Skip to main content

A strikingly blunt editorial from the New York Times:

Mr. Bush, however, seems to see no limit to his imperial presidency. First, he issued a constitutionally ludicrous "signing statement" on the McCain bill. The message: Whatever Congress intended the law to say, he intended to ignore it on the pretext the commander in chief is above the law. That twisted reasoning is what led to the legalized torture policies, not to mention the domestic spying program.

Then Mr. Bush went after the judiciary, scrapping the Levin-Graham bargain. [...]

Both of the offensive theories at work here - that a president's intent in signing a bill trumps the intent of Congress in writing it, and that a president can claim power without restriction or supervision by the courts or Congress - are pet theories of Judge Samuel Alito, the man Mr. Bush chose to tilt the Supreme Court to the right.

The administration's behavior shows how high and immediate the stakes are in the Alito nomination, and how urgent it is for Congress to curtail Mr. Bush's expansion of power. Nothing in the national consensus to combat terrorism after 9/11 envisioned the unilateral rewriting of more than 200 years of tradition and law by one president embarked on an ideological crusade.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:12 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Lack of reliable (4.00)
    verifiable, auditable voting machinery may be part of the imperial presidency too.
    •  Filibuster Alito's Ass: (4.00)
      Enough with the wimpy Dems, it's time WE veto Alito:

      John Edwards has endorsed this petition for FILIBUSTER!

      Phone, fax, and email addresses for the Judiciary Committee.

      Write a letter to the editor of your local paper and contact your congress critters -- all with one click.

      People for the American Way has collected over 60,000 signatures to send to the Senate, please add yours:Save the Court Petition

      Move's Stop Alito petition

      Democratic Party's Reject Alito Petition

      Stop the NRA's Oppose Alito Petiton

      And while you're at it, sign: Planned Parenthood Petition

      Naral Anti-Alito Petition

       Urge Congress to support Plan B

      •  DEMS/Some Groups won't Say the F Word (none)
        The Dems have thier sticky hands all over the fight to stop Alito, and they don't want this to become an issue that they have to contend with in 06, so they wasnt everyone to keep quiet until it is too late to mount a meaningful campaign...

        SO I agree its up to us to DEMAND a filibuster.  Asking for No Votes (which are being called for by some progressive groups taking their cues from from Democratic Party Hacks) simply won't cut it.  

    •  Absolutely !! (none)
      As many of us have said all along this is a clique that NEVER intends to let go of power. They're oath to the Constitution is meaningless because they aren't really Republicans at all. They no more believe in a Republic then King George III did. They think they are so fucking smart that they can get away with stealing our democracy out from under us with phony voting devices and stacking the court full of Imperialists like themselves. We'll see. There immediate problem is not everybody in their own so called party the GOP is willing to go along with this game. It's obvious to many of the more moderate members of the GOP that Bu$hCo is only interested in one thing and one thing alone Permanent and Absolute POWER.

      "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees"

      by Blutodog on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 05:55:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We're gonna' have to throw them OUT! (none)
        That's our only recourse, IMHO. It may take us 50 years to do it, but that's what we have to do.

        An' I don't mean Republicans. These people have co-opted the Republican Party, these are not Republicans, these are tyrants. This is a ONE-PARTY STATE we fight - they have TAKEN OVER our government! THEY OWN IT, lock, stock and barrel! While we were asleep, they did this...

        They have inserted their people seven levels deep in the federal bureaucracy, and they exercise a rigid discipline on every facet of our lives, from the top down. Wonderful as it would be, we're not going to be able to just have an election and elect somebody else. They control elections! We're going to have to ferret each one of them out and throw him out of office if we are to have a democracy again. This is US vs. THE STATE, in my view. And they will not be easily dislodged.

        But dislodge them we must, if we are to get our country back.


        ONE-PARTY RULE is the first step toward TYRANNY

        by QuoVadis on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:27:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks!! (none)
          Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I agree with 95% of what u have said. The one pt. we differ on is the line they did it while we were asleep. No they didn't we weren't asleep that's the scary part. They did right in front of us in plain sight! The Nazis did it the same way. They could do this because they are manipulating the public in a very sophisticated manner and at levels of consciousness far beneath the publics waking consciousness. The Nazis did the same to the German public but it took generations to prepare the soil for such a thing to occur. America has always had a darkside  side to it we all know that. These people talk to that shadow in everyone of us the fear and the anger and they turn it to their advantage at every turn. We can only beat them the way MLK and Gandi proposed with a tough love that doesn't turn to violence. These folks are Nazis yet they can be turned. We have the examples of our South and So. Africa and The English in India etc. But, we have to start and that's the problem. How? They have closed almost every peaceful path available just as the Southerners  did to the blacks after the Civil War. They are locking all the doors to change because they HATE change and they fear it. They hate all of us because they know we are the agents of change. We need new ideas and methods to defeat this darkness that has grabbed our country by the throat.

          "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees"

          by Blutodog on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 03:51:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with you, Blutodog... (none)
            As you probably know, I was speaking metaphorically about being asleep. What I failed to put across is that it is my feeling that our "sleeping" seems more treating the issue as if it is one of "just politics as usual" - "they're Repubs, we're Dems, this's just a political difference.

            I don't think it is political in the sense of "normal" party politics. I think it is the difference between What's-his-name, Winston?, the individual, the protagonist in 1984, and THE STATE - the difference being only one of time-frame. I think we are in a war against tyranny, against a growing if not fully-formed totalitarian state - a state which is already here before us, for all intents and purposes.

            Normal party politics, in my view, will not do the job of restoring our nation to its former character - the one we all remember. I do not mean to suggest open rebellion, I don't think that would work, but I am wondering if a change in tactics, away from the "politics as usual" mold, might better serve.

            As you can see, I am endeavoring to work through these "notions." I guess that make them "meta," eh?

            Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

            ONE-PARTY RULE is the first step toward TYRANNY

            by QuoVadis on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 06:52:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Meta-politics (none)
              Grab the cult classix from the late 80's called Brazil with Robert Dinero among others. I think Brazil is a closer model to what were experiencing today. I agree that we are living in a tyranny one that  cultivates a facade of democractic order. The right now controls and even owns the election aparat in enough of the country to continue to fine tune this fraud. The good news is that a portion of the opposition (us)is starting to push back at this level and our Reps. atleast in the Blue states are responding by taking a real close look at these devices. It hasn't stopped their plan however and Ohio's recent laws are attempt at crushing any attempts to dislodge this creepy new system. The right wants a sure thing and it's hard to get closer then easily manipulated voting computers. That's just one way they intend to make sure they NEVER lose elections that count.

              "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees"

              by Blutodog on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 07:30:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Welcome back New (4.00)
    York Times.

    "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

    by Lying eyes on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:15:12 PM PST

    •  yeah, but... (none)
      On the cover of the same Times is the headline summary:

      "Democrats say President Bush is putting an enduring conservative imprint on the courts, and they see little hope of turning the tide."

      The Times proclaiming the Alito nomination a done deal provides no political options for democrats who might be considering a fillibuster.  The newspaper saying in effect "it's done" makes it that much closer to being so.

      •  but also... (none)
        If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

        If you look at it realistically, the odds of getting 41 out of 44 Democratic Senators to vote against cloture are pretty low.  Yes, it's possible but very unlikely.  And the Times is right in reporting the reality of it.

        And I honestly don't think an article pointing that out, even in the so-called "paper of record," is going to make much difference in a Senator's decision.

        "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." -Gandhi

        by midvalley on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:51:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, it's Adam Nagourney (none)
        His brown-nosing head's so far up Bush's ass the pReznit brushes Nagourney's teeth with his own.

        If conservatives are today's mainstream, why all the weaseling? Anyone? Bueller? scAlito?

        by Peanut on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:23:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Agree (none)
        We should ALL write to NYT and to the Dems.  I started writing at 5:00 a.m., and I'm not finished.  Join me!  As I've been saying, this is MORE THAN abortion.  If he gets in, then we all need to make mass exit for Canada or South America.  I'm seriously considering it too... seriously!
    •  Too little, too late. (4.00)
      This article in the NYT is way too little and way too late.  Had they brouight this out months ago and hammered on it over and over, and not done all the Alita cheerleading stories, then we might have had some traction in stopping Alito, but now, now that they know good and well it's too late to make any difference, now, frankly, I don't give a damn.  Too little, too late.

      It's claear the traditional media, for whatevr reason, far from preventing the worst political excesses is going to conspire with those committing them to defraud the people of the United States.  Well, they can print anything they want, but don't expect us to do anything but criticize them and try to tear them down.

      And no, saying that other media outlets didn't even do this much is not an excuse.  That just means that now that it doesn't matter the Republican party gave you the go ahead so you could appear less partisan.

      •  Worked for Roberts, scAlito's not a done deal (none)
        He was caught lying during his hearing, and supports illegal spying on citizens by a prezi-monarch.
        Even lockstepper GOP 'moderates' are queasy about rubber-stamping untrammeled spying without warrants on political opponents, and a judicial nominee who backs such a thing for an imperial president who has declared himself above the law.

        If conservatives are today's mainstream, why all the weaseling? Anyone? Bueller? scAlito?

        by Peanut on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:17:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd think that would make a difference (none)
          But it hasn't in the hearings so far.

          I think it's way too late.  The Republicans clearly are going to rubber-stamp this guy if they think they can get away with it (there may be some republicans voting against if they feel it won't matter).  The time to start a mass movement against Alito was when he was first proposed, and many of us tried to do just that, and some of the Democrats also tried to do that, but most of the democrats just ignored it and the papers kept spouting Rep8ublican talking points until now.

          The democrats may vote against him, but I doubt that most of them will have the guts to filibuster him, and the republicans won't.  The majority of US citizens seems divided at best because the media hasn't presented anything but republican talking points.

          When, not if, Alito gets in he's going to turn us into an empire with an emperor at the head.  The constitution will be ripped to shreds in short order and, among the many too blame, I will also lay the fault for this at the doorstep of the traditional media.

          •  There was more advance opposition to scAlito (none)
            than Roberts, so repeating a Roberts talking point doesn't really amount to much. Since idle speculation amounts to even less than much, I suggest joining what others or an alternate strategy here and here.

            If conservatives are today's mainstream, why all the weaseling? Anyone? Bueller? scAlito?

            by Peanut on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 11:17:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I really don't understand (none)
            how the Congress, and especially the Senate, could so easily relinquish their powers to check the actions of the Executive branch.

            You would think, if nothing else, their pride would keep them from confirming a justice who wants to take that power away from them.

            This is not even the "Law of Unintended Consequences" at work here.  The consequence of dimunition of the senate's power to stop executive action is right there in front of their faces.

            Are they nuts?  Blinded by partisan fervor?  I just don't get it.

            (-5.25, -7.95) "Self-respect is a question of recognizing that anything worth having has a price." - Joan Didion

            by SueDe on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 04:41:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  People who work in the MSM (none)
        will still be able to get abortions even if they have to travel
      •  Never too late (none)
        The NSA spying story ran the night before the Patriot Act extension vote.

        IT singlehandedly derailed that vote (not the Senate D's who new all about it).

        Same thing can happen here.

    •  It's NOT linked from the FRONT PAGE ... (none)
       ... of the NYT web site.  You have to click to go to Editorials and OpEd, and then it's listed as the second editorial of the day.

      This feels like lib-service.  GawdDAMM.

      BushAmerica -- Now killing 24/7/365. *Your tax dollars at work*.

      by Yellow Canary on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 06:23:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dear King George, (4.00)

    Declaration of Independence

    IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    For a list of our grievances... click

    •  Change a couple words (4.00)
      And send that to the White House, okay?

      The American taxpayers wouldn't object to free transportation for certain government officials if they'd go where we wish they would.

      by PatsBard on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:31:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you'd actually expect that (4.00)
        the moron in White House would read it, that is.  We all know how much he loves to read.  

        I'd suggest substituting pictures for words.  And throw in a few pet goats for good measure.  He can't tear himself away from those pretty picture books.

        •  That would be assuming (none)
          themoron in the White house OCULD read it.  I can't help but think he has the reding level of a not overly bright 9 or 10 yer old--and a bully at that. I think Harry Potter might well be beyond him

          I have decided he is Draco Malfoy.

          The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

          by irishwitch on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 09:05:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh that's so unkind to Draco. (4.00)
            Draco is a shit, but he's not stupid.

            Bush is a maggot-ridden splatter of syphillitic baboon shit.

            AND he's dumber than a block of Velveeta.

            I'd take Draco for President over that douchebag.

            Hell, I'd take VOLDEMORT for President. It could hardly be worse!

            •  Yes... (none)
              Who would you rather have as a ruler? An incompetent bastard or a competent bastard? I'd go with number 2; he might actually do some good things...

              Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero

              by Dauphin on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 04:37:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, a comeptent bastard (none)
                would jsut do a better, mroe efficient job of oppressing us and hiding it.

                I don't see Draco as all that bright. He's a bully with lots of pull because of money and power--wihout it, I don't think he'd have gotten that far--just like Bush.

                The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

                by irishwitch on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 04:34:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Sweetheart, don't sugarcoat it! (none)

              "Folly is wont to have more followers and comrades than discretion." -Cervantes-

              by Don Quixote on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 05:12:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  4! (4.00)
      How could I not give the Declaration of Independence a 4?  I mean, what do I like like, a neocon?

    •  ( Re-Writen ) DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE 2001 (4.00)

                by Roger Drowne EC 2001

       WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS  IT BECOMES NECESSARY for the PEOPLE of the United States TO ALTER or ABOLISH the United States Government as it exists in the year 2001 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05 / 06

      Using the Authority, Law, and Intentions of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.    

      And Now the People Step Forward and Charge High Treason, and Show that Democracy in its roots today, is Corrupt.  

      And that the Constitution has been Altered and Betrayed in Favor of A Small Group of Millionaires, Over Another... the Governed, the People of the United States.

      And that the Election Process is UN-fair and has been Overwhelmed and Monopolized by Millionaires and their millions of dollars, in a large part acquired while in office or with insider information after being in office. And the United States Government is Manipulated by Corporations and their CEOs, all led by the Bush Family, Millionaire Class, Conspiracy.  

      A CONSPIRACY, CONNECTING THE MULTIMILLIONAIRES, ONE WITH ANOTHER. And while the People of the Earth Watch. We the People of America join among the Powers of the Earth, using the Laws of the Constitution that Guarantee the Separate and Equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God Entitle Them.

      A DECENT respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which Impel them to the Separation and to charge High Treason.  

      WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL. That they are Endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among People, Deriving their Just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.  

      THAT WHENEVER ANY FORM of GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE of these Ends, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT. And then to Institute New Government, Void of Millionaires in Disproportionate Numbers to the Population, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  

      PRUDENCE, INDEED, WILL DICTATE that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that the People are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  

      THAT WHEN THE MILLIONAIRES RIDE THE LONG TRAIN OF ABUSES, OPPRESSION, CORRUPTION and MONOPOLY of the Election Process, a Design to Reduce the People under Tyranny and Eliminate the People's Ability to Participate in Elections, IT IS the PEOPLE'S RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT, and to provide New Guards for their Future Security.  

      SUCH HAS BEEN THE PATIENT SUFFERANCE OF THE PEOPLE of the United States; And such is Now the Necessity which Constrains them to Charge Treason and Conspiracy by Millionaires, Over the People. And Show how they Dishonor the Basic Law of Democracy, and the Intent of the Constitution of the United States.  

      THE HISTORY OF KING GEORGE III and now the Kingdom of George bush Family Political Business, is a smoke and mirror government of PROPAGANDA to protect the status quo and to Subsidize Environmental Degradation. And is a Blatant Attempt to return the United States of America to a Aristocracy, a Monarchy, a Dynasty, a Plutocracy.

      A Government BY THE MILLIONAIRES, FOR THE MILLIONAIRES, AND OF THE MILLIONAIRES, in direct opposite to the Constitutional Mandate to Form a More Perfect Union.  

      Millionaires having a Monopoly of Power is a History of Repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in Direct Object the Establishment of ABSOLUTE TYRANNY OVER THE PEOPLE of the United States of America and the World.    


      Continued at...
      ( or )

  •  Last line says it all (4.00)
    Nothing in the national consensus to combat terrorism after 9/11 envisioned the unilateral rewriting of more than 200 years of tradition and law by one president embarked on an ideological crusade.

    That last line says it all...

    "I got a letter from the Republican Party the other day. I wrote back, 'Go fuck yourself.'" - Bette Midler (Rolling Stone, 9/18/2005)

    by GregNYC on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:18:56 PM PST

  •  If they keep this up (none)
    they may redeem themselves for holding the spying story until after teh 2004 election. Maybe.

    The end is near for those who wait.

    by tc59 on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:18:56 PM PST

  •  *No* Judiciary Committee Dem... (4.00)
    ... (at least not that I heard) made any sort of comment or pointed out to Alito that it seemed rather incredulous (that's the diplomatic way of putting it) that Alito testified that ( a ) "Sure, the President must follow the law," but, uh, ( b ), (effectively) the President decides what the law will be and will self-define what "Executive Power" means.  Wellll, isn't that fascistically special!  And convenient.


    . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

    by BenGoshi on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:19:15 PM PST

    •  George Bush... (4.00)
      ...from freedom to tyranny in under two terms.  The fascist man alive!

    •  As of tonight... (4.00)
      ...I, Chumley declare myself Lord and King of All that Is.

      True, I am not above the law.  Of course not. Don't be silly -- when did I say that?

      But since I have decided that I am the only legitmate source of the law which I will then obey, I am merely acting as a humble servant of truth and justice when I say to you:


      •  No, no, no, of course you're . . . (4.00)

         . . . not "above" the law, you just get to say what is and is not the law within which you must stay.  I mean, after all, we are at war.


        . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

        by BenGoshi on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:46:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's all I'm sayin'!! (4.00)
          Thank you for understanding my eminently reasonable and humble position.  

          I don't think I'm "above the law" -- perish the thought!  I simply AM the law.  That's all.

          Now get bowing, everyone...

          •  Wait! I buhdydharama declare MYSELF (none)
            Lord and King of all that is!




            Shit. Now we have to invent civilization all over again.........again.

            Bout &^%#ing time NYT, you better keep it up, its now your job to take this guy that raped the gray lady DOWN>

            "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

            by buhdydharma on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 09:35:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Start borrowing? (4.00)
            DON'T mind if I do!  As soverign ruler I declare myself free and clear of any obligation and responsibility to repay debts taken in my name.

            I'm starting to like this omniscience gig!

            Who knew-- All you gotta do is throw out the rule of law, and the world is my oyster!

            AND HEY-- Keep yer grubby mitts off my oyster or I'll rendition your ass!

          •  Usurping imposter! To the dungeon with thee! (4.00)
            I declare myself High Holy Queen Kimberly the First.

            By the power vested in me by the Goddess, I declare myself Supreme Luscious Hellcat Empress of This and All Other Universes, World Without End, AWomen.

            My merest whim is edict.

            My word is scripture.

            I am the law. I am the judge. I am the jury. I could be the executioner, but I'm afraid I'd break a nail.

            All those who even think of disagreeing not only face imprisonment, but also excommunication.

            Now, for my first benificent and fabulous act of Empressdom, I declare that all good looking men shall not wear clothing in my presence.

            And one of you darlings get me a margarita, will you?

            That'll do for starters. We'll get to the rest later.

            •  I bow Before you, your assHoliness! (none)
              You're Loquaciousness has battered me bewildered back to Barstow to fetch frothy festive cocktails for ALL possessed of a pudenda!

              Or as bono put it

              if ya wanna kiss the sky ya gotta learn how to kneel

              I yield all claims and clothing

              "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

              by buhdydharma on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:24:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Hmm. (none)
              We have have to work something out.   Maybe split the planet 50-50?

              I'll have my wretched underlings talk to your wretched underlings.

              Like your style, though.    Omnipotence rulez, eh High Holy Queen?

    •  Invade Iran or Syria (none)
      WITHOUT CONGRESS's authorization.

      Alito did not distance himself from this interpretation of Bush's "constitutional" CiC powers!!

      Alito would sanction Bush unilaternal unchecked powerrs on war, domestic spying, torture, patronage mill/cronyism control over regulatory agencies, ..say whaaat?

      The D's brought all of this out, but not in a straegic and media friendly way - no message, no strategy.

  •  Wow (4.00)
    It sounds like it could have been written by someone at Daily Kos.

    Just ... wow.

  •  Welcome to Amerika... (4.00)
    Pretty soon the Party members will be wearing uniforms.  

    Peace in a world free of Religion, Peace in a world where everyone gets Heaven... -- Toni Halliday

    by Wintermute on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:19:35 PM PST

    •  In Soviet Washington.. (none)
      The uniforms wear you!
    •  Top-gun aviator kit? (none)
      Complete with hypertrophied codpiece and back-pack urine caddy? H'mm.
    •  The New Communists (none)
      American Communists in the 30's and 40's believed that their ideology was the truth.  Any statement that advanced the cause was therefore the truth.  The only lie was a statement that subverted the cause.  This was the NEW TRUTH.

      American Communists in the 30's and 40's always followed the dictates of their GREAT LEADER.  When the Great Leader changed directions, i.e. 1934 when he reversed course on whether Western Communists could ally themselves with progressives in their own country, and in August 1939 and June 1941 over Hitler, American Communists dutifully spouted the party line without questioning.

      The radical right today are the New Communists.  Their lies are not lies because their statements further their ultimate goals and therefore are the truth, the NEW TRUTH.  They never question their Great Leader but dutifully recite whatever He dictates.

      The difference is that the American Communists may have represented, at best 1 percent of the American adult population, the radical right today probably equals Bush's 40 percent poll numbers.

      Scalito will be a dutiful New Communist in implementing the Party Agenda.  

      Can't we get a single Democrat to start the filibuster?  If a single Senator can start with a never ending speech, maybe more will join in?

      "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars." William Jennings Bryan

      by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 06:13:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fantastic (none)
    Sounds like they are starting to come around!
  •  One Glaring Error (4.00)

     It's not an "ideological crusade" for Bush.  Maybe for Norquist or Brit Hume, but not Bush.  Bush has no more an "ideology" than a spoiled, tantrum-throwing, 4-year-old in need of a nap has an "ideology".


    . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

    by BenGoshi on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:23:08 PM PST

    •  Ultimate Trust-Funded Idiot Bully (none)
      How can Republicans abide by his imperialism? I am totally missing something.

      Are his real poll numbers at 25% but the wealthy 1% and their media just inflating them because profits have never been better?

      •  This may be huge (none)
         I think our little, out-of-the-way, comments here may portend what may, may, crack this thing down the middle, to wit:  if (and it's, admittedly, a big "If") the large swath of Libertarian-types, true Conservatives and Independents can manage to wrap their brains around the fact that one of their central tenents  --  paranoia over Gov't intrusion into their lives and control of the press and religion by a lawless Central Government (gee, as a Populist, I'm somewhat against those things, too, mind you!)  --  then the backlash from a substantial chunck of Bush's Base may, just may, be in the offing. . .

         So, have I qualified my prediction enough, do you think!

         Stay tuned.


        . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

        by BenGoshi on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 04:44:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I hear you (none)
          I have been wondering lately if the Republicans can be wedged apart by the distrust Bush and his totalitarian antics.

          Like most people, Republicans are very selfish and paranoid. Also they don't like to be called dumb. The Imperial Bush presidency threatens to label the Republicans as Imperial Loyalists.

          As a self-respecting Dem I am totally ready to play the part as one who is ready to argue and fight for freedom, not bow to a man who acts like he is above the law.

  •  Rec'd this in the mail today... (4.00)
    This is a statement sent out today by the Democratic candidate for Attorney General of Texas.  Oh, how I wish ALL our Democratic party officials would shout out these same sentiments 24/7 now until November!

    Government by lies, secrecy, and cronyism is not what the American Revolutionaries intended when they proclaimed government by the consent of the governed. The gangster Bushite machine is hellbent to subvert the Constitution. We cannot depend upon Washington political celebrities to save it. They are too invested in the established order to take down the Bushites. We the grassroots people have to do it. There is no  mystery as to what each of us as individuals and all of us as community can and must do. This is an election year. We have to remove the gangsters and their allies from every office, directly and specifically.  Each one of us must select one or more campaigns, whether of candidates or of political organizations, take grassroots ownership of the campaigns, and devote everything we can to victory. I have selected my pathway, each must select theirs.

    And the gravity of the Constitutional crisis demands that we do more than win specific elections. We must also transform the political process and replace it with what the founders intended. It is up to us, the grassroots American people, to rebuild self-governing democracy the way it is supposed to be: every citizen a 100% equal part owner of the government, and government serving the people.
    Let's do it right this time, and dismantle the whole corrupted political culture that led us down the path to Bushite government. Let's restore democracy to its owners, the people. No more of government by glad-handing lobbyists. No more of installing into public office lying hustlers who only want to use government to enrich themselves and their cronies. No more of government by pollsters or marketing consultants. No more government of, by, and for the political-corporate power elites of either party and their entourages of professional operatives. Our government does not belong to them.

    Our government belongs to "We the people" who talk in straight lines,  who say what we mean, who struggle through our daily routines, and who believe in our Constitution to give us a fair chance. We have the power to restore it. We do not have the luxury to indulge in cynicism or discouragement.. We have only the time to fight to take it back. We have no time to waste. Our forebears fought and won a revolution to establish government by consent of the governed. We have to fight and win a revolution to restore it. Fight through our grassroots campaigns, candidates, and organizations. Fight through our voices, our pens, our keyboards, our money, and our feet.  Fight all the time, fight every day. Never give in to defeatism, our greatest enemy. Never give up, but fight, fight, fight! Fight 'em til hell freezes over, then fight 'em on the ice.

    David Van Os

    Republican't Leadership is a dangerous combination of cut-backs and incompetence.

    by casamurphy on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:23:59 PM PST

  •  Astonishing (4.00)
    A counter-consensus is building.  

    I had my own blog for a while, but I decided to go back to just pointless, incessant barking. --Cartoon Dog, The New Yorker

    by markymarx on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:24:14 PM PST

  •  Hoorah! (none)
    The Times is to be commended.  They've come back to their senses, and I hope it means they're not looking back.

    "We, the people..." [shall] "establish justice!"

    by trupatriot on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:27:56 PM PST

  •  RIGHT ON TARGET ... Al will be talking about this (4.00)
    Hello Kos... Al will be talking about this monday


    Set your clocks & Stand By...

    WHAT: Major address by Al Gore

    WHEN: Monday, Jan. 16 at 12 p.m. (doors open at 10:30 a.m.)

    WHERE: DAR Constitution Hall, 1776 D Street, NW, Washington, D.C.


    Thank U,

  •  wah wah wah. (none)
    just win, baby. it's way too late for tears.
    winning cures everything.
  •  <checks emails> (4.00)
    I swear to god, Georgia, I sent that email to Sen. Nelson, not the NYT's!

    <checks again>


    The American taxpayers wouldn't object to free transportation for certain government officials if they'd go where we wish they would.

    by PatsBard on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:29:39 PM PST

  •  Great editorial by the TIMES (none)
    Right on target.

    Now they need to take the next logical step:  

    "For this reason, the Times strongly recommends that members of the U.S. Senate vote NO when asked to confirm Samuel Alito as the next Supreme Court Justice.  If that fails, we recommend a fillibuster.  

    The United States Constitution must not be destroyed by any one President's lust for power.  And Samuel Alito, who is too eager to make this President a King, must not be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court."

    •  asdf (none)
      You would think that Senators Carl Levin and John McCain would have learned by now that you cannot deal in good faith with a White House that does not act in good faith.

      You would fucking think by now the American people, those wondering who is going to last on Survivor, or if Pittsburgh will beat the Colts - you would fucking think that the American people would have a fucking clue what is happening to the rights that many of them have fought for.

      When will we know that the borders are closed??

  •  Stop whinning and start working!! (2.33)
    This blog is the biggest whinning post on the net. We all have to get out and elect a congress that will cause change for the better. All the crying will not change a poor choice of Kerry to run against Bush, and a lack of work on our part as democrats.
    •  No, it isn't (none)
      There are all sorts of whining to be found elsewhere. This is one of the most effective political community sites on the Web.

      It is disappointing to see what a mess the Democrats are making of a great opportunity. What has happened is that big money controls both parties. That is why we will see Hillary, or a Kerry reprise in 2008. Real change almost seems impossible. George Wallace, not one of my heroes, characterized the parties as Tweetledee and Tweetledum. Look what happened to him.

  •  Gotta give them props. Please (none)
    do so here - and it's important - so do so! Cite the piece!!

  •  I alwaysa gfot the impression (4.00)
    that Kennedy is one of the few people on the committee who is dead set against Alito and who knows how very important this appointment is. This could easuily shape the direction of the Supreme court for the next 10-20 years.


    Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

    by jurassicpork on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:47:46 PM PST

  •  It's about Oversight... (none)

    This is the single overriding issue for the current leadership of the country. On every issue power is to be private, sectret, unchecked. Plenary is the new word for absolute.

    Think about it. Harriet Miers was actually nominated to the Supreme Court. Why on earth? Because she was already in the tiny clique. All jobs belong to the few, the bigger the job, the closer the ideological relative required. Even now, with Miers and Rove publically outed, the former as a failure and the latter as a liar, Bush's circle only shrinks around its center.

    There has been, clearly, inarguably, a shift in power toward the Executive since W. took office. But the Congress has been Republican since 1994 and the concept of oversight was noticably differnet toward Clinton. So I conclude, I think fairly, that this shift in power demonstrates a much stronger confidence in President Bush than the Republicans felt in President Clinton. No kidding.

    But Bush isn't up for re-election and this shift in power isn't momentary. The Republicans are really, really down in the polls. But the agenda of the Permanent Republican Majority continues unabated. Delay's going down in a hail of criminal indictments and he's being replace by? This is reform?

    Why aren't they afraid of Democratic victories? Is it the same reason they can't fix the simple act of casting a vote? Because the vote can be massaged?

    Honestly, after 2000, how can there be federal elections without a paper record everywhere? Every bank machine transaction can handle it. I bank a hell of a lot more than I vote.

  •  If you are going to immunize the executive (4.00)
    and give it powers that are plenary, you damn well better not put it in the hands of ammoral assholes like George Bush, or corrupt ruthless scumbags like Dick Cheney.

    The Bush administration is the first in my feeble knowledge of history that invaded a country with essentially no military infrastructure to provide a profit center for their crooked cronies. So we have contracts without bids for Halliburton and deployments without end for soldiers. It will take a long time to reckon with the destruction that Bush and his sinister pals have caused to this country.

    I think it is a good idea to obstruct any decision Bush makes, just because he is Bush.

    •  Mexican-American War (none)

       That was pretty much a one-sided affair, started by us, for purely land-grabbing reasons.  And there was that ethnic cleansing (when ethnic cleansing was cool) thing also known as the Trail of Tears...

       But your point is well taken and, in fact, I think it's pretty freaking sad that this whole tragic episode would be comparable to the Mexican-American war.  


      . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

      by BenGoshi on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:56:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point (none)
        I guess Iraq is farther away, thus more opportunity for profit.

        My knowledge of history is weak, but I suppose there are plenty of examples to compare. The Spanish-American war is a good example of a newspaper war-mongering.

        It almost seems like Deja Vu with the war in Iraq compared to the Vietnam war. A Texas President, and Brown and Root sucking in the profit.

        •  Difference btwn you and . . . (none)
           . . . the Cult of Limbaugh (and the like):  you assert a historical truth that's not really inaccurate, just not necessarily "complete", or as "black and white" as you might think, and, when enlightened you say, "Ah ha!  Good point.  Afraid I'm a little weak in the 'history department.'"  No prob.

           Limbaugh, and Bush, and O'Reilly, etc. and their glassy-eyed followers assert a historical "truths" that're real Whoppers (from "Saddam was involved with 9.11" to "Bush received a majority of votes in the general election in 2000", to "Jefferson was a 'Republican'", to about every sentence uttered by Limbaugh on his radio show) and either ( a ) stick their fingers in their ears and sing "La, la, la" so they can't hear anything contrary to such BS, or ( b ) when corrected get all:  "That's just your liberal opinion!  What, did Hillary or Barbara Streisand teach you how to say that?!"

           Bunch of putzes.


          . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

          by BenGoshi on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 04:33:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Read Howard Zinn's (none)
          "A people's History of the United States: 1492 - preseent".

          That should fill the gaps in your knowledge and correct the misinformation you may have gotten as a result of an ideological and/or poor educational system.

    •  Wrong answer (2.00)
      Opposing anything Bush does simply because he is Bush is not the right direction to go in. Then the claims that the Democratic party is the party of obstructionism and hatred would prove correct.

      I'm a registered independent, I'm partial to ideas, not one party or another or even one candidate or another.

      Opposing everything a person stands for, even if they have a good idea every once and while (you can make your own judgment on that), shows an inability to reason. It shows that you have been consumed by emotion at the expense of thought.

      I don't want to be ruled by kings, whether those be in the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, or the Legislative Branch. I want the executive and the legislative to be answerable to the people (although I believe the judiciary should be independent and not directly answerable to the people). For independents such as myself, it takes ideas to persuade us, not the word "NO!"

      •  nice cast, are they biting today? (none)
        if you've spent ten minutes on this site with a half open mind....

        "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

        by buhdydharma on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 09:45:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm new here (3.66)
          I'm new to this site, and I have been spending a lot of time here. I also spend some time at sites devoted to the opposite line of thinking. I'm open to multiple points of view. There are those on this site, who would like to shun me from the picture (and have given me a 0 on some of my postings in order to hide them).

          I came here with an open mind, and if people choose to berate a self-proclaimed independent who wishes to expand their point of view, that won't serve their interests in the long-run.

          Don't take it for granted that everyone agrees with you. You can take a look at the poll numbers, Americans are divided on a lot of issues. On some they support Bush, on some they don't. If you take the view that "either you agree with me, or you're an idiot and not worth talking to" -- then you've given up your cause. I hate to break it to you, but the Democrats do not have control of any branch of government right now.

          This is not the time to be giving up on the cause. I don't want to see a one-party system either. The Republicans have shown themselves not to be the party of principle they claim to be, and I wouldn't trust them running the scenes forever and ever. But if you don't want that to happen, you need to not give up, and not simply label anyone who you assume disagrees with you on a particular issue as not being "open-minded." I'm not sure what lead you to that conclusion about me, but if you'd like to enlighten me, I stand waiting.

          •  Look around , The ideas on this site are thicker (none)
            For independents such as myself, it takes ideas to persuade us, not the word "NO!"

            by moreon on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:30:16 PM PDT


            than flies. If you can't get what your looking for on the front page go to DKospedia type in a subject. press search

            "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

            by buhdydharma on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:30:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I want to go on record (none)
        that I oppose everything that George Bush stands for. I never would have voted for him under any circumstances, but when 9-11 happened, I felt it appropriate to stand united with the leadership of this country.

        Well, things have changed a bit, haven't they? with a phony war that has killed and maimed thousands of US citizens, and has resulted in the deaths of an estimated 100,000 + of the Iraqi pupulace. Then, I suppose that we could address the corporate cronyism, corruption in the Republican House, foreign policy that borders on the bizarre, a willful and systematic erosion of environmental regulations, the fucked-up response to Katrina. ...Do you want me to continue?

        Do you really expect a rational person to embrace ANY of his ideas?

        Count me out.


        and regards,


  •  Thank you Georgia10 (none)
    for posting a positive article.

    The Dems are pissed
    Harry Reid will filibuster... pass it on

    The GOP rushed us into war, we won't be rushed into Monarchy.

    by Will the Organizer on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:50:31 PM PST

  •  But you know what? (3.50)
    This is the thousandth time I've read just this kind of statement, and you know what?  When the sun comes up tomorrow morning, George returns to the saddle.  I'm getting kind of fried.
    •  He'd appoint his horse to the Senate (none)
      ... if the Connecticut Cowboy weren't actually afraid to get near one of the beasts.
      The reckless imperiousness of a horsey appointment is in keeping with the Mad King's new, self-endowed powers though.

      If conservatives are today's mainstream, why all the weaseling? Anyone? Bueller? scAlito?

      by Peanut on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:33:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He rides no horses (none)
      he hates horses - (or they hate him) and I don't think there has ever been a photo of him on a horse.

      He may have a jeweled saddle somewhere.

      He has two interests and hobbies, there is no creative or living thing he induldges in.
      He is a shell of a person.

      • Clear brush (he does this poorly)

      • Ride bike   (he does this poorly)

      Side note:

      How many days will it take after he's out of office for him to be drunk in public and drinking?
      I say around three days.

      He will crack up. It will happen.

      Sooner .. or later.

  •  Plenty On The Line With Alito (none)
    A filibuster will put it into perspective for the 60% of Americans who aren't buying Bush's line but still don't see how Alito fits into the big picture.
  •  Just maybe the NYT (none)
    is sick and tired of being bullied, blackmailed, pushed and shoved by King George and his minions.

    May many many more, standn up and speak out.

    We see how they use the press, while out of the other side of their mouth they deride the press for being "too liberal".

    Call out the hacks how are twisting the facts!

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:52:45 PM PST

  •  La loi, c'est moi (none)

    "I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax." Thoreau

    by NearlyNormal on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:53:22 PM PST

  •  The signs are all around us! (none)
    It sure looks like Bush isn't preparing to leave office on January 20, 2009.  My guess is, he'll pull some rabbit out of his hat to permanently install himself as emperor.  After all, we are an empire now... and what's an empire without an emperor?

    These people don't know what war is.... yet.

  •  Exactly the sort of Alitism I fear (4.00)
    I put it in the diary I posted the other day, "Fight, or lose", among a few other items.

    To regurgitate (apparently ad infinitem):

    The Alito nomination was never about serving the interests of the nation.  Instead, Alito's placement on the Supreme Court is critical to the protectionism and strategy of the Bush Administration & GOP in several ways.
    • It serves the extreme RRR agenda as it will take away a woman's right to choose
    • It stacks the court, virtually guaranteeing future stolen elections like the 2000 fiasco as well as quelling investigations into Presidential abuse of power
    • A stacked court is also likely to hold the President as "above the law" of the land and the established guiding principles of the Constitution
    • A "spun" court will also reduce the chance of any justice in the criminal indictment of the Administration and their ardently supportive (and equally guilty, albeit on some of their very own scandalous behaviour) GOP leadership
    • The "GOP Court" would be a true "kangaroo court", in the sense that corporate and military-industrial interests would prevail over the rights and liberties of citizens in blatanly unConstitutional actions

    I think it would be a really bad idea to let Alito get on the court.

    I also strongly believe that before any vote is taken, George is forced to wait on the investigations to complete.

    Last item: recusal.

    I would love to find some way to bind Roberts and Alito from ruling in any case dealing with current, ongoing investigations of this Presidency.

    OK - one more thing, since I'm already dreaming: I think Cheney should be immune from pardon, as well as anyone who previously received one under George I.  And Bush should not be allowed to give pardons on any investigation that touches the Administration until his own complicity is determined, and status established.  If he is complicit and in line for impeachment, trial, conviction, and subsequent federal charges, then he should be unable to interfere with the ongoing cases by pardoning the perps.  He should, in essence, be forced to enact a "Presidential recusal".

    There.  I'm reading to take my evening meds...I think a double-shot with a stiff chaser should do...

    •  I'm checking on pitchforks, (4.00)
      know any good torch sites?

      "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

      by buhdydharma on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 09:49:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nah - I make my own (none)
        They are inspired from my days as a young lad with a habit of experimenting with stuff.  Standard flame on top, plus hollowed out interior to launch roman candle like balls of fire at the flick of a switch, if I need to make a point.

        First made many many years ago, as a staff for Halloween trick-or-treating, when I wanted to meander about unescorted and hang in the background, keeping an eye on my younger brothers.  (Some of the more 'disturbed' teens were rumored to be taking real blade weapons with them.  They were.  But they thought I was crazier.  I suspect I still am.)

        :) many would ya like?

        •  Whats yur production capacity? (none)
          Shit we should've hooked up before Xmas  and put together the DKos Torch n' Pitchfork set!

          Know any venture capitalists?

          "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

          by buhdydharma on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:04:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Redistricting Case (none)
      Having gone through the horrific DeLay schemed redistricting of Texas, Alito will most assuredly rule that this was not a case of gerrymandering.  Then watch how other States redraw their districts eliminating Democratic seats exactly like what happened in Texas.  Another reason why Alito's confirmation would be dangerous for Democracy.  And of course, Dumbya will never be held accountable for anything.

      ...and they passed in thought out to regions where pain and delight flow together and tears are the very wine of blessedness.

      by rlharry on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:37:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hmmm. Bush has already had one (none)
      election given to him by the Supreme's. I guess he learned how useful they can be. He certainly hasnt got any worries about his war crimes, corruption, abuse of power and lying with yhe likes of Alito, Scalia and Thomas on the court.
      •  And our cleanup work becomes (none)
        much more difficult, as we'd then have to impeach Alito - and probably Roberts - from the Court once we're able to yank Dubya from office.

        IF we're able to - doesn't SCOTUS have to rule on such a thing?  (At least, on the trial aspect of the impeachment if the Executive is convicted?)

  •  unlike the @^%#@^%#@t Washington Post (none)
    Read it and weep.

    I had my own blog for a while, but I decided to go back to just pointless, incessant barking. --Cartoon Dog, The New Yorker

    by markymarx on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:58:34 PM PST

    •  Bleccchhhhh! n/t (none)

      We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor -The Declaration of Independence

      by occams hatchet on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 09:54:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What a crock (none)
      Great editorial.  After they cite a list of stuff that "troubles" them about Alito, they recommend his confirmation because he's in "the mainstream."

      In other words, Alito is no more of a corporate toady than Scalia or Thomas.  And since Bush said that's the kind of person he was going to nominate, the Dems should roll over and confirm him.

      This is PRECISELY why we need to filibuster.  If Alito gets confirmed and, God forbid, Stevens drops dead, this argument gets thrown back in our faces again about some other hack.  "Hey, there's already 3 guys who'll never rule in favor of an individual in a case against a corporation, so go ahead and confirm another one."

      "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Steven Wright

      by gsbadj on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:38:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A firmbeleiver nt he DIvine RIght of Kings (none)
    and "Apres moi, le deluge."

    I always hated the French Revolution. Neber coudludnerstand the tricoteuses knitting a teh foot of the guillotine.  But about know, I may start hummign the marseillaise and taking up knitting.

    Right now I am identifyign with the students at the barricdes in Les Miserables....I hope I can stay ther rather than identifyign withMMe. Defarge.

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 09:01:06 PM PST

  •  Finally, Putting The Pieces Together (4.00)
    Why do you think Harriet Myers was Bush's first choice for the swing vote seat on the SC?  Rove knew that some of the crap they were pulling would eventually end up in court cases before the SC.  So who better to have as the swing vote in such cases but Myers, Bush's White House Counsel who has been quoted as saying Bush is the most intelligent man she has ever known. (God, don't you just wish that someone could come up with a Myer's dress that has Bush tracks on it.)

    Now Bush didn't get Myers which was his "sure thing" ticket to unlimited power, but it looks like he is going to get Alito, which is the next best thing.  While Alito may lack Myer's admiration of Bush, there is little indication that he would rule to check Bush's Presidential power.

    Wake up folks!  After the Supreme Courts decision in Bush v. Gore which almost every Constitutional expert has said is baseless and laughable, we need to realize that anything is possible.  With Alito on the court and his 4 other partners, I think Bush will feel confident in the unconstitutional actions he has taken so far, and emboldend to take more.

    However, I pray that I'm wrong for the sake of this country.

  •  Wolf Moon (4.00)
     Tonight is a full moon, the 'wolf moon' as it is called by some of the people who were here earlier.  It is an interesting night in an interesting time.  The New York Times, the old grey lady, the newspaper of record is on record saying that this mutha fuka is crazy and is endagering our very basic freedoms.  Well, whoopdee doo!  There is a better day a-comin'!  Now all we have to do is find someone to lead the parade to the front gates of the White House and politely explain that; "You don't live here any more."  Perhaps I am howling at the moon, but today a friend and I sat down and talked about what we would want the next President of the United States to tell us.  Being older guys Universal Health Care was at the top of the list. Getting our kids the hell out of the line of fire was number two. Trying to explain how this happened in our country to the rest of the world and promising that it is over is number three.  Number four is cleaning up the damage to the environment, the economy, and the Constitutional Rights that have been abused by this administration. Then maybe we get the best and brightest young and old folks to figure out how we can have a sustainable energy supply. Perhaps some serious thought about infastucture and how this thing called America really works these days.  Education is always the key. Every kid in this country that can do the work should be allowed to finish college and we the people should pay for it. Corporations have all the rights of citizens and none of the responsiblities, this has to change. Corporations are made up of people and people have a responisbility as citizens to speak up when things are going terribly wrong.
    The same is true of government employee's. A democratic government is a transparent government.  We all get to see what we are doing.  
      I've had this list for a while and I think we can get them done before I go if democracy works like it's suppose to.  Actually I only have three rules that if followed would bring universal peace and happiness to all;

    Rule #1 Everybody eats
    Rule #2 Nobody hits
    Rule #3 There is no third rule

    Peace & Impeachment in '06

  •  I hope Sandra Day is proud of her vote (4.00)
    on Bush v. Gore.  

    Republicans to Americans: "Are there no prisons?...And the Union workhouses?...Are they still in operation?"

    by adigal on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 09:15:28 PM PST

  •  Where the fuck (none)
    did this idea of three co-equal branches of Government come from.?I kinda blame John Marshall and Abraham Lincoln for this, but that's just me. The Connstitution clearly, to my way of thinking, envisages the Executive as a branch that EXECUTES, that is, it carries out the will of the Congress. The idea was that Congress could go home and let the poor sap who had to be President take care of business while they were having sex with their slaves or whatever those guys did back then. The Judiciary was there to make sure that the Congress acted in accord with the Constitution, and to ensure that citizens had some way of stopping the Congress from fucking them in the ass. That's it. Since when did we start electing a King? It's kind of weird that a Consitution based on the Roman Republic should bring about a Roman Empire. Hegel, man, I totally misjudged you, bro'.
    •  disingenuous (none)
      Actually, there's an entire article of the Constitution devoted to powers of the Executive, it's called Article II.

      You can read it here:

      Article II

      We're not supposed to have a king, but we do have more than a figure-head.

      The President is elected by the people, and it makes sense, to me at least, that he gets certain powers that go along with that.

      If the President executed soley to execute the laws that Congress passed, then there's really no point in someone being elected by the people. Congress may as well just appoint someone to take care of that business.

      The debate over executive authority is one that our founding father's had, and this seems like a good time in history to be having it again. But I think it's important that the debate be fair and honest.

    •  My problem with this... (none)
      ... is that the wingers make an ENORMOUS stink over judges not making law.

      Then they claim that the Executive can do it?  Hypocrites.

      "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Steven Wright

      by gsbadj on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:42:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Co-equal NOT (none)
      There are two misconceptions currently active in this land, one that the President is Commander-in Chief of us all, and the other that the US executive and legislative branches are co-equal. One is as false as the other.

      Any thoughtful reading of Articles One and Two of the US Constitutionwill show that the Congress has the responsibility to determine how this country should be governed, and it is then the President's job, with his executive departments, to execute (carry out) those policies and programs.

      There is nothing in the Constitution that states that the two branches are co-equal. It states that the Congress is responsible for the common defense and the general welfare, for raising, supporting and regulating military forces, for declaring war, and many other responsibilities. The President is responsible for accomplishing what is required, and is commander of the military forces in wartime.

      The concept of an imperial presidency, like the one for executive privilege, is a mistaken attempt to take the US back to the old European royal system, which our Constitution was designed to counter in its wording describing the workings of a democratic republic.

      "War is a racket . . .the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives" . . . Smedley Butler

      by DonB on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:07:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  above the law (none)
    In Roman  law, the technical term was solutus legibus,  the emperor was freed from the laws, which is  more like what  GW Caesar thinks  is his  condition than above them.
    BTW,  why does  the NYTimes want Mrs. Alito  to  cry again?
    •  Simple - (none)
      why does  the NYTimes want Mrs. Alito  to  cry again?

      Because the the NYT hates America, and the troops, and wants to help the enemy.

      We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor -The Declaration of Independence

      by occams hatchet on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:04:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wooo Hooo! The Old Grey Lady (none)
    is back in top form.

    <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

    by bronte17 on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 09:59:33 PM PST

  •  Been doing some research. (none)
    Looking at the Senate roll call voting on SCOTUS nominees, I have found three models: the Neoinstitutional, the Attitudinal Model and the Legal Model.

    We develop and test a neoinstitutional model of Senate roll call voting on nominees to the Supreme Court. The statistical model assumes that Senators examine the characteristics of nominees and use their roll call votes to establish an electorally attractive position on the nominees. The model is tested with probit estimates on the 2,054 confirmation votes from Earl Warren to Anthony Kennedy. The model performs remarkably well in predicting the individual votes of Senators to confirm or reject nominees. Senators routinely vote to confirm nominees who are perceived as well qualified and ideologically proximate to Senators' constituents. When nominees are less well qualified and are relatively distant, however, Senators' votes depend to a large degree on the political environment, especially the status of the president.

    Former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork provides the best The Legal Model do with the Senate's refusal to confirm Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987. ...

    Okay, then there's the interpretivism of Bork.  Where's pyrrho?

    <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

    by bronte17 on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:17:39 PM PST

  •  What Part of That Editorial (none)
    does not imply "remove Bush at once?"

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:25:24 PM PST

    •  Problem is, they can't bring themselves (none)
      to do anything more than imply.  If they actually state their views clearly and follow those views to the logical conclusion of filibuster and impeachment, they think they'll seem crazy or traitorious.  

      A little discussion of caveat-laden political discourse from today here.  George Orwell's cogent little piece, Politics and the English Language, here.

      Just because we can, that doesn't mean we should.

      by Simplify on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 01:04:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  For all their fuck-ups... (none)
    the NYT sometimes comes through like a locomotive.

    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

    by Five of Diamonds on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:54:16 PM PST

  •  No filibuster no money! (4.00)
    The Democrats need to show that they are willing to fight for something...anything. Filibustering Alito is so important to the future of the country that I think it should be made clear to all of the Democratic senators, especially those in need of a spine, that if there is no filibuster they will receive no money and no support from many, many Democrats and Independents.


  •  I wonder what will happen to Alito's theories (none)
    on imperial presidential power when that president is a Democrat?

    I'll bet he's already planning on having a change of heart in about three years' time...

    <div style="color: gray; font-size: 80%">(-7.88, -8.97)</div>

    by Abou Ben Adhem on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 11:05:01 PM PST

  •  Front Page/Editorial Page...SHAME (none)
    OK, the editorial is FINE - but note the subheading on the FRONT PAGE story about alito says:  "Success of Alito Gives Opponents Little Hope for Stemming Tide"

    So WHAT - NYT - you frame the Alito confirmations on the editorial page as a NATIONAL EMERGENCY - and on the front page story - (with very MODESTLY sized headline, I must say - overshadowed by a big picture of Bahrain) as a foregone defeat for the Dems?

    WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE? How can they minimalize a story on the FRONT page that they says is a CRISIS that Dems must fight in the editorial page?!!!

    Any journalists with any sense of ethics at the NYT should just WALK OUT IN PROTEST NOW.

  •  Now that the toothpaste is out of the tube... (none)
    the Times wants to put in back in.  They looked past Bush's mendacity.  They knew about the spying and did not expose it before the election.  Now Alito and Roberts will be on the Court.  Like someone said above, too little and way too late!
  •  There is no Tooth Fairy (none)
    A Carlyle Group insider has begun to talk about the turkeys at the top of the feeding chain. January 14, 2005 report

    NYT, having changed the definition of a NY minute, missed the big scoop by a mile.

  •  Any chance McCain would vote NO? (none)
    using the same rationale - that he can't trust the administration - that the NYT points out?

    This would surely be an interesting development.

  •  the "imperial presidency" (none)
    I certainly wish that people would stop using the term ideology or ideological when referring to the Bush administration members.  

    The only time that the term ideological applies is when another idea winds its way out of a right wing think tank that is so far from logical, scientific or even rational that the only explantion for their deceptive conclusions is that they cannot be brought on by stupidity so it must be ideological. The administration USEs ideology to manipulate their hapless followers, nothing else.

    Those who object to the pretense of an "imperial presidency" need to drop the phrase because it does not exist except in a hopeful dictator's mind.  The founding fathers did not forget that there is no human being who can be trusted with that much power.  None.

    The president is the top civil servant, (not ruler,) in relation to the civilian population.  The president is only the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, not everyone, everywhere.  

    When thinking in terms of "extraordinary" presidential powers think of mobilizing the business sector to work with the government against a common enemy whose intent is to take over the world and rob Americans of their civil rights.  Why does that theme seem so familiar?

    It is not the right to slander another person, nor the right to steal from the people. It is not a right to take the country into an illegal war so that a few men and women can profit, nor is there a right to reveal covert operatives' names no matter how many "insiders" know it.  The two parties that were not supposed to know, the public at large and the enemy, did not.  

    There exists no "RIGHT" for the president to break the law.  No right to torture.   No right to wire-tap everyone, (innocent and guilty alike.)  While it is possible to argue that innocent adults do not exist, it is a theological discussion not a legal one.

    The power-mongers want it that way, but it is still becoming that way.  Of course, the only reason the corporate world wants it that way is because they have an illegitimate lapdog bowing to their every whim as he pretends to run things.  

    Imagine the caustic headlines that would exist if the U.S. had a president who actually fulfilled his role to protect the American people rather see them as an expendible resource. If we consider one person an expendible then we all are.  It removes the relevance of being free.

    There currently is no president of the United States.  The criminal occupying that role was a member of a capitalist cabal that undermined democracy and trashed the Constitution for power.  

    This government is not television actors playing out scripted fantasies.  It is a criminal organization with a well thought out plan to conquer the American people.

    The failure of the response to Hurricane Katrina was not a failure at all.  The administration had a different plan, under the Department of Homeland Security, for dealing with the aftermath of a natural disaster.  The DHS response to a natural disaster is to suppress civilian unrest.  

    FEMA was a service to the public intended to provide disaster relief, and is why it was delegated to such a low priority under DHS.  FEMA may have been given the role as a contractor responsible for the building of underground bunkers or similar nonsense.

    It was a difference in priorities that made the government appear to be ineffective, because the federal government did respond appropriately, if one thinks in terms of suppressing civilian unrest as appropriate.  In some instances it could be, but not this one.

    What is demented about the sordid indifference was that the racists controlling the media started to report about looting and rioting that did not take place, but it was what the little piggies "BELIEVED" would transpire with all those "poor" people abandoned to their own resources.

    It is troubling the way people continue to accept news reporting as fact rather than what it has become -- entertainment and manipulation.  The news media are useless to the American people, because only a news media that informs citizens protects their freedom.  That responsibility, it is obvious, is no longer taken seriously by reporters and the organizations where they work.  

    When 60 Minutes was first introduced to network television it lost money, but in-depth investigative reporting by a major news organization served a public service, so 60 Minutes ran for a few years in the red until at one point it became the most widely viewed news program in the country.

    Money is the only priority of today's news organizations and that priority keeps reporters' curiosity in chains.

    The delays and inadequate response were due to the priorities of a criminal government.  It is a government that perceives the majority of Americans as the enemy.  It is this perception that makes our government a criminal one.  If there is going to be any fighting or killing going on by our government it should be in defense of our freedom not for the suppression of it.

    The planned murderous response to the days following Hurricane Katrina was to serve as a lesson to all of us, about what happens to people who do not remain passive and obedient.  

    One can thank whatever positive forces exist in nature that reporters were on the ground at the center of the devastation providing the truth as they saw it.  Sometimes the difference in reporting between the reporters who were in the field and those who were in their network's studios was remarkable.  

    Racist attitudes were abundant, but they came through the reporters not out of them.  The racist slant was already written into some of their scripts.  Play back some video if you recorded it and take note of the difference in perception of the events as they unfolded along the Gulf Coast.  If there are transcripts available compare them, and it is obvious where the networks went with it as opposed to reporters in the field.  

    One stark contrast was that those in the field had simpatico for those who were suffering; the studio reporter's sympathies were with the government or law enforcement in general.

    A doctor on a cell phone in the New Orleans county hospital reported, after two days of studio reporters making claims of wide-spread lawlessness, looting and gun fire, that he heard only one gun go off, if the sound he heard was, in fact, a gun shot and that was all.  

    People seeking necessities for life did much of the "wide-spread" looting.  Certainly, a few young men saw the disaster as an opportunity to steal some items they only dreamed of ever owning.  Considering the disparity between those who can afford expensive electronic components and those who cannot, it was amazing that there were so few stealing whatever luxuries they were able to get their hands on.  

    In addition, when one takes into consideration the tragedy that was going on all around the people stranded in the lower ninth ward the majority behaved like law-abiding citizens.  

    They did not fulfill their roles, as the mainstream media reported them.  An anticipation that was the result of racist beliefs in the msm's executive offices caused some of the terrible reporting that at one point would have been responsible for increased criminal behavior by making it seem widespread, (possibly creating a band wagon effect,) rather than several isolated incidents.  Fortunately, the victims of Hurricane Katrina did not have televisions to influence their civil and responsible behavior, (something the msm had not thought about.)

    How many times does the msm have to lie to the American people before the people get it?  The media lied about Iraq.  They lied about Social Security.  They lied about the Medicare Bill.  They lied about the tax-cut.  They lied about the budget.  They lied about Rep. Murtha's point of view.  They lie about the democrats, and they give the same weight to a lie as they do to the facts, (lowering the validity of the facts and elevating the lie.)  

    The arrogance in the complicit agreement that it was now OK to lie to the American people, in a manner that is disgraceful, points out how unrealistic and unreasonable those whose opinions hold weight, have changed our government for the worse.

    A friend, whose heritage is Mexican, told me that he hated the patriarchal viewpoint of the Mexican culture.  He said that for years he observed his family struggle in poverty because his mother's rational thoughts were ignored, while his pig-headed father's opinions were dominant, even though his decisions unnecessarily kept them living in penury .  

    The conclusions arrived at by the powerful or influential are only as good as the methods used to reach them.  Their ideas should not be automatically accepted because of their position. There is no magic or extraterrestrial force, just the right answers or high probability ones.

    If possible, we should discard the concept of an imperial presidency.  The founders discussed it and rejected the idea.  We should also discard any notion that the president is aristocratically or divinely inspired; therefore he cannot choose which laws to obey.  No such provision exists in the Constitution.

    We must always remain cognizant of the fact that the mainstream media has become the propaganda arm of the current administration; often taking on the viewpoint of the right wing only to see it blow-up in their faces.  Then they make some excuse for it, and continue doing the same thing.

    Ever since leaders have agreed to the concept that "reality is what they tell us it is," our nation has been falling down the slippery slope of lost integrity, trust, dignity, objectivity and stature in the world.  

    Our media and government have lost the valuable sense that our decisions carry the weight of precision rather than that of simply another opinion or con coming down the highway that needs to be shoved down their throats, because the conclusion is so alien to anyone who is rational.

    We must remember that these people are not ideological, but that they are criminals who use ideology as a tool.

    "I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves." Ludwig Wittgenstein

    by elephty on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 03:29:29 AM PST

  •  Thanks NY Times (none)
    too bad you haven't been paying attention the last five years, now because of your unprofessionalism and lack of ethics it may be too late for America and the fourth estate, hey, maybe thats why the turn around now, thanks again NY Times for nothing.
  •  NYT missed my favorite ScAlito moment (none)
    My favorite ScAlito moment came when ScAlito refused to answer that it violates the US Constitution to execute the innocent.  And while I am on the subject why is it the catholics on the Court are the least likely to agree with the Pope on criminal justice issues like the death penalty?

    "Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living."

    by Kwyjibo on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 05:18:24 AM PST

  •  Too little, too late, from the cowardly... (none)
    ...Gray Lady.

    She seems more and more like a careerist, unprincipled, metaphorical gold-digger every year.

    Such a shame to witness the utter decline of such a previous doyen of culture.

    <div style="border:2px;padding:4px;border-style:dotted;"> You want to downsize the government?
    Fuck you. My government defends the American people.<

    by deafmetal on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:27:51 AM PST

  •  fuhrerprincip (none)
    I'm surprised the word fuhrerprincip isn't being applied to the benign-sounding and arcane notion of unitary executive.  Most Americans probably associate unitary powers with being a Unitarian.  Fuhrerprincip has only one connotation, and an apt one.

    The next question is: why choose to assert unitary executive powers when the executive in power is this nincompoop?

  •  But the NYT avoids the big question (none)
    Should there be a filibuster?

    As is so often the case, the NYT Editorial Board talks tough, but doesn't follow through with a punch.

  •  Alito and CAP Members (none)
    Alito stayed in CAP for 15 years? Then he put it on his resume to get a job in the Reagan administration? Yet he doesn't remember much about it. Hmmm! Maybe he thought could give him status. Can anyone find me a list of CAP members?
  •  Ex Post Facto (none)
    The administration has Berto trying to make the habeas bill and ex post facto law, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.

    They might as well just write an ex post facto constitution that places all government  power in the executive branch and ratify it themselves.

    Drop in on Pen and Sword. "No nation has ever benefited from protracted war." - Sun Tzu

    by Jeff Huber on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:26:34 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site