I just saw both Pro-Alito and Anti-Alito ads on CNN

[Up2Late]

I liked the Anti-Alito ad, though it didn't mention Sen. Biden's latest problem with him (That he wrote he didn't think the "One man, One Vote" principle was correct.

The Pro-Alito ad is just shameless (as usual). Lot's of vague, non-specific quotes supporting him, and they used "the race card" big time. I'm not even sure if they even used a "white male" in the ad, it's almost like they had a check list.

O.K. Prescott, let's go down the list:

Black Man, check
Asian Man, check
White woman, check

Their may have been more, I'll have to see it again to say for sure.

Plus, they made a point of saying something like (I don't have the script, so this might not be the exact wording), "...Some Democrats have made Untrue attacks on his record..."

They made a point of using the word "Untrue" with it underlined, in Red I think.

Anyone else see them and or have the web links to the ads?

[pk_du]

1. Its here http://www.judgealito.com/

from the facists at "Progress for America"

[Up2Late]

3. Yep, that's the one, I guess they must feel the need to pander to...

...white women, because they have 2 instead of just one.



Oh, and they say "...Yet some liberals still go after him...With Untrue Attacks..."

These people must really think we are all stupid. God they suck. :mad:

[ComerPerro]

2. untrue attacks, such as????

Just more of an ongoing attempt to fuel the conservative need to feel persecuted

[Raffi Ella]

4. After the Harriet Miers

Public Lynching from the evangelical extremists all you need to know about Alito is that THEY approve of him.

[Up2Late]

5. kick n/t

:kick:

[Czolgosz]

6. Send CNN an complaining about the ad. Alito is disastrous for minorities.

Alito's views are very radical and far outside the judicial mainstream, and his legal history demonstrates a pattern of judicial activism where Alito has repeatedly chosen to ignore decades of prior court decisions to reach his own politically-motivated result. For example, the scope of congressional authority to regulate nationwide solutions for nationwide problems is an issue that was decided about 70 years ago. But Alito would ignore these past 70 years and thousands of well-decided legal precedents to re-open this settled legal matter because it does not suit his personal philosophy. This well accepted expansive understanding of congressional authority was the foundation for most of the nations anti-discrimination, labor-regulation, and anti-segregation laws.

In Alito's dissenting opinion in United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), he ignored these past 70 years of judicial precedents to reach the extremist ruling that Congress does not have the authority to regulate the ownership of submachine guns. Fortunately, even Alito's Republican colleagues on the court of appeals disagreed with this type of judicial activism and the Republican-dominated Supreme Court also rejected Alito's radical view.

Judge Alito has demonstrated his extremist views on gender and racial discrimination by attempting to make it nearly impossible to police corporate discrimination in his dissenting opinions in Sheridan v. Dupont, 74 F.3d 1439 (3d Cir. 1996), and Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 110 F.3d 986 (3d Cir. 1997).

If anyone was left to wonder whether Alito's out-of-the-mainstream decisions are the result of his personal views, this issue was recently resolved by the uncovering of Alito's application to work for Reagan administration Attorney General Ed Meese. In Alito’s statement of his radical right-wing judicial philosophy, Alito admitted he has a personal "disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment" and he was "particularly proud" of his work arguing "that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." When Alito confessed that he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decision regarding reapportionment, he was principally referring to Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims, two critical decisions which rejected racial vote dilution in favor of the one-man-one-vote principle under the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution. Everyone in America should have the gravest concern about Alito’s eagerness to disagree with over 40 years of Supreme Court precedents establishing equal protection for poor, urban, and minority voters at the nation’s ballot boxes.

Here is Alito's craven job application confirming that Alito has been serving his politically motivated result-oriented activist judicial agenda since before he was appointed to the appeals court:

[BlueIris]

7. Nice. An informative response by a sane person! Thanks!

:-)