Daily Kos

Howard Dean weighs in on Alito; Dean on Hardball tonight

by Kitty

Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:46:55 AM PDT

Dean' Press Release

DEAN ALERT - Dean will be sparring with Tweety on Hardball tonight


home     today's news     about USN     USN services     contact USN     media services     news sources     search

Howard Dean on the Nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court

10/31/2005 12:51:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Karen Finney of the Democratic National Committee, 202-863-8148

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 U.S. Newswire -- Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today issued the following statement on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"President Bush shouldn't try to use the nomination of an extreme conservative to distract from the ethical problems his White House is facing. Three days after a top White House official was indicted, President Bush continued his troubling pattern of playing to his right-wing political base in times of political trouble. In an indication of his weakened political position, Bush has nominated Samuel Alito, a conservative activist judge, to replace Justice O'Connor, who has been a voice of moderation on the Court for a generation.

"A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States is too important to be sacrificed on the altar of short-term political gain. President Bush's nomination of Alito is not leadership, it is capitulation.

"Alito's record suggests an activist judicial philosophy bent on rolling back the rights and freedoms that all Americans value. Alito has sought to limit the rights of women and people with disabilities in discrimination cases, demonstrated an open hostility to women's privacy rights even in basic reproductive health matters, has a record of hostility toward immigrants, and tried to immunize employers from employment discrimination cases. It is particularly troubling that President Bush would nominate a judge who would reverse American progress and make the Supreme Court look less like America on the same day that most Americans are honoring the life and legacy of Rosa Parks.

"Now, as Alito goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he must demonstrate that he will be a Supreme Court Justice who uses his position on the highest court in the land to protect and advance the fundamental rights and personal freedoms of all Americans. Alito must prove that he is not a captive of the radical right-wing, and the White House must provide the Senate with all the information it needs to thoroughly evaluate Alito's nomination."

---

Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, http://www.democrats.org. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

© 2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770
Printer Friendly Format
© 2005 U.S. Newswire

A Division of

Tags: Supreme Court, Samuel Alito, Howard Dean (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 148 comments

  •  Dean (4.00 / 19)

    He never uses the dreaded "Filibuster" word but he makes clear that Alito has some "splaining" to do.

    by Kitty on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:45:18 AM PDT

    •  "Of course, he's against abortion," (4.00 / 8)

      Abortion emerged as a potential fault line. Democrats pointed to Alito's rulings that sought to restrict a woman's right to abortion. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Republican who supports abortion rights, said that Alito's views on the hot-button issue "will be among one of the first items Judge Alito and I will discuss."

      Alito's mother shed some light. "Of course, he's against abortion," 90-year-old Rose Alito said of her son, a Catholic.

      AP News

      by Kitty on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:57:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  RECOMMENDED. (none / 0)

        thanks for posting, Kitty!

        Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

        by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:16:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Poll on Alito at MSNBC (none / 1)

          http://msnbc.msn.com/...

          Right now, it's 42% for and 50% against confirming Alito, out of 88,000 plus reponses (4:07 p.m. EST).  

          Do we really think this is even a close reflection of what Americans think, or is this poll being Freeped?  And are we going to let these results stand?

          Reality addict - can't get enough of seeing it all clearly

          by writeout on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  it should (none / 1)

            break by Bush's approval #s, and so about 40/60 is to be expected among general public. But, online voters tend to be way more liberal, so this poll has probably been freeped by some wrongwing blogs.

            Could you please go around and post this poll in as many Alito and open threads as possible? And maybe even post a diary on it?

            thanks for the comment.

            Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

            by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:01:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  for the love of baby jesus (none / 0)

            post links to polls from BEFORE you vote.  thanks!

            "Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise." Thomas Paine, Common Sense

            by Cedwyn on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:19:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Dohh! # 2 (none / 0)

              I was so not thinking clearly!   (It's one of those days)

              Of course now I can't access the pre-vote poll as I get routed to the results each time.  

              However, this link will take you to the main story.  Half way down the page it says "Live Vote".  Click that link and it will take you to the poll.  

              And if you (or anyone else reading this who is so inclined) wouldn't mind posting the "pre-vote" link on this thread and any others,  that would be great.  Thanks!

              Reality addict - can't get enough of seeing it all clearly

              by writeout on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:43:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  WOW! (none / 0)

            It's been going steadily down since this morning when I voted (almost 2,000 votes) and it was 76% against then.  At noon (PDT) it was 60% against.

            Wingnuts are freeping it big time!

            A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.

            by Terre on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:37:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I hope it's being freeped (none / 0)

            If it isn't, I'm hoping many of those voting "for" don't know what Scalito is all about. Also, one wonders how the news is framing this guy.

            If people really knew what this guy's views are, and they voted for, then this country is worse off than I thought.

            And I'm leaving.

            by Dunbar on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:40:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Interesting (none / 0)

            I just went there and there were over 100,000 votes, but the percentage was exactly the same.

            The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

            by sidnora on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:29:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Good (none / 0)

            There was a reason why Card recommended Miers. The poll is the reason.

            The Mighty Wurlitzer has sprung a a leak, and the great gasbag that keeps it singing is out of air. This isn't 2003.

            Knut

            by Knut Wicksell on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 05:38:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Alito's ruling on abortion (none / 0)

        was in review of Penn State Law.  He even cited O'Connor in his position.

        by jarhead on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:20:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nobody's for abortion. It's the natural (2.25 / 4)

        process by which a female body which rids itself of noxious tissues.

        Anybody who refers to the premature termination of a pregnancy as "having an abortion" should be immediately disqualified from consideration for
        a public office because he's either an imbecile or a fraud.

        Promising to do away with abortion is akin to promising to stop the process of excretion.  Promising to do something that's impossible is fraudulent.

        How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

        by hannah on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:00:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You've got to be kidding (2.33 / 15)

          Are you serious?  If you are, then you are some sick cookie.  Referring to the termination of a pregnancy in the same vein as "excretion", is the most revolting, disgusting, inhumane, sick and callous thing I have ever heard in my lifetime.

          You my dear, must have tremendous amounts of abuse suffered during your lifetime, to make such a hateful, vile, inhumane and cruel comment.

          However one stands on the abortion issue, your remarks are beyond the pale of civil humanity and if no one has the guts to say this to you in here then I guess I'm the one who has to do so.  

          "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."-FDR

          by Michigan Paul on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:04:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Most abortions are natural. (4.00 / 2)

            I think she's referring to the fact that if you define pregnancy as a fertilized egg, the majority of pregnancies end in a natural abortion without anyone realizing that anything happened.

            "Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis." -- John Nichols

            by Kascade Kat on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:14:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thats not what she said (none / 0)

              She specifically referred to the termination of a pregnancy, and made no qualification in her remarks.  Referring to pregnancy as "noxious tissue" and its termination as "excretion" are beyond the pale.  I don't know of anyone, even the most pro-choice lobbyist for NARAL Pro-Choice America, that has referred to abortion in that callous terminology.

              I stand by my remarks, short of some explanation from her, or more appropriately, some apology.

              "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."-FDR

              by Michigan Paul on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:18:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  as neither of us is a woman (1.33 / 9)

                You have no right to compalin or counter the argument of a woman.
                Haven't you been paying attention?

                by jarhead on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:21:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  and the sooner you learn that (none / 0)

                  the better.

                  so quit compalin'!

                  we can talk after any reassignment tho.

                  (-6.88, -8.31)--

                  by binFranklin on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:57:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Well, (none / 0)

                  it DID seem a tad bit Borg-ish.  Still, I think you're being a bit harsh.

                  by TsisaGeya on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:59:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Michigan Paul and Jarhead (4.00 / 2)

                  if you'd actually read what was written as it was written, it was clear that the discussion was about ANY premature termination of a pregnancy (be it natural or planned). Y'alls responses says more about how you chose to interpreted it than what was actually said.

                  What was written is also accurate.....the vast majority of premature terminations occur NATURALLY. That's not inhuman, callous or whatever else...it's FACT.

                  For the record, tho the original poster was accurate in terms of biology, I'd not take for a sgranted that in real life most women are  indifferent about ANY termination of a pregnancy...either God or man-made.

                  by JoanShearer on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:13:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I suggest you just stop clipping your nails -- (none / 0)

                  -- cutting your hair and stopping your skin from sloughing itself without permission then, as those contain raw "life" as well.
                  .
                  You're clearly not qualified to weigh in on ANYONE's personal medical decisions.
                  .

                  by Peanut on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 06:52:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Non viable embryos are aborted naturally by (none / 1)

            -- healthy female bodies in the course of the ordinary reproductive cycle.
            .
            People who don't understand female biology, or let the right wing load medical terminology, assume abortion only occurs at a clinic.
            .
            It doesn't.
            .

            by Peanut on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:49:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Very true (none / 0)

              However, that's clearly not what we was being talked about here, which makes Hannah's comment a high-jacker of a statement. Unproductive, as are a lot of the comments responding to her.

              I Am Hussein and So Can You

              by Goldfish on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:14:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, even if her view was callously expressed (none / 0)

                -- in the opinion of some here, medical terminology is neutral and the body's expulsion of a non-viable embryos isn't cause for anyone to go nuts over it.
                .
                The body naturally disposes of them, along with uterine lining etc, in the course of women's regular cycles. Women might not even be aware of such an abortion occurring.
                .
                The body would treat it as waste matter from the uterus, which is an organ btw not a planting ground for future Republicans. Sorry if you find this offensive -- but to excrete is

                To separate and discharge (waste matter) from the blood, tissues, or organs.

                Non-viable embryos don't emerge from the body shaking microscopic rattles and wearing realllllly tiny baby shoes you know. The body treats them as waste.
                .
                Perhaps this kind of over the top reaction ("sick cookie?") is why a woman's personal medical and moral decisions should be between her and a health professional -- and not subject to people going off half cocked based on their ignorance about female biology.
                .

                by Peanut on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 06:47:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  In the common usage (none / 0)

                  "Abortion" is a word that implies some deliberate act. The female body's natural processes would not be considered "abortion" in most people's eyes. Unlike the one user who responded to her, I don't find the statement callus or offensive (in point of fact I also rated him unproductive). I do find her definition of abortion semantically dubious, and not germane to what we're discussing here. And her approach to it is nothing if not inflammatory.

                  If she wants to go and make her case she can write a diary. But introducing this here does nothing to add to the topic at hand, and does every thing to distract from it.

                  I Am Hussein and So Can You

                  by Goldfish on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:47:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  excretion is not a negative word (4.00 / 5)

            excretion is a natural biological process. it has no disgust in and of itself.  if you find it disgusting, that is a comment about you.  urine is a perfectly sterile substance, for example, it's just not needed by the body.  you are overreacting to something that does not deserve overreaction.

            I don't need to speak for the poster, but I understood her comment to mean that most abortions are spontaneous.  Approximately one in every five pregnancies ends in spontaneous abortion.

            Back in the day, what we now simply call "abortion" was referred to as "induced abortion" or "surgical abortion" to highlight the difference between the elective process and the natural proess.

            Wingers will therefore never succeed in "eliminating all abortion" since it frequently happens as a natural process and they can't put God in jail.

            chill, brother.  IMO it's just not as vile a comment as you are making it out to be.

            Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:06:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Unproductive (none / 1)

            For making assumptions about a poster you disagree with to the effect that they must have been abused to hold their particular opinion.

            by Raddark on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:26:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Sounds like you're carrying a lot of shit around (none / 0)

            Referring to the termination of a pregnancy in the same vein as "excretion", is the most revolting, disgusting, inhumane, sick and callous thing I have ever heard in my lifetime.

            Most abortions are naturally occurring. The word itself is neutral. The fact that you don't know that disqualifies you from having any say in a woman's personal medical and moral decisions about her reproductive system (rights and plans).
            .
            Thanks anyway for illustrating why we need to protect that privacy and access to SOUND, current and accurate medical advice.
            .

            by Peanut on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 07:02:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well, great (none / 0)

          You just delclared just about every politician, of both parties, unfit to hold office. Well done.

          I Am Hussein and So Can You

          by Goldfish on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:17:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hardball (none / 0)

        Turns out that Wilson was not on Hardball...just a summary of his appearence on the today show....Sorry

        I hope that Dean IS going to be on.  Just missed him on CNN

        by Kitty on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:35:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Off topic Wilson (none / 0)

      Joe Wilson up next on Cnn Wolf Blitzer....Watch now.

      by Kitty on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:21:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I like his response, but still (none / 0)

      focus on the circumstances surrounding this sham nomination, then attack Alito next..

      history beats up politics

      by underdogdemocrat on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:31:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  HBD was very good on Situation Room just now n/t (none / 0)

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:41:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Please call him "Scalito." (4.00 / 32)

    Courtesy of Bartcop.

    hink

    Hyperbole will be the death of us all!

    by MrHinkyDink on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:48:16 AM PDT

  •  now i know why dean was so good (4.00 / 12)

    now i see what the deaniacs saw

    those were good times, as far as we knew --colbert

    by AmericanHope on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:51:12 AM PDT

  •  What a beautiful frame. (4.00 / 8)

    "President Bush shouldn't try to use the nomination of an extreme conservative to distract from the ethical problems his White House is facing."

    Wow. That's just exquisite.

    Finding God in a Dog

    by maxomai on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:52:24 AM PDT

    •  Connections (none / 0)

      I couldn't agree more.  The Dems are in a perfect position to keep tying all of the Neocon screw-ups into one humongous clusterfuck.  

      They should do that 1) to establish the pattern in the minds of voters that the Neocons are both evil and incompetent, and 2) to make sure no one forgets the prior messes when something shiny comes along.

      The Cost of Energy

      by loudGizmo on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:18:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Key word (4.00 / 10)

    Extreme.....keep using it Dean

    It is now the opinion of the Democratic party chair that Alito is extreme....okay you seven Dems on the gang of 14...remember what to do if some extreme comes along.

    www.DowningStreetMemo.com

    by Mikecan1978 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:56:48 AM PDT

  •  Excellent (none / 1)

    I am impressed...

    by diana04 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:58:42 AM PDT

  •  Recommend this diary, folks (4.00 / 3)

    We need to be monitoring Democratic leadership statements on this, and we need to recognize when they take the right tone (like this) and make sure others emulate it.

    It's time to take names and kick ass.

    The times, they are a-changin'

    by Malacandra on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:12:25 AM PDT

  •  From the DNC blog (4.00 / 7)

    Some Background on Alito

    Think Progress has some background on Bush's do-over nomination for Justice O'Connor's seat:


    ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980's. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito's view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

    ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by "immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer's belief that it had selected the `best' candidate was the result of conscious racial bias." [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

    ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito's dissent was so restrictive that "few if any...cases would survive summary judgment." [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

    ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one." The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

    ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

    ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito's disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito's dissent "guts the statutory standard" and "ignores our precedent." In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito's opinion contradicted "well-recognized rules of statutory construction." [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]

    We will be learning more in the coming days and weeks about why fringe extremists on the right are so pleased with Alito -- and whether a Republican Party being torn apart by corruption, incompetence and fracturing coalitions can afford to let them continue to be in the driver's seat.

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:22:16 AM PDT

    •  The Title VII/Race Issue (none / 0)


       On this, the day Rosa Parks' body lies in state at the U.S. Capitol, Bush nominates a guy for to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, a guy who opines that, if a manager weighs race to find the "best person" for the job, then that's just no problem and doesn't run afoul with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 64 (Amended in 91)!

       Look, a 2L law student in their second week of a class on employment law could tell you that that is WILDLY outside the bounds of settled law and precedent!

       This guy is on an activist, looney-tune mission.  He MUST be stopped.

       BenGoshi
      __________________

      "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

      by BenGoshi on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:15:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Upperdown: Downing Uppers while Popping Poppers (4.00 / 4)

    From AP via Raw Story:
    With no sign of irony, Republicans demanded that Alito get a vote in the Senate -- something they denied Miers.

    "Let's give Judge Alito a fair up or down vote, not left or right," said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota.


    That didn't take long.

    Intelligent Designer Laments Lapse in Intelligence

    by mrblifil on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:44:19 AM PDT

  •  They should Filibuster (4.00 / 8)

    and use every minute of it to rip into Bush for the war in Iraq.  There is enough there to last quite a while.

    the essence of contract is agreement not coercion or obedience

    by Fernando Poo on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:54:48 AM PDT

    •  If they did filibuster... (4.00 / 2)

      And used the time for that purpose, then I'd have to give it the "Best Filibuster of the Century" Award.

      by My Philosophy on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:13:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are you kidding? (none / 1)

      There is so much fit hitting the shan at once right now, they could spend DAYS ripping into Bush and company...the war, justifiably so, should be front and center, but HEY, let's use the platform to just get shit off our chest!  In fact, I'll put some ideas out there:

      ~ abuse of power:  Sense-less-brenner denying the Article 11 Patriot Act hearing initiated by the Dems, among countless others.

      ~ cutting $844 million from food stamps

      ~ VAWA

      ~ Gas prices / enabling the looting of Big Oil

      ~ NCLB providing forced recruitment in schools (by denying funding to the school unless names are given up)

      ~Katrina / FEMA

      ~Cronyism

      ~Culture of Corruption

      Oy...the list is truly much much longer, but I think you got the idea.  Which is why I think that a fillibuster would be VERY cathartic for the entire Democratic party!  They can just get up there and let them have it!

      I would totally watch that.  It would be like a battered woman finding her voice and confronting her abuser.  

      GWB + GOP = WMD

      by Shaking the Tree on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:30:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Read the names of the (none / 0)

      fallen, and personalize it with anecdotes from their families.

      by GN1927 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:59:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The central issue here is (4.00 / 2)

    whether the individual, a group or the state is more important.  

    The conservative philosophy rests on the assumption that the individual is basically evil and that society (of which the highest level is the state) has to be instituted in order to counter the destructive urges of the individual.  From their perspective, the very survival of the species depends on the pre-eminence of social directives.  Humanity would die out if humans were left to their own devices.

    The notion that humans socialize and create communities voluntarily, if not instinctively, is really anathema to conservatives.  The reason for that is quite simple.  The assumption that the individual is depraved (original sin) justifies using force to impose corrective action.  In other words, the individuals bad behavior justifies others telling him what to do.  Original sin is the justification for the imposition of authority.

    How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

    by hannah on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:13:57 PM PDT

    •  But by the same token, (4.00 / 2)

      they view business as inherently good for society to the extent that regulation of business practices is evil.  It's astounding.  Let business run roughshod over everyone and everything in the neverending quest for profit, but god forbid someone has the ability to exercise some personal autonomy and refuse a warrantless search or utilize birth control or terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

      Bastards.

      The Best Anti-McCain Ad [-4.25, -5.33]

      by GTPinNJ on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:43:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If that's really what they believe... (none / 1)

      ... and I'm not saying it isn't...

      Then that's all the more reason why all should be subject to the rule of law and the checks and balances of independent branches of government.

      If individuals are so prone to do evil, then it's much more important that individuals vested with the immense power of office ought to be especially constrained in their ability to do wrong. So... transparency is key. Accountability is key. Oversight is key.

      I believe that, and I'm no conservative. I don't believe we are innately corrupt - just corruptible.

      The times, they are a-changin'

      by Malacandra on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:44:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Spot On (none / 0)

    by nyc175 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:15:22 PM PDT

  •  Yay! Dean gets it! (4.00 / 5)

    For my money, capitulation is the magic word here, because it's true.  When Democrats point to the strip-search case, or the disability case, they should be asking, "Is this the kind of America the President wants?"  Loudly, clearly and frequently.  Right on, Howard!

    whenever i have nothing particular to say i find myself always always plunging into cosmic philosophy or something -- archy (Don Marquis)

    by mspicata on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:15:25 PM PDT

  •   "Of course, he's against abortion," (none / 0)

    Quote by Alito's mom.

    Link

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."- Thomas Jefferson

    by RandyMI on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 12:39:19 PM PDT

  •  Dean is great here, and his (none / 1)

    comments get right to the heart of the matter -- so far as they go.  

    Dean nails Bush's attempt to use Alito as a means of distracting people from his administration's ethical -- LEGAL problems.  He also nails Alito's record of conservative activism; "activism" has been used to often to describe strictly liberal judges, ignoring the fact that most current conservative judges have sought radical changes to the status quo.  If that's not "activist," nothing is.

    However, Dean sticks to the cultural issues -- the very important issues of women's rights, discrimination against minorities, civil liberties, and so forth -- and these are a crucial but by no means complete list of the issues that should be part of the Democratic "litmust test" for judges.

    How do judges interpret the "takings clause" of the Constitution?  Does the Constitution allow the enforcement of environmental and other laws across state lines?  In particular, are the judge's previous decisions prejudiced towards corporations?  

    I believe that the most radical changes to be made by the next generation of Supreme Court justices will be those related to the policies emergent since the New Deal.  FDR needed to change the composition of the court in order to get some of those policies implemented, and you can be sure that there are a large number of conservative justices waiting in line to roll back not merely New Deal, but Progressive era-reforms on antitrust measures, the recognition of unions, the limitations placed upon corporate power.

    This is in no way an attempt to discredit the very frightening threat that conservative justices pose to women's reproductive rights or the legal status of gay and lesbian people.  But the New Deal is the social and economic foundation that has for seventy years sustained a vital, modern, and humane state apparatus, and it stands in jeopardy before these extremists.  Dean and other prominent Democrats need to draw attention to these less sexy yet vitally important aspects of the nomination.

    Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera

    by Dale on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM PDT

    •  Dean isn't enumerating a litmus test (none / 1)

      He's attacking BushCo. In words that will be very easy for people on the Left and the Right to embrace.

      This was a press release, not a policy statement.

      God bless America. God bless our troops.
      God damn George Bush to the fires of eternal damnation.

      by Bill Rehm on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:10:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well it is a fine statement, but I don't think (none / 0)

    that Alito's work reflects a person who will advance rights and asking him to prove it instead of just defining him as a radical - which is what he is - makes any sense in this case.  

    Alito is a radical.  I don't care whether he is extreme right or left - the man's work reflects a very extreme and very unusual view of this country and what it stands for.

    Alito is radical and we shouldn't shy away from saying that about him or his small group of extremist friends.

    by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:05:48 PM PDT

  •  Bush's second choice (4.00 / 4)

    In addition to "extreme," "radical," and "activist judge," I want to hear "Bush's second choice, Samuel Alito."

    It's correct, it reminds everyone of Miers, it makes little Sammy sound like a loser for not having been picked first.

    Bush's second choice.

    Angie and Bill: Colorado's bright future!

    by ubikkibu on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM PDT

  •  Yes! Keep hammering away on Plamegate (none / 0)

    Keep it foremost on people's minds.  Incompetence or deliberate?  Is that what Alito is distracting us from discussing?  How can we trust these people?  

    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:12:17 PM PDT

  •  Everyone is on message (none / 0)

    Nice to see that Reid, Kerry, and Dean are saying the same thing.

    by Yoshimi on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:16:19 PM PDT

  •  Good grief (none / 0)

    Check this out:

    National Italian American Foundation Demands "Scalito" Apology
    Mon Oct 31 2005 15:56:42 ET

    National Italian American Foundation (NIAF) Statement:

    The NIAF is distressed by the attempts of some senators and the media (CNN, CBS) to marginalize Judge Samuel Alito's outstanding record, by frequent reference to his Italian heritage and by the use of the nickname, "Scalito."

    Appropriately, no one mentioned that Justice Breyer was Jewish or suggested that he was lock-step ideologically with the other Jewish Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it would have been outrageous to do so. We still do not know Justice Robert's ethnicity.

    We are justly proud of Justice Alito's Italian heritage and his sterling academic and judicial records as well as his impeccable integrity. However, he should be considered as an individual. In honor of the memory of the just departed Rosa Parks the Senate champions of civil rights should insist that Judge Alito be considered only on his extraordinary merits.

    Sincerely,

    A. Kenneth Ciongoli
    Chairman of the National Italian American Foundation

    Maybe they would prefer that we call him something else?

    How about one of these:
    Fascist?
    Racist?
    Caveman?

    by Sharon Jumper on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 01:35:45 PM PDT

  •  Dean on CNN right now n/t (none / 0)

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:12:54 PM PDT

  •  the pro-choice issue (4.00 / 6)

    Howard Dean did a great job discussing the Alito nomination, but he's always a disappointment when it comes to discussing abortion. He was doing great, talking about Republicans inserting themselves into people's private lives (he was answering a question about the provision in the PA law that women had to notify their husbands before they got an abortion). Then Chris Matthews asks if the Democratic Party is the pro-choice party and Dean says "no, no, absolutely not. I believe that this is a decision that women have to make, blah, blah, blah." Okay, that means that YES, we ARE the pro-choice party. On abortion, right-to-die, contraceptives, or any othe privacy issue. Why is it so bad to say that yes, Democrats think people should have a choice, even if that choice it to not have an abortion or to not terminate life-support.  He then could have said that Republicans are the anti-choice party.  Why is he so afraid to say Democrats are pro-choice?

    by Terps Fan on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:54:11 PM PDT

    •  Welcome to my nightmare (4.00 / 5)

      I have the same issue with the Dems and Iraq.

      They keep trying to be all things to all people.  Tolerance is great, but damnit, sometimes you have to take a stand.

      by Sharon Jumper on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:57:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gaaahh (none / 0)

      That drives me crazy.  I just commented about this on the Chris Matthews thread.  When a majority of Americans are pro choice, why do we have shy away from those words?

      ABC =shoddy and despicable

      by zombie on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 02:59:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because you can't paint all (none / 0)

      Democrats with one word.  The Senate Minority Leader does not define himself as "pro-choice," for example.

      Internet, n., A series of tubes invented by Al Gore; not a truck. "I mailed an Internet to my friend."

      by Viktor on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:00:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  pro-life is not the opposite of pro-choice (4.00 / 4)

        Harry Reid defines himself as pro-life. That does not have to mean that he is anti-choice.  Saying the Democratic Party is the pro-choice party doesn't paint all Democrats with one word. "Pro-choice" is the most inclusive term, in my opinion, if you explain very clearly that pro-choice means that you have the choice to be against abortion and to never have one. It also  means you have the choice to keep your daughter on a feeding tube for 50 years if you choose to, even if there is no chance that she will regain any brain activity, etc.  All it means is that YOU get to make those very personal decisions, not the government. Pro-choice doesn't equal pro-abortion, and pro-life shouldn't equal anti-choice.

        by Terps Fan on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:10:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Dean likes to frame it differently (none / 0)

      Dean and Lakoff have concluded that "Pro-choice" is a bad frame to use for the position of leaving it up to women to decide on abortion b/c "choice" comes from a consumerist vocabulary, while "life" comes from a moralist lexicon and sounds better than "pro-choice." Dean prefers to use terms like a "right to personal responsibility" which, DNC pollsters claim, many people who call themselves "pro-life" also profess to support (yet don't call themselves "pro-choice"), and which apparently vastly outpolls the GOP "culture of life" frame.

      by FenderT206 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 05:04:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why, Oh Why? (none / 0)

      Why do we have to be the sheeple that buy into the false categories created by the soundbite media and the propaganda wing of the RNC?

      Why do we have to be "pro-choice" by default just because we advocate women's freedom to choose what they want to do with their bodies?

      Dr Dean is right - we are AGAINST the state controlling women's bodies. Full Stop. We are not pro this or anti that. He has a good reason for what he says - the repugs have brainwashed people to believe that "pro-choice" folks want to "kill babies". Let us not reinforce that meme.

      by freespeech on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 05:05:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Who Cares? (none / 0)

    I think the only people that actually watch that piece of shit show, Hardball, are the junkies on dKos(including me)...find a Joe Beercan and ask if he's even heard of Matthews.

    If you're going to judge the Dems platform by how it gets presented with Tweety asking a question and then talking over our reps answer...you'll be disappointed every time. Life isn't explained by a catch phrase. As long as they can get a narrative going, I'll be happy. I repeat, who fucking cares what anyone looks like on Hardball----honestly, have you seen his numbers? I get more spam than Matthews has viewers.

    by Cisco Pike on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:10:49 PM PDT

  •  I miss Harriet :( (none / 1)

    I'm still annoyed that people here were talking about filibustering her.  Getting her in there truly would have been a bullet dodged.  Now that bullet is named Alito, and it is coming straight for us, between the eyes.  <sigh>

    -Alan

    -9.00, -3.69

    by SlackerInc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:11:12 PM PDT

    •  I sort of agree (none / 1)

      However, I think we have a very, very good chance of beating this bullet, either through filibuster, or (dare I say it) an up-or down vote.

      If we get him the first way, we've delievered another body blow to Bush.

      If we win in an up or down vote, we've done nothing short of delievering a coup de main to an administration that's already bleeding profusely.

      Yeah, it's a dangerous game, but it's a game I think we can win. Let's get it on!

      I Am Hussein and So Can You

      by Goldfish on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:35:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Disappointed in a lot of folks (none / 0)

    It is not ok because someone is Italian to talk in "mobspeak" about him/her, it is NOT ok to refer to Mussolini, give them Mob nicknames and so on.
     Really disappointed by some posters on Kos. As an Italian American (my mom), I have been stereotyped negatively many times before with like comments in school and at work. It isn't pleasant.  
     But who cares how I feel?
    The important thing is this kind of ethnic stereotyping plays into GOPs filthy hands.  

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who....never learned how to walk forward.-FDR

    by vassmer on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:18:28 PM PDT

  •  a man as eloquent as Dean (none / 0)

    should run again.

    he can run, all the while watching Fitzie edge closer to the slime.  I believe that he had 66 indictments in the Ryan case.

    it's true, it's the end of the beginning.

    by jackinthebox4 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:28:12 PM PDT

  •  Dean understands the dangers (4.00 / 8)

    Dean likes to tell the story of the woman he met on the campaign trail who said that she wanted to vote Democrat, but she couldn't because Democrats were in favor of abortion. He tried to disabuse her of the notion that Democrats were pro-abortion but she was firm in that conviction. So he tried a different tact. He asked her if one of her neighbors got pregnant would she be in favor the the state interfering with her ability to terminate that pregnancy?

    The woman said definitely not.

    The amazing thing here is that there are a lot of people out there like this woman: people who are "pro-choice" because they don't want the state interfering with a woman's medical decisions. But who would scream bloody murder if anyone tried to claim that they were "pro-choice".

    Dean understands this conundrum well, this is why he talks past the "pro-choice" label. It's not that he isn't in favor of choice. It's that he understand that it is a label with to much baggage for most Democrats to get around. So he changes the subject to ask whether the state should be allowed to interfere with a woman's medical decisions.

    Frame it that way and you begin to win the fight. Buy into the box that the right-wing has created for Democrats and you will lose every time.

    May you live in Interesting Times

    by Chris Andersen on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:34:01 PM PDT

    •  Medical Freedom (none / 1)

      that's what we should call it.

      "No, you can't go to my Dr. with me!!!"  and "I don't want to go with you to your Dr. appointment either."

      by 88kathy on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:15:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly, people are sensitized to black/white (none / 0)

      propaganda, which has been primarily abused by the right . . . and, their extremism has essentially brought out similar sounding (exasperated, though) responses from the left in politics.  So, we often need to find a new language for describing the same things.

      Dean is trying to support the privacy, medical, etc. rights properly, but still speak to the effect of allowing choice - just not using those terms which would fail the mainstream electorate's "instant reaction meter", IMHO.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 05:27:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dean's on it........ (none / 1)

    ....Alito is a distraction from the real deal: The indictment. Don't take the bait. Be quiet on Alito and wait until the confirmation process begins to show any cards at all.

    Please don't tell me you feel sorry for Ben. Ben is a well cared for dalmatian and has not been harmed by my political views.

    by Bensdad on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:22:49 PM PDT

  •  Question #1: Bush vs. Gore (none / 0)

    I want to hear these tools talk about this case - do they agree with it, do they not agree with it, or do they have to recuse themselves from answering the question because they're so damn sure that stealing a Presidential election will come up again during their tenure.

    It'd tell us a lot about judicial temperament:

    Hey, Scalito, do you frequently interrupt SCOTUS litigants like it's wingnut talk radio, just like big brother Antonin?

    Can you focus exclusively on some obscure, circa-1870 provision of election law that somehow equates in your mind to 'the Republican must win'?

    Can you swallow the giant butterfly in your throat that represents the the long-famished ethical part of your brain making one desperate last attempt to tell you 'YOU'RE COMMITTING TREASON,' and put in with the other four Traitors of this Nation? And after that, can you abandon all pretense of any salient quality that got you on ANY bench in the first place, and gather your SCOTUS porn review buddies for an evening of "Screw the Real Patriots, Let's Let the Retard Take Office"?

    And if so, can you then afford your own Kevlar headpiece when the revolution come?

    by Peace JD on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 05:36:54 PM PDT

Permalink | 148 comments