Alito for the SCOTUS is not about ANY social issue

[leftofthedial]

He is the most rabid pro-corporatist in the history of the court. The corporations want Scalito. He is their man. The racism, sexism, theofascist anti-choice crap is just peripheral nonsense. The corporations own the Senate Dems every bit as much as they own the repukes and the corporations want Alito. Period. Alito is a lock and only a handful of Dems will even question it.

[bryant69]

1. That and the consolidation of the Executive power

Although both issues are tied together.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[leftofthedial]

3. yep

ultimately, corporate power and executive power are one and the same. Congress is still too "democratic" to serve corporate interests. They prefer an all-powerful, corporation-friendly exec. They already know how to rig "elections."

[Jara sang]

2. Sadly, you are correct.

[hang a left]

4. Here is hoping you will eat your words.

;)

[leftofthedial]

10. I hope I will too

but if Alito isn't confirmed, the next nominee will be just as bad

[Walt Starr]

5. Then the Democratic Party is a failure and the Activist Base must

abandon it in favor of another party.

[leftofthedial]

14. don't you think that is increasingly obvious?

we might as well be rooting for the visiting team in roller derby

[eallen]

6. The corporate world, as a business matter doesn't really care that much...

Most government issues affecting business are decided in Congress. Some issues come to the courts. Most of them have corporations lining up on both sides of the issue. I'm somewhat attuned to the corporate world -- working in it and investing in it -- and most of what gets said about Alito has to do with the political considerations you demean: civil liberty, state and church, education, and executive power. And the corporate world is split. The notion that they are uniform on this is hogwash.

I know there is a faction here that wants to paint business as the devil's work, and the corporate world as in Bush's pocket. Just as there is a faction on the extreme right that tries to paint liberals as aligned with radical Islam.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Don't be so sure. With the extreme excesses of corporate power

of the past couple decades there is bound to be a reaction -- having a solid corporatist added to a corporate friendly court will forestall any move to revisit the decision of 130 years ago that 'corporations are persons'. A change in that ruling would literally overthrow the corporate world, and they must prevent that at all costs. We are looking like previous eras where corporations controlled the governments -- the British East India Company running the British Empire; the Hanseatic League wielding more power than the governments of the nations it thrived in; and most recently the corporatist fascism of the first half of the last century.

The corporate world is not in Bush's pocket -- Bush is in the corporate world's pocket, or at least the pocket of certain major corporate entities.

And when you think about it, unbridled corporate power is the greatest enemy that business can have -- why do you think Teddy Roosevelt was so aggressive is busting the monopolies of his day? Because they were bad for business. Look at Enron. Worldcom. Look at Abramoff.

Maybe you're too close to the trees to see the forest.

[eallen]

8. There's not a single justice looking to overturn Santa Clara v Sthn Pac

I think the notion that corporations have 14th amendment rights is pretty stupid. Alas, it also is very settled law. I can't think of a circumstance where it seriously gets challenged, or a single justice who is looking to change that case law. It takes a lot of surmising to think that the Alito nomination is relevant to that.

Teddy Roosevelt busted trusts as president. He used the Sherman act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by Harrison. The courts generally have given the government considerable leeway in such matters. Whatever issues there are with corporate power, it's hard for me to see the Alito nomination bearing much on them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. I suppose you're probably right.

It's hard to imagine a popular movement and a court challange arising over coroporate personhood. That is one of the many "huh?" areas with the general public, no concept of how it affects them.

[leftofthedial]

11. the corporate world is not in bush's pocket

he is in theirs

[depakid]

9. It's about corruption- and breaking his word to the Senate

by not recusing himself on the case involving Vanguard- when he had a financial interest at stake.

The man's unethical. That's the beginning and end of it as far as I'm concerned.

And if the Dems fail as a party to block him- then they've show that they don't care enough about corruption to exercise their power to do something about it.

If that's the case- then they don't deserve to be the majority party. And come next November- they won't be.

[leftofthedial]

12. sadly, your concern (and mine) is irrelevant

government is a show

it's pro rasslin

it is not about justice or truth or what's good for people

not anymore.

[robbedvoter]

13. But, but, but NYT sez: "He's open on abortion issues" then hits the dems

with a subtitle "But enough about you judge, I want to hear myself speak" - right under a pic of Kennedy, leahy and Biden - so as not to be any confusion. Curtesy our old friend, Elizabeth Bumillier
me, i think its about the end of this civilization and the plunge into the dark ages - but what do I know?