For the Record

A "morally depraved" judiciary: Arar case dismissed in the U.S.

Greenwald discusses and summarizes:

Yesterday, the Second Circuit -- by a vote of 7-4 --  agreed with the government and dismissed Arar's case in its entirety.  It held that even if the government violated Arar's Constitutional rights as well as statutes banning participation in torture, he still has no right to sue for what was done to him.  Why?  Because "providing a damages remedy against senior officials who implement an extraordinary rendition policy would enmesh the courts ineluctably in an assessment of the validity of the rationale of that policy and its implementation in this particular case, matters that directly affect significant diplomatic and national security concerns" (p. 39).  In other words, government officials are free to do anything they want in the national security context -- even violate the law and purposely cause someone to be tortured -- and courts should honor and defer to their actions by refusing to scrutinize them.

Reflecting the type of people who fill our judiciary, the judges in the majority also invented the most morally depraved bureaucratic requirements for Arar to proceed with his case and then claimed he had failed to meet them.  Arar did not, for instance, have the names of the individuals who detained and abused him at JFK, which the majority said he must have.  As Judge Sack in dissent said of that requirement:  it "means government miscreants may avoid [] liability altogether through the simple expedient of wearing hoods while inflicting injury" (p. 27; emphasis added).

Americans, in particular, should read the rest of Greenwald's excoriating post, including the embedded excerpts from dissenting judges lamenting the death of an independent judiciary and describing Arar's horrific treatment.  What has that country come to?  Oh, and there's also this.

Bush signature on torture authorization

I'm reposting this 7 February 2002 memo, signed by Bush. (Source: this archive, which I discovered via this dKos diary.)

The central finding of the memo is that members of AQ are not covered under either article 3 or 4 of the Geneva Conventions. Accordingly, "detainees" held to be members of AQ need be "treated in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva" only insofar as is "appropriate and consistent with military necessity". In other words, torture away.

The central finding is clearly false. According to convention IV, part 1, article 4, paragraph 4:

Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

There you have it, war crimes approved by Bush's hand.

How it works

When the govt is run by a band of deranged and lawless radicals, aided and abetted by team-playing conservatives, craven journalists and bedwetting Democrats.  Glenn Greenwald comments:

More revealing still is Goldsmith's description of how the Bush administration systematically violated one law after the next -- employing tactics that are truly the hallmark of the most lawless third-world dictators:

"In his book, Goldsmith claims that Addington and other top officials treated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act the same way they handled other laws they objected to: "They blew through them in secret based on flimsy legal opinions that they guarded closely so no one could question the legal basis for the operations," he writes.

[...]"

They literally decided they would break whatever laws they wanted -- one law after the next, in critical areas -- based on patently baseless memos issued by obedient followers like John Yoo. Not only did they do this in complete secrecy from Congress, they refused even to allow Executive Branch officials who were told to follow orders to see the legal basis for what they were told to do. Addington, whom Goldsmith described as "someone who spoke for and acted with the full backing of the powerful vice president," would simply demand compliance with what Cheney wanted. And anyone who objected was subjected to this (emphasis in original):

"Months later, when Goldsmith tried to question another presidential decision, Addington expressed his views even more pointedly. "If you rule that way," Addington exclaimed in disgust, Goldsmith recalls, "the blood of the hundred thousand people who die in the next attack will be on your hands." "

While our national media was glorifying the Great Commander-in-Chief and actively disseminating their most manipulative claims and mocking Democrats on the pettiest of grounds (The Serious National Security Grown-ups are in Charge; John Kerry windsurfs! John Edwards loves his hair!), the Bush administration was dismantling the rule of law, systematically violating long-standing statutes and treaties at will. We were ruled by a truly lawless government, while our media institutions and political elite sat by meek and respectful.

Perhaps most infuriating is the fact that, as it turns out, violating these laws in secret was not even necessary -- because Congress was, and still is, more than happy to legalize whatever they wanted to do. Almost immediately after the Supreme Court finally imposed some mild limitations on the President's detention and interrogation powers -- first in Hamdi, then in Hamdan -- Congress, as Goldsmith says, "promptly passed a law that gave him everything he asked for, authorizing many aspects of the military commissions that the Supreme Court had struck down."

And the terrorist bomb about which David Addington was fantasizing in order to get rid of FISA was equally unnecessary, since the Democratic Congress, in the face of the types of threats Goldsmith recounts Addington routinely made -- "the blood of the hundred thousand people who die in the next attack will be on your hands" -- just eviscerated the crux of FISA's protections by law. Hence, what began as the administration's illegal and secret abuses have become the legally sanctioned policies of the United States.

It is critical to emphasize that Goldsmith -- like James Comey and John Ashcroft -- is no hero. He is a hard-core right-wing ideologue who continues to support many of the administration's most radical positions, including his view that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions does not apply to terrorist suspects (the position rejected by Hamdan). And it was Goldsmith who ultimately approved of the modified (and plainly illegal) NSA warrantless eavesdropping program.

Moreover, Goldsmith explains that he had not even intended to address the NSA surveillance program in his book, but changed his mind once he was served with subpoenas by the FBI in connection with the ongoing criminal investigation to find out who the whistleblower was who alerted the country to this illegality -- an investigation which Goldsmith supports. As Goldsmith says: "I'm not a civil libertarian, and what I did wasn't driven by concerns about civil liberties per se."

Goldsmith is commendable only by comparison to the truly extremist and reprehensible likes of Cheney, Addington, Gonzales and Yoo. He is, by and large, a True Believer in the Bush "War on Terror" and in theories designed to expand substantially executive power. That is what makes his revelations all the more credible, and all the more disturbing. What he is describing is a band of deranged and lawless radicals who, during his tenure, ran our government and who, after they forced him out, continue to do so.

But with little meaningful opposition to any of this -- either in the media or in the Congress -- little attention will be paid to these extraordinary revelations, and our government will continue to be shaped in the image of Dick Cheney and David Addington. Now that they have obtained most of their original wish list from a compliant Congress, just imagine what they are dreaming of, the still new unchecked powers which they believe are only "one bomb away."

How it works

Apropos of my recent post on what the pardon of Libby indicates, I bring you the brilliant James Adomian as Bush.

Here's a partial transcript... really, a tragic poem for our times.

[gives the finger]

My fellow America, welcome to the future.

I know a lot of you are pissed off about me computing Scooter Libby's sentence
I know a lot of you thought I let a good friend off the hook
because he was covering up my crimes.

That's stupid.  Why would I do that?
I commit crimes all the time out in the open
and nobody does anything.

I start wars for no good reason
against all kinds of laws.
I torture people.

I torture people.

Torture!

Nothin' happened.

That's why I computed Scooter Libby
Not to cover up for me
Just to torture you folks a little bit
Just to piss ya off

Cause I know I could get away with it

That's what you need to start learning.

Listen, I could walk outside of the White House right now
and shoot a kid!

Who would do anything about it?
TV?
heh heh.  I don't think so.

You see, I decide.
I'm the executive branch
and as far as I'm concerned, that's the only branch that exists

What else you have?
Ya got the Supreme Court.
I appoint them.
Ya got the, eh, whatever branch Dick Cheney is.
I picked him.

What else is there?
House?  House branch?
Run by a woman.  A girl.
That don't scare me too much.

So all you bloggers out there in blogland
need to quit whining and squitching and squawking
about impeachment, censure, and all that.

We all know that ain't gonna happen.

I can get away with whatever I want to.

All you complainers, all I gotta say to you folks is Fuck you.
Fuck you hard.

I ain't gonna do nothing I can't get away with.

You may think you're so much different than TV or radio
Let me tell you.    TV and radio print whatever I tell them to print.

You're not that much different.
You may be a little bit off the beaten track
But I still, I still got ya where I want ya.

MoveOn.org?
Guess what, MoveOn
I'm still here.

People like me and Scooter Libby's always going to be here.

And guess what?
We're gonna pardon each other
and we're gonna make each other rich
and we're gonna control shit.

That's the way it fucking works.

Watch your back, bitches.

Waking up to power

Here is a brilliant commentary by Keith Olbermann on Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence.  The comparison with the trajectory of Watergate---where Nixon's injudicious firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox was the final straw leading to Nixon's resignation---indicates how the political landscape has, since then, hardened into a seemingly impermeable crust of criminality and corruption.

At issue now as then, Olbermann suggests, is Cox's question of whether we are to be a nation of men, not laws.  I agree, but on the other hand it has always been persons, and more specifically certain of their virtues---their integrity, their compassion, their desire to do good, their desire to avoid shame---that have ultimately kept us safe from the abuses of those in positions of great political power.  What has happened since Nixon had the decency to resign is that right-wingers have woken up precisely to the fact that it wasn't laws that were preventing them from achieving their nefarious purposes; that if they ditched their scruples and shamelessly went for the gusto, nothing in particular would stop them.  The real question now, as then, is whether we are to be a nation of law-abiding persons, not criminals.  And what's different now is the answer given by those even at the highest stations of government: yeah, we're criminals; so what?

This right-wing strategy has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams thanks not just to the opposition's still playing by the old rules and assumptions, but also because almost no one has been able to admit to themselves or anyone else that criminals have been installed as the leaders of the U.S., much less take appropriate action to put them behind bars or at least out of office.  Human virtues are also the ultimate ground of the laws' being enforced, and here too things have evidently taken a turn for the worse.

The true measure of power

The true measure of power is how much you can get away with, which makes the gangsters running the U.S. effectively all-powerful.

ASBOs

Leave it to New Labour, which has done so much to encourage the Big Brothering of the U.K., to come up with a new way to meddle in people's lives: Anti-Social Behavior Orders, civil orders against trespasses so broadly defined that any mildly irritating behavior or general mischief would seem to qualify.  The legislation enabling ASBOs was introduced in 1999 as part of the Crime and Disorder Act and is increasingly implemented:

The number of orders made has escalated over the six-year period that ASBOs have been available. During the first eight months in 1999, only 104 orders were made. However, there has been a significant escalation with more than 2,600 orders made since November 2003.

So, for example, ASBOs have been served on people---frequently kids: 4/10 are under 17---for begging, posting flyers, shouting or swearing, ringing doorbells and running away, repeatedly playing the same song, playing games in the street or on various green areas, and hoarding stuff, as well as other slightly shadier activities such as throwing empty bottles, public urination, or street solicitation for (legal) prostitution.

Grounds for serving an ASBO don't need to meet the usual standards: hearsay evidence and anonymous testimony are admissible as evidence; complaints do not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, merely judged on the balance of probability.  Those served with ASBOs are subject to various restraints and conditions: besides stopping the offending activity, one may be subject to police check-ups, curfews, etc.  And even when (as in the vast majority of cases) the original offense wasn't criminal, violation of the restraints (e.g., continuing to play that record or violating curfew) is, so one can go to jail for up to 5 years for "anti-social" behavior; in fact, 50% of those receiving ASBOs end up in jail.

The Parliamentary Answers reveal that the breach rate has been 39% for 10-15-year-olds, 38% for 16-20-year-olds, and 31% for those aged over 21. However, figures are only available on numbers jailed for the years 2001 and 2002. In 2001, 114 persons breached by the courts following the imposition of an ASBO were jailed out of 322 issued. In 2002, 212 were jailed out of 403 issued. These figures would suggest that around 50% of those who are the subject of an ASBO eventually end up in jail.

Moreover, unlike criminal offenses, those served with orders needn't be kept anonymous and on the contrary the usual strategy is to "name and shame" offenders (yes, including the kids), putting their name and pictures on flyers (humiliation posting is allowed, I guess) and the backs of buses.  You can imagine how this affects their lives, and futures.  This article provides some details; don't miss the gallery.

Objective: incapacitation

It appears that the U.S. government has successfully driven Jose Padilla insane.

Pathways to torture

HR 6054, the 'Military Trials for Enemy Combatants' bill, is presently scheduled to be brought before the House of Representatives.  Certain Republican senators and Bush had a minor tussle over whether, as Bush demanded, the legislation would formally reinterpret U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions.   On the face of it, the compromise legislation does not do this; however, there appear to be three clear routes to reinterpreting such compliance: one legislative, one semi-legislative, and one executive.

First, a legislative loophole.  The present bill extends chapter 47 of title 10 of the U.S. Code to allow that the President or Secretary of Defense (or those acting under their authority) may designate a person an "enemy combatant" to be tried by a military commission; the President may also establish such commissions.  One concern here is that the definition of "enemy combatant" is worded so that its targeted designees might very well not count as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions:

 The definition of Lawful Enemy Combatant diverges substantially from the Geneva Convention III Article 4 (for example, "regular forces" vs "armed forces") definitions for a Prisoner of War, thus restricting the domestic law position as to the applicability of the Geneva Convention to covered groups. The effect is to return to a pre-Geneva Conventions standard of the kind described by Justice Thomas in his dissent in Hamdan, and implicitly the harsh treatment accorded such persons pre-1949.

Somewhat tempering this concern is the explicit recognition that a military commission is "a regularly constituted court, affording all the necessary ‘judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples’ for purposes of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions", which among other things forbids (subsection 1(a)) "Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" and (subsection 1(c)) "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" . 

So far, so good, until you get to the part where conformity with Article 3 is defined:

IN GENERAL.—Satisfaction of the prohibitions against cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment set forth in section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd) shall fully satisfy United States obligations with respect to the standards for detention and treatment established by section 1 of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, with the exception of the obligations imposed by subsections 1(b) and 1(d) of such Article.

That is to say, conformity to the prohibitions stated in subsections 1(a) and 1(c) (cited above) is interpreted as per the relevant section of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (sponsored by John McCain).  So, what standards for conformity does that act impose?  Answer: the standards provided by the Army Field Manual on Interrogation, long serving as a fairly constrained basis for interrogation operations, which Rumsfeld and others had discarded on the way to Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. 

One problem with basing conformity to the Geneva Conventions on the Field Manual is that the the Manual has long required that interrogation techniques conform to the Geneva Conventions. But the larger problem is that, as McCain acknowledged, the Act "would not set the Field Manual in stone – it could be changed at any time".    Indeed, one month after McCain introduced the legislation Rumsfeld announced that the manual would be rewritten by the Pentagon; the revision scheduled for release this past spring contained 10 classified pages in the interrogation techniques section, and moreover specifically elided various proscriptions from Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (not, presumably, in order to avoid HR 6054's being circular). Thankfully, the State Department and other factions put up sufficient resistance to the proposal that it was scrapped in favor of a new version (not yet released) according to which "All detainees will be treated consistent with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention" (so says an unnamed military official, anyway).  Still, the concern remains that since the Manual is not "set in stone", HR 6054's standards of conformity to the Geneva Conventions could end up being such as to clearly abrogate the conventions.

Second, a semi-legislative loophole.  Upon approving the Detainee Treatment Act (tagged on as an amendment to a Defense Appropriations Bill), Bush issued one of his infamous signing statements, stating

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

Title X specifically covers Section 1003 (named in HR 6054 as setting the standards of conformity to the Geneva Conventions).  Signing statements arguably impact the interpretation and implementation of the associated legislation:

Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch. These statements, for him, function as directives to executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the relevant law.

Hence even supposing the Field Manual retains formal conformity to the Geneva Conventions, HR 6054's conformity to these Conventions as per the "Detainee Treatment Act" may ultimately be subject to Bush's (more generally, executive) reinterpretation.

On to the third, directly executive, loophole.  In any case Bush evidently intends to ignore any limits that might be set by (a proper understanding of) the Geneva Conventions:

The bad news is that Mr. Bush, as he made clear yesterday, intends to continue using the CIA to secretly detain and abuse certain terrorist suspects. He will do so by issuing his own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions in an executive order and by relying on questionable Justice Department opinions that authorize such practices as exposing prisoners to hypothermia and prolonged sleep deprivation. Under the compromise agreed to yesterday, Congress would recognize his authority to take these steps and prevent prisoners from appealing them to U.S. courts. The bill would also immunize CIA personnel from prosecution for all but the most serious abuses and protect those who in the past violated U.S. law against war crimes.

Perhaps one form of such an "executive order" will take the form of a signing statement, assuming HR 6054 is passed. The upshot of this and the previous loopholes:

In effect, the agreement means that U.S. violations of international human rights law can continue as long as Mr. Bush is president, with Congress's tacit assent.

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.