Houston Democrats: Supreme Court Archives

November 28, 2005

What we know about ScAlito (so far)

» Sometime between 1981 and 1985, Alito was involved in the legal analysis which became the basis of the Reagan administration's attempt to overturn Roe V. Wade.

» Alito voted to approve a ruling in 2004 that a strip-search of a 10-year-old girl during a police raid of her father's house did not violate the Constitution.

» In 1997, Alito found the claims of racial discrimination in the hiring practices of a hotel to be unfounded. The majority opinion rejected Alito's reasoning and found in favor of the plaintiffs.

» Alito ruled in 1996 on the side of gun dealers selling outlawed machine guns in Pennsylvania.

» In a 1985 job application to become deputy assistant to the U.S. attorney general, Alito wrote that he was against particular affirmative action programs and that "...the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." He added, "I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position.

» In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Judge Alito expressed support for a Pennsylvania law that required most married women, including many abused women, to notify their husbands prior to obtaining an abortion.

That's enough. Senate Democrats should filibuster this nominee.

Posted by Perry Dorrell at 09:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBack

November 15, 2005

Alito admits he lied

... which is more than W can do, after all:

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito ~~lied his ass off~~ distanced himself Tuesday from his 1985 comments that there was no constitutional right to abortion, telling a senator in private that he had been "an advocate seeking a job."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., an abortion rights supporter and the only woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said she asked the conservative judge about a document released Monday showing Alito in 1985 telling the Reagan administration he was particularly proud to help argue that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

"He said first of all it was different then," she said. "He said, 'I was an advocate seeking a job, it was a political job and that was 1985. I'm now a judge, I've been on the circuit court for 15 years and it's very different. I'm not an advocate, I don't give heed to my personal views, what I do is interpret the law.'"

Guess what, Sam? You're seeking a job NOW. A political job.

If you lied then, how are we supposed to tell if you're speaking the truth now?

Posted by Perry Dorrell at 12:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 01, 2005

John Crony-n and Kay Perjury Technicality

represent our state in the United States Senate, which means that there are millions of Texans without any representation in the United States Senate.

Personally, I've never received any response whatsoever from Senator Box Turtle's office. Senator Nipple Rings at least sends me a stock letter.

So this afternoon, instead of playing golf or devoting myself to the capitalism, I spent some time dialing the offices of Democratic Senators, asking them to represent we the voiceless people and filibuster the nomination of Sam "Sloppy Seconds" Scalito to the highest court in the land.

Here's a link to their contact info. It's a two-minute call, and if you use your cell, it won't cost you a thing.

(P.S. These Senators are hosting a fundraiser next week in D.C. for Barbara Radnofsky: Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, Robert Byrd, Daniel Inouye, Carl Levin, Patty Murray, Blanche Lincoln, Debbie Stabenow, John Kerry, Evan Bayh, and Ken Salazar. I'm sure BAR would give them her proxy-in-waiting on this issue.)