Congrats Justice Alito. Please ignore the liberal children. Someone forgot the ritalin shipment order. We gave them some pots and pans to bang in the meantime, but they ran away. Who knows where they may turn up. They are very poorly mannered, so if anyone runs across the special ed, I mean, democrat brats, please let us know. I wouldn't approach them. They can be very nasty when they don't get their way.

Congrats Justice Alito. Please ignore the liberal children. Someone forgot the ritalin shipment order. We gave them some pots and pans to bang in the meantime, but they ran away. Who knows where they may turn up. They are very poorly mannered, so if anyone runs across the special ed, I mean, democrat brats, please let us know. I wouldn't approach them. They can be very nasty when they don't get their way.

Re: Karen above

A conservative calling Liberals nasty takes more gall than even the nastiest of them can usually call forth. Alito is extreme and this country will regret having him on the court.

Karen,

You are the reason there is so much hate and discontent in this country. People like you on the right AND the left. We need to start the heeling process by disagreeing with civility. The infantile name-calling and finger-pointing has to stop. I congratulate Judge Alito even though I don't completely agree with him. I think he is immensly qualified and will make a fine justice, I simply disagree with some of his views. That is disagreeing with civility Karen. You should try it out.

Jack,

While taking Karen to task for her "incivility" I notice you didn't mention a word about the truly unhinged lefties running around this blog making comments far more incendiary comments.

I'm all for the civility but I've been PERSONALLY called far worse than a ritalin-deprived child by your compatriots for simply and civily supporting Justice Alito's nomination from the slings and arrows of Teddy Kennedy.

Almost # 5 (set to the tune of Mambo #5)

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Almost # 5

One, two, three, four, five
Everybody on the court, so come on
Let's ride to the United States Reporter
The Dems threaten filibusters
But they're really not gonna
Follow up on what they said this week
Our bench is deep
And their talk is cheap

I like Antonin, Clarence, John G. and Alito
And as I continue you know
This is only getting sweeter
So what can I do, I really beg you my Lord
To give us one more vote, anyone will fly
(Except Miers, in that case dump it)
Please set in the trumpet

Chorus:

Alito bit of Janice in my life
Alito bit of Priscilla by my side
Alito bit of Karen Williams is all I need
Alito bit of the Ediths is what I see
Alito bit of Sandra in the (setting) sun!!!
Alito bit of Dinh all century long
Alito bit of Estrada here I am
Alito bit of McConnell makes you the man

And jump up and down, go and move it all around
Shake your head to the sound
Put your hand on the ground
Take one step right
Please, just one more right!!!
Clap your hands once
And clap your hands twice
And if it overrules Roe,
Then you're doing it right.

Please stop celebrating, it only annoys the lunatic fringe,or goads it on, depending on which fringe we're talking about. If civility is a goal, then everyone, both right and left, should embrace it. I've heard enough political bickering over this to last a lifetime.

That's pretty funny Almost #5.

What's even more humorous though is that people keep getting whipped up about these nominations. I swear, we're all like Pavlov's dogs, and for what? All we've done over the last 6 months is ensure that reproduction rights will continue to dominate our political arena, and the people who run those organizations will therefore choose our government. Period. They have the money, they endorse the candidates. Republican pro-choice? Sorry, no money for you. Democrat pro-life? Nope. Come to our side of the fence and we will open our coffers to you, stay where you are and will bury you in money and ads. Doesn't matter if you're qualified or not.

Just think if we spent all that time and money on something like education, job reform or health care. Abortion? Shit, 40+ million people in this country don't even have health care.

Make a national law or throw it back to the states, continuing on this way is unacceptable. Let's put those nut job fund raisers on both sides out of business.

Yeah! Let's all get together. Let's go over to Arlington and wh00p it up. Drinks for the Reps and the Dems. Er, anybody got any money? Well then, how about a fundraiser?

The Supreme Court exists, in part, to adjudicate conflicts relating to our basic rights and liberties. It exists to make decisions about conflicts like Roe v Wade and Brown V Board of Education.

In Roe, the question asked was whether the state's interest in protecting the life and liberty of the fetus trumps the interest of a pregnant woman in controlling her body - her own reproductive system.

In Brown, the court was asked whether separate but equal school systems for white and black students amounted to equal protection under the law.

In Roe, the court affirmed the right of a woman to make the decision for herself, up until the fetus became viable outside the mother's womb, and anytime the pregnancy endangered the health of the mother. Even if you disagree with the decision as it stands, you might agree the court was committed to finding the best possible balance between the rights of the Mother and the fetus/child.

Then, what is behind the argument that a majority of voters should have the opportunity to subsequently reverse a Supreme Court Decision through popular vote? Our rights are not supposed to be at the pleasure of the majority, there are supposed to be god-given and inalienable.

Would anybody argue that Brown v Board of Education decision was the decision of an "activist" court? Is it more fairly and accurately stated that it upheld the rights of a racial minorities to be included in formerly white-only public schools systems? This decision marked the beginning of the end of racial segregation. Who would argue the people are entitled to a popular vote to overturn the decision?

The Roe decision will be revisited in the year(s) ahead. I hope this new court respects the rights of the mother as well as the fetus/child in making its decision.

Finally, I want to emphasis that my post did not condescend or deride people with different opinions nor attack them personally. I hope participants follow this approach in responding to the thread.

Jay - I'm sorry to hear a person or persons ridiculed you for your opinion. Please accept my apology, on behalf of those who attacked you personally, and on behalf of those who disrespected your beliefs in general. Do you accept? Good.

Now, I think you owe me and Ted Kennedy an apology for your disrespectful comments; how about it?

"Now, I think you owe me and Ted Kennedy an apology for your disrespectful comments; how about it?"

Teddy Kennedy doesn't deserve any sort of apology for anybody about anything until he fesses up to killing a young girl and then pretending it didn't happen. The people of Mass. owes the people of the United States an apology for continually sending the drunken killer back to the Senate just because his last name is Kennedy. The Democrats owe the world an apology for making the drunken killer a member of the Dem leadership.

Adoy- You make perfect sense and I wish it were so clear and easy. The problem I believe is that Roe decides an issue many people can only be decided by God. As a result they will never accept a decision rendered no matter how well written.

Frankly I don't see a solution. Hate and more hate until what? Our electoral process is essentially gridlocked on this one issue.

Emotion raises money to elect candidates who then pass back favors to those who gave the money. These elected officials raise fear to raise emotion which then raises money, etc....

Yeah, we've come a long way.

What's wrong with allowing the people of Massachussetts and the leaders of the Democratic to make their own choices of who represents them? In the end, that's what a representative form of government is all about, whether you like the man or not. Get a grip! Everyone has the right to their opinion, but nobody has the right to defame others in the rush to support your cause. You're just as bad as the people you want to ridicule!

li I was making a joke about the liberals because they REALLY are going to be banging pots and pans tonight. Apparently, noise pollution is the answer to the war. You cannot make this stuff up: the left wingers are dragging out their anarchists from their professorships and turning them loose with all the Revereware and Calphalon they can muster. This is breathtaking in their childishness. The answer is to convince people to vote for you. It is not to disgrace yourselves with stainless steel. I cried the day Reagan was elected short of my 18th birthday, so I have a long history as a recovering democrat.

TD you should look closely at defaming. Didn't Kennedy do that yesterday? That women and children, minorities and the disabled, phone users and methamphetamine parents with children are not safe anymore? That only Vanguard mutual fund managers will be allowed a right to privacy, and every 10th grader will be strip searched? There is a reason Massachusetts is one of the few states losing population. Ted Kennedy refused to debate his opponent the last time he ran for reeelection, and all the newspapers still endorsed him. Is that just wacky?

You can assume that the reason people are leaving Massachussetts is that it is among the most expensive places in the country to live. The State taxes are among the highest in the nation, if not the highest. People will vote with their feet - our economic freedom is often more important than our political freedom. If the people want Ted, that's who represents them. In the end, it's all about the will of the voters, and I'm ready to accept that even if the man himself isn't a good role model. That's how the system works. Put up a better candidate to defeat him and he becomes irrelevant.

"The people of Mass. owes the people of the United States an apology for continually sending the drunken killer back to the Senate"

Ok Jay, we got your answer. You prefer the name calling and impuning the integrity of fellow citizens. If that's the level you prefer than I'm sure you will be able to inspire like-mided discourse.

The parents of America owe the rest of the World for raising such a bunch of arrogant, selfish, close-minded Republicans and Democrats. You can all stop your insulting each other whenever you see fit. Your little propaganda machines have torn this country in 2. Maybe even 3. The third party being middle grounders like myself. I'm disgusted by both Republicans and Democrats! I don't even know what to do anymore. Thanks guys!

Karen - Glad to hear your renounced your democrat roots and saw the light during the Reagan revolution. When did you develop your style of deriding the oppostion with dismissive charaterizaions such as "childish" and quaint metaphors like "cookware-rattling"?

Karen - Glad to hear your renounced your democrat roots and saw the light during the Reagan revolution. When did you develop your style of deriding the oppostion with dismissive charaterizaions such as "childish" and quaint metaphors like "cookware-rattling"?

This thread is sadly indicative of the state of our union.

Next is Janice Rogers Brown for Justice Stevens.

Was Janice Rogers Brown one of the nominees filibustered successfully for months until the Gang of 14 cut the deal? Is hers the jurisprudence that would likely trigger the "extraordinary circumstance"?

Please read the WaPo article that the democrat activists plant to stand outside the capitol and bang pots and pans. If this is not childish, than what is? If this is not "cookware rattling", then what is it? It is exactly my point. In the same way the Repubicans looked stupid talking about stained blue dresses, the democrats look even sillier.
You even think it is a metaphor, because you can't possibly think grown men and women would waste their time banging pots and pans. This is the democratic party, no metaphor, no dismissive characterization: vivid, honest descriptions.

cookware rattling become offensive characterization. we must all say "alternative food temperature mediation control wave length disruption".

Who's next Trent Lott?

"Ok Jay, we got your answer. You prefer the name calling and impuning the integrity of fellow citizens. If that's the level you prefer than I'm sure you will be able to inspire like-mided discourse."

Um.... That answer didn't come from me.

Name calling and impugning character are things you liberals do. I want to debate the issues but the left has one strategy these days... Just attack the right hammer and tong and never mind the facts.

You lefties like finding discrimination so let's play a game since you lefties have also proven yourself to be childish.

Justice Alito's resume comes across your Fisher-Price play desk. You don't know anything about the man except what is on the paper. You lefties would never treat him the way you did once the GWB "stank" is attached to the nomination. Why? Because you lefties don't care about things like character or integrity. For you, it is all about opposing the President's agenda.

Karen, I can see how that might strike you as "childish" and I'm the first to admit there are plenty of people in this country whose behaviour I wouldn't choose for my own.

Nontheless, for those who plan to exercise their right to protest outside the capitol, how should they go about it so their concerns are communicated clearly and taken seriously?
I I think non-violence is a good start. A reasonable a pithy statement of concern is a good second step and finally a catchy slogan sometimes helps in gaining momentum.

Did they ever DNA test the cum stain on Monica's blue dress?

"Name calling and impugning character are things you liberals do."

Some Yes bur not all, and certainly not exclusively.

If a democrat jumped off the GW bridge, would you follow?

I'm a conservative. But I'm not a good conservative - I like liberals. They're good-hearted. However, they have a comprehension problem regarding the consequences of evading the rule of law. They seem to think that a decision of Supreme Court, if it's fine and good for the country, is laudable even though there may be nothing at all in the Constitution to support the decision. In effect, then, they're advocates of rule by judicial decree. If they're successful, the Supreme Court ultimately (assuming that it hasn't already) becomes our Supreme Rulers.

"If a democrat jumped off the GW bridge, would you follow? "

Hell no! That's so Vince Foster.

I'd set up a sign advertising a Democrat's tour of Washington and hope that other Democrats would follow!

Please God, give us just one or possibly two more SC vacancies. Let's base SC decisions on our Constitution (not someone elses), and let's eclipse the stain of Ruth Gater Binsberg.

In a related development, the Justice Alito swearing-in ceremony was interrupted when Ted Kennedy insisted on offering to take Mrs. Alito for a drive across the bay

Why is Bush snubbing Alito??? When Bush went by newly appointed justic Alito before his state of the union speech, he talked to each Supreme Court justice except for Alito. Then when he finished his speech he made extended eye contact with every Supreme Court justice except Alito. He wouldn't look Alito in the eye even when it was clear Alito was trying to make eye contact with Bush. This leads me to believe that Alito has caused Bush concern. Perhaps Alito isn't as conservative as Bush would like? Anyone know if there was an exchange of words between Bush and Alito immediately before the state of the union address?

I noticed that the Democratic Party asked Fidel Castro to deliver their response to the President's State of the Union address and announced that they plan to nominate Walter Mondale for President again in 2008

We might well have more courtesy and substance on this site if bloggers start using their real names. Some may feel they can't because of their jobs; but most probably could use their own names without suffering consequences. I suspect that most would not want their real names associated with mindless partisanship and general nastiness.

"I suspect that most would not want their real names associated with mindless partisanship and general nastiness."

You mean like John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Dick Durbin, and Jack Murtha? They own their mindless partisanship, general nastiness, and mean spiritedness like a badge of honor. The meaner and nastier they are, the more they get from Ralph Neas.

Looks like the demobrats in Washington will have to demonstrate some real ambition and get real jobs.

I support Judge Alito completely and expect he will ensure decisions on military recruiter and abortion restrictions will turn out on the conservative side. However, there is one bone I would like to pick with some poster about the famous line its not in the constitution so how did they do that type of reasoning. The framers of the constitution were so concerned that rights that were not enumerated wouldnt be protected that they included the ninth amendment in the constitution. So while the Court should be very restrictive in its use, its doesnt mean that just because it is not enumerated in the constitution, that Court cant find something to be a constitutional right.

" a related development, the Justice Alito swearing-in ceremony was interrupted when Ted Kennedy insisted on offering to take Mrs. Alito for a drive across the bay"

Another perjoritive attempt at humor at the expense of Ted Kennedy.

Use him as your punching bag, I'm sure he doesn't care.

"Um.... That answer didn't come from me,"

Here's my answer...

"Name calling and impugning character are things you liberals do. I want to debate the issues but the left has one strategy these days... Just attack the right hammer and tong and never mind the facts."

You lefties like finding discrimination so let's play a game since you lefties have also proven yourself to be *CHILDISH*.

Justice Alito's resume comes across your FISHER-PRICE PLAY DESK desk. You don't know anything about the man except what is on the paper. You lefties would never treat him the way you did once the GWB "stank" is attached to the nomination. Why? Because you lefties don't care about things like character or integrity. For you, it is all about opposing the President's agenda.

You know, I have read many of the posts on this blog. In fact I have even posted a few of them. Some were, shall we say, derogatory and mean spirited to an extent. For those comments I express my deepest apologies, no offense was intended.

Now to the root of this post. Be you Democrat or Republican or Independent, we are all (I hope) Americans at heart. Looking for what is best for the country is what we should all be about. Not the left, right bashing. We elected these individuals to the Congress of the United States to represent us, the people. Therefore, if we have any complaints about where our country is headed we need to communicate this to them. If they fail, then we need to look at replacing them in the next elections. Bickering back and forth will not resolve any problems that we now face.

Let us put aside our childish ways and act as adults. Working together to make our great country even better. Right now the world now looks at us as split and weak. Unable to control ourselves or our elected officials. To coin a phrase, "the pen is mightier than the sword." Let's direct our anger toward those that deserve it, not at each other. Forget the red and blue state theory, and look toward the red, white and blue that proudly waves over our country and the sacrifices that many Americans, Democrats and Republicans, black, white, Hispanic or Asian descent have made to give us these rights and freedoms that we have. If the politicians in Washington can't unite us then we should unite ourselves.

Just a thought, but shouldn't we at least give it a try? Think about it.

In what in my opinion ranks among the most predictably tedious, warmed over State of the Union performances ever televised, one glaring tidbit from tonight's rendition demands I throw something up here right now (And I mean that viscerally as well as metaphorically). I would have thought it was parody had I not seen it with my own eyes: George W. Bush publicly wringing his hands about our dependence on foreign oil as well as the sorry state of math and science education in the US. It almost sounded to me like any day now, the President will saddle up the wild bucking bronco of research and single-handedly ride it to the alternative energy rescue. Yippee-yi-yay!

The President was right about one thing though: We are losing our edge in science and technology. Maybe that's due in large part to the current Republican body politic, which has been leading the vicious charge against science in every way for years on end, including science funding, biology, climate science, K-12 public science ed, and stem cell research just to name a few areas? Chris Mooney hits the nail on the head:

[Link] They think science is great, except when its results conflict with the pet interests of some particular constituency. But if you sell out scientific knowledge too frequently for political gain, people are going to question your sincerity the next time you try to explain how important science is to the nation. That's Bush's conundrum, and I frankly don't see how he's going to find a convincing way out of it.

Just for grisly starters, do the right-wing spin-meisters think we've forgotten what cabal it was that grotesquely wired up an unconscious Terry Schiavo to a puppeteer's cross and shamelessly paraded her across the national stage like a marionette? What caucus was it that compounded a family's personal tragedy, in diametric defiance of a mountain of medical science data and an overwhelming consensus, for a few photo-ops playing to an unpopular, fringe, constituency?

You can fool thirty-something percent of the people all of the time. But it's also apparent from the same data you can't successfully fool most of the public for more than a few years. And it's been obvious virtually from the get-go they can't fool the vast majority of scientists for any length of time.

[CNN] The Union of Concerned Scientists contended in a report that "the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented."

I'd be thrilled to see more emphasis on physical science, mathematics, education, and research orchestrated at the highest levels of Federal Government. But in my view, whenever there's been the slightest potential to waffle between science and appeasing the Republican funding or fundamentalist bases in the past, George Bush and the Republican controlled Congress have opted for the soft money and the votes of extremists. In short, the way I see it, if the White House or the GOP thinks they have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming the 'science and math party' without spending some serious dough and reversing themselves on a whole slew of policy issues, they're even more cut off from reality than I feared.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/31/2242/90816

Please spare me SOTU.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a bunch of left wing ideologues. Its like quoting something from the Committee of Responsible Science, the left wing medical group found by Ralph Nader.

SOTU- Come up with some group that has some credibility would you. You cant.

Very nice job tracking the whole nomination process with this site, Washington Post!
Hope very much to see it again on other hot topics!

It's been great. A 10 out of 10!

Let's all rally-round-the-flag. However let's be keenly aware of what's behind the the demobratic cloak and their allied sneaky liberal-ators. Senator Ted Kennedy, who favors steep inheritance taxes, lives very well as a rich man's son with a family trust. Keep drinking that whiskey, Teddy, it shows in your attitude and ample girth. Furthermore, Teddybear's faimily trust fund is set up far from our hallowed shores, on the island of Fiji. More? You bet! Ted's inheritance and nephew Robert's environmentalism are oil profits. Yes, and there's that depletion allowance. Typical two-faced demobrat. Allied to the losing side, there's perennially losing perennial presidential candidate Ralphy Nader. Although bedecked in rumpled clothing, his costume belies his outcries against well-pressed, three-piece suited corporate greed-ocrats. However Ralphy manages a $2.1 million stock portfolio. And two-faced, low-key Norm Chomsky, like Nader also a favorite of brainwashed college kids, rails against the U.S. military as a "fascist institution." However chumly Chomsky consults for the Pentagon! I shall go on and name more names. But that's enough for now. Never trust a liberal! After they rally-round-the-flag, they'll find some way to go around it. :)

Left wing ideologues; Left wing medical group; Left wing this; Left wing that.

Right100 thinks discredited ideas by discrediting the source of the ideas passes for debate.

Enough of the name-calling, labeling and discrediting. Have an idea and talk about it - spitballs from the gallery add nothing. I agree with you on one count however, the Bush administration's manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science in shaping its public policies is no greater than their misrepresentation and suppression of facts leading to the war of choice in Iraq. Regrettably, our president has a pension for distortion, dissembling, and deceit in making his political arguments to gain popular support and justify his policies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37232-2004Aug26.html

In 2001, after the release of a National Academy of Sciences report on global warming, Bush said the concentration of greenhouse gases has increased, in large part, because of human activity, but he emphasized that other factors could have influenced warming. Referring to the NAS report, he said, "We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations may have had on warming." Several administration officials characterized the study as a routine annual summary of scientific research on global warming. John H. Marburger, the president's science adviser, said the report has "no implications for policy." "There is no discordance between this report and the president's position on climate," Marburger said.

SOTU

See if your challenged you came up with a better source of information. But you did not really prove how science was being manipulated and that policies that were implemented were not more effective.

Secondly- YOUR just flat out wrong about Sources. I want to know where the source is coming from whether that is right or left or middle. If the FDA said that drinking milk will cause you to die 10 years earlier than you would have if you didnt, I would be inclined to believe that information. If the Ralph Nader group said the same thing I would be very skeptical of the information. The fact is the union of scientist has a leftist agenda. So it doesnt surprise me that they would make that claim. If I had said that the Washington Times had said X you would have attacked and said because they have a conservative slant on the news it cant be trusted. You have know the source of the information in order to determine whether it has an indicia of reliability. I'm not saying however that those groups cant be right, but I am saying they slant things they way they want them. Remember a few years ago when all the nightly news programs sayed that husbands beat their wives more after the Super Bowl. Well, I was more willing to believe the report because the news put it on. However, once it was clear that they got the information from woman's rights organization its credibility went down. It was finally found out to be a myth.