By Allan Uthman. Roughly nine months ago.

Yes, I’m just a tad late on this one, but don’t blame me - the article just appeared in my Bloglines feed. Seriously. I must be Operating Thetan this evening or something.

Anyway, some background, straight from The Beast:

Last month in Time, Charles Krauthammer told the world that he has had enough of people who have doubt. Apparently outraged that Senator Chuck Schumer would suggest that a judge’s religious conviction might interfere with his ability to uphold the law, Krauthammer wrote a poorly reasoned, poorly written column titled “A Defense of Certainty.”

While it is not a ‘good’ column, it may go down in the annals of history as the most logically flawed statement of his long and dubious career.

No need to waste our time on Krauthammer’s drivel; really, we’ve heard it all before (e.g., “Yeah, that’s it, fuckwad; we hate freedom.”)

So has Uthman, which is perhaps the reason why he’s able to turn around and so expertly serve Krauthammer’s steaming plate of shit right back to his whiny, godbagger self:

The thing is, if your beliefs are based on an inherently irrational premise—the existence of a god who not only created everything, but has specific instructions for our daily behavior—without any supporting evidence, then your duty as a Supreme Court justice to treat the constitution as sacred, especially when it comes into conflict with your interpretation of your god’s word, would seem to be compromised. It is not necessary that you be religious to think abortion is wrong, but if you base any judicial decision on the belief that “that’s what God would want,” you shouldn’t be a Supreme Court Justice.

Damn straight.

Go read the whole article, it’s a masterpiece.

 

What the hell happened?
 

 
 

What happened between the spring day almost two years ago when hundreds of thousands of men and women converged on Washington, bearing signs like “Keep Your Laws off My Body,” and today, when the Senate confirmed a Supreme Court judge who 20 years ago wrote that in his legal opinion, the Constitution does not protect women’s right to abortion? What happened between Jan. 9, when Smeal declared the left “in better shape to stop Alito,” and yesterday, when visions of future filibusters and assertions that we’re not going to lose our rights quietly were somehow supposed to qualify as good news? Why weren’t we storming the Capitol? Why weren’t there enormous marches? Why didn’t someone buy some national television time or actually burn a bra or something — anything — to snap people out of their “Skating With the Stars” lassitude and make them face the fact that the wolf that has so long been cried about was finally on the Supreme Court steps?

 
 
Good fucking question.

Planned Parenthood interim president Karen Pearl is dead-on when she says that “Elections matter.” Like, duh!

From now on, whenever I see a third party represented on the ticket, I’m voting for ‘em. Green, libertarian, Communist, independent (especially independent) - I don’t fucking care, as long as the party isn’t dominated by a sorry sack of women-hating Godbags. The Dems and Repubes are different incarnations of the same corrupt, bloated, paternalistic, homophobic, Bible-beatin’ beast. Seriously, when your choices are “bad” and “worse” - no matter where you turn - you know the system’s broken.

Time to clean house. Who’s with me?
 

Well, here’s an interesting turn of events:
 

Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island today became the first Republican senator to oppose the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. But the judge still seemed to have enough support for an all-important vote this afternoon.
 
“Judge Alito has outstanding legal credentials and an inspiring life story,” Mr. Chafee said, in a statement released by his office. “However, I am greatly concerned about his philosophy on some important constitutional issues.”
 
Mr. Chafee said he wanted to support President Bush’s choice. “The president did win the election,” the senator said. But he added, “I am a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican, and I will be voting against this nomination.”

 
You’ve got to hand it to him - the man’s got stones. We could use a few of him in the Democratic Party. All our reps are spineless douchebags.
 
Anyway, you’re probably all sick of hearing about this guy - I know I  am - but here are a few more Alito links. 
 
From the League of Conservation Voters, a sample letter to your senators;
 
From John Kerry, a pro-filibuster petition; and
 
From the Feminist Majority, a pro-filibuster letter to your senators.
 
 

Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck!

 
 

An op-ed in today’s The NY Times  has some harsh words for our esteemed jellyfish (errr, Senators) - grow a spine already. 
 

Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation’s basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.
 
It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public’s attention to the import of this nomination.

 
Here, here!
 
While most Dems seem reluctant to go the filibuster route, CNN reports that - surprise, surprise! - Kerry is trying to convince his party to filibuster. If only he had shown this much moxie in 2004 - maybe then I would have voted for the schmoe.
 
Kerry isn’t exactly known for his persuasiveness (or even animation), so let’s help him out. Below are yet another round of anti-Alito activist links. Previous roundups can be found here, here, here and here.
 
From Planned Parenthood’s Save Roe, a sample letter for your Senators;
 
From NOW, a request to call your senators and demand a filibuster;
 
From Move On, a call for letters to the editor; and
 
From DefCon, an invitation to attend their online Alito chat tomorrow at 2 PM eastern. Questions, submitted in advance, are welcome.
 

to stop Alito.
 
Pointless? Probably. But hey, it’ll only take you ninety seconds, ya lazy bastard!
 
You know the drill. Here are the links:
 
Planned Parenthood / Save Roe - Emergency Campaign to Stop Alito [Sample Letter]
 
Secular Coalition for America - Jan 17, 2006 Action Alert [Call Alert]
 
NOW - Without a Filibuster, A No Vote is a Yes Vote on Alito [Call Alert]
 
 

 

Hey, we may as well get used to it. The Dems rose to astounding levels of douchebaggery during the hearings last week, crushing my already-distant dreams of filibusters and fisticuffs. Nope, judging from their fucktardery, which was nothing short of mortifying, Alito is well on his way to confirmation. Now, someone tell his crybaby of a wife to shut up already. It’s not like anyone accused the guy of drinking soda with his pubes.
 
So here we are, on what is hopefully the last Alito-related news roundup I’ll ever post. It may be futile, but bear with me - I have another action alert for y’all, too.
 
Let’s start with a dash of humor (you’ll need it!): go read about the youthful indiscretion that Alito doesn’t want you to know about, and then RSVP to the Heretik’s invite.
 
OK, now on to the depressing stuff.
 
The Council for Secular Humanism Calls on Supporters to Urge Their Senators to Reject Samuel Alito’s Nomination to the Supreme Court
Just click on the link above to edit and/or send their sample letter.
 
The Coming Decimation of Abortion Rights
Excellent analysis by Ampersand of Alas (a blog) of how Alito’s confirmation will affect abortion rights.
 
But Enough About You, Judge; Let’s Hear What I Have to Say (The NY Times, 1/11/06)
Think I’m being too harsh on my Dem brethren? Consider this: “The highest ratio of words per panelist to words per nominee was that of Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, who managed to ask five questions in his 30-minute time allotment.” So what, may I ask, is the fucking point of holding hearings, anyway?
 
The gang that couldn’t question straight; Eight Democratic senators had a chance to grill Samuel Alito Tuesday — but their artless queries could have been dodged by a tree sloth. (Salon.com, 1/11/06)
Oh, what a proud time to be a lib. Or not. 
 
Sam’s Club: Why Alito’s Membership in CAP Matters (Slate, 1/11/06)
I direct your attention to this little ditty not because I think Alito’s membership in CAP proves that he’s a racist, sexist xenophobe - it doesn’t, and the Dems should have let the matter drop when Alito condemned CAP’s literature and distanced himself from their politics - but because it has an excellent spin on the Specter/Kennedy row. Ed Helms was right - the sexual tension is clearly palpable! 
 
O’Connor Casts a Long Shadow on the Nominee (The NY Times, 1/12/06)
Can Alito fill O’Connor’s orthopedic shoes? Does it even matter?
 
Meaningless charade; The moribund hearings have been as predictable as a Kabuki drama. Barring a major miscue, Alito’s inscrutability will carry him to the Supreme Court. (Salon.com, 1/12/06)
Find your happy place, Kelly, find your happy place…
 
Lastly, the Washington Post has transcripts from the whole sorry affair posted on their site. For the truly geeky (or masochistic), they also offer bonus goodies - tainted with razors, of course - including video clips, analysis, and photos. 
 
- K
 
 

Is Alito in the running for American Idol or the friggin’ Supreme Court?!

 

 

…if you dare.
 

 
Muah-ha-ha-ha!
 
 
When you’re done making Mrs. Alito and the baby Jebus cry, sign this petition from Act for Change.

Ladies, just make sure you get your man’s permission first.

- K
 

 
 

 
 

Well, the ScAlito hearings are in full swing; with the blogs all a-buzz and the action alerts flying, now’s the perfect time for another SCOTUS link dump!
 
 
1. Take Action
 
All that is good and unholy stands in opposition to Alito’s confirmation; as such, I’ve been inundated with anti-Alito action alerts. 
 
Here are some actions that you can take today:
 
DEFCON’s ‘Oppose the Alito Confirmation’ Sample Letter to Your Senators
 
ACLU’s ‘Tell Your Senators to Oppose Alito Nomination to the Supreme Court’ Sample Letter to Your Senators
 
Earthjustice’s ‘Keep Our Supreme Court Fair: Oppose Alito!’ Sample Letter to Your Senators
 
American Rights at Work’s ‘Save Workers’ Rights: Oppose Alito’ Sample Letter to Your Senators
 
The Young People Against Alito Petition
 
Secular Coalition for America’s ‘Urge the Judiciary Committee to question Alito’s stance on the Establishment Clause’ Action Alert
 
And some additional resources:
 
Supreme Court Watch’s Inside Scoop
 
Freedom Winter ‘06 from FeministCampus.org
 
(Feel free to suggest your own in the comments section!)
 
 
2. Stay Informed
 
Starting with bloggers, Bush v. Choice has ongoing coverage of the hearings - sometimes down to the minute.
 
Another must-read is yesterday’s post by Jill of Feministe. She’s got a slew of helpful links, along with the five questions she’d like to ask Alito (too bad she’s not on the Senate Judiciary Committee - sounds like Jill’s got more bite than most of these spineless Dems).
 
Now on to the semi-trustworthy “mainstream media.” 
 
My favorite coverage thus far comes from Slate, which peppers their punditry with a much-needed dose of humor.
 
First off is Your Witness, Senators: Expert suggestions on cross-examining Sam Alito. Nine-year-old Max Freedman recommends:
 

One thing that works well is to act cute and charming. This one works, but only for very stupid people: You nag and nag and nag. Then you look for the answer yourself. Also, you can bribe them. Candy or cool toys or Yu-gi-oh trading cards work great.
 
This works, but it makes you look a little weird: You say, “I know you are keeping the answer from me but I can wait all day.” Then you just wait. You can also make them look bad and say, “I know you are lying.”

 
Next up - Alito Goes a Long Way: But He’s Still No John Roberts:
 

It must be excruciating. I mean, here is Judge Sam Alito, slogging through the single biggest job audition of any lawyer’s life, and all anybody can talk about is John Roberts.

 
And the coup de grâce - Conservative Crackup: The awkward campaign to convince us Sam Alito is funny:
 

Although the reporter talked to dozens of Alito friends and associates, he couldn’t come up with much evidence of the judge’s wit, apart from an oft-reported prank in which Alito placed two pink flamingos in front of his office door to shame another justice who had installed a pair of fake stone lions. Instead, the article quotes the judge’s dissents in favor of letting police strip-search a 10-year-old girl and requiring married women to notify their spouses before getting an abortion—which brings new meaning to “Take my wife, please!”

 
Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.
 
Salon.com also weighs in with several interesting pieces, including:
 

Boring, but not scary: Samuel Alito came across as wimpy, but he didn’t reveal any weird Bork-like tendencies. He’s well on his way to joining a rightward-leaning high court. (1/10/06)  [Yikes!]
 
Alito, you’re no John Roberts: In the first day of his confirmation hearings, Samuel Alito displayed none of the dexterity and charm of Bush’s newly minted chief justice — and may face a rougher ride later this week. (1/10/06)  [A more optimistic take, fer sure.]
 
Alito’s bad luck: The latest Supreme Court nominee has to face a Senate newly emboldened to challenge the imperial Bush presidency. And his paper trail gives senators plenty of ammunition to do it. (1/9/06)  [Methinks they still don’t have the balls!]
 
We shall overcome … liberals: At a black church in Philadelphia, Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece joined Jerry Falwell and Rick Santorum to denounce critics of Samuel Alito. (1/9/06)  [Ouch!]

 
Of course, there’s nothing like listening and judging for yourself. If you’re near a TV, tune in to C-SPAN; otherwise, you can access and watch C-SPAN programming live on their web site. If you’re lucky enough to own XM Radio, set it to C-SPAN radio, channel 132.
 
- K