Samuel Alito Named Nominated Bush for USSC.

[Rockholm]

[Lefty48197]

1. Start the filibuster now

Refer to the nomination as "dead in the water". No point in even discussing the nomination. No point in even delving into the personal/professional history of Alito. It's all moot. He won't serve on the Supreme Court, so there's no need to even discuss the issue. Start the filibuster now.

[TroglodyteScholar]

142. Are you waiting for Bush to nominate a liberal?

Don't hold your breath...

[zonkra]

143. But...

while I'm not holding my breath, wouldn't it be cool if Sanday O'Connor wrote another letter that said:
"Hey you little unelected twit (believe me, I know you aren't), if you're going to put somebody on the Court like that disgusting little smelly mafiosi Scalia (who hasn't taken a shower since he's been here), there's no horse in the land (not even the scared ones over at Mike Brown's Arabian Horse Society) that would let me near them, asshole! Therefore, I'm either (1) rescinding my resignation unless you're such a dick you won't accept a rescission (as if you could even spell it), or (2) will stay on the Court until after the filibuster and rule against you at every opportunity presented, or (3) stay on until you can find somebody who isn't going to make a woman (I'm a woman, shithead) bear a child to term only to produce more human disaster, you human disaster! Take your choice, you idiot son of a dork! (Believe me, I know, I was there.)

P.S. Your mom is the meanest bitch who ever sucked air. The reason she let you get away with blowing up horny toads was what she called "character deverlopment". I don't think sadistic freaks like you are born of people who aren't severely warped.

[bkcc]

175. why she won't say that:

o'connor was one of the justices that put the "unelected twit" in office.

if she gave a shit about this country, she wouldn't be resigning in light of everything that's happened since she made her announcement. she's voted consistently progressive on one thing: roe v. wade. unfortunately, the loss of that one vote will tip the scales in this country for years to come.

[Lefty48197]

176. Don't be silly

We can reject his nominations, via the filibuster, until such time as he nominates somebody that isn't a whack job.

[MaineDem]

2. Here's a link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4392540.stm

[Miss Chybil]

42. Why didn't Harriet Myers get an up, or down, vote?

Just wondering...

[Hissyspit]

47. Um, she was a fake-out?

Now we get the real nominee. Scalia-like.

Just a guess.

[rayofreason]

60. I don't think Meirs was a fake-out...

... I think Bush really wanted her. When the right wigged out, the Dems sat there laughing and singing "Ha ha, hoist by your own petard!" Jeez - this after Reid recommended her! Talk about short-sighted! Yeah, let's have some fun so that Bush has a rough time over Meirs.

So Meirs, with no support, pulled out, and now we get Alito.

Who is laughing now?

The only way to get your nominee onto the SCOTUS is to win the Presidency and have a majority in the Senate. Until that happens, the progressive wing needs to learn how to cut losses, not recreate Custer's last stand. Over and over again.

[highplainsdem]

81. I don't think even unanimous Dem support for Miers would have gotten her

on the Court. If anything, it would have led to more screaming from the right and pressure on the Republicans who weren't opposed to the nomination. Bush caved on the Miers nomination because the spokesmen (and women) for his base HATED her and thought they could bully him into choosing someone like Alito. And they could...

The WH also wanted someone controversial enough with Dems and independents to get a lot of media attention off Plamegate, for the length of the debate.

[lastliberalintexas]

93. I'm sorry, but that is incredibly naive

If you think there is 2 cents' worth of difference between the 2 nominees, then I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

And then to blame her pull out on the progressive wing? Yeah, cause it's the fault of the progressive wing that Bush has now nominated 3 right wing nut jobs to the High Court. :eyes:

[rayofreason]

114. no difference?

You say there was no difference.

1. Reid suggested Meirs to Bush; the right wing was opposed
2. Reid suggested to Bush that he NOT nominate Alito; the right wing is ecstatic

My opinion is the thing not worth 2 cents. Points 1 and 2 stand on their own merits.

When your political opponents hold the levers of power (solid majority in both houses and executive branch) you have a tough row to hoe. I doubt Clinton gave much thought (nor should he have) to the desires of the Republicans when he nominated Ginsburg.

You can't fault the progressive wing for anyone Bush nominates, but you can ask what is the best way to play a weak hand.

There are, of course, many who deny that the hand is actually weak. That if you play it as a strong hand it will indeed become a strong hand. I personally believe in objective reality, and in the end there are more Republican senators than Democratic ones. Until that changes, well.....

[lastliberalintexas]

115. And anyone who knows anything about Miers career in Texas

knows that she would have been just as right wing as Alito and Roberts. I don't care that the fundies got their panties in a twist- I can't help it that *they* are ignorant of her past work. Just because the fundies were scared of her doesn't mean that they actually had reason to be. The supposed hope of moderates and liberals that Miers would pull a Warren was pure media/republican fabrication, or else lunacy on the part of anyone who really hoped for such a thing.

And though I'm still wary of the man, Reid did a wonderful job with the Miers nomination. The fact that he suggested her is immaterial to how far right she is in her views.

Truly, this simply means that one far right wing conservative nominee withdrew to be replaced by another far right wing conservative nominee. Difference of gender, that's all.


Actually, Clinton paid far too much heed to the conservatives in the Senate when making court appointments. And the repulican tactics during the first couple of Clinton years show us that a minority hand is not always a weak hand, so long as unity is there.

We already have a very conservative federal bench- we can't afford another young, far right appointment to the Court. If we cave and let them put these people on the bench so that Scalia essentially controls the Court, it doesn't matter who wins in 2008.

[rayofreason]

132. Cave or not..

..they have the votes to confirm. Do they have the votes for cloture? We'll have a good idea in the next few days.

[BlueManDude]

116. What did * gain from this "fake out"?

I don't think it was a fake out or any kind of a plan. He goofed on the nominee and has taken a pounding on it. The Dems kept their powder dry on Miers (even the media whores acknowledge that) and are free to go nuke now if they have the balls.

[readmoreoften]

152. This is what Bush gained.

(1) A sigh of relief that he nominated a candidate with credentials instead of a complete idiot. Without Miers, the press would be noisier about Alito's nomination. Now, there is a sense of 'well, at least this one has credentials.'

(2) The theatrical appearance of bowing down to his base. If he had just nominated Alito, they would have liked Bush and approved. But by revoking the Miers nomination, he is showing the RR that they are so powerful that even HE must listen to their mighty roar.

(3) The Miers scandal and nomination of Alito detracted air time from the CIA leak case.

It very well may have been that Bush would be fine with either candidate or either scenario, but I think he was aware of the benefits of revoking Miers' nomination. If I can figure out positives, then I'm sure Rove can.

[BlueManDude]

171. two different things here

the original poster seemed to be saying that bush nominated miers knowing all all along that he would have to withdraw her. i don't believe this.

your point that withdrawing her has helped him politically is correct but i contend they stumbled onto this "lemonade from lemons" scenario rather than planning it from the beginning.

[CardInAustin]

98. Because she wasn't qualified....

gave horrible responses to questions from the SJC and wasn't a sure enough lock for the fundies to make up for those mistakes. Horrible nomination.

Miers was not a trick....just a mistake. Bush and company would be FOOLS to take that kind of public hit intentionally. If it was a trick then it FAILED.

At least Alito has an impressive resume and will likely handle the constitutional law questions.

If the fundies want a fight (they do), then this is the type of candidate they have wanted from the start. A smart man (yes, they want a man) with an impressive resume.

[Miss Chybil]

162. But, I thought there was no litmus test for justices?

I don't see why they threw such a hissy-fit about Myers. Interesting, though, how with Alito's resume he's got such a perfect score on the litmus paper. No litmus test, my ass. Another example of the hypocritical right.

[muchacho]

3. Alito next nominee for Supreme Court

just saw it on local New York NBC station.

[Gelliebeans]

4. just saw it on BBC also n/t

[cal04]

5. Link:Bush to Nominate Alito to Supreme Court

Bush to Nominate Alito to Supreme Court

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051031/ap_on_go_su_co/bush_scotus

CNN headline
President Bush to nominate 3rd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, sources tell CNN.

[radfringe]

9. more info on Alito

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Alito,_Jr.

Case history

Alito wrote the opinion for ACLU v. Schundler (1999), holding that a holiday display on city property did not violate the Establishment Clause because it included secular symbols, such as a large plastic Santa Claus, in addition to religious symbols.

Alito was the sole dissenter in the Third Circuit's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1991), which struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring women to inform their husbands before getting an abortion. The majority's decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark case Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

[Lefty48197]

12. A woman has to inform her husband that she's getting an abortion?

I didn't realize that we owned our wives.

[MaineDem]

18. This alone is reason for "Saclito" to be rejected!

I'm hoping for a major fight.

[MarsThe Cat]

36. it will be.

not a major fight, i mean- but reason alone(although there are others) that he will NEVER serve on the SCOTUS.

[PaDUer]

111. Yes indeed

* might've used Harriet as a decoy candidate just because his gang knew she'd never pass the smell test and try to appoint this guy, then say the D's are giving him a hard time w/ everyone he appoints. The R's always have a tricks up their sleeves, so let's hope the D's and some R's are ready to ax them quickly. Then they'll use some other BS on the news as to what's really going on behind the scenes w/ the indictments.

[liberal N proud]

19. In the neo-con Reich Wing it works that way

You know the line in the bible where a woman must submit to her man.

[adigal]

20. No, silly, a woman has to get her husband's PERMISSION

to get an abortion.

Truly, truly messed up. We must let every single person, especially women, know that this man wants women to go back to the 1800s, under the domination of her husband.

In a way, he is easier to fight than Luttig would have been.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hissyspit]

49. We have just as much right to die from complications in delivery...

as our wives do. Um, wait, no, that doesn't sound right...

[Iris]

56. oh, come now. The husband doesn't own the wife; just the fetus!

[philosophie_en_rose]

90. When it can be transplanted into his scrotum, then we'll talk.

.

[hogwyld]

125. So much for breakfast!

You get an A+ for being direct and to the point!

[Iris]

144. yeah, but until then, if HIS fetus is in some woman's womb, well, that's

just her bad luck.

Jeez - I almost can't believe I wrote that. It's so ugly. But I guess forced or coerced childbearing is rather ugly.

[philosophie_en_rose]

159. If HIS fetus is in some woman's womb, well he's out of luck.

If he wants to sue for possession and implant it somewhere else, go right ahead.

These topics bring out a lot of ugly thoughts. Don't feel too bad.

[Iris]

160. thanks!

I hate to be such a rage-er all the freakin' time!

I agree - he should sue for possession. I wish the white men who are going to be making the rules for all of us for the rest of my lifetime see it that way.

[nolabels]

79. The need for disclosure is important for those who need informed

BUSH, THE TRAITOR, SHOULD BE REQUIRED BY LAW,
TO NOTIFY THE CITIZENS OF THE FRAUDULENT EVIDENCE HE USED INVOLVE THE COUNTRY IN AN ILLEGAL WAR

[alarcojon]

92. I agree, that's totally fucked up

[TexasRob]

122. Inform or get permission?

I don't know how this was worded but it seems reasonable that a woman should at least inform the father of what is going on. While it is true that no one can tell her what to do with her own body, the father should at least have the opportunity to discuss the issue. I am not by any means advocating making abortion illegal. However I would rather that be used as a last resort whenever possible. Which brings me to another issue. If the FDA would approve emergency contraceptive and RU 486, wouldn't the whole abortion debate be moot. If a woman can simply go to a pharmacy and get what she needs, there would be no such thing as "abortion clinics" anymore and no place for the right to life people to protest.

[AllyCat]

139. In a perfect world, the woman would talk to the father of the baby

But that's not what happens a good share of the time. what if the father of the baby is the girl's/woman's own father? Notifying him out to be a real treat. What about the case of an abusive husband? Abuse for most of these women ESCALATES during pregnancy due to the attention lavished upon the woman. So, do we have to try and convict the rapist before he's notified his victim is carrying his child? Does she have to deliver the baby first to determine paternity?

It's just not that easy. While I am all for the rights of the father, having the government MANDATE that a woman must tell him she is pregnant and considering abortion is really not in the best interest of the woman. Or the baby.

[TS Quint]

145. I think you are missing what was said

I believe the law required the HUSBAND to be told. Thus, if the husband is the her father, there are much bigger issues at hand than this. Seriously though, I don't think your scenario would ever play out.

[me b zola]

158. Wake-up. That scenario occurs everyday.

Either a woman is a full citizen with full rights over her body & her life, or she isn't.

Get your hands off of my uterus, and I won't twist your nutsack into a bow. ;)

[AllyCat]

169. And how do we say that is okay? The HUSBAND needs to be told

like he is an owner or something, but anyone else who contributes half the DNA does not? I think that's the problem with the law. Saying that this ONE individual must be told.

My scenario? That plays out EVERY damn day. Just talk to anyone who works in an abuse crisis center. They'll tell you what happens to abused women when they are pregnant or what happens in abusive households where incest occurs.

As for rape? Oh gee, I guess that never happens, huh?

I'm lost on your typo in the first line. I do hope you meant to say "husband is THE father" not "her father". Now that would be a scenario that only the Fundamentalist Mormons would envision. At least I hope they are the only ones... If you mean "the father", what do you mean by bigger issues at hand?

[TexasRob]

172. This isn't about rape

No one is advocating that a rapist should be notified. Actually, if I had my way there would be no rapist left above ground to notify anyway. And it isn't about having to notify the husband because the wife is his property. It is about notifying the husband because this is a decision that will also affect him. The act of being married means that BOTH the husband and wife are equal partners in the relationship and matters of the family. That may not always be the practice but that is how the law views a marriage. You cannot force the notification of a boyfriend because there is no legal bond there. As for abusive husbands, I don't really know where to begin here. I don't understand anyone staying with an abusive partner after the first punch anyway but to think that a woman should secretly have an abortion so that she can go back and stay in that abusive relationship just doesn't seem like the solution to me.

[AllyCat]

173. Rob...lets look at this from another angle.

If we include language that allows the husband to be notified, it is not too far off to include notification requirement of anyone who is a biological father.

The law can view marriage as equally as it wants. That is not the case in many, many situations. The abused woman does not have an abortion so she can go back to her abusive husband. She does it because her chances of being killed or greatly injured by him (yes, killed) while she is pregnant are second only to her risk when she tries to leave the asshole. It's easy for us to say "well, if he hit me, I'd leave". But it's not that simple in these kinds of relationships. Often, the abuser holds the financial strings, the social strings, and the house and any kids.

And even in a non-abusive relationship, it is ultimately the woman's concern as she is the one who carries the fetus, delivers a baby, misses work, and accepts much of the care, not to mention the risk. Men are not required to notify their wives if they have a certain medical procedure. Women don't have to notify their husbands if they do. But in this one instance, we are going to insist on that? Not telling my husband I have some grave illness is also a decision that will affect him. Where do we draw the line with notifying spouses of EVERYTHING?

[Lefty48197]

177. What is she had an extramarital affair?

Would it still be necessary to notify her husband?

[TexasRob]

178. absolutely

This would add further reason that the husband should be notified. A person has a right to choose his or her sex partner. When one spouse engages in an extramarital affair, that endangers the other spouses health and life without their consent. I feel that if a man get treated for some STD and is married his wife should be notified as well. But you won't find anyone saying that I must believe the husband is the wife's property. It is all a matter of respect for your partner.

[cal04]

13. Thanks for the info. More at law.com

On the hot-button issues, Alito has been consistently conservative.
On abortion, Alito was the lone dissenter in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands.
Perhaps Alito's most memorable dissent came in 1996 in Sheridan v. Dupont, a sex discrimination suit that forced the 3rd Circuit to tackle fundamental questions about the plaintiff's burden of proof.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1046288236052

[fortyfeetunder]

35. Ah, relax. it's the American Taliban!

:sarcasm:
Time to get fitted for a burqa. Black's my favorite color anyway, and sure the spouse would approve!

[okieinpain]

37. good site for non-lawyer types.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/10/alito.html

[JudyM]

61. Um. Santa is a secular figure? Last time I checked

he was decidedly a Christian figure. Or does the fact that he isn't straight out of the Bible make him secular? Ouch! That's one of the problems with the constant Christianization of the country... losing sight of what separation of church and state really means.

[TheVirginian]

140. Santa isn't a religious figure. (n/t)

[0rganism]

141. It's better than that: Not only is Santy Claus not a religious figure...

...he has the (completely natural) ability to make anything he's displayed with become Instantly Secular! Santa Claus is the High Harbinger of Atheism, the Mighty Magus of Materialism, and, if you can reconcile it, the Patron Saint of Secularity. Why, simply by associating an image of Santa Claus with a nativity scene, we have achieved complete and total Church-State separation.

Of course, it was only a matter of time before the fundamentalist theocrats saw what a great gift the almighty Santa had bestowed upon them. Want to give a lengthy lecture about young-earth creationism in a public high-school's geology class? All you need to do is get a cardboard cut-out of Santa Claus to stand by your side, and All Is Forgiven.

Of course, the more garish the display, the greater the Secular Impact. And some religious displays do require would-be secularists to go the extra mile. Nonetheless, it's worth the trouble in many cases. If Judge Moore had but known the powers of Secular Santa, he could have avoided much strife and tension; his monument to the Ten Commandments would have been entirely constitutional had they simply been accompanied by an electric light-up plastic Santa Claus.

Want to force Christianity into every home in America? Well, the stakes are higher here, and the invocation of Secular Santa must receive commensurate power. Nonetheless, it's been well known for decades by competent television producers that all you have to do is sacrifice at least 12 hours of worshipful-yet-completely-heretical Santa-related programming on each broadcast and basic cable network, and Hey Presto, Secular Purpose Achieved!

So let's all hear it for Secular Santa, the infidel bringer of godlessness and legal purity to our Winter Holidays.

[JudyM]

151. you're joking

[FourStarDemocrat]

6. His nickname's 'Scalito' for being a copy of Scalia.-Dems must filibuster!

I can't take anymore of this destroying of the Supreme Court. Dems HAVE to stand up and fight!

[Danmel]

7. Well this makes it a scary Halloween

And possibly a scary 30 years. I see * really wants to "build consensus" and divide the country even more. I knew it would be this way...why didn't anyone listen????

[cal04]

8. I don't know how accurate this site is

Profile of Potential Supreme Court Nominee - Judge Samuel Alito

http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/candidates/alito

[sugapablo]

10. More background on "Scalia lite"

Bush to Nominate Samuel A. Alito Jr. (short bio)

http://subuse.net/311

[shayes51]

11. bad news

[kick_them_hard]

14. Might be a mixed bag

Among Alito's noteworthy opinions was his sole dissent in the 1991 case that struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring women seeking abortions to tell their husbands. The Supreme Court later struck down the spousal notification.

But in 2000, Alito joined the majority in ruling that a New Jersey law banning late-term abortions was unconstitutional.

[Disturbed]

17. Moderate Repubs and Dems were hoping for...

a nom that was sorta in the vein of O'Conner so that the country would be bearable. The Silverspoon Sociopath does not care about America or it's people. He wants to have a legacy of being an ASSHOLE!

[tavalon]

39. No mixed bag

This one has to go down. Period.

[Iris]

58. He basically said the Supreme Court "forced" him to do it - presumably

b/c they had "legislated from the bench."

[MidwestTransplant]

85. Right. Before he had to follow precedent. Now he can make it.

[Iris]

138. exactly

[Daftly]

154. Another anti-choice nomination is a huge suprise.

I really thought that Roe was an issue the Repubs wanted to keep around. However, this nomination in conjunction with Roberts makes it very likely that Roe will be overturned and there will be quite a backlash against Repubs. I thought it would be Gonzales.

[Scooter24]

15. He was the lone dissenter

on Planned Parenthood v. Casey. (this was about a law that required women to notify the child's father before having an abortion)

He ruled that having a religious display on public property is legal if it includes secular icons like "Frosty the Snowman" or "Santa Claus"

He ruled that female students who were phyisically sexually abused, including touching and sodomization, by fellow students during the course of a class do not have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C 1983 because the state does not have a special duty of caring for them. 42 U.S.C. 1983 allows for civil action for deprivation of rights.

He was the lone dissenter in US v. Rybar which upheld a federal statute making it "unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun." Alito would have stricken the law as unsupported by the Commerce Clause powers of Congress. In other words, in his view, we all have a Constitutional right to own a machine gun.

these are just a few folks...

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

26. OOH I NEED ONE

I NEED ONE TO HUNT DEER

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[smirkymonkey]

32. I think she was being sarcastic.

[Puglover]

41. Wow....

the NRA would love your post.

Welcome to DU!

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jacobin]

57. I'd prefer a bazooka or a howitzer

If Sam would let me have some of those.......

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

97. ...because the owners are effectively limited to either military or police

Or had the weapon legally transferred to them by such a person. I'm glad you see how effective regulation has been in this case. :D By limiting their ownership to the military and police, no crimes have been committed with them. Any other rote gun-rights half-truths to sling, or is your magazine so limited in capacity it only contains these unoriginal arguments?

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

105. How does that disprove anything I've said?

And would you like to point out for me how you can own one legally without a military or police endorsed transfer?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

107. Let's do a little reading skills 101 for you

You said that they're limited to military or police.

Nope! Try again. Look really hard this time:

because the owners are effectively limited to either military or police... Or had the weapon legally transferred to them by such a person.

Same thing I've been saying all along.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

110. A citizen can legally acquire a DD or machine gun without police/military?

That's completely wrong.

[mr pink]

174. I own three such items.

They were legally transferred to my corporation. Because a corporation does not have fingerprints or a "criminal record," the transfer goes through without fingerprint or background checks.

Of course, the BATFE may investigate the corporation's officers if it wishes, but there is no Chief Law Enforcement sign off.

Machine gun ownership is legal in Alaska, but the previous mayor did not force the Chief of Police to sign transfer forms. So, many of us had to go through this by forming corporations to purchase such firearms until a new mayor was elected who enforced the laws of Alaska that require the Chief Law Enforcement Officer to sign transfer forms if that Officer has no knowledge of criminal history on the part of the applicant.

The firearms are an FNC and Uzi (both select fire) and a short-barreled shotgun.

Mr. Pink

[nolabels]

86. Some Anti-aircraft would be nice asset around this community

We have this noisy airport nearby that routes planes over head :shrug:

[PunkPop]

87. Damn.

You've destroyed the entire self-image I've created for myself.

If I can't snivel and be a moron, what am I to do?

How about becoming a name-calling asshole? Got any tips on that?

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Puglover]

100. I don't believe I said that...

but you just said alot with your last post....

[Zhade]

150. I hear ICBMs are more effective.

:rofl:

[jpgray]

64. Good thing no crooks used BARs or Tommy guns before the NFA

Your argument is pretty ridiculous, I'm afraid. :)

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

89. No change in machine gun violence after the NFA of 1934?

I'd like to see your evidence. I can probably name more nationally-famous incidences of machine gun violence in 1929 alone than I'd wager you could name after the NFA was passed. But ask any SWAT officer if he or she would prefer criminals had increased access to their own tools of the trade such as an MP5, and he or she will tell you that the NFA is a fundamentally good thing. It only frustrates people who have an obsession with firearms as something more than a tool, and frankly, satisfying such trifling fancies doesn't seem worth the risks more freely available automatic weapons would bring, in my opinion.

[silvermachine]

131. Look man...

...get a haircut ya Soft Machine luvvin hippie, OK? Dig out yer Deviants lps and loot the supermarket instead.....;-)

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sivafae]

135. source please?

[ElectroPrincess]

16. These Jerks NEVER did want to nominate a woman ...

It was a a grand waltz for them. How DAMN convenient and transparent. :puke:

[Fluffdaddy]

21. Alito is bad. ALSO. Guess this will knock Libby right off the news

[tavalon]

29. What fortunate timing

I'm sure they didn't plan it that way. What a happy coincidence. :eyes:

[JoFerret]

95. Yes. But don't fret

...Libby will be back.

[bigworld]

22. BBC: Alito named as Supreme Court nominee

Alito 'named to US Supreme Court'
Breaking news graphic
President George W Bush will nominate federal appeals court judge Samuel Alito to the US Supreme Court on Monday, US media reports say.

Mr Alito has a long judicial record and is seen as a staunch conservative.

Mr Bush's first choice, Harriet Miers, withdrew following opposition from both Democrats and conservative Republicans.

The new nomination comes at a tense time for the White House, with a senior aide to the vice-president having been indicted in connection with a CIA leak.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

24. Scary news indeed. What a way to begin the week, with a big

f*ck you from *. Dems better fight this one, tooth and nail.

[michreject]

67. Fight it?

Unfortunately, I don't think we can. Our numbers aren't in power.

[second edition]

121. This guy is so extreme that we could possibly get help from the

moderate repubs, this nominee puts them on the spot.Are they with Bush, a lame duck, or are they on the side of the majority of Americans who actually want a moderate Supreme Court nominee? I've already contacted both of my Republican senators to make my objection known.

[ncanadianlee]

146. I agree.

Plus IMHO 15 Dino's will vote to confirm.

[Vinca]

25. Tin foil hat being placed on head.

Has the criminal-in-chief chosen the nominee most likely to cause a ruckus in order to allow Fitzy's investigation to sink into the background? I hate the smell of Rove in the morning.

[joeunderdog]

46. An angry fight over a nominee is a wonderful distraction from Fitzgerald.

Frankly, I don't even think that they care if this guy gets in as long as he stirs the pot on partisan rancor.

It's a sad day when a SCOTUS nomination is a political "distraction."

[second edition]

83. I agree,this about changing the subject, shoring up the base,

and challenging the Dem's.

[Tony_Illinois]

27. Troubling Alito Cases

Samuel Alito’s America
Who is Samuel Alito? ThinkProgress has the facts:


ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade.

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.”

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.”

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law.

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home.

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america

[shayes51]

30. depressing

[bettyellen]

31. Fillibuster: Just like Miers: No up and Down Vote

[DesertRat]

33. Quick Vote

Go to Cnn.com, scroll down to the poll on the right side of the page to answer this poll:
Is Judge Samuel Alito the best choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court?

[onehandle]

34. Back to the Roots! We White Males ROCK!

Women and Minorities, BACK OF THE BUS.

[KenCarson]

48. do you mean the backseat or behind it pushing it?

?

[MarsThe Cat]

50. that depends...

on how many white guys there are who need seats, and how many seats there are.

obviously.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[deadparrot]

38. Two words: Bork 'em. nt

[bluedog]

40. what a slap in the face to all women

treating us like we are pieces of "chattle"......we need a husbands permission!....Bull f'ing shit....

On C-Span a reporter was on earlier today and said...first the case has to come before the SC.......they don't just go back and say we'll change this law........then he said something that stuck me hard.....Something NOT exact quote...........

\but they are probably ::::: "they" are working on that........


this tells me.in the background.some couple is going to be used .......probably both pro-lifers..to bring this to SC..............its going to be a "plant" case..........mark my words............this is being "planned now"

[7P Dude]

80. Release

men from all child support and your argument makes sense. Otherwise you're saying they have no say at all in the birth of their child but have to take responsibility for him/her.

[second edition]

123. Hey, before birth, the mother has to fully support and

maintain, the growing embryo. It can not sustain life without her. How, at that point in development, does the father help support and sustain life? What right does he have at this point to an equal say in the matter? Only, controlling men would expect equal representation during the development stages. After birth, outside factors make it necessary for the child to have the benefits of all concerned parties. You don't want to support an unwanted child, don't chance it, don't have sex.

[TexasRob]

170. That last line

Is very close to the pro-life argument against abortion don't you think? I don't think the argument is that the father should have equal say in the matter, just that the father should have some say in the matter. In many cases (mine for instance) I helped support and sustain the growing embryo by going to work to provide food shelter and medical care to my wife while she was still going to school for her social work degree. Granted she could have quit school and worked on her own. Or gone on welfare or food stamps but then she wouldn't have that degree which allows her to give so much of herself to those who need it most. We chose our path and that path meant that I provided for her while she continued with her education. I also made many many trips in the middle of the night for some obscure craving or another. Ok the last line was a joke but still true. I would never consider telling my wife what she could or could not do and to be honest with you, I don't understand why any woman wouldn't talk to her husband about such an important life decision just as I would never consider making a major decision without her support as well.

[randomelement]

43. Is anyone really surprised?

Dimson would have done anything to get the attention away from the Fitzgerald investigation , so this should come as no surprise - the idiot is perfectly predictable.

Since this pick seems to be in the direction of subordinating women, I'd be interested in knowing how the average, moderate Republican woman feels about this one. Anyone here have one as a friend/acquaintance? If so, I'd like to know how they feel once they have some idea what Alito represents.

[lonestarnot]

44. We all knew there had to be a shit storm to distract from the treason

This should be interesting. Tear the country apart even further.

[trapper914]

55. Duh.

I thought it too obvious when Miers stepped down on Thursday...everyone knew the indictments were coming Friday. I'm only surprised Bush didn't trot out "Scalito" Friday afternoon.

[ElectroPrincess]

52. If he's confirmed ...

The SC will consist of TWO MEN with Italian ancestry, ONE MAN of Color, ZERO with an Hispanic Ancestry, ONE White Woman, and (as far as I can discern), *the rest* just your average - Heinz 57 - EUROPEAN ancestry WHITE MEN?

Well, at least we have the Italian heritage WELL REPRESENTED?!?

Every other aspect of our country's population - culture - heritage is UNDER-Represented with regard to the membership of the SC.

Oh yes, these SC Justices will have their hand on the pulse of "the conscious" and "moral values" of this great DIVERSE nation. :sarcasm: :puke:

[Iris]

59. seems almost quaint that follks were once concerned w/JFK's religous

affiliations, doesn't it?

[ElectroPrincess]

63. Yeah, can we say "foaming at the mouth" RW Catholic?

As compared with a thoughtful Liberal Catholic who KNOWS the value of the separation of "Church and State" while representing his constituents.

Oh the HYPOCRISY! :puke:

[0007]

53. Yikes!

I hope all wifes tell their husbands this morning, no more


Pussy

[AngryAmish]

54. Destroy him, destroy his family now

We must take him down through whatever means.

[rayofreason]

66. Brilliant strategy!!!!!

Please disseminate this approach as widely as possible. I am sure it will garner widespread support, especially from moderates.

While we are at it, perhaps in addition to destroying his family, we should destroy his friends and their families as well!!! How about the friends of his children? Right - that's the ticket. Leave no survivors. That will show those bastards who are the true advocates of tolerance.

[lumpy]

103. I assume that is a facetious statement !

nt

[hogwyld]

130. Maybe not literally

But if we make the price of admission too high, he will withdraw. Legally, go after anyone he associates with, boycott his lawyer friends, protest wherever he appears. We must to it legally, but make his life, and his families life very uncomfortable. I am not advocating violence of any kind however.

[Julius Civitatus]

62. Candy Crawley (cnn) seems very happy about this nomination

She looks happy, smiley, very pleased, and said that "Democrats will have to accept the fact that Alito is very qualified for the job."

:argh:

[closeupready]

82. She is such a shill

:puke:

[Arkana]

165. The hell they will.

Creepy Crowley can shove it up her Bush-worshipping ass.

[MazeRat7]

69. Bush makes a choice to cheer conservatives (New SC Nominee Announced)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-051031scotus,0,4181784.story?coll=chi-newsbreaking-hed

<snip>
By Mark Silva and Jan Crawford Greenburg
Tribune Washington Bureau
Published October 31, 2005, 7:31 AM CST

WASHINGTON -- Swiftly naming a new Supreme Court nominee after the flame out of Harriet Miers, President Bush selected Samuel A. Alito Jr., a longtime federal appellate court judge and former prosecutor, on Monday to replace the soon-retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.

</snip>


Let the games begin.....

MZr7

[mazzarro]

70. Yea - vintage shrub act

That is * being sensitive and respectful to the views of his wife and women for you! When in political trouble - to hell with them instead cater to the base at full speed!

[kikiek]

71. Slapped the face of women on top of it. He is going to teach us. If

this country rejected Harriet, no other woman would be nominated. Once again he blew an opportunity to show the country he can think. He obviously can't. All this is about is creating a big fight to take the limelight off the criminal acts of the administration.

[napi21]

72. I for one am happy he didn't chose Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla

Owen, or a woman like them!

You have to accept the fact that Shrub is going to nominate a SC justice. There probably aren't any that we would really be happy with, but there are some that are poor and some that are absolutely insane!

Before we pummel this new guy, at least wait until he opens his mouth!

[kikiek]

75. Don't need to wait. Look up his record. Not to mention there are

plenty of women besides those 2.

[triguy46]

73. bring on the filibuster. n/t

[kurth]

74. Always looking for a fight... What's his MAJOR problem?

"I'm a uniter not a divider." - George W. Bush, 2000 campaign theme

"I would have said yes to abortion if only it was right. I mean, yeah it's right. Well no it's not right that's why I said no to it." — George W. Bush, South Carolina, February 14, 2000

[Marc A]

76. Before we move on, a last word on Harriet Miers (with a grain of salt)

With the annonement of Samuel Alito to replace the failed nomination of Harriet Miers I wanted to speculate a bit on the Harriet Miers nomination.

Is it possible that Harriet Miers was purposefully picked to be a debacle just to distract us from the Fitzgerald investigation. I think we can all agree that the Miers withdrawal was timed to coincide with the indictment announcement. That's just good politics. I want to take it a step further.

Without the failed Harriet Miers nomination Bush would not have this "turn the corner" moment he is having right now. It is just so hard for me to believe that the White House was so incompetent that they didn't understand what the Miers fallout would be. I know they say Karl Rove was distracted (and that Bush decided to be president instead of playing president), but really how distracted do you have to be to not take you boss aside and say "George, your nuts, you can't nominate her." I prefer to imagine Bush's Brain thinking many steps ahead.

Karl Rove knew the White House could take the radical right hit and roll with it. More importantly he knew the praise Bush would receive for his new nomination would be needed to change the national conversation away from Fitzgerald (and his own leaking ass).

They evidence I point to is twofold. First is Miers' Senate application. Could she really be that incompetent to have it returned to her by the Senate Judiciary Committee with a big fat F on it. I just don't think so. Next look at her loyalty. She was asked to take a fall for the sake of the her boss and fall she did. She knew she wasn't qualified, Bush knew she wasn't qualified, and most importantly Karl Rove knew she was not qualified.

I tend to believe Karl Rove was not distracted but dead on his game.

[Stevious]

77. that's definitely not the last word...

You probably hit the nail on the head with that analysis.

:banghead:

[kikiek]

78. I tend to agree. The feathers he most ruffled with Harriet were the

conservatives. Nothing is ever as it appears with this WH bunch. Always an ulterior motive.

[second edition]

84. Unfortunately, we don't have a choice, we have to do what we

can to keep this extreme judge off of the Supreme Court. I've already written my Senators about this. Absolutely no way this guy should have a chance. It's just a shame it's come to no other alternative but a filibuster.

[losdiablosgato]

94. I pulled this off the GOP website, so it begins

SEN. TED KENNEDY (D-MA): “You Have Obviously Had A Very Distinguished Record, And I Certainly Commend You For Long Service In The Public Interest. I Think It Is A Very Commendable Career And I Am Sure You Will Have A Successful One As A Judge.” (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 4/5/90)

SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ): “I Believe Mr. Alito Has The Experience And The Skills To Be The Kind Of Judge The Public Deserves – One Who Is Impartial, Thoughtful, And Fair. I Urge The Senate To Confirm His Nomination.” (Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Congressional Record, 4/27/90, p. S5281)

FORMER SEN. BILL BRADLEY (D-NJ): “he Confirmation Of Sam Alito As U.S. Attorney For New Jersey Is Testimony To The Commitment He Has Shown And The Success Of His Efforts As A Law Enforcement Official. I Am Confident That He Will Continue To Do All He Can To Uphold The Laws Of This Nation With The Kind Of Determination And Vigor That Has Been His Trademark In The Past.” (Sen. Bill Bradley, Congressional Record, 12/8/87, p. S17427)

[kurth]

120. Democrats also fell for other scams

like Iraq.

[justanothercitizen]

88. Good Day for Evangelnazis

Soon women will be lining up for their burquas. This administration continues it's fight for Democracy overseas and Taliban-style Evangelnazi rule at home.

:sarcasm:

[JudyM]

96. So Miers was the only good woman candidate? Pretty pathetic to fall back

to a man if the intention was to replace O'Connor with another woman.
I really feel for Ms Bader-Ginsberg... it's going to be awfully lonely up there, particularly in the increasingly fundie environment.

[confludemocrat]

99. My question: will people like Leahy and Feingold cave this time, too? n/t

[yellowcanine]

102. Prediction on how long before Oral Hatchet is whining about an "upperdown"

vote and why Scalito is entitled to one?

[kskiska]

104. But what's his bowling average?

[JPZenger]

112. Alito Said Ban on Machine Guns Was Unconstitutional

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_rybar.txt

The above is the majority opinion and Alito's dissenting opinion in a Federal court case in 1996. A man was charged with the illegal possession of 2 sub-machine guns. Alito said that it was unconstitutional for the Federal government to regulate this matter, and therefore the charges should be dismissed. Fortunately, he was in the minority. (Among the judges in the majority was the wife of PA. Governor Ed Rendell.)

The case is sometimes referred to as Rybar.

[JPZenger]

129. "Machine Gun Sam"

Some people are calling him "Machine Gun Sam" because of his opposition to regulating machine guns. We wouldn't want an activist judge who believes in reducing mass killings, now would we?

[slackmaster]

147. There has never been a mass killing with a legally owned machinegun

At least not since they were regulated in 1934, with a federal background check, transfer tax, and registration.

In fact there have been only one or two shootings with lawfully owned, registered machineguns since then.

[Realityhack]

148. OTOH...

they are probobly quite a bit harder to get ahold of illegaly then they would be if they could be purchased legally.

I don't recall anyone being murdered with an anti-tank rocket recently but I don't think we sould legalize purchaseing them.

There are probobly reasonable limits that can be placed weapons ownership and possesion without banning them that as a society we can decide are a good idea.

[slackmaster]

157. Opinion is deeply divided on that one

they are probobly quite a bit harder to get ahold of illegaly then they would be if they could be purchased legally.

It's amazingly easy to blurt out something like that without any facts to back it up, but the reality is that very few legally owned machineguns have been stolen since 1934. People who own them tend to take great precautions against having them stolen.

We have some among us who insist that some of the firearms covered under the now-defunct federal "assault weapons" ban were trivially easy to convert to fully automatic. I happen to know they are full of shit. (If that were the case we'd be flooded in illegally converted weapons, and most of the illegal machineguns used by criminals are smuggled in to the country on the international black market.)

But a situation that is 100% effective at preventing legal crimes committed with legal machine guns, as was the situation prior to 1986 when the manufacture and importation of new ones for civilian uses ended, protects public safety sufficiently well and need not, SHOULD not be made more strict.

I don't recall anyone being murdered with an anti-tank rocket recently but I don't think we sould legalize purchaseing them.

Actually it IS legal for civilians to purchase such weapons, just very difficult and highly regulated. Kind of like machineguns.

[Norquist Nemesis]

113. Of course! The lone dissenter in Casey!

Of course, his decision was quoted and used by Renquist at the SC level. :banghead:

[hippiechick]

117. Bad move on George's part ...

.... he just walked right into the "see, we TOLD you he's beholden to the fringe lunatics and out of touch with mainstream America" trap that Reid essentially set with his statement about Bush 'failing to stand up to the right wing' re: Miers.

This is only gonna spell UGLY for Bush and the Wingnut branch of the GOP because it's going to spotlight who 'rules' him to the undecided's, and serve as a further wedge between the flanks of the GOP.

Bravo, George. You're as much of an idiiot asshole as we always thought you were.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

118. Chuck on msnbc live talking about Alito

"does not appear to be a Sandra Day O'Connor"

[Rainscents]

119. I think, O'conner did mentioned, if Bush didn't pick woman, she'll come

back on the bench! Do you suppose, she'll do this? Not retire?

[Seabiscuit]

126. That may be our only hope (for the next 3+ years)

[losdiablosgato]

127. I do not think she can do that. Once you resign you resign.

[NYC Liberal]

155. She has not resigned yet.

[losdiablosgato]

166. She has presented a resignation letter, she has

[NYC Liberal]

167. ...effective upon the confirmation of a replacment...

[losdiablosgato]

168. Yeah and when Alito is confirmed she is out of there

Sad to say I think that our congress critters will bluster, and bloviate but he will be confirmed. I do not like it but I think it will happen.

[Seabiscuit]

124. "Nucular option" time?

As in... just blow the fucker out of the water?

[hogwyld]

133. Exactly

:nuke:

[EndElectoral]

128. This nomination should shut down the Senate

[lenegal]

134. Lets hope the Dems have the b*lls for a Fillibuster

[TriMetFan]

136. If this guy gets in.......

We the people need to make sure we (Democrats) take over in 2006 and start impeaching these right wing nuts off the Supreme Court because that will be the only way our Nation can be saved.

[Realityhack]

149. Agreed except...

I think we probobly both agree that impeaching even this level of extreamist judge is unlikely in the extream.
And...
I for one am a little woried that if it did the other party would do the same back when they got power again. I see them getting power as fairly likely due to their close alignment with the corporate power structure.

Oh well... so much for the country... I was actualy kindof enjoying it for a while there :-(

[stubtoe]

137. Tossing the extremists their red meat.

Bush has completely caved to the far right. Wonder how this will play to the NOT far right.

[Daftly]

153. The Sad thing is he will be confirmed. There is no doubt or hope.

On what grounds are you going to oppose him? That he is a conservative? That he is not pro choice? That he is a practicing Catholic? That he would be yet another male on the court? None of these will work.

He will not answer any questions on abortion by invoking the ginsberg president. Casey will be explained by saying that the state has the right to make and enforce a law requiring the consent of the husband for an abortion. (This is the case, even if it is a bad law.) He can simply say that in like fashion a state can make a law that no one needs to be informed for a woman to have an abortion. The issue here is not abortion, but state's rights. What we can read from this is that there is a good chance that he would vote to overturn Roe and allow abortion to become an issue of the state legislatures once again.

Furthermore, Scalito is the anti-Mier. He has judicial experience up the wazoo. His qualifications are impeccable. That issue is dead.

The only way we will be able to shoot down this nomination is if he has some skeleton in his closet. Unfortunately, that is not something we can count on.

The Dems should filibuster and do everything possible to stop the nomination, but in the end this one is a done deal.

[hogwyld]

156. Everyone start practicing

Your goose stepping, burqa wearing, & nazi saluting.

[dargondogon]

163. With Rosa in rotunda, Bush wanted Janice Rogers Brown

I bet Alito was his second choice. Well, obviously Alito was his second to Miers, third to John Roberts. But I bet they put Rosa Parks' body in the Capitol as a gimmick to help pave the way for a conservative, black woman nominee, and Janice Rogers Brown declined.

Just guessing though.

[Nothing Without Hope]

164. An important element of strategy: Alito threatens MUCH MORE THAN ROE:

This extremist is on record for having opposed many basic civil rights and even many people who oppose abortion will be appalled by some of his radical positions. We must gather the documentation, organize it, and blast the public, the media, and ALL members of Congress.

See these two threads for more info as well as (in a reply) links to THREE PETITIONS to defeat Alito:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2204776
thread title (10/31): Why Alito? Booman explains: Roe destroyed, Bush’s crimes buried. Petition:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2206263
thread title (10/31): Not just Roe - Think Progress gives ALITO's awful civil rights positions:

And also the insight and advice in this piece at Steve Gilliard's blog:

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/11/cry-for-help.html
(posted by gaije, Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:28:53 PM PDT)

(snip)

With this nomination, Bush is forcing Republican senators to go on record for or against Roe, as they enter the 2006 campaign season. Two thirds of Americans support Roe v. Wade. The Senate knows that. Any senator who votes for Alito will be saying good-bye to all those votes. Moderate republicans, swing voters, countless previously apathetic voters, will be going Democratic. The Democratic party will be galvanized around a single issue like it hasn't been in years, and its coffers overflowing. For a GOP senator, that's no good, it's no good at all.

Vote against him though, and they'll alienate the religious right. All that reliable fundraising, voter turnout & volunteer manpower down the drain. That's no good either. Apparently, someone forgot to tell Bush he's not supposed to put them in this position (Maybe that was Scooter's job.).

(snip)

Democrats are not going to be able to get behind this one, unless they're looking to retire.] Roberts they had to give a little benefit of the doubt, but this one's just impossible. The nuclear option's not going to fly on this one either. Frist's power is somewhat diminished, thanks to that pesky SEC investigation (so many investigations these days, so hard to keep track!). The GOP rank and file are caught between a rock & a hard, hard place here. They may just be thinking a fillibuster's their best out. How many do you really think are going to be willing to fall on their swords for the least popular (and worst) president ever? Their much vaunted "message discipline," has been slipping away for weeks, as they've realized Bush's ship is sinking, and they'd better jump off well before November 2006.

The thing to do here, is to base our opposition to Alito on everything but his anti-Roe potential. It'll take the GOP by surprise, they'll be all prepared with their "litmus test," talking points, and defenseless in the face of other questions. It also offers them some cover for a no vote.

(snip)

This blog piece ends with a suggested list of NON-ROE topics on which Alito has demonstrated extreme views that need to be publicized. It's much the same list, re-worded, as in the Think Progress list given in the opening post of this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2206263
thread title (10/31): Not just Roe - Think Progress gives ALITO's awful civil rights positions:

Let's research, organize and frame talking points around the many outrageous positions Alito has taken. Then blast them to the media, the public, Congress, and take this to the wall. There are reasons to believe that if we give them an out (i.e., reasons besides Roe v Wade opposition), at least some moderate Republicans will join this fight.

And we must INSIST VEHEMENTLY that ALL the Dems stand against this would-be destroyer of civil liberties.