So just what would be sufficiently radical?

[Cross-posted at the Leiter Reports]

The reasons why Alito should not be confirmed are about as clear and distinct as it gets.  There's his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (in 1972, when it was still the 60's, people... a college student that was a member of such a sexist, conservative, good-ol-rich-boys club would have to have been a certifiable freak, no doubt unable to get laid even in the age of free love).  There's his view that it's OK to strip-search 10-year-old girls, and more generally strip-search people who aren't named in warrants.  There's his dissenting option (in a case upholding waiting periods and notification of parents in cases of minors seeking abortions---bad enough, to be sure) against the cases's also striking down a spousal notification requirement (and not to worry about cases where said husband is abusive or said couple is separated -- after all, the "vast majority" of married women seeking abortions tell their husbands of their own free will).  Speaking of abortion, Alito is on record (1985) that the Constitution ''does not protect the right to an abortion," flatly contradicting Roe v. Wade.  Oh, and there's Alito's repeated judgments against worker's rights (if you click through on anything, do so on previous link; you might want to put on a bib first first because your jaw is going to drop), and in general in favor of fucking over individuals in the most stunningly poorly argued and blatant of fashions, in favor of entities with power and money:

If confirmed, Alito would tip the high court's delicate balance radically to the right. Nearly always favoring the government, corporations and universities, Alito has ruled against individual rights in 84 percent of his dissents.

Oh, and don't forget he's a creepy non-recuser, who doesn't mind judging cases involving (and it goes without saying, ruling in favor of) corporations in which he has a personal financial interest (to the non-minor tune of 390K).  Perhaps worse of all, as regards the consequences of installing this power-sucking freak on the court, are his views on executive power:

[I]n a speech to the Federalist Society in November 2000, while a sitting appellate judge, Alito claimed almost limitless powers for the presidency and criticized other courts for limiting executive power. ''The president has not just some executive power," he declared, ''but the executive power -- the whole thing." [...] Alito favors an almost monarchic executive...

Maybe it's just me, but the idea of an all-powerful Bush might be something we would want to avoid... assuming, that is, that death, destruction, corruption, more corruption, more corruption, propaganda, surveillance, global warming, and various other civil, economic, environmental and other disasters aren't our primary goals.

Democrats could block the nomination if they got their act together:

Despite the repeated setbacks to the Bush administration and its allies and Alito's own far-right record, most observers expect him to be confirmed. Blocking Alito would take a filibuster supported by at least 41 senators. Though the Democrats have 45 senators (counting independent James Jeffords), the Senate Democratic leadership frets that a filibuster would divert attention from other Republican woes, might make Democrats look obstructionist, and might lead Republicans to use the so-called ''nuclear option," abolishing filibusters on judicial nominations.

They're fretting about other Republican woes, are they?  If Alito gets in he'll give them something to really fret about.  But it seems that it isn't enough for some Democrats not to be able to just say no (talk about battered person syndrome).  No, some Democrats want to moreover lick the foot that kicks them, by voting for Alito.  Why?  As Tim Johnson (D-Sd) spins it: ya see, he's just not radical enough to block:

"I am troubled by Judge Alito's apparent views on matters such as executive power, his past opposition to the principle of one person, one vote, and his narrow interpretation of certain civil rights laws," Johnson said. "Even so, I cannot accept an argument that his views are so radical that the Senate is justified in denying his confirmation."

Wow. Anti-coeducation, anti-Roe, anti-worker and individual rights, personal corruption unbefitting any decent person much less a Supreme Court Justice, and pro-executive-monarchy.  So just what would it take for Johnson to find a nominee radical enough to block?  Maybe the nominee would have to do something as bad as this.

Meanwhile, to add gross insult to injury, another Democrat---Robert Byrd, West Virginia---has chosen to close the long chapter of his tenure as (in the main) a stand-up Democrat by casting his vote for Alito.  Evidently his decision is motivated, in part, by his desire to win a record-breaking ninth term as senator, against a monetarily strong opponent. So, rather than retiring with principles intact, in the process preventing generations of Americans (and non-Americans, for that matter) from suffering Alito's presence on the court, Byrd takes a dive so he can enter his 90th year as a Senator.  Ah, vanity.

Kerry, by way of admirable contrast, has called for a filibuster.  Do what you can to support it; the decent life you save may be your own.

The reasons why Alito should not be confirmed are about as clear and distinct as it gets.  There's his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (in 1972, when it was still the 60's, people... a college student that was a member of such a sexist, conservative, good-ol-rich-boys club would have to have been a certifiable freak, no doubt unable to get laid even in the age of free love).  There's his view that it's OK to strip-search 10-year-old girls, and more generally strip-search people who aren't named in warrants.  There's his dissenting option (in a case upholding waiting periods and notification of parents in cases of minors seeking abortions---bad enough, to be sure) against the cases's also striking down a spousal notification requirement (and not to worry about cases where said husband is abusive or said couple is separated -- after all, the "vast majority" of married women seeking abortions tell their husbands of their own free will).  Speaking of abortion, Alito is on record (1985) that the Constitution ''does not protect the right to an abortion," flatly contradicting Roe v. Wade.  Oh, and there's Alito's repeated judgments against worker's rights (if you click through on anything, do so on previous link; you might want to put on a bib first first because your jaw is going to drop), and in general in favor of fucking over individuals in the most stunningly poorly argued and blatant of fashions, in favor of entities with power and money:

If confirmed, Alito would tip the high court's delicate balance radically to the right. Nearly always favoring the government, corporations and universities, Alito has ruled against individual rights in 84 percent of his dissents.

Oh, and don't forget he's a creepy non-recuser, who doesn't mind judging cases involving (and it goes without saying, ruling in favor of) corporations in which he has a personal financial interest (to the non-minor tune of 390K).  Perhaps worse of all, as regards the consequences of installing this power-sucking freak on the court, are his views on executive power:

[I]n a speech to the Federalist Society in November 2000, while a sitting appellate judge, Alito claimed almost limitless powers for the presidency and criticized other courts for limiting executive power. ''The president has not just some executive power," he declared, ''but the executive power -- the whole thing." [...] Alito favors an almost monarchic executive...

Maybe it's just me, but the idea of an all-powerful Bush might be something we would want to avoid... assuming, that is, that death, destruction, corruption, more corruption, more corruption, propaganda, surveillance, global warming, and various other civil, economic, environmental and other disasters aren't our primary goals.

Democrats could block the nomination if they got their act together:

Despite the repeated setbacks to the Bush administration and its allies and Alito's own far-right record, most observers expect him to be confirmed. Blocking Alito would take a filibuster supported by at least 41 senators. Though the Democrats have 45 senators (counting independent James Jeffords), the Senate Democratic leadership frets that a filibuster would divert attention from other Republican woes, might make Democrats look obstructionist, and might lead Republicans to use the so-called ''nuclear option," abolishing filibusters on judicial nominations.

They're fretting about other Republican woes, are they?  If Alito gets in he'll give them something to really fret about.  But it seems that it isn't enough for some Democrats not to be able to just say no (talk about battered person syndrome).  No, some Democrats want to moreover lick the foot that kicks them, by voting for Alito.  Why?  As Tim Johnson (D-Sd) spins it: ya see, he's just not radical enough to block:

"I am troubled by Judge Alito's apparent views on matters such as executive power, his past opposition to the principle of one person, one vote, and his narrow interpretation of certain civil rights laws," Johnson said. "Even so, I cannot accept an argument that his views are so radical that the Senate is justified in denying his confirmation."

Wow. Anti-coeducation, anti-Roe, anti-worker and individual rights, personal corruption unbefitting any decent person much less a Supreme Court Justice, and pro-executive-monarchy.  So just what would it take for Johnson to find a nominee radical enough to block?  Maybe the nominee would have to do something as bad as this.

Meanwhile, to add gross insult to injury, another Democrat---Robert Byrd, West Virginia---has chosen to close the long chapter of his tenure as (in the main) a stand-up Democrat by casting his vote for Alito.  Evidently his decision is motivated, in part, by his desire to win a record-breaking ninth term as senator, against a monetarily strong opponent. So, rather than retiring with principles intact, in the process preventing generations of Americans (and non-Americans, for that matter) from suffering Alito's presence on the court, Byrd takes a dive so he can enter his 90th year as a Senator.  Ah, vanity.

Kerry, by way of admirable contrast, has called for a filibuster.  Do what you can to support it; the decent life you save may be your own.