Let’s count the ways in which the appointment of Sam Alito to the Supreme Court was a disaster, shall we?
1. It didn’t start with Alito. It started with Alberto Gonzales, who Bush wanted to put onto the Supreme Court because, as is now obvious, Gonzales is super-competent.
2. After being told that Gonzales was not viable because he wasn’t anti-abortion enough for the fire-breathing wing of the Republican party, Bush appointed White House Counsel Harriet Miers, who at least made some sense from an optics standpoint, as she was replacing outgoing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the court’s first female member.
3. Of course, Miers turned out to be even more of a lightweight than Gonzales, prompting Bush to pull her nomination, and give it to Alito, who the fire-breathers loved, because he was considered to be a clone of Antonin Scalia.
4. This, of course, meant that there were more conservative Catholic men of Italian descent from New Jersey on the court (2) than women of any ideological stripe (1), despite the fact that women make up 51 percent of Americans, and conservative Catholic men of Italian descent from New Jersey make up a somewhat smaller percentage.
5. To add insult to injury, Democrats declined to filibuster the Alito nomination because that would be mean and unserious, a precedent that I’m sure will hold until the Senate is voting on President Obama’s first SCOTUS nominee, at which point the GOP will have to filibuster that moderately pro-choice nominee on the grounds that they’re moderately pro-choice.
David Broder will nod sagely, and suggest the Democrats compromise by instead putting Robert Bork on the court.
David Broder will nod sagely, and suggest the Democrats compromise by instead putting Robert Bork on the court.
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
“ the Senate is voting on President Obama’s first SCOTUS nominee, at which point the GOP will have to filibuster that moderately pro-choice nominee on the grounds that they’re moderately pro-choice. “
Senate vote for Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the summer of 1993: 96 to 3.
I gather the firebreathing GOP was asleep at the wheel.
“ 4. This, of course, meant that there were more conservative Catholic men of Italian descent from New Jersey on the court (2) than women of any ideological stripe (1), despite the fact that women make up 51 percent of Americans, and conservative Catholic men of Italian descent from New Jersey make up a somewhat smaller percentage. “
What part here do you object to:
1) Some folk are Catholic.
2) Some folk are men.
3) Some folk are conservative (whatever that media shorthand means).
4) Some folk are of Italian decent.
5) Some folk are from New Jersey
6) Catholic men of Italian decent from New Jersey and entirely unable, indeed insensitive and probably too stooooooopid to interpret the Constitution in a manner worthy of it’s quality as a document which protects the self evident value of human life, whereas a woman of any ideological stripe is naturally more inclined to support the annual, casual, licentious, convenient destruction of one and a half million human lives which/who reside at varying degrees of development.
roger,
The first part of your comment reveals a near total ignorance of any kind of change in the political environment of the USA over the last 15 to 20 years.
The second part of your comment… Well, dumb doesn’t begin to cover it. Either you just don’t understand the post at all or you’re failing in an attempt to be clever. Either way, I actually feel that I’ve become less knowledgeable for reading that.
” Either you just don’t understand the post at all ”
According to Jeff the appointment of Judge Alito was a disaster of epic proportions. This opinion apparently has genesis in either Jeff’s deep-seated hatred of George W. Bush or Jeff’s ideological differences with Samuel Alito.
Is there more to the equation?
Roger, either this post, and Jeff’s thinking, are stunningly stupid, as the tone of your comments imply. In which case it’s a waste of your time for you to comment here.
Or, perhaps, the post and Jeff are not as stupid as your comments imply, in which case it’s a waste of everyone’s else’s time for you to leave comments here.
The third alternative would be for you to try to find a way of communicating your disagreement that is actually respectful and intelligent. This is the only alternative, by the way, that gives me a reason not to ban you.
Interesting and convenient that you interpret the tone to imply that I feel Jeff’s argument is stupid. What tone would convey to you that Jeff and I apparently comprehend/conceptualize the appointment of Alito utilizing far differing frames of reference and Weltanschauung.
Communicating in a respectful manner? Sure, why not.
Communicating in an intelligent manner? I gather that you feel readily comfortable assigning a value to a person’s intelligence and aptitude. I have also been called in here utterly illogical. Apparently the lesson as delivered by my betters is that some ideology and doctrine is of material superiority to my view of the world.
Uh-oh that damn tone again.
As for banning, do whatever you want. This is your living room.
Fair enough. Thanks for your comments here, but I’d prefer that you not post on “Alas” anymore. Best wishes to you.