Well, when you have that keen intellect of Ted (pour me another one) Kennedy referring to the candidate yesterday as "Judge Alioto", how can anyone take the Donks seriously? And Chuck Schumer? What a pathetic example of a human that one is!

Talk about a "Ship of Fools" ....

Thank God--Jesus Christ-- that we are finally going to have a court that will lay down the law of the land! Finally we'll have national laws that will knock down women, gays, minorities, non-Christians, the disabled, and poor people more than a few pegs. I don't know if you've noticed, but they've gotten a bit uppity over the last century. They need to wake up and realize their role as second class citizens/subhumans that should be grateful to live under the strong moral supervision of great white men. Let Freedom ring!

You know, Fronts, those slobbering hysterics might be slightly more beleivable if the Left didn't try those same kinds of buzzwords during the confirmation of David H. freaking Souter.

Really, you've got to learn to pace yourself...

they're not hysterics, they're sarcastics, and I don't know what you're refering to about Souter, but I'll take your word for it, if they did then they turned out to be wrong, but is there any doubt that Alito and his ilk are hostile to the rights of women, gays, minorities, poor people etc. etc? It's all there in their writing, public statements, etc, its just couched in polite legal langauge. That's exactly why you want to see them confirmed. Why can't conservatives just admit to that? Say what you want about "liberal activist judges" but they make no bones about their work or their views. It seems to me that for all the blustering about correct "judicial temperment" the right wing has been trying as hard as possible to make Alito seem like anything but what he is--a bonafide right wing judge. You talk a good game, but when it comes down to actual legitimate questions about this judges decades long paper trail, all you hear is how "unfair" it is to ask those question and drag the hearings "into the gutter." So just come out and admit it, have the intellectual honest to just say you want a court and a government that privledges the rights of corporations over individuals, to roll back most of the civil rights gained over the last half century, to gut the government's ability to regulate industry, overturn Roe v. Wade, and undermine the seperation of Church and State, this is what the Federalist society has been trying to do for years. So just drop this shit about how "jugdes can't have agendas" or need to be "umpires" because no one is buying it.

"...is there any doubt that Alito and his ilk are hostile to the rights of women, gays, minorities, poor people etc. etc?"

You dribble quite a bit, but until you cite cases he has heard as a judge and why you feel certain judicial opinions support your empty, over-generalized contentions, I don't feel compelled to debate against empty hyperbole.

Alito is conservative, but you are so blinded by your fevered liberal myopia that you cannot mark the distinction between conservative values, which many Democrats have (particuarly among minorities and older voters), and what most Americans would consider right wing. There is huge range between the two that you can't seem to get your head around, and so you sit around sputtering while the rest of the United States is happy to have such an obviously well-qualified jurist nominated for the court.

As for asking and answering questions abot possible cases that might come before the court, I'd tell you to look up Ruthie G.'s confirmation as a precedent, but you wouldn't understand why. Like the issue of the left's attempt to "Bork" David Souter that you are ignorant of, you are simply too uneducated on the subject matter to have a rational discussion.

Calm down General Lee, all I'm saying is that if you believe in something then just say it. No, I can't cite case by case examples of Alito's various rulings--although I do know he was consistently the most conservative judge on the 3rd Circuit, a court well known for right-leaning descisions--you're right I don't know enough about constitutional law to make a legal case for why Alito or conservative judges believe what the believe. I'm just a casual observer of politics and culture, I know the message boards of partisan political blogs are hardly the best medium to convey, rational or nuanced discussion, and admittedly my first post was hyperbolic, but at the same time can you really argure that the right-wing in this country thinks that gays or non-christians deserve the same rights as everyone else, perhaps not Alito, but certainly many other influential figures? What I'm trying to say is this: do you have any doubt that once confirmed Alito will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and generally speaking will adjucate from the "Bork, Scalia, Thomas" school of thought, which tends to rule against the things I previously mentioned, am I wrong on this? So why this moronic song and dance around the basic issues, why not just say "I will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade as soon as I get a chance"? Or do you think that he was nominated just because he likes baseball? You bring up Ginsburg, who isn't nearly as to the left as Alito is to the right, but did she try to distance herself from her work for the ACLU? (really I'm asking, if she did, then its another example of what I'm talking about.) Alito seems to be trying hard as possible to seperate himself from his record, "CAP, whats that? Who's Ed Meese? I was trying to get a job, who hasn't padded their resume?" When whats best for the country and both sides of the political spectrum is an honest and open accounting of the beliefs of someone who will have a lifetime of power over every person in this country. I suspect--in merely the humble opinion of a hysterical myopic liberal--that Alito won't say what's really on his mind a la Robert Bork, because he would be unconfirmable. Bork "Borked" himself by revealing just how right-wing his beliefs really were, hence ever since then we have this half-ass game where senators ask questions or make statements about what questions can and should be asked, when really what would be better for everyone is an honest forum concerning the views of a man that will hold one of the most important jobs in the world. Now why not just say that you're not too keen on gays, environmental regulation, abortion, or the seperation of church and state? Surely you aren't, and same with Alito, and generally speaking the last 30 years of the conservative movement in this country.

Maybe it's time to pull this Fronts guy's admissions ticket, CY. He/she can neither back up any accusations with cases and facts, nor can the person even discuss the subject matter with even a scintilla of reason and logic. Looks like a waste of server space to me.

Blathering, bloviating blowhard seems like a proper description to me ... Must be someone from the Democratic Underground.

Of course, that's your call.

Once again, you not only say you don't know what you are talking about, you go on to prove it.

You call Alito an extremist, and admit you know nothing about the cases he has decided as a judge. Once again, you overgeneralize all conservatives as being identical, and all conservatives as being "extreme."

And yet teh American Bar Association, hardly conservative, gives Judge Alito their highest rating. Even the most vocal of liberal activist groups and the most partisan members of the Senate have had to misrepresent Alito severely to make him appear anything close to an extremist.

Why? Becuase he is not an extremist. He is a middle of the road conservative the model of the best conservative Republicans and Democrats of the past century, with few of their shortcomings.

He is not sexist, and Ted Kennedy's slurs to that effect have been proven false with examples pulled from the case law. There is exactly zero evidence that he would run out and overturn Roe v. Wade at the first opportunity as you melodramatically opine.

You have yet to make an argument based upon a single empirical fact, couching everything in terms of your feeling and hyperbole.

If you cannot support your opinions with what you currently know, nor bother to educate yourself to the point where you can have a rational discussion based upon facts instead of lies, half-truths, and unproven assertions, then there really isn't much of a point in having you contribute to this discussion.

Come backs with facts to support your opinions, or don't come back at all.

Okay, I know its not Alito, but maybe you can explain to me Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas?

You can't even stay on topic, can you? You're pathetic.

The main point of Scalia's dissent - I'm quite sure you haven't read it - is that while the case was decided properly, the manner at which the court decided the case was improper.

...the Court simply describes petitioners' conduct as "an exercise of their liberty"--which it undoubtedly is--and proceeds to apply an unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching implications beyond this case.

What other parts of Scalia's dissent did you not like, where he condemned the importation of foreign laws in U.S. judicial deliberations, or was it where he slammed the court for reconsidering Bowers v. Hardwick, which is the kind of revisionist treatment you've been accusing Alito of?

Scalia wanted justices to follow the law...American law... and to use logic and intelligence in deciding important cases. How brutal.

If you read the case you would note that O'Connor, the Justice that Alito is replacing, did not buy into Kennedy's flawed " rationale either and filed a concurring opinion instead of agreeing with his flawed logic.

CY, I thought you said you weren't going to post about Alito...

Oh, just hush... ;-)