Time to "start thinking about how to deal with the new era of wingnut judicial activism"

[ProSense]

From Firedoglake:

The phrase “I told you so” leaps to mind here, but that doesn’t do us any good now. See what the moronic vote stylings of Joe Lieberman and other keepers of the fence-sitting flamehave wrought. (I’m looking at you and your pile of unused donation cash, Nancy Keenan. By the way, in case you haven’t noticed, Sen. Whitehouse is doing a fine job - no thanks to you.)

SCOTUS: Segregation Now, Segregation Forever?

by Adam B
Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:05:32 AM PDT

In a 5-4 decision today authored by the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court told local school districts that they cannot take even modest steps to overcome residential segregation and ensure that schools within their diverse cities themselves remain racially mixed unless they can prove that such classifications are narrowly tailored to achieve specific educational benefits. But they swear they haven't overturned Brown v. Board of Education. Writes the Chief Justice:

Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again.even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis ... is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

To which, in sad dissent, Justice Stevens responded:

There is a cruel irony in The Chief Justice's reliance on our decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 (1955). The first sentence in the concluding paragraph of his opinion states: "Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin." This sentence reminds me of Anatole France's observation: "(T)he majestic equality of the la(w), forbid(s) rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." The Chief Justice fails to note that it was only black schoolchildren who were so ordered; indeed, the history books do not tell stories of white children struggling to attend black schools. In this and other ways, The Chief Justice rewrites the history of one of this Court's most important decisions....

The Court has changed significantly since it decided School Comm. of Boston in 1968. It was then more faithful to Brown and more respectful of our precedent than it is today. It is my firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today's decision.

The court's 185 page opinion is here, and I'm still digesting it. Judge Kennedy concurred in the result but not in parts of the opinion, holding that eradicating racial isolation could be a compelling interest, but that the school districts had not proven the need for racial classifications here. (The other four conservative justices held that racial balance, as a goal in and of itself, can never be constitutionally valid.) Otherwise, he bloviates: "Under our Constitution the individual, child or adult, can find his own identity, can define her own persona, without state intervention that classifies on the basis of his race or the color of her skin."

WORST OPINION OF THE TERM

Alito:

The founding fathers never conceived of anything like a signing statement. The idea was cooked up by Edwin Meese III, when he was the attorney general for Ronald Reagan, to expand presidential powers. He was helped by a young lawyer who was a true believer in the unitary presidency, a euphemism for an autocratic executive branch that ignores Congress and the courts. Unhappily, that lawyer, Samuel Alito Jr., is now on the Supreme Court.

Democrats hesitate when it comes to using the filibuster. Only 25 of the 42 Seantors (including one Independent) who voted against Alito supported the filibuster. One Democrat was absent and four voted to confirm. Republicans don't hesitate, they filbustered with ease the Employee Free Choice Act.

I hope the 17 Senators who refused to support the filibuster are happy!

Those who supported the filibuster were dragged kicking and screaming:

Kerry Gets Cool Response to Call to Filibuster Alito

Democrats Squabble Over Alito Filibuster

"We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that, if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake," Obama said.

"There is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers," he told ABC's "This Week."

Senator Kerry presented his case against Alito in three gripping speeches

Well here is my I told you so: John Kerry had a specific agenda to move the country in a direction a lot more Americans (meaning even some Republicans) have now come to appreciate. His progressive agenda was frowned on by the right and some establishment Democrats, but we see how Democratic silence and a tendency to look the other way can destroy a democracy. After Iraq, the Roberts and Alito confirmations to the SCOTUS are probably the two most damaging outcomes of the Bush administration. Sure Bush would have replaced them with other conservatives, but these two were the architects of the unitary executive push. They were entrenched and should never have been confirmed. The RW was fighting not only for their existence in 2004, but also to rapidly advance their agenda. They were willing to do anything to retain power. That's what Kerry was up against; that and a country that really couldn't see what Bush and his cronies were up to. Enough!

Still, we have to look forward because they are on the bench for life, and three of the five, Alito, Roberts and Thomas, are under 60 years old. Stevens and Ginsburg are the oldest.

From Digby:

I think we need to start thinking about how to deal with the new era of wingnut judicial activism. If anyone actually thought the Warren Court was activist for trying to right long standing social inequality, they haven't seen anything until they see what John, Clarence, Nino, Sammy and Tony do to expand the rights of rich people and corporations while turning back the clock on everything else. It's going to be a generational battle. I hope everyone realizes this.

I will never forgive Joe Lieberman, Huckelberry, St John and the the rest of the milquetoast losers of that gang of 14. This is on their heads.

Edited to fix links.

[Double T]

1. Remedy: SCOTUS and JUDICIAL term limits.

Democrats need to get that legislation going immediately!

[Solo_in_MD]

6. It would require a constituional amendment

There hasn't been on of them is a while IIRC.

[pilgrim907]

9. horrible idea

you want to see precedents overturned en mass? Set scotus term limits.

[blm]

2. Supporting Alito filibuster was crucial to Democratic values and issues for GENERATIONS to come.

While some may have been misled by wmd and secret intel claims during IWR vote there was NO REASON to not stand up for EVERY DEMOCRATIC VALUE in our mission when it came to filibustering Alito.

Every Dem senator KNEW Alito vote was crucial and every one knew he was an ideological FASCIST who would rule against workers, against public education, against reproductive rights.

It was never just about abortion politics as corpmedia and some senators claimed - it was all about an OVERT FASCIST AGENDA - the takeover of this country by fascist ideologues.

EVERY SENATOR KNEW THIS about Bush and the courts by 2006. EVERY ONE. Those who did not fight or risk their necks fighting against Alito in every available forum they could access - did not CARE.

[Joanne98]

3. Impeach Roberts and Alito!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
The standard for impeachment among the judiciary is much broader. Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behavior," implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior. The standard for impeachment of members of the legislature is/would be the same as the Executive standard, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

First off, Bush was never legitimately elected. When you're NOT the president you can't appoint anyone for anything. If that doesn't work, start making a bad behavior file. Roberts in particular is going to be a nightmare!

[cascadiance]

11. DAMN RIGHT!

We need to establish some measures of behavior by this SCOTUS that we can have them use to do impeachments with. Now we can't just impeach them because we disagree with a decision of theirs. That would set a bad precedent, and allow Republicans possibly in the future (if they ever get in power again, hopefully not!) to do purges of the SCOTUS too.

No, what we need to do is prove that their judgements were made based on issues not associated with current laws, perhaps by outside associations (like Cheney's and Scalia's hunting trips, etc.), where we can show that these associations impacted their judgements.

I for one would like to have a hearing on WHY they would not hear Sibel Edmonds' appeal and at the same time chose to hear Anna Nicole Smith's case instead during that session! As my sig goes... Remember, remember, the 28th of November! Coincidentally that day also a block of the Supreme Court fell off onto the pavement in a symbolic gesture to what was likely an orchestrated attempt to help cover up this administrations' criminal activities!

[onenote]

20. which justices should be impeached for not taking Edmonds case?

All it takes is for four justices to vote to hear a case. Its impossible to know whether even one justice wouldn't take the case. How do you propose to find out and would you propose impeaching the entire court if you found out none of them wanted to take the case?

Trying to point out how silly this whole thread is.

Jerry Ford launched a campaign to impeach William O Douglas because he didn't like Douglas' decisions. He tried dressing it up as an attack on Douglas for failing to meet the standard of "good behavior" citing alleged financial improprieties and conflicts of interest. It was regarded as such a transparent joke that Ford couldn't even get a vote in the Judiciary Committee let alone the floor. No one is going to take an effort to impeach SCOTUS justices seriously if it is just a transparent attempt to change the ideological make up of the court.

As I've said before, if we want SCOTUS justices that we like, we need to elect a president who will nominate SCOTUS justices we like. Court packing plans, impeachment schemes etc aren't going to go anywhere and are a waste of time.

[cascadiance]

21. Well, first step is to get Sibel Edmonds herself to testify as to what she knows...

If she has a bombshell that most people when hearing it will say that we should have heard this years ago, when it was potentially something that could have come out in earlier court cases, then we have the information needed to call these justices to the stand. We then ask SCOTUS justices, and also other judges like Reggie Walton the following questions:

1) Were you made aware of "fact a" that Sibel Edmonds just testified about to the Government reform committee?

2) If answer to 1 is yes, then ask, WHY did you feel that this case shouldn't be heard. In the cases of State Secrets privilege being used, then evaluate what she said, and then have them explain why what she said falls under "State Secrets" privilege and how it really is a threat to national security?

3) If they don't have a suitable reason for answer #2, then ask them, did you stop this case because you were protecting security, or protecting the president/(other people)? If the judge says neither, then have them explain why they stopped the case.

4) If they answer no to question 1, then bring back Sibel Edmonds to the stand to have her tell them what she was aware they knew about that she thinks was the reason for them not hearing her case. Perhaps ask this question at the original testimony she presents to have a way of asking whether it was what she considered the reason for not hearing the case or something else that prevented them from hearing the case...

I think, if you can get Sibel Edmonds to testify what she knows, you COULD trap these justices into telling us all why they didn't hear her cases. If it isn't a coverup, then I think we deserve to hear what the real reason was. If it was a coverup, then I think we have ammunition to impeach them out of office!

[Pushed To The Left]

25. If the elections of 2000 and 2004 are found to be invalid, I wonder if there

would be a way to have ALL Bush appointments, to the Courts and everywhere else, removed and replaced by appointments made by the rightful winners (Gore and Kerry) of those elections?

[blm]

4. Digby knows I love her, BUT, this is also on those many Senators who would NOT FIGHT

to convince the public and convince and pressure those other senators - instead some behind the scenes manipulators were giving them cover with their silence and refusal to take them on PUBLICLY while working to undermine those senators who DID take on the battle to stop Alito.

[xxqqqzme]

5. With each horrible decision, I too have been thinking how

to override these RW wacko's convoluted neo-con reasoning. Other than legislation on both the federal, state & local government levels, there will be little to rein in these clowns for the next 30-40 years.

It is some relief to read the opposition opinions are forceful and full of arguments that can be used in future cases.

[beachmom]

7. I cried when that filibuster failed. It was not an overreaction.

I still remember when Democrats attacked John Kerry for doing this, and CNN giggled about Switzerland. WTF???? Something important was at stake and Dems on the Judiciary Committee blew it. John Kerry did NOT want to "lead" a filibuster, but nobody else would. So back then, he was vilified by Vichy Dems too intent on guarding their precious career, than doing the right thing. I told you so is right.

[Totally Committed]

8. Alito and Roberts can be impeached:

I've posted a thread on impeaching a sitting Supreme Court Justice, and the opinion on what an "impeachable offense" is was written by the (then) Minority Leader, Gerald Ford.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3344402

TC

[Boo Boo]

14. I think Roberts crossed the line with his BH4J opinion. He appears to have

fabricated "facts" in order justify the court's decision. That's totally unacceptable.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. I do not see any "logic" in the majority opinion.

They have thrown out their strict constructionist principles and have become pure ideologues.

The fun part of this is that in twenty year time when they get replaced, they'll be considered the Buffoon era of the Supreme Court.

[wisteria]

12. Great post ! Too bad more Democrats did not have the same convictions and fore-sight as Sen. Kerry

Senator Biden comes to my mind. I still remember the cavalier attitude he took during the Senate Judiciary Hearing on Alito.

[cascadiance]

13. I wonder if they are trying to get a rash of decisions NOW before appeals on executive privilege...

... come before them from Bush and Cheney, which will likely be on their desks very soon.

SCOTUS in time of Nixon were wise to refuse his requests for executive privilege. If these guys don't, I think THAT is a good argument as grounds for impeachment of SCOTUS judges themselves. Perhaps they realize that they are going to be facing this choice soon, and want to get a lot of their wingnut serving judicial agenda to get ruled upon now while "the getting's good", before they become under scrutiny for any decision they make on executive privilege that will come soon to them.

Perhaps these are also "trial balloons" to see how the people and congress react to increasingly more controversial decisions, to test the waters on whether they can get away with supporting the inevitable request for their support from the president and the vice president on executive privilege.

I think it is time we start some activism to ask for impeachments to head off both what is happening now, and what is likely to happen if we get them to stand in the way of us subpoenaing this administration for things necessary to impeach those bastards!

[ProSense]

15. Kerry on Supreme Court Ruling on School Diversity

Kerry on Supreme Court Ruling on School Diversity

Another classic example of kicking and screaming.

[ProSense]

16. Kick! n/t

[ProSense]

17. NYT Editorial: Resegregation Now..."There should be no mistaking just how radical this decision is."

Editorial

Resegregation Now

Published: June 29, 2007

The Supreme Court ruled 53 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated education is inherently unequal, and it ordered the nation’s schools to integrate. Today, the court switched sides and told two cities that they cannot take modest steps to bring public school students of different races together. It was a sad day for the court and for the ideal of racial equality.

Since 1954, the Supreme Court has been the nation’s driving force for integration. Its orders required segregated buses and public buildings, parks and playgrounds to open up to all Americans. It wasn’t always easy: governors, senators and angry mobs talked of massive resistance. But the court never wavered, and in many of the most important cases it spoke unanimously.

Today, the court’s radical new majority turned its back on that proud tradition in a 5-4 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts. It has been some time since the court, which has grown more conservative by the year, did much to compel local governments to promote racial integration. But now it is moving in reverse, broadly ordering the public schools to become more segregated.

<...>

There should be no mistaking just how radical this decision is. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said it was his “firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.” He also noted the “cruel irony” of the court relying on Brown v. Board of Education while robbing that landmark ruling of much of its force and spirit. The citizens of Louisville and Seattle, and the rest of the nation, can ponder the majority’s kind words about Brown as they get to work today making their schools, and their cities, more segregated.

more

[pingzing58]

19. It's a sad day for all of us who worked so hard for equal opportunity for access to good education

for our minorities and the development of racial and
ethnically tolerant society by having a diverse student body.

edit:  I remember seeing a documentary of protestant teenagers
who were armed and fighting in Northern Ireland.  The
interviewer asked the young man, "why do you want to kill
those Catholics?"  He responded, "because they
believe in the Hail Mary."  I also remember how a program
was developed for Northern Ireland's protestant and catholic
youth to come together here in U.S. to meet each other and
come to understand that both were just young people wanting to
live a happy life (without hate).  After today's ruling by
SCOTUS I guess we'll have to create a program to bring our
American youth together for the same reason.  Anyone want to
apply with me to Bush's Faith Based Initiative office for
funding?  

[Canuckistanian]

18. Bush's "gift" to the SCOTUS will keep on giving

For at least a generation.

Scalito's nomination was the worst thing that could have happened to the country.

[farmboxer]

22. SCOTUS To Rule "US Constitution is Unconstitutional!

King George to rule forever!

[ProSense]

23. A perfect example of why the filibuster failed

rationalization

[ProSense]

24. Alito and Roberts:

Alito and Roberts were entrenched. IOW, they were partisan hacks!

[rasputin1952]

26. Thomas, who benefitted immensely from B v BOEand other laws

passed to ensure that minority students would get an opportunity to advance through education, certainly seems to have forgotten just how bad things were before the Civil Rights movement.

"Judicial Activism" is never mentioned by the RW when they get what they want...a march back to the 19th century, using the "Gay 90's" as a stopping point, and then returning to pre-CW years, to where people were bought and sold, and all one needed to "pay" them was a bowl of gruel and a half a moth-eaten blanket.

Thomas, most likely the most stupid member of the USSC, should, of all people know better than to believe this foolish dream of the RW. But, stupidity knows no bounds, it creeps through a person's life, as they remain blissfully unaware of a nation in change, a nation in turmoil...a nation in need of progress not regress.

Scalia and Alito are evil, Roberts is a pawn, Kennedy needs to wake up and quit dreaming about the "glories" of Jim Crow laws. What is next, a complete revamping of the past 200 years? Perhaps we can go back to counting "others" as 2/3 a person as in the original Constitution?

The current USSC is one of the most reprehensible of all times...the evil of Scalia and Alito, the ignorance of Roberts and Kennedy and the stupidity of Thomas...what a "majority"...x(

[ljm2002]

28. You say,

"Judicial Activism" is never mentioned by the RW when they get what they want

...

Well that's the thing, isn't it. THEY will use whatever tools are at their disposal, and will argue whatever side of the issue is to their advantage. WE don't. Now you could say, they do it to the point of dishonesty. But for heaven's sake, couldn't we take that term "judicial activism" away from them now? Can we not use the term, and throw it back in their faces?

OF COURSE in this situation, "judicial activism" won't be mentioned by them. All the more reason it must be mentioned BY US.

Geez, it just doesn't seem that hard to me.

[rasputin1952]

30. Of course...same thing w/th Fairness Doctrine...

It was the RW that demanded it in the first place, back in the 60's after the conservatives lost everything because of the McCarthy debacle.During the 50's when McCarthy was clobbered by the "liberal media", there were cries of "unfair" that reached their highest point during the VN war as the media turned against the war. (Not many recall that the VN war in the early years, actually up to Tet, the media overwhelmingly backed the war).

The conservatives never did get all of the TV media to roll over, but they made spectacular advances in radio. Radio was cheaper to establish voices on, and the original deep-pocket financiers of talk radio dumped a lot of cash into the medium to get their chosen voices heard. Initially it was a flop, and most of them dried up and blew away...then came the clamor for a "Fairness Doctrine", which seemed like a good idea initially, people could hear all sides and make an informed decision. This bolstered the few radio conservatives in the ratings, and it took off from there. Deep pocket people keep it running now, as there is no way Limbaugh could survive on radio hawking Sleep # beds and a few other sponsors...he makes cash for himself at the Club Gitmo Store and other sorted things, but the stations that play him pay exorbitant fees to carry him.

O'Reilly, on the other hand, often pays stations to carry him, as he is no where near as popular as Limbaugh.

Print media is a little different. Huge amounts of money are spent in acquisitions that turn once noble papers into little more that tabloids. News is replaced by airbrushed skin and "articles" about some cretin that is considered worthy of news because they have "celebrity" status. Paris Hilton's gas pains receive more attention than the looting of the treasury...it is disgusting.

The Fairness Doctrine should be a given...if for anything else, we could move away from "celebrity" news to things that are real for every citizen. Whiny little people of wealth and fame complain about stubbing their toe, yet cars are destroyed by potholes, bridges are ready to collapse because of neglect, police are using far too much physical authority where it is not warranted...but JLo broke a nail...:wtf:

Now that the conservatives have used everything they could, and are left only w/the constant crying of fear and terrorist attacks, they cannot afford a Fairness Doctrine. They screamed for it initially, and they had the right to...they do not have the right to demand it be canned, they lost that right when they got the Fairness Doctrine through on their terms, only to try to deny it to others like they have since 1987 under Reagan when it expired.

[BootinUp]

27. Just read J. Breyer's dissent...

He point by point dispelled any argument the majority made supported by statistics, history, and justice. It was long but brilliantly compiled. And then it ends like this:

Finally, what of the hope and promise of Brown? For much of this Nation’s history, the races remained divided.It was not long ago that people of different races drank from separate fountains, rode on separate buses, and studied in separate schools. In this Court’s finest hour, Brown v. Board of Education challenged this history and helped to change it. For Brown held out a promise. It was a promise embodied in three Amendments designed to make citizens of slaves. It was the promise of true racial equality—not as a matter of fine words on paper, but as a matter of everyday life in the Nation’s cities and schools. It was about the nature of a democracy that must work for all Americans. It sought one law, one Nation, one people,not simply as a matter of legal principle but in terms of how we actually live.

Not everyone welcomed this Court’s decision in Brown. Three years after that decision was handed down, the Governor of Arkansas ordered state militia to block the doors of a white schoolhouse so that black children could not enter. The President of the United States dispatched the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas, and federal troops were needed to enforce a desegregation decree. See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1 (1958). Today,almost 50 years later, attitudes toward race in this Nation have changed dramatically. Many parents, white and black alike, want their children to attend schools with children of different races. Indeed, the very school districts that once spurned integration now strive for it. The long history of their efforts reveals the complexities and difficulties they have faced. And in light of those challenges, they have asked us not to take from their hands the instruments they have used to rid their schools of racial segregation, instruments that they believe are needed to overcome the problems of cities divided by race and poverty. The plurality would decline their modest request.

The plurality is wrong to do so. The last half-century has witnessed great strides toward racial equality, but we have not yet realized the promise of Brown. To invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown. The plurality’s position, I fear, would break that promise. This is a decision that the Court and the Nation will come to regret.
I must dissent.

Its a sad day for America and really for the world as well.

[sandnsea]

29. Feingold voted for Roberts

Let's not forget that fiasco and how badly duped people were on Roberts.

Maybe the question for this primary campaign is - do you understand what we're up against with these fundamentalist federalist fuckwits.

[ProSense]

31. Kick!

[slipslidingaway]

32. Thanks and suppose we go back a little further in time???

Can we rightfully say that by not holding people accountable 20 years ago we opened the door for many of the same people to return and for Bush to be in a position to appoint Roberts and Alito?

snip from this thread>>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1227357

"Tip O'Neill stated that Reagan and Bush were very much impeachable for the Iran-contra disaster. And they had numbers!! But they thought it would be harmful to the country, so soon after Nixon. Or divisive. Or whatever. And so all those old Nixon officials noted this, and banded together in W's administration to do much more harm than Reagan and Nixon did combined. Why not? After all, Reagan got away with it.

Do you understand this? O'Niell became an enabler, and paved the way for the unbelievable excesses of George W. Bush's administration."



snip from this thread and article by Robert Parry>>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1232060&mesg_id=1232272

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

"Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans...

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable."


and this article>>

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HJ20Aa01.html

"A Republican Party on the ropes, bloodied by a mid-second-term scandal; a resurrected Democratic opposition sure that it can capitalize on public outrage to prove that it is still, in the American heart of hearts, the majority party.

But before House Democrats start divvying up committee assignments and convening special investigations, they should consider that they've been here before, and things didn't turn out
exactly the way they had hoped...

But already there are reports that, if they do take over Congress, their agenda will have a remarkably 1986-ish look to it: hearings and calls for more congressional "oversight" of foreign policy that leave uncontested the crusading premises driving the president's extremist foreign policy."

[Phredicles]

34. I wish I could recommend this post especially.

[slipslidingaway]

35. Thank you :) the long term consequences vs. short term gains.

It matters

:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

33. Text of the Alito proposal at this link...

6 pages

http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/accession-060-89-269/Acc060-89-269-box6-SG-LSWG-AlitotoLSWG-Feb1986.pdf

"February 5, 1986

TO: The Litigation Strategy Working Group
FROM: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
SUBJ: Using Presidential Signing Statement to Make
Fuller Use of the President's Constitutionally
Assigned Role in the Process of Enacting Law.

At our last meeting, I was asked to draft a preliminary
proposal for implementing the idea of making fuller use of Presidential
signing statements. This memorandum is a rough first
effort in that direction."


Above link from this article

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/010906a.html

Alito & the Point of No Return
By Nat Parry
January 9, 2006


"The U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito may represent a point of no return not only on the issue of abortion and other longtime conservative political targets but on the checks and balances that have been the cornerstone of American democracy."