider Alito unfit for the Supreme Court, their president, Cathy Fleming wrote nice things about him.

What troubles me most is that people are picking on your husband for technicalities; because we know that Samuel's crushing hand of fate is all about technicalities.

It's not Alito's fault women get married to a shmuck. Sam works in the world of legal realism. The law is the law and a woman who gets married loses her right to make decisions about her body.

It's not Alito's fault that a mentally handicap victim of rape got an bad deal with his lawyer. His lawyer had not adequately provided citations in his brief to places in the record describing the harassment. The rules are the rules and it was a technicality they had to live with.

Statistics are statistics and unless you can conclusively prove that a black guy was not given due process with an all white jury, it's a technicality black people are going to have to live with. It's just not Alito's fault.

Technicalities are technicalities and in the real world of legal decisions, the law is the law and life just happens. They have to be looked separately, inarticulately, completely separate from each other. This is the real world of good judicial philosophy.

More importantly Martha, you and I stand by our men. We do anything and everything we need to do to help our husbands win. If they win, we win. I would have cried rivers of tears, on cue and for the record. I would have smeared my mascara and blown my nose loudly. Maybe, even maybe, halted a little sob. I would have done anything my husband's acting coaches directed me to do; because I too like to win.

Hat Tips:
Hughes for America: Boo fucking hoo
t r u t h o u t - James Ridgeway | Alito's "Coaches" May Have Violated Senate Ethics Code

Although I think senators Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin have been kicking ass, I still believe "we the people" should have more part in the process of asking the questions to the Judge. So in the spirit of cooperation and the good old democratic process, help us come up with the top 3 questions our good senators should be asking Judge Samuel Alito.

I am keeping it to 3 questions because, at this point, 10 questions, although a fantastic popular culture meme, would actually detract from the real objective of passing them on to the Democratic senators in the Judiciary Committee.

We want to move on this fast, to hopefully have the final three by the end of the morning session and ready to be faxed and email during lunch tomorrow.

Do y'all think we can do this?
Yes?
Then let's get cracking.

We ought to get 10 good questions we can narrow down to 3.

Ready?

Set.

Go!

Senator Samuel Brownback has entered into the record a letter that former Alito clear Cathy Fleming sent to the Judiciary Committee back on November. You can see a PDF copy at the New York Times here.

The problem with Brownback's maneuver is that Cathy Fleming is the president-elect of the National Association of Women's Lawyers and they have issued a negative rating; saying Judge Alito is unfit to protect civil rights based on his record alone.

[via NAWL issues evaluation of Judge Samuel A. Alito]

Of primary concern to NAWL is Judge Alito's stance on women's reproductive rights. Judge Alito's dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), is a pointed attack on the abortion right. Judge Alito argued that married women should be compelled by law to notify their husbands of their abortions. This conclusion-that women lack medical autonomy-was at odds with the opinion of the Supreme Court in an earlier case, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986), which affirmed Roe, condemning indirect constraints on a woman's right to choose. Judge Alito was willing to require that Planned Parenthood take on the impossible burden of proving the number of women who informed their husbands of their intent to obtain abortions. In addition, he was willing to ignore directly applicable Supreme Court precedent.

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), Judge Alito's endorsement of spousal notification was explicitly struck down in an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Justice he is seeking to replace. NAWL believes that Judge Alito's reasoning in the 1991 Planned Parenthood decision stems from a bias against the abortion right and is more results-oriented than precedent supports. This is consistent with the approach advocated by Judge Alito in May 1985, when, working in the Solicitor General's office, he wrote a memo to the Solicitor General expressing the belief that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and urged an incremental attack on it by means of decisions that would empower the states to regulate abortions and undermine the authority of medical professionals.

In his opinions, Judge Alito has disparaged substantive due process, a critical underpinning of women's reproductive rights. In a zoning case, Phillips v. Borough of Keyport, 107 F.3d 164 (3d Cir.1997), Judge Alito concurred with the majority but dissented in part, expressly to attack the validity of a substantive due process argument offered by the plaintiff. His hostility toward the Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, upon which Roe v. Wade rests, is another basis for NAWL's concerns.

Although Judge Alito's former law clerks and professional associates interviewed by NAWL generally reported that he has had positive and supportive working relationships with women and has appropriately hired women and promoted them to senior positions, Judge Alito's interpretation of statutes affecting women and their families further reflects a narrow reading of the requirements of those statutes to the detriment of women's rights. In this area, he takes a highly technical approach to statutory interpretation that arguably is inconsistent with the intent of the statutes in question. See, e.g., D.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical School, 972 F.2d 1364 (3d. Cir. 1992); Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3d Cir. 1996)(Alito, J., sole dissenter to en banc opinion); United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807 (1997); Chittester v. Department of Community and Econ. Development, 226 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2000).

Cathy Fleming was one of the witnesses the Republicans had called to testify in favor of Alito. After the NAWL issued their negative rating (this was a day ago), she was summarily deleted from the witness list.

Hopefully some quick thinking Democratic senator in the Judiciary will pick up on this and invite her over to testify about this rating.

Hat tip to Liberal Oasis.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/010806.htm#011106c