Article: No Strict CONTORTIONIST For The Supreme Court

Patrick Fitzgerald was perfectly able to convict terrorists in the cases he handled. Moussaoui, a real terrorist, chose to plead guilty when confronted with the evidence against him. Do we need lawyers going down there? You bet we do, and the more the better, to show the world that everyone in the United States of America gets a fair trial, even if you are an accused terrorist. The problem is the real reason they may be so afraid of letting these people into our courts is they are still trying the cover up the torture which has already taken place in our names. If the detainees are guilty of something let them be tried in open court in the glorious splendor of our freedom. For Congress to presume to pass anything to abort that is a stench in the nostrils of our own democracy.

http://www.millionphonemarch.com/habeas.htm (Restore Habeas Corpus)

We are a nation of laws, not of men. But it is still up to our Supreme Court to correct the law when it strays too far from the mean of true justice (equity), to be then applied equally to all. It is THAT which has made the United States the greatest country in the world, a legal system the envy of the world's citizenry. And that is what is threatened most by these patently biased nominees. The amount of damage they can do in the lower courts is thankfully limited by the overriding balance of hopefully the prudent reason in the Supreme Court, which is precisely what they have schemed these many years to tilt. Some say the Muslim extremists want to go back to the 13th century. The "strict contortionist" wants to go back to the 10th, a time when the judiciary turned a deaf ear and a cold heart to anyone who was not rich, or could not stand to hold a burning hot poker in their hand without screaming.

These nominees are being hand picked not for their fairness, but for their willingness to tow the corporate crony line, to defer to the president dictator, and in some specious way attempt to make it sound perfectly reasonable. Sure, Alito has some very offensive opinions on the record as an appellate judge, but were he unwisely be allowed to ascend to the Supreme Court he would no longer be bound by the controlling letter of higher precedent, and only by his own "respect" for that precedent. And we are very sure he would say he still respects Roe v. Wade very much in the morning after he casts the deciding vote to overturn this case he so clearly believes was wrongly decided.

In short, just like Roberts, Alito will don the sheep's clothing of not being one of those mean old nasty "activist" judges only long enough to try to sneak past his confirmation hearing . . . again. In fact, they can recycle the outfit Roberts used since he himself no longer has any need of it. To get on the appellate bench, Alito promised that he would recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard, where he had extensive holdings. Yet he broke that promise the first chance he got, until someone called him on it, and did it again in another parallel case. The "strict contortionist" would say (and Alito in fact did say) that he was being "unduly restrictive" in his initial sworn representation to the Senate. And we can expect he will say he was also being unduly restrictive in promising restraint when the stampede of precedent reversals begins for which the mouths of the right wing have watered for so long.

At its best and brightest moments our Supreme Court has been a bulwark against injustice not otherwise struck down. The real danger is in allowing a clearly ideological extremist to be unleashed in yet another seat on our highest court, to be then only restrained by a sense of fairness they have demonstrated they do not possess. The most unpopular second term president in American history would not have freely nominated anyone who would not give his most reactionary supporters every decision they could have predetermined themselves. The only objections you hear coming from the right wing are concerns that Alito might not be sufficiently and manifestly in their pockets, their basis for demanding the withdrawal of the crony Miers, who you should know was also introduced for enthusiastic applause by Rove at the Federalist soiree.

Alito must be rejected, and each and every other subsequent candidate of this federalist gang, by filibuster if that is what it takes, until the people get what they deserve and will demand, no worse than a true moderate centrist as a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. To win we must do much more than nitpick this or that case or whatever. This goes far beyond opinions to effectively immunize employers from race discrimination cases or to strip search 10 year old girls or whether Alito dishonored his promise to recuse himself. We must put our foot down as the true majority of the American people to say that NO conservative whatsoever is acceptable for this seat. We need every voice out there on our side to repeat that essential position every day for the next two months.

And for that to happen we the people need you to speak out with your own voice now and send a personal message on what YOU have to say to your Senate and your local newspaper.

Next Page 1 | 2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).