III. Using Rosa
—
[H]aving sampled Scalito’s intellectual wares in the Casey case, I think I can say unequivocally that this is a battle that has to be fought to the bitter end — up to and including nuclear war. Little Scalia has to be attacked with any and every legal tool at the left’s disposal, and for my money, Casey is a pretty good place to start.
And if that be Borking, let us make the most of it.
II. Casey as the Bat
—
I. Body Double
Back to Main
October 31, 2005
WB: Body Double ++
Comments
The stink of desperation is upon them. A lame attempt to turn back the clock 2 years and get the yahoos riled up. Harry Reid is going to crush them.
http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/press/05/2005A31334.html
Posted by: ~ | Oct 31 2005 17:00 utc | 2
Even shorter version of “Crossing the Rubicon”: Heil Caesar!
Posted by: gylangirl | Oct 31 2005 17:46 utc | 3
The moet important question is: How does he interpret the first and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution with regards to the “personhood” of the Corporation.
Posted by: pb | Oct 31 2005 17:52 utc | 5
This nomination battle will result in the GOP “nuking” the Senate filibuster: Reid doesn’t have the votes. But he will be the majority leader a year from January.
Posted by: gylangirl | Oct 31 2005 17:53 utc | 6
@pb – I think you are right. That question (and the money behind it) may well decide the issue.
BTW: If Harriet Miers is “most qualified to serve on the Supreme Court”, why is Bush picking Scalito?
Another thought. A lot of folks in the comments at MoA and elsewhere, including me, have suggested that Bush would go to war again to divert the light from the American induced catastrophy in Iraq.
With this SCOTUS candidate he has initiated a war, hopefully one that is bigger than he can handle, and fortunatly one with less people to be bombed into nirvana.
A lot hangs on Fitzgerald and his next move – if there will be one, but I’m optimistic in that case.
Unfortunatly with all the media and blog attention shifted to this, the lost US war on Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic devastaion in New Orleans and Sharon’s creation of an apartheit state of Palestine all are falling under the table.
The “Americans” seem to have a genetical preferance which makes them “superior”. A short attention span.
If we can’t Bork this guy, we might as well hand the wing nuts the keys and ALL move to Canada.
Yes, if in fact we do get Justice Scalito, that would pretty much tip the scales to emigration as the only sane option.
Posted by: mistah charley | Oct 31 2005 20:27 utc | 9
Dis goombah, Scalito, he’s a made man inna Bush family. Youse guys widda smart moufs? Better button up on that if youse knows what’s best.
Little George got Addington and Hannah in his corner now. We’re goin to the mattresses on dis one, kappisch?
Dat lyin’ douche bag Cheney can go hump himself blue inna face, he’s got no gel widda boss no mo’ ya know? Better watch his back, or dats dat. Just sayin’ . . .
Anyways we gonna hole up on the second floor of da White House and take on all comers. Bring it on, right? We gonna get our boy Scalito in there no matter effin what an — badabing-badaboom — we can do dat martial law thing whenever we see da need.
Dis thing of ours can work, ya know? Ya know? Awww — whattayouse know? Fugeddaboudid . . .
Posted by: Antifa | Oct 31 2005 20:28 utc | 10
From today’s DemocracyNow
When I think Jonathan Turley was actually on Katie Couric’s show this morning saying, ‘There will be nobody on this court, if Judge Alito is confirmed, who is to the right of him.’ And Katie Couric said, ‘Well, does that include Justice Scalia?’ And he said, ‘Well, it will probably be a race to the finish, but one or the other will beat the other by a nose.’ So, that gives you a sense of where he’s going to be, and that explains why the right wing is so happy now.
If JackAss Party doesn’t Filibuster, they’re Dead.
Posted by: jj | Oct 31 2005 20:47 utc | 11
One other thought. This is Identity Politics run amuck. When people say, women need to be represented in proportion to our numbers, that’s called “Identity Politics”. When white boys keep appointing white boys ‘cuz they identify w/them, funny how that’s not called Identity Politics.
Posted by: jj | Oct 31 2005 20:50 utc | 12
I support the right to chose, but I do not have trouble with the notion of informing the father of a choice to have an abortion. Fathers have some rights, too, and I think that includes a right to be part of the decision-making process.
The bit with the machine guns bothers me, though. There *is* a difference between “the right to bear arms” (as part of a well-regulated militia) and the right to pack as much firepower as one can afford.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 31 2005 21:05 utc | 13
“Bush’s nominee believes husbands have a vested property right in their wives’ uteruses.”
Well, do they have any rights regarding their children after delivery? One day before?
Posted by: aloyisius | Oct 31 2005 21:51 utc | 14
Nose count time… part one:
To get cloture they need 60 votes… 54 GOP straight up plus six Dems… the need six to turn. Here are 12 likely candidates who are either moderate pro-life or from states with large pro-life constituencies:
Baucus MT
Bayh IN
Conrad ND
Dorgan ND
Johnson SD
Landrieu LA
Licoln AR
Nelson FL
Nelson NE
Pryor AR
Reid NV
Salazar CO
My guess is they can find six from that list. Once they do it will be like a snowbal rolling down hill… Scalito gets approx 70 votes in confirmation.
Lesson: win elections & win’em big… period. So big they can’t be stolen… else prepare to take to the streets or put up with crap.
Posted by: dry fly | Oct 31 2005 21:52 utc | 15
Fathers have some rights, too, and I think that includes a right to be part of the decision-making process.
And if that decision vote ends one against one that neet father will gracefully step back and allow his decision to be overturned by that bitch. Grow up and see live.
The bit with the machine guns bothers me, though. There *is* a difference between “the right to bear arms” (as part of a well-regulated militia) and the right to pack as much firepower as one can afford.
Since 1934, any American without a criminal record (who lives in a state without its own ban) can own a fully operable machine-gun if s/he is willing to pay the hefty federal license fee.
Posted by: Meteor Blades | Oct 31 2005 22:15 utc | 17
The left seems to operate lately with caution around the abortion issue, as if they are in the minority. I haven’t seen many opinion polls, lately, but I don’t think that is the case. They should just stand up to this nomination and force the Republicans to try the nuclear option. It will totally backfire on them. In fact, I doubt they will be able to get a majority of Republicans to stand behind the nuclear option. This could likely be the point at which the Republican Party will have to split. Strategically, the Democrats should fight this nomination with everything they have. Bush picked exactly the right candidate to give the Democrats the edge here. Hopefully, they will find their spine this time.
Posted by: steve expat | Oct 31 2005 22:38 utc | 18
@mistah charley
Well, according the article below moving to Canada is useless…
Manual for Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 31 2005 22:50 utc | 19
Bush picked exactly the right candidate to give the Democrats the edge here. Hopefully, they will find their spine this time.
I think you are wrong expat… I think this nomination was designed to pull the GOP base tighter even if they don’t get the appointment. In fact I think they get even tighter if they FAIL due to Dem filibuster… but a filibuster won’t succeed IMHO.
GOP needs an issue in ’06 that isn’t going to start with an ‘I’… as in Iraq, Iran, interest rate, income, inflation, investigation…
So change the topic to ‘j’ – judges… and what better way to get the spot light off the administration than to have that fight in the Senate.
The only way the GOP ‘lose’ is if the Dems raise all the arguments against Scalito – make for a very visible & eye opening hearing process where a lot of these issues get aired… then fail or refuse to block the vote… let it proceed to the floor fight. Then a number of GOPers from moderate states will have to decide… do they vote with or against… folks like Chaffe, Collins, Snowe, Voinovich, DeWine & Spectre.
But the ‘Mod GOPers’ above could ALL vote against confirmation and it still gets through because the DEMs need to hold their camp together (no small feat) and get all six GOP defectors. So the GOP could end up having it both ways – their moderates get to vote their local constituencies bias but the national party still gets its way. Triangulation GOP style.
This wasn’t an accident either. I’m sure they did the head count long ago. They already have the votes baring a ‘live boy or a dead girl’ revelation.
Posted by: dry fly | Oct 31 2005 23:07 utc | 20
I agree with b.
I think it’s an attempt to divert attention and force away from the real problem. They are in very deep trouble. And the evidence is all over, too late to delete. The animal frenzy around this is what they hope will at least keep the public off their trail. I would think the Democrats know what’s up. The best thing would be to remain calm and cool, controlling the excessive input of fear and energy. I would think that the WH doesn’t care about the outcome, only that the battle is so severe that it stays in the spotlight. I wish people would stop falling for their shit. If they could just play along keeping their eyes on the real story. A slow boring hearing. Harry Reid once filibustered non-stop with an excruciating dramatic reading from one of his published books.
I think their is a powerful anti-toxin circulating in the vascular system of this country now and these agents of sickness are frantic.
Watch for them to keep trying to find hiding places.
Posted by: jm | Oct 31 2005 23:35 utc | 21
First of all, the idea of “husband notification” is wrong on so many levels, but let’s just visit the most obvious one . It’s not a feminist or father’s rights issue. Biology (or god, or whatever the hell it is) has given women the blessing and curse of pregnancy. Until men can bring a baby to term, they just don’t get to have an opinion unless it’s requested. And depending on how you look at it, this lets men off the hook in making what is often a hard decision. Again, blame biology, not ideology.
But setting that issue aside for a moment, is anyone else confused about how such a law would be enforced? Maybe I’m missing something, but how does a clinic/doctor know that I’m married unless I tell them? Would women need to prove they weren’t married? Do these people bother to consider how one would enact their crazy laws?
Posted by: jenp | Nov 1 2005 0:17 utc | 22
Dry Fly,
We are talking about a guy who initially nominated Miers. I don’t think this is all that smart strategically. He had no choice but to nominate a far righter and appease the religious right. This will only galvanize his far right base. The more moderate Repubs still holding out will continue to trickle away. His religious nut base is not going to be enough for the 2006 or 08 elections (and Bush doesn’t care, because he has already been reelected). The rest of the Republican Party will have no choice but to distance themselves from these clowns to save their own asses. I didn’t think that opposing Roberts would pay any dividends and I thought that it was a good strategy to sit back and let the right dump Miers without help. Now the Dems have a great justification for a full fight without just being labelled obstructionists. Everytime the far right get into the limelight (a la Schiavo), it turns off the rest of Repubs.
Posted by: steve expat | Nov 1 2005 0:52 utc | 24
I believe there are other isues that require our attention. Miranda is one decision that is slowly being chipped away. This fellow sounds like he may be the nail in the coffin. The fourth amendment is hated by this WH. Exceptions are becoming more and more common in the “war on terra” and other amendments are at stake.
Further, what are his credentials on economic issues. How about the right to sue for damages? We focus on Roe, but there are many other privacy, civil liberty and economic justice issues this man can damage.
Posted by: jdp | Nov 1 2005 1:40 utc | 25
Perhaps the hearings and confirmation of Alito (despite the fact majority of Americans favor “choice” “privacy” “civil rights”) will force “progressives” to understand the Democratic Party is an officially moribund instrument of any self-respecting progressivism.
Posted by: slothrop | Nov 1 2005 1:52 utc | 26
I do not have trouble with the notion of informing the father of a choice to have an abortion. Fathers have some rights, too, and I think that includes a right to be part of the decision-making process.
do you also think the state should involve itself in the ‘right’ for a man to protest a womans pregnancy and possibly force her to have an abortion against her will? what if a woman had to get permission from the man to bring a child full term? soft-pedaling your idea as a ‘notion’ of choice leads directly to the consequence in case of conflict.
Posted by: annie | Nov 1 2005 2:17 utc | 27
The more moderate Repubs still holding out will continue to trickle away
Dick Armey once said about moderate politics… “The only thing you find ‘in the middle of the road’ are dead armadillos.” I think even a New Englander like Lincoln Chaffee is beginning to get it.
Those moderate GOPers might trickle away but only when they have someplace safe to trickle to… and right now there isn’t a safe place & Bush just made the middle ground even ‘less safe’. Those moderate GOPers will have to decide… to stay or run and there is really no where to run.
On the other side Reid has to do the samething… enforce discipline… hold his troops together & on message. His task is more difficult only because DEMs generally lack it (Will Rogers quip about an ‘organized political party’ still rings true today).
But I don’t think this was a dumb move by Team Bush at all. Classic triangulation. If the DEMs are going to do well – they will have to be even more cleaver. If past performance is any measure then slothrop is right… the guy is a shoe in.
Posted by: dry fly | Nov 1 2005 2:26 utc | 28
All the GOP Talking Points are dead. As dead as Reagan. If they smear Dems as “obstructionist”, the Dems can retort, “Which party obstructed Miers?!?” If the Rethugs bleat, “Every nominee should get an up or down vote,” Dems can retort, “Yeah, except Meirs!” Question is will our party of self-spine pluckers actually do or say these things?
Maybe.
Former President Clinton landed a justified smear on our Democrats:
Democrats can’t be afraid to talk about hot-button issues like abortion and should fight back against personal attacks from conservatives if they want to regain power in Washington, former President Bill Clinton said Saturday.
“You can’t say, ‘Please don’t be mean to me. Please let me win sometimes.’ Give me a break here,” Clinton said. “If you don’t want to fight for the future and you can’t figure out how to beat these people, then find something else to do.“
He is sooo right.
Too bad his wife is wrong, wrong, wrong.
annie
it is not as if these criminals are really concerned with life. the opposite is the truth. they seem to take great joy in the anhilation of it. especially if that life belongs to the ‘other’. they are also quite prepared to sacrifice their own as long as it is not family
it has always been true that those in govt most vocal in their anti abortion are also the great supporters of capital punishment because the vast majority executed are black. & well blak life is not the same is it?
they really do not care about the thousands of bodies floating up the missisipi or the tigris or the euphrates. they really don’t care. they don’t even include it in their graphs or their powerpoint displays
they do not care for human life & never have. their concern on spt 11 was not with the loss of life but with the destruction of a symbol & property. their so called concern with those lives was just an excuse to take many others
no i(ve had it with these butchers who have spent the century slaughtering people left right & centre in countries they would not remember the day after. taking village after village town after town city after city
they have destroyed the sacred in humanity
they have pulverised hope
they have extinguished whatever that exists in us that believes in a future
& they take delight in it. you can see it in their sneering faces. look at their faces – always sneering as ig they have told a joke at our expense
& that is how they consider the murder of other – a joke
that is how they considered the dead vietnamese, the dead of latin & central america – the dead of africa they used as firewalls for their stupid & degraded policies
they are monstrous & they are crude monsters
when they speak of life you know they are speaking of death
they are without exception the enemies of life
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 1 2005 2:54 utc | 30
the casey at bat entry is excellent–reminding again how framing abortion as a privacy right is a means to assure male domination of reproduction. As I understand the argument you present here, Roe preserves, with intermittent tweeking, the abortion right so long as the provenance of the right remains “private.” Elsewhere, Harris v. McRae in 1980 screwed poor women access to abortion funded by Medicaid. Who cares about poor women? Women of means are controlled via the privacy right, but will continue to have conditioned access to abortion. As both classist and sexist, present law does what powerful men would like, no? This is why I find it unlikely Roe would ever be overturned.
Posted by: slothrop | Nov 1 2005 3:54 utc | 31
When we used to play capture the flag, we’d
always use a dummy defense to test where the
other ‘team’ had their scouts on point, then
make our move according to the ‘smoke signal’.
Face it, Miers was a feint. The Dems held off
their riposte, correctly, until limp-wrists
on the ultra-right and the boil-butt traitors
took her down, then Repugs lost their thrust.
This time, no feint, no coup double, this is
an all-out sabre attack, slice and chop with
ferocity like Gibson’s blue-faced Wallace.
The Dems will simply side-step, and let the
Repugs trip over their own momentum, unless
Rove can get his three-pointed hat and red
frock-coat on, in time to join the fray.
What we need is withering cross-fire against
Rove’s position (which Reid is doing) with a
saber-buckling riposte against Bush’s Alito,
which the Left Blogistan is doing, until Fitz
can once again make the nightly evening news.
Fitz? … Fitz?!
Do you sometimes get the feeling like maybe
Fitzgerald the Bruce may have sold US to the
Redcoats for the good of the Repug Empire?
That maybe WE are Wallace, wildly gyrating,
about to be gutted, nutted and garroted?
Libby will get 3-5, with good behavior, and
a pardon in three years and two months hence.
There’ll be 7,000 dead on the field of glory,
crude will be at $120 a barrel and investors
will be celebrating the 20,000 DJIA.
The majority of Americans will rent their
furniture, mortgage their interest penalties,
and cash their paychecks at the pawn shop.
If you think this is a Watergate replay, that
it’s 1974 all over again, and Bush will fade
away, you’re taking *way* too many Xanax!
*Everything* changed in 1984! (Reagan)
*Everything* changed in 1989! (S&L bailout)
*Everything* changed in 1998! (DJIA sellout)
*Everything* changed in 2001! (USofA sellout)
*Everything* changed in 2003! (Global sellout)
Welcome to the jungle….
Posted by: tante aime | Nov 1 2005 3:57 utc | 32
With the evacuation of tens of thousands of democratic voters from New Orleans, Landrieu probably doesn’t have a chance of re-election, so she ought to do the right thing and stick with the dems on voting against Alito.
Posted by: Brian Boru | Nov 1 2005 4:12 utc | 33
If he’s Borky, then he deserves a Borking!
Bork the fucker!
Posted by: doug r | Nov 1 2005 4:15 utc | 34
Run through the Jungle. The D J I will be at 5,000 and any members of the Dow Jones Cult still surviving will be on all fours with their brains dripping out of their noses from the last tequila and mad cow spiced 24 oz Porterhouse steak fest. Californian Wing Nuts will tender their women to the Governator, Governator’s perogative, before they’re sent to Kansas to be crucified for the high crime of having an abortion in the 80s. Just so they can borrow another $10,000 to make the next two payments on their McMansions, the wingers need to sit quietly for the 2nd half of the season in front of their double wide flat screens, flat screens for narrow minds. These are just two possible scenarios that will unravel as we see how far this McHale’s navy crew of Republicans have sunk themselves already from January till now. Good work guys. Morning in America for the cocaine nose bleed chief.
Quick, give me an ounce and I’ll see if whatever space cadets and I can pull up this crashing Texas Air Natty Dread.
Posted by: christofay | Nov 1 2005 7:13 utc | 35
b,
Funny how both abortion & gun rights advocates both seem to get upset at the slightest restrictions on their rights. I support free choice, but not unrestricted access to abortion in any form. I am not against private persons possessing firearms, but I am not for unrestricted access to firepower in any form.
Once again, I support *every woman’s right* to obtain an abortion, but not unrestricted access. I don’t have trouble with the notion of making a husband (but not an absentee boyfriend) part of the decision-making process. Despite the fact that abortion is every woman’s right, it is not a decision to be taken lightly.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 1 2005 7:27 utc | 36
“I support the right to chose, but I do not have trouble with the notion of informing the father of a choice to have an abortion. Fathers have some rights, too, and I think that includes a right to be part of the decision-making process.”
Well I’m very proud of my misogeny but even I don’t think I could go with that one.
Lets imagine for a moment that wife has one of those conditions where any more children will probably kill her. Hubby is a violent control freak. How in hell else would a women with this condition get pregnant?
It basically means that wifie is gonna die because if she tells hubby he’s gonna say no. Which means she can either try and have a termination anyway in which case hubby will haul out that machine gun and go blasting away or she doesn’t have a termination and the pregnancy kills her.
This is not a particulalrly rare or extreme situation when we are talking about a married couple having to deal with abortion.
Given that most people regard a termination as a last resort, then the circumstances around this decision are likely to be fairly dire.
Few married couples in particular are going to regard a termination as a mundane everyday circumstance.
How long do you really think it would take before a rapist, who lets face it, normally has issues with power and control over his victims, uses this little piece of ‘men’s rights’ to wreak havoc on the life of one of his victims.
By the time the law has had a bit added to cover every such circumstance it would need to be longer than one of those turgid slave/slaver fantasy novels that the lawmakers would probably have to read to make sure they got every off the wall option of human behaviour.
Given this whole thread is about facist judges with a penchant for repressing women how long would it be before one of those types used this amendment to ‘stitch up’ some woman who reminded him of a humiliation?
Not to forget the role that the tablod media play in exposing these real life soap operas anyone who had an argument with their spouse about the best course of action is going to have their intimate business become every voyeurs fantasy.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 1 2005 7:40 utc | 37
@remembereringgiap
If you’ll care to trouble b, as to my e-mail addy, I’ll be happy to not only share my infomation on the translation software I just bought, I’ll even send you a full copy of it.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 1 2005 11:00 utc | 38
DiD,
I did mention that only husbands – not rapists or absentee boyfriends – ought to be notified. Nor do I advocate that she obtain permission, but I think that it is fair for the husband/father to be informed of the decision to end a life he helped bring about.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 1 2005 13:08 utc | 39
uncle have contacted b – not sure of yr aress – contact me by email
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 1 2005 18:01 utc | 40
well what is it husband/father or just husband. or are all children ‘born out of wedlock’ fathered by rapists or absentee boyfriends??? and what do you propose for the couple who disagree? would one of the options be the wife having to carry a child full term just to turn the child over to her husband who she knows to be perhaps violent, abusive, an alcoholic? realistically , don’t most wives share information about their pregnancies about to their husbands?
and if they don’t perhaps there is good reason.if a man has sex outside his marriage there may not be a telltale sign if the woman gets pregnant. if his unmarried lover gets pergnant they would be afforded the luxury of obtaining an abortion in privacy without getting anyones permission, would they not? yet a wife would not have this advantage. why do you want the state inside your marriage?
Posted by: annie | Nov 1 2005 18:14 utc | 41
what if a couple is separated and the woman becomes pregnant by her lover whom she wants to marry when the divorce goes thru has to get permission to keep the child from her husband who is so distraught at the prospect of her pregnancy he goes thru the judicial system to prevent a full term pregnancy? or is this permission you advocate only in case of preventing abortion?? the possible scenarios here are endless. millions of couples don’t have blissful relationships. that’s why there is so much divorce. the scenario you propose
leads society down a path towards the handmaid’s tale
Posted by: annie | Nov 1 2005 18:30 utc | 42
it is not a decision to be taken lightly
have you EVER heard of a pregnant woman taking abortion lightly? really, that’s quite a stretch , get real.
Posted by: annie | Nov 1 2005 18:38 utc | 43
I feel like this abortion notification thing is real simple: treat women like rational adults and trust them to do whatever is best for them in their particular situation. That’s all there is to it. Men are extended the courtesy of being treated rationally, why not women?
Posted by: lull | Nov 1 2005 20:06 utc | 44
Most (rational) people are not affected by such laws (as above) one way or the other, they are perfectly able to work out differences between themselves. It would seem that the whole point of making such interactions into law is to protect people when such normal interaction are not present, in other words , to protect people in the extreme cases — where force might be used, instead of rational discourse. The law then defines the outer limits of (what should be a normal) behaviour. And to permit, in such cases, extreme behaviour is to justify force as a means to an end, in a domestic arrangement.
Posted by: anna missed | Nov 1 2005 20:24 utc | 45