Print Story STOP ALITO NOW:
Politics
By ammoniacal (Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 07:16:34 AM EST) (all tags)
We must prevent the consequences of having 5 Roman Catholics on the American Supreme Court.

Let's have our Court mirror the face of America, so contact your Senators now.



< Now, that will mess you up for life | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
STOP ALITO NOW: | 36 comments (36 topical, 0 hidden)
You heard the man, serving meat on Lenten by georgeha (4.00 / 2) #1 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 07:32:19 AM EST
Fridays will be unconstitutional, Megaball will be replaced by MegaBingo, abortion will be illegal!

Fight the Papists!


At least one of those catholics by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 2) #4 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 07:38:49 AM EST
is on the record as voting pro-choice.

Actually, what's weirding me out is that all these catholics are republican appointees. If that doesn't show how thoroughly the left has alienated their natural allies I don't know what does.


[ Parent ]
slate had an article about this by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #5 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 07:45:46 AM EST
a few actually, I remembered this one, which says they can nominate a likely pro-life justice, and claim discrimination if the Dems protest too much. I also thought I read Catholics provide safe intellectual heft to the Right.


[ Parent ]
yeabut... by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #6 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 07:49:37 AM EST
theologically, (Catholic == tree-hugging pacifistic socialist) and in America, they are as likely to be pro-choice as anyone else. It's the protestants who stomp around like OT prophets.


[ Parent ]
But not all Catholics by georgeha (4.00 / 2) #8 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 07:55:27 AM EST
The GOP can find some conservative Catholics who they know will work to whittle down abortion.

Cynically, Thomas was a God send, a black conservative Catholic, who few would be willing to oppose lest they be tarred as a racist, or anti-Catholic.


[ Parent ]
heh. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #11 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:15:46 AM EST
This is true, but if the Catholics aren't politically homogenous, why make a fuss that 5 of them are on the court.

The news reports are weird. Lots of articles to the tune of "OMG! 5 Catholics on the Court! Not that there's anything wrong with that!"



[ Parent ]
Au secularism by cam (4.00 / 1) #9 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 07:56:47 AM EST
Historically in Au the Catholics and Protestants split on party lines. The Catholics were Labor and the Protestants Liberal.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
LOL - I don't know how I missed this meme. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 2) #7 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 07:54:04 AM EST
I googled "alito catholic" and got 1.7 million hits.

And I call myself well-edjumacated.


[ Parent ]
Contrariwise by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #14 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:52:10 AM EST
it may show that the GOP is now merely the anti-abortion party.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
As I mentioned elsewhere.. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #15 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:56:04 AM EST
at least one of those republican catholics has voted pro-choice in the past.


[ Parent ]
um by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #17 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 09:09:25 AM EST
I don't think the Catholics on the Supreme Court are representative of USian Catholicism as a whole. I sure don't see how Antonin Scalia could be considered an alienated "natural ally" of the left.

[ Parent ]
What, an Italian kid from Queens by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #19 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 09:16:14 AM EST
isn't a natural Democrat?

Working class, ethnic, grew up in a Democratic stronghold... Yeah, I'm willing to bet just about every person in his family is a life long Democrat - and that he started out that way, too.

And, to be honest, I don't see how originalism is automatically in opposition to liberalism, except that liberals seem to enjoy demonizing it.


[ Parent ]
responses by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #22 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 09:50:14 AM EST
So Alito is from a working class, ethnic family...his current attitudes seem to be blatantly pro-corporate and anti-minority, so how does that indicate his being abandoned by Democrats?

Founding father worship is inherently reactionary and anti-progressive. I don't think that makes originalism "automatically" illiberal—you could pick and choose pieces of original intent consistent with modern liberalism and call yourself an originalist—but because liberalism doesn't celebrate or advocate a return to the values of an idealized past, originalism doesn't hold the same appeal that it does to conservatives. But in any case, it's not Alito's originalism that is in opposition to liberalism, it's his political conservatism that is.

[ Parent ]
founding father worship... by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #23 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 09:56:19 AM EST
Um... You do realize that originalism extends to the amendments, too, right?

Personally, I'd rather words meant what they said rather than leaving them open to humpty-dumpty reinterpretation. If the law -  or even the constitution - needs to be changed then that's a job for the legislature and the people, not nine old men persons.


[ Parent ]
mm by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #24 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:13:38 AM EST
Does anyone advocate words not meaning what they mean? There's no issue over whether to interpret—that's what the Court is for. Strict constructionism and originalism don't prevent interpretation, they just prescribe different methodologies for how the interpretation should take place.

[ Parent ]
No. Courts are NOT for interpreting the law. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #26 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:20:37 AM EST
They are for deciding who is following the law and who is breaking the law.

Courts only "interpret" the law when (a) the legislature screws up and writes a crappy law so that the courts have to guess what it means and (b) when the court decides they don't like what the law says and therefore pretend it says something else.



[ Parent ]
Uh, no by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #27 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:29:12 AM EST
Refresher

Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline

[ Parent ]
LoL. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 2) #28 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:33:34 AM EST
Just because you found a site for imprinting kiddies with left wing agitprop doesn't make you right.


[ Parent ]
i found another Article by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #31 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:57:57 AM EST
"[T]he supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact." Emphasis mine.

[ Parent ]
whitehouse site says the same thing by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 1) #35 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:01:00 PM EST
But since Bush is a secret librul trying to take down the GOP from the inside (only logical explanation), that may not prove much.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
uh by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #29 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:36:11 AM EST
I think we are using different definitions of "interpretation." Under the one I'm using, you need to interpret a law before you can determine whether someone is following or breaking it. And in a lot of cases it's pretty cut and dried and pretty much everyone is going to interpret the law the same, but in a lot of others it isn't and that's when we need the judicial branch to do its thing.

[ Parent ]
Sigh. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #30 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:48:19 AM EST
Yes, in that sense you have to interpret the law to apply the law. But how can you, in one moment, claim that originalism is about "founding father worship" and in the next breath claim that no one is arguing that words don't mean what they say?

The whole point of originalism is to oppose the attempt - primarily by liberals - to "discover" useful new interpretations of the law - because they don't seem to be able to democratically get the law changed to something they agree with?


[ Parent ]
as i see it by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #32 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 11:06:21 AM EST
The act of interpretation is identifying what the words in law mean, what they say. Read the dissents in a Supreme Court ruling...it's not one justice saying "here is the law and we should apply it" versus another arguing "despite the law, we should do it my way, which is better." It's one arguing that the law says one thing and the other disagreeing, because language is full of contradiction and ambiguity.

I think your second paragraph is what I meant when I said that originalism is an inherently reactionary judicial philosophy. Sort of like, "hey hey hey, that's not what they meant when they said people should be secure in their persons! In the good old days we didn't use condoms and we liked it!"

[ Parent ]
Bullshit. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #33 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 11:11:27 AM EST
the reactionarys here are the so-called "progressives" and you reveal that in your example.

It has nothing to do with whether or not condoms are right or wrong, it has to do with people using the courts to manipulate the law to accomplish what they could not do in the legislature.

It is the minority ramming their desires down the throats of the majority and if opposing that is "reactionary" then I'm all for it.


[ Parent ]
and now by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #34 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 11:32:24 AM EST
We are using different definitions of reactionary.

Any piece of legislation by definition had the support of a majority of the people's elected representatives when it passed. Given that, doesn't finding any law unconstitutional constitute "the minority ramming their desires down the throats of the majority"? Isn't it possible that the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut was acting in good faith, and just had a genuine disagreement with the state legislature over the liberties protected by the Constitution?

[ Parent ]
Wait, which ones are catholic? by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #2 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 07:34:54 AM EST
hrm.

Looking at this I wonder if you haven't been trolled.

I mean, Thomas is Catholic? How can that be? I mean, he's not Italian!


Other thought... by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #3 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 07:37:04 AM EST
So much for the zionist conspiracy...


I don't think that there's anything to worry about by lm (2.00 / 0) #10 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:00:38 AM EST
Now, I could be wrong about this, but I'm under the impression that there are far more than five Catholics in the US.

So if there's only five Catholics on the Supreme Court, there's plenty of space for more so that the court mirror mirrors the US populace at large.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
I'd like to take this moment by dr k (2.00 / 0) #12 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:36:01 AM EST
to quote one of my favorite poets:

"I'm starting with the man in the mirror
I'm asking him to change his ways
And no message could have
Been any clearer
If you wanna make the world
A better place."

:| :| :| :| :|

[ Parent ]
Are there 155 million Catholic Americans? by ammoniacal (4.00 / 4) #13 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:40:40 AM EST
I think we both know the answer to that question.

I, for one, do not welcome our Papist Overlords.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
+1, Contains Math by MohammedNiyalSayeed (4.00 / 1) #16 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 09:06:10 AM EST

And, as such, answers the question I was wondering about earlier this morning, but was too lazy to look up: "how many people live here in my future kingdom, anyway?"


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]
Approx. 280 million. by ammoniacal (4.00 / 3) #18 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 09:15:33 AM EST
Most of them are documented.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
MAN, HOW DOES THE NSA MANAGE TO KEEP TABS by MohammedNiyalSayeed (4.00 / 2) #20 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 09:17:27 AM EST

ON THEM ALL!?? Jesus, that's a shitload of people...


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by yicky yacky (4.00 / 2) #25 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:15:58 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by yicky yacky



[ Parent ]
To be honest, I don't know by lm (2.00 / 0) #21 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 09:46:40 AM EST
But I do know that there are not 155 million Catholics on the Supreme Court of the US.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
yet by dev trash (4.00 / 1) #36 Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:05:38 PM EST
nt

--
I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR BALLS! ->clock
[ Parent ]
STOP ALITO NOW: | 36 comments (36 topical, 0 hidden)