Sir,
If Alito is not the nominee to be opposed, by filibuster if necessary, who exactly would warrant such action?
If this time of a presidency engaged in illegal and immoral acts and ignoring both the legislative and judicial breaches of our government is not the time to say, "enough" what exactly would you require of the times to finally say, "enough?"
If Alito, and his ideas regarding the presidency, is not the embodiment of the ideas that the Founders spoke so elegantly to in the Declaration of Independence, please Sir explain the difference.
Alito is most assuredly qualified for the court based on his legal education and training. He is most assuredly not qualified based on his interpretation of both law and the Constitution, to say nothing of his ethical lapses brought on by a rather unique interpretation of conflict of interest and lying under oath.
The time is now to oppose Alito, both in the floor vote and with a filibuster if necessary.
Please do not turn your back on the dream of the Founders.
Vote NO on the nomination of Samuel Alito.
As a registered democrat, I shall remember your actions come November.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
No to Alito
On a straight party line vote, the Alito nomination is headed for the floor of the senate.
If he is to be nominated then let it be over a democratic filibuster. Democrats cannot rollover and play nice on this. Come to think of it, neither can the so called republican moderates.
For what it's worth, I see little difference in the judicial philosophy of Alito, as regards an imperious leader, and that of the judges in 1930s Germany.
If he is to be nominated then let it be over a democratic filibuster. Democrats cannot rollover and play nice on this. Come to think of it, neither can the so called republican moderates.
For what it's worth, I see little difference in the judicial philosophy of Alito, as regards an imperious leader, and that of the judges in 1930s Germany.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
The coming war on Iran
Seems Iran will open an oil bourse in March, trading in currency other than the US dollar and that would likely be a financial disaster for America.
Disregard the nonsense over the nuclear weapon ambitions of Iran because, for as with the WMD arguments regarding Iraq, it is lie after lie, one upon another, designed to build fear in the American people in order to get them to support another naked aggression by the criminals of the Bush-Cheney regime.
The likely result of such an aggression on Iran? Think oil embargo, not by Saudi Arabia but by Venezuela. Think the insurgency in Iraq and the increased likelihood of the Shi'tes joining with the Sunnis. Think Russia and their new Topol-M and last but not least, think China and the significant amount of dollars (as well as other government paper) they hold.
One thing is certain though, and that is the agression on Iran will likely not include US ground forces as they are stretched to the breaking point worldwide.
Such is the mess awaiting us as a result of aggression upon Iran by the Band of Bunglers and The Coward who would be king.
Disregard the nonsense over the nuclear weapon ambitions of Iran because, for as with the WMD arguments regarding Iraq, it is lie after lie, one upon another, designed to build fear in the American people in order to get them to support another naked aggression by the criminals of the Bush-Cheney regime.
The likely result of such an aggression on Iran? Think oil embargo, not by Saudi Arabia but by Venezuela. Think the insurgency in Iraq and the increased likelihood of the Shi'tes joining with the Sunnis. Think Russia and their new Topol-M and last but not least, think China and the significant amount of dollars (as well as other government paper) they hold.
One thing is certain though, and that is the agression on Iran will likely not include US ground forces as they are stretched to the breaking point worldwide.
Such is the mess awaiting us as a result of aggression upon Iran by the Band of Bunglers and The Coward who would be king.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Abramoff to get layed
From TIME:
[snip]
Bracing for the worst, Administration officials obtained from the Secret
Service a list of all the times Abramoff entered the White House complex,
and they scrambled to determine the reason for each visit. Bush aides are
also trying to identify all the photos that may exist of the two men
together. Abramoff attended Hanukkah and holiday events at the White House,
according to an aide who has seen the list. Press secretary Scott McClellan
said Abramoff might have attended large gatherings with Bush but added,
"The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever
meeting him."
[snip]
Oops, looks like Abramoff is about to get (Ken) Layed.
[snip]
Bracing for the worst, Administration officials obtained from the Secret
Service a list of all the times Abramoff entered the White House complex,
and they scrambled to determine the reason for each visit. Bush aides are
also trying to identify all the photos that may exist of the two men
together. Abramoff attended Hanukkah and holiday events at the White House,
according to an aide who has seen the list. Press secretary Scott McClellan
said Abramoff might have attended large gatherings with Bush but added,
"The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever
meeting him."
[snip]
Oops, looks like Abramoff is about to get (Ken) Layed.
Questions for republicans
Three questions for republicans:
Does a president, ANY president, have the right, 'war' or no war, to ignore either US Code, The Constitution or both?
If so, exactly where is this right enumerated?
If not, what is the responsibility of the Legislative and Judiciary branches to correct such actions?
Does a president, ANY president, have the right, 'war' or no war, to ignore either US Code, The Constitution or both?
If so, exactly where is this right enumerated?
If not, what is the responsibility of the Legislative and Judiciary branches to correct such actions?
Monday, January 02, 2006
Keep your eye the ball
GratisNet: "It would do well to remain focused in the upcoming fight over the unauthorized spying upon Americans. The dispute is not about 'security' but about whether, in 'wartime', a president must follow the law. It is not about the speed one needs to react to threats for the FISA law clearly allows immediate wiretaps requiring only that the warrant be submitted to the FISA court within 72 hours.
It is, most certainly, about the oversight granted by the constitution to the congress and the courts, over the executive branch. In other words, is the Constitution of The United States still the supreme law of the land? If it is, then the president committed an illegal act when he ordered the wiretaps on the American people. If the constantly changing excuses made by The Coward who would be king (and by extension, his law hating, unamerican apologists) says anything it shouts that these psuedo patriots know damn well that his actions were illegal under both the constitution and US Code.
The unique advice that a president, in his role as CIC, is somehow above the law (L'etat, c'est moi) would be laughable were it not so serious. The bootlickers will raise the example of Lincoln and Habeas Corpus but do not be fooled for the question of whether the president must obey the law, at all times, was settled when the SCOTUS ruled against Truman's attempt to keep the steel plants open in 1952 during the Korean War.
Do not be mislead by claims that the constitution is not a suicide pact, that extreme times call for extreme measures. The fact remains that the principles of the founders, as vested in the constitution will not and cannot be protected by a failure to act within the boundaries set forth by them.
9/11 did not 'change everything' America is still a nation where the law is king.
America is one village that we will not let be destroyed in an attempt to 'save' it."
It is, most certainly, about the oversight granted by the constitution to the congress and the courts, over the executive branch. In other words, is the Constitution of The United States still the supreme law of the land? If it is, then the president committed an illegal act when he ordered the wiretaps on the American people. If the constantly changing excuses made by The Coward who would be king (and by extension, his law hating, unamerican apologists) says anything it shouts that these psuedo patriots know damn well that his actions were illegal under both the constitution and US Code.
The unique advice that a president, in his role as CIC, is somehow above the law (L'etat, c'est moi) would be laughable were it not so serious. The bootlickers will raise the example of Lincoln and Habeas Corpus but do not be fooled for the question of whether the president must obey the law, at all times, was settled when the SCOTUS ruled against Truman's attempt to keep the steel plants open in 1952 during the Korean War.
Do not be mislead by claims that the constitution is not a suicide pact, that extreme times call for extreme measures. The fact remains that the principles of the founders, as vested in the constitution will not and cannot be protected by a failure to act within the boundaries set forth by them.
9/11 did not 'change everything' America is still a nation where the law is king.
America is one village that we will not let be destroyed in an attempt to 'save' it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
