Friday, January 06, 2006

God i am lazy

I hit level 48 (soul sucking game) and ran scholo last night, now I gotta go to the dentist and sleep afterwards.

here again is someone elses work. hell they did the research and pass it on so I'm simply helping spread the word.

I'll have my own personal update later, till then...



Why is the word about Alito's extremism not reaching a broader audience? Is it too academic? Here is an example that less academic types may appreciate:

In the strange case of Kenneth Pirolli v. World Flavors, Inc., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission intervened on behalf of Pirolli, a retarded man who complained of his workplace and presented "evidence that another one of Pirolli's co-workers, Harley Strauss, 'attempted to push a broom pole into (Pirolli's) behind as other staff watched." .

What was Alito's reaction? "Pirolli's brief never asserts that his work environment was one that a reasonable, non-retarded person would find hostile or abusive." .

Since Sam Alito was confirmed as a judge, he has come out as an out-of-the-mainstream radical. Since 1990, extremist Alito has

(1) broke his vow to Congress made during his 1990 confirmation hearing to disqualify himself from cases involving Vanguard (which he owned nearly a million in) when he failed to disqualify himself in violation of judicial ethics rules and, instead, decided a case in favor of Vanguard despite his prior admission in writing to Congress that he had a conflict of interest (which he did not disclose to the parties);

(2) ignored 70 years of Supreme Court precedents about the scope of congressional authority in order to try to re-write the laws regulating submachine gun sales and the Family Medical Leave Act;

(3) ignored 40 years of Supreme Court precedents about reproductive privacy and freedom in order to try to install the government as the policeman of your bedroom;

(4) repeatedly excused outrageous corporate misconduct from the legal penalties for racial and gender discrimination;

(5) revealed his 1985 Regan administration job application where Alito disclosed his politically motivated opposition to 40 years of Supreme Court precedents guaranteeing equal protection at the ballot box to protect the one-man-one-vote constitutional principle and admitted having adopted this activist agenda at least five years before he was appointed to the court of appeals (so he can no longer plausibly deny that his personal views have not corrupted his pattern of result-oriented judicial decisions).

Here are the details of several reasons why Alito is unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

First, Alito has a history of ethical violations and misleading Congress. In 1990, when Alito was seeking US Senate approval for his nomination to be an appeals court judge, he was asked to answer the same questions that other judicial nominees are asked in written questionnaire. Specifically, Alito was asked how he would resolve potential conflicts of interest, and he responded: "I do not believe that conflicts of interest relating to my financial interests are likely to arise. I would, however, disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies." When a Vanguard case later came before Alito he did not disqualify himself as he promised Congress he would; instead, he broke the promise to Congress and ruled in favor of Vanguard without ever disclosing his ownership of approximately a half million to a million dollars in Vanguard.

Alito's failure to disclose this obvious conflict of interest and his failure to disqualify himself puts Alito in an extreme fringe of judges who take an out-of-the-mainstream lax view of the judicial ethics rules. However, Alito's failure to disqualify himself in violation of his express contrary promise to Congress puts Alito in an bad ethics category all by himself: before Alito there was no prior history of judges failing to disclose conflicts of interest and then also failing to disqualify themselves in situations where they had previously acknowledged the specific conflict and then promised Congress to disqualify themselves. Alito's ethical breach is an extreme one-of-a-kind breach of judicial ethics.

Second, Alito's views are very radical and far outside the judicial mainstream, and his legal history demonstrates a pattern of judicial activism where Alito has repeatedly chosen to ignore decades of prior court decisions to reach his own politically-motivated result. For example, the scope of congressional authority to regulate nationwide solutions for nationwide problems is an issue that was decided about 70 years ago. But Alito would ignore these past 70 years and thousands of well-decided legal precedents to re-open this settled legal matter because it does not suit his personal philosophy.

In Alito's dissenting opinion in United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), he ignored these past 70 years of judicial precedents to reach the extremist ruling that Congress does not have the authority to regulate the ownership of submachine guns. Fortunately, even Alito's Republican colleagues on the court of appeals disagreed with this type of judicial activism and the Republican-dominated Supreme Court also rejected Alito's radical view.

The same out-of-the-mainstream pre-1937 view of congressional authority was at the heart of Alito's poor decision to rule that Congress did not have the authority to require state employers to comply with the Family Medical Leave Act in Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development. Again, the Supreme Court was there to keep Alito's judicial activism in check by overruling his radical views against the congressional power to enforce the Family Medical Leave Act across the nation, but there would be no higher court to check his extremism if Alito was promoted to the Supreme Court.

The same judicial arrogance lies at the heart of Alito's dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), where he once again demonstrated his willingness to ignore several decades of well-established judicial precedents to re-write the accepted view of the Constitution simply because his personal philosophy runs contrary to the established rule of law. Again, Alito's Republican colleagues on the court of appeals disagreed with his judicial activism and the Republican-dominated Supreme Court rejected his radical view.

Judge Alito has also demonstrated equally extremist views on gender and racial discrimination where he would make it nearly impossible to police corporate discrimination if the law followed his dissenting views in Sheridan v. Dupont, 74 F.3d 1439 (3d Cir. 1996), and Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 110 F.3d 986 (3d Cir. 1997). Here are two more cases where even the Republicans on Alito's own court of appeals disagreed with his radical views.

If anyone was left to wonder whether Alito's out-of-the-mainstream decisions are the result of his personal bias, this issue was recently resolved by the uncovering of Alito's application to work for Reagan administration Attorney General Ed Meese. In Alito’s statement of his radical right-wing judicial philosophy, Alito admitted he has a personal "disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment" and he was "particularly proud" of his work arguing "that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." When Alito confessed that he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decision regarding reapportionment, he was principally referring to Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims, two critical decisions which rejected racial vote dilution in favor of the one-man-one-vote principle under the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution. Everyone in America should have the gravest concern about Alito’s eagerness to disagree with over 40 years of Supreme Court precedents establishing equal protection at the nation’s ballot boxes.

Alito's 1985 job application also addresses his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton ("CAP"), a fact which Alito trumpeted with great pride. CAP was dedicated to protesting the fact that women and minorities were being admitted to Princeton, not only opposing affirmative action, but demanding quotas that favored white men. CAP fought Princeton's admission policies in the pages of its magazine, "Prospect," where co-founder Shelby Cullom Davis wrote "In my day, (Dean of Student Affairs) Andy Brown would have been called to task for his open love affair with minorities." Another "Prospect" article titled "In Defense of Elitism" lamented "People nowadays just don't seem to know their place." It's pages also whined, "Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children." Similarly, according to The Daily Princetonian, "In 1973, CAP mailed a letter to parents of freshmen implying that their sons and daughters were living in 'cohabitation,' rather than simply coeducational dorms. In 1975, a CAP board member tried to disrupt Annual Giving by writing to alumni in the business community to consider whether their gifts were 'being used to undermine, subvert, and otherwise discredit the very businesses which are helping fund private education.'" Stephen Dujack, former Associate Editor of the Princeton Alumni Weekly, observed that "In 1985, Alito belonged to a group that was dedicated to pointlessly interfering with the functioning of a university because its student body had representative numbers of women and minorities, as required by law. A group which, for its entire existence, used as its only tactics dissembling and dirty tricks; the list above doesn't begin to do justice in describing the organization's destructiveness." Well into his mid-30s, Alito chose to brag about, not apologize for, his membership in CAP.

Recently, in the questionnaire Alito submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he wrote this about CAP: "Concerned Alumni of Princeton . . . was a group of Princeton alumni. A document I recently reviewed reflects that I was a member of the group in the 1980s. Apart from that document, I have no recollection of being a member, of attending meetings, or otherwise participating in the activities of the group. The group has no current officers from whom more information may be obtained." In 1985, Alito's CAP membership was one of his distinguishing qualifications for the government post he applied for, and now 20 years later he supposedly has no recollection of that membership.

Finally, do not believe the Republican effort to rewrite congressional history regarding the filibuster of judicial nominees and the Supreme Court. In 1965, the Senate easily confirmed Judge Abe Fortas to the Supreme Court. Just three years later, when President Lyndon Johnson nominated Fortas to serve as Chief Justice, there was obviously no question about his qualifications because Fortas was already serving on the Supreme Court. Based only on Fortas's judicial views, however, the Senate Republicans launched a successful four-day filibuster of Fortas's nomination in September of 1968. Whenever you hear some Senator saying that there is no history of filibustering a Supreme Court nomination based on his out-of-the-mainstream judicial views, ask them to look up the front page of the Washington Post from September 26, 1968:

"A full-dress Republican-led filibuster broke out in the Senate yesterday against a motion to call up the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas for Chief Justice."

The New York Times ran as similar story that day, and many news outlets around ran the story later that week.

Alito must not be confirmed, and if necessary, his nomination must be filibustered. Please tell your Senators.

Please help spread the word and keep this kicked if you don't mind.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

No, blog not dead quite yet, just not motivated

Big post coming soon (as in I get off my lazy ass, stop playing WoW, and type it up)
But till then


1. Why has George W. Bush, as President, stacked the federal courts with judges who have histories of ruling against small, entrepreneurial businesses in favor of large, monopolistic corporations? Why has his administration consistently prevented free market and Laissez Faire competitive bids for government contracts in Iraq and even at home in New Orleans? Because he hates us for our freedoms.

2. Why has George W. Bush, as President, waged a relentless attack on a woman's personal liberty to control her own reproductive organs, her very own body? Because he hates us for our freedoms.

3.) Why has George W. Bush, as President, sought to punish homosexual American citizens by limiting their civil rights in employment, housing and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law guaranteed in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Because he hates us for our freedoms.

4.) Why has George W. Bush, as President, thumbed his nose at American legal tradition, cavalierly denying Habeas Corpus rights to those he has illegally rounded up and detained? Because he hates us for our freedoms.

5. Why has George W. Bush, as President, used the federal government and the full powers of the Executive Branch to abusively pressure the free press within the United States of America, to squelch news stories that expose government lies and corruption, to punish news organizations and the journalists who report on high crimes and misdemeanors at the White House? Because he hates us for our freedoms.

6. Why has George W. Bush, as President, illegally spied on Americans from coast to coast in their libraries, their work places, and in their telephone conversations? Because he hates us for our freedoms.

7. Why has George W. Bush, as President, approved the practice of sadistic torture in blatant violation of a human being's most fundamental liberty, the right to live free from cruel and unusual punishment from his/her own government? Because he hates us for our freedoms.

8. Why has George W. Bush, as President, willfully assaulted our nation’s time-honored precedent for a “wall of separation” between church and state by violating the Bill of Rights in establishing state-sanctioned religions by providing federal funds to some churches and not to others? Why has George Bush ordered the Executive Branch to ignore the wishes of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who risked their very lives so that liberty might prosper in our land? Because he hates our freedoms.

9. Why has George W. Bush, as President, ordered federal officials to violate the Fourth Amendment and to illegally enter our fellow-citizens’ homes, seize their properties without warrants? Because he hates our freedoms.

10. Why has George W. Bush, as President, not upheld and/or protected the Constitution of the United States of America? Why has he abused the powers of his office in continued criminal activity against We, the People of the United States? Because he hates us for our freedoms.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." --- President-Elect George W. Bush on December 18, 2000.