Anyone ever accidentally take a nap late in the day and then wake up around 10:00 and 1) forget what day it is; and 2.) feel refressed and happy until you remember all the garbage you should have been doing instead of sleeping. I feel like that.
Hey, you know what's terrifying? Bird Flu, but don't worry, it'll be okay. These guys are great at handling crises (see, e.g., Katrina, Rita, Wilma, the economy, and Iraq.). I mean, these guys love managing crises so much so that--if there isn't one--they invent one (see, e.g., social security).
Anyway, a close second to a possible bird flu pandemic is Samuel Alito. Let's put it this way: if this was 100 years ago, I'd probably support him. I mean, individual rights--pshaw!--that's so...well...2005. To wit:
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]
At least he's consistent. A cursory look at some of his decisions reveals an activism of the most dangerous kind--actually narrowing and gutting statutes, completely subverting legislative intent. Oh yeah, he also loves Rosa Parks too! Or maybe he just like photo ops. I wonder how Ms. Parks would feel about Bray.
Lastly, today I actually felt quasi-proud of the Democrats in the Senate for forcing a closed session to demand finally accountability for the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war. The conservative talking point is that this was sort of a Democratic stunt because they're disappointed that there wasn't more fallout from last week's Miers/Libby fallout. That strikes me as probably partially true but it's good to see some backbone, and I appreciate the opportunity to see Frist get angry, via Bloodless Coup.This--combined with the House Democrats chanting "Shame!" on the floor last month--makes me think these guys haven't given up completely yet.