Arbor Update

Ann Arbor Area Community News

Filibuster ongoing...outside Michigan Union

30. January 2006 • David Boyle
Email this article

A “filibuster”, in tune with the planned filibuster of Alito by Senate Democrats, was going on outside the Michigan Union a few minutes ago and is probably continuing. There is a man reading a book out loud, another one passing out ACLU flyers, and there is a big banner…

You may click Save the Court or thedeanpeople to send a message to every undecided Senator to filibuster Alito (Save the Court is easier, you don’t have to write a message). Alternately, you may call 1-888-355-3588 and tell your Senators, “Confirm Alito! I can’t wait to lose my freedom!” Whatever floats your boat.



  1. David,

    Hello, don’t lose hope. There’s a proposed filibuster agenda. It’s at the link under my name—you can make a difference: Pass the link to your friends.

    Let them know there is a plan, and a great case for the filibuster. The RNC is afraid of many of the issues.

    It is time to discuss these issues during an extended debate. Don’t lose hope, don’t let the RNC do what they did over IRaq WMD and the Patriot Act—force something down our throats.

    What is the RNC afraid of—why are they afraid of discussing something as they were with Iraq WMD? The answer is the RNC doesn’t want to answer questions . . .see the link. . . there is more.

    Thank you for your planned filibuster, David. Monday isn’t over—and there’s a great case to be made for open debate. Let your friends know, I am. Maybe you know others who can join me in spreading the word—I’ve done this before.

    I’m the author of this quote:
    http://www.44thad.org/streisand.asp
    – Constant -
       —Constant    Jan. 30 '06 - 03:15PM    #
  2. Filibuster sponsored by Kim Gandy was soundly defeated in the US Senate.
       —RS    Jan. 30 '06 - 07:14PM    #
  3. The irony of course is that once Alito does his dirty work to Roe and related abortion and privacy rights protection, he’ll be the best fund-raising tool for NOW and other organizations when Americans realize what’s been foisted onto them and the Court.
       —John Q.    Jan. 30 '06 - 07:35PM    #
  4. The irony of course is that Kennedy and Kerry and the liberal activists are the best fund-raising tools the RNC ever realized. Mainstream America sees the reality of this situation. The Court is returning to its Constitutional foundations and the people are rejoicing! What article and paragraph of the Constitution allows citizens to murder in the name of privacy? (Well, I’m personally opposed to abortion, murder, rape, assault, theft…, but who am I to impose my values on others??? Where does this right to privacy end?)

    Now speaks for an ever shrinking minority – feminism died in the 80’s. Most women like men and don’t look to lesbians for leadership. The ACLU was founded by the same people who started the Communist Party in America. The Separation of Church and State is found in the former Soviet Union Constitution, but is nowhere in our Constitution.

    The liberal media giants are collapsing, Air America is going bankrupt, the sleeping giant is awakening and the people are reclaiming this nation.

    Have a nice day!
       —Karen Luck    Jan. 31 '06 - 08:54AM    #
  5. “The irony of course is that Kennedy and Kerry and the liberal activists are the best fund-raising tools the RNC ever realized. Mainstream America sees the reality of this situation.” -k-luck

    ditto for bush and the dnc…i should know…i was a fundraiser!

    “The liberal media giants are collapsing, Air America is going bankrupt, the sleeping giant is awakening and the people are reclaiming this nation.” -k luck

    if you mean conservatives…reclaiming what? all three branches are right-wing…most major media outlets (tv and radio) are owned by republicans and bush received nearly half of major newspaper endorsements…i ask you conservatives, why do you think you are so damn oppressed??? why because somewhere, somehow, a non-religous person out there might be given the right by the american government to do as they please…

    and while we are on the notion of a turning tide…i don’t know…i mean, canadians voted against a corrupt government this year, even though many are liberal…in 2006, there are a lot of corruption scandels around the republicans…bob casey is challenging rick santorum in pennslvania…delay may not get re-elected…if the dems can play it right, they could get some work done…

    ms. luck is anti-american,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jan. 31 '06 - 10:10AM    #
  6. oh, and by the way, ms. luck, re: your comments that civil rights activists are communists…i don’t know if you got the memo, but the cold war is over…red baiting people who are to the left of richard nixon, ergo, has gone a litte passe…

    sorry,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jan. 31 '06 - 10:12AM    #
  7. Now there’s an interesting spin. Being for the Constitution in now anti-american??
       —Karen Luck    Jan. 31 '06 - 10:14AM    #
  8. Karen,

    You must be right. All I have to do is look at President Bush’s poll numbers and the polling of Americans who opposed Alito’s appointment if he would overturn Roe:

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/09/alito.poll/

    to know that people are finally waking up.
       —John Q.    Jan. 31 '06 - 10:24AM    #
  9. Ari,
    Please don’t misquote me – I didn’t say anything about civil rights activists. Just relating a fact about the founders of the ACLU.

    John Q.
    Doesn’t really matter what Bush’s poll numbers are, does it? He’s not running for office. And 70% of Americans would like to place some restrictions on partial birth abortion, which would in fact, overturn Roe v. Wade. Something sqeamish about delivering all but the head of a full term baby and then shoving scissors through the base of the baby’s skull and sucking the brain out of a squirming, kicking infant. No – you don’t have our support and we will no longer be silent in the face of this slaughter of the defenseless.
       —Karen Luck    Jan. 31 '06 - 10:40AM    #
  10. What article and paragraph of the Constitution allows citizens to murder in the name of privacy? (Well, I’m personally opposed to abortion, murder, rape, assault, theft…, but who am I to impose my values on others?

    Karen, aren’t you the one who was in support of “traditional marriage”? Tell me what article in the Constitution forbids gay marriage, or give me just one line at all defining marriage as heterosexual. Further, wouldn’t “traditional marriage” be you imposing your “values” on others?

    If you seek honest debate via a comment thread I highly recommend not contradicting yourself. It makes you look… Well… Dishonest (among other things).

    Have a nice day!
       —FAA    Jan. 31 '06 - 10:57AM    #
  11. FAA,

    Laws impose values on others. The items in parenthesis were not to be taken at face value – I was being facetious. Of course I want to impose my values against muder etc. on others.

    There is nothing in the United States Constitution that forbids gay marriage. There are now 18 states that have constitutions that prohibit gay gay marriage and another 4 states that will have it on the ballot in November. The percentage of voters that oppose gay marriage in the 18 states that have passed constitutional ammendments averages 72%. Check it out – you can verify my honesty.
       —Karen Luck    Jan. 31 '06 - 11:16AM    #
  12. “The ACLU was founded by the same people who started the Communist Party in America.”

    Hmm…you mean that Clarence Darrow, Felix Frankfurter and Upton Sinclair founded the Communist Party in America??

    Yes, there were Communists among the founders of the ACLU but no more than in any other progressive organization of the times. And the ACLU’s history has shown over the years that whatever the political leanings of its founders, it’s been willing to defend those on the left and the right. Of course, don’t let those facts dissuade you from using your guilt-by-association smears of people long dead to attack the current day ACLU.
       —John Q.    Jan. 31 '06 - 12:02PM    #
  13. Alito just got the votes he needed.

    Let’s move on.

    .....and Karen, enough with the gross descriptions. You can make your point just fine w/o that crap….
       —todd    Jan. 31 '06 - 12:23PM    #
  14. john q.,

    you have to remember what kind of warped spectrum people like ms. luck look to…according to some right-wing blogs, sen. hillary clinton (pro-war, tough on abortion) is a communist…

    jesus was a communist,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jan. 31 '06 - 02:11PM    #
  15. “the sleeping giant is awakening and the people are reclaiming this nation”

    As Ari noted, Republicans already control all three branches of government. Are you waiting on a Republican dictatorship before claiming victory?
       —John Q.    Jan. 31 '06 - 03:04PM    #
  16. “Please don’t misquote me – I didn’t say anything about civil rights activists. Just relating a fact about the founders of the ACLU.”

    Just relating a fact about the founders of the ACLU? Give me a break. In addition to being a gross oversimplification, your comment does more to suggest that the ACLU is (or was) a communist organization than it does to inform. Yes – several of the many ACLU founders had strong ties to American communism. (Many of whom renounced these ties later) What’s your point? Is labeling someone or something “communist” still a useful exercise for you? A way to classify things that you don’t understand into “good” and “evil?”

    I thought that this thread was about Justice Alito? Not that I mind deviating from the subject, but how are the sexual preferences of the members of NOW at all related to fundraising ability re: the Alito confirmation?

    There are a lot of unenumerated rights that the framers did not include in the Constitution. It wasn’t meant to be exclusive. Read the Federalist Papers. Hell, just retake 4th grade civics class. But please – quit it with the stereotypes and the McCarthyesque rhetoric.
       —Daniel Adams    Jan. 31 '06 - 03:30PM    #
  17. Ari:

    You should have your own T.V. show.

    Karen:

    Wow. Wow. Wait, my phone is ringing. Wait . . . wait . . . Karen, it’s for you! It’s 1953, and it wants its red-baiting back.

    Ok, all jokes aside, here are my two cents: With the polls showing something like 65% of Americans showing disapproval of Bush, who is “mainstream America?” No, he’s not running for office, but suggesting he is ruling with the will of the people is somewhat naive at this point.

    The Republican slogan machine never ceases to amaze me. Just as they turned monogamy into integrity (thanks Bill Maher), dissent into terrorism, and conformity into patriotism, they’ve turned conservativism on the Supreme Court into returning to “Constitutional foundations.” And which people are rejoicing? I don’t see rejoicing, except on the far right.

    Let me ask you this: what article of the Constitution allows for domestic spying? Just a question . . .

    And who said feminism was dead? Just because you want to believe it died with Reagan doesn’t make it so.

    Don’t even get me started on the whole guilt by association business. Strom Thurmond ran for President under a white supremascist party in 1948, Pat Buchanan is a Nazi apologist, and the Bush family secretly did business with the Third Reich. So what if some ACLU members were Communists? Two words: Frank Colin.

    For those who don’t know, Frank Colin was the leader of the American Nazi Party in the late 1970’s. When he was denied a right to march in Skokie, Illinois, a heavily Jewish area, who do you think came to his defense? That’s right the ACLU.

    Oh, and Karen you might want to read over the first amendment again. It’s pretty clear that the writers of the Constitution wanted to avoid the same kind of theocracy many on the religious far right wish to impose on the rest of us.

    I’m sorry, but Rupert Murdoch is a liberal? Ha! And I’m Sandra Day O’Connor! This whole liberal media conspiracy thing is getting old. You guys need to get some new material.
       —Jared Goldberg    Jan. 31 '06 - 05:53PM    #
  18. Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU:

    “I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately the abolishing of the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

    Joe McCarthy was right. Although Joseph McCarthy was one of the most demonized American politicians of the last century, new information—FBI recordings of Soviet embassy communications between 1944-48 (The Vanona Intercepts) – have shown that McCarthy was right in all his accusations. Every case he charged has now been proven correct.

    If you read the news rather than watched Hollywood movies, maybe you would have a better grasp of the truth.
       —Karen Luck    Jan. 31 '06 - 07:10PM    #
  19. Have you no sense of decency, Karen? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

    “McCarthy’s defenders cite the VENONA intercepts as evidence that the senator “was on to something. The problem with this defense is that very few of those in VENONA came under McCarthy’s scrutiny.
       —Dale    Jan. 31 '06 - 07:46PM    #
  20. yes, karen, george marshall and the u.s. army were communists…

    i don’t watch hollywood movies, but its a good thing i’m not indoctrinated with the rot your masters are feeding you…

    jesus was a communist,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jan. 31 '06 - 08:10PM    #
  21. Karen:

    Don’t make me laugh – there isn’t one thing that you’ve mentioned yet that I couldn’t pull of WorldNet or some other wacko right wing website. Needless to say, I’ve read the Baldwin quote. He was one of many ACLU founders and, as I mentioned, later renounced communism in its entirely. Again, what’s your point? That the ACLU is evil and therefore communist? Or that it is communist and therefore evil?

    Feel free to defend Joe McCarthy if you like. (Ann Coulter has. Good company Karen.) But get the facts right: The VENONA project did not – DID NOT – confirm that all or even most of McCarthy’s targets were communists. It confirmed that some of the people that Joe McCarthy went after were communist spies. That result should surprise no one – the USSR had spies in the US and we had spies there. McCarthy was right about that much.

    But that isn’t why he is demonized, and it isn’t why you’re being accused (by me) of similar tactics. McCarthy accused, harassed,and questioned hundreds of innocent Americans – very often using evidence that would be laughed out of court. Heresay. Rumor. The accused weren’t given the benefit of facing their accusers in open court, much less the due process protections owed to them by the 5th and 6th amendments. Along the way, McCarthy was discredited by the public and press, ostracised by members of his own party, and censured by the U.S. Congress. His investigations ruined countless reputations, but led to zero – ZERO – criminal convictions.

    At least McCarthy was fighting the war of the day. In labeling the ACLU “communist,” what war are you fighting, Karen?
       —Daniel Adams    Jan. 31 '06 - 08:10PM    #
  22. dan,

    for karen its still 1952…but then, how could she get on the internet???

    head-scratching,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jan. 31 '06 - 09:05PM    #
  23. Whoa – you all are over the top. The founder of the ACLU was communist. No secret here – common public knowledge. I didn’t call anyone a communist today. The ACLU WAS FOUNDED IN 1920. Baldwin was a friend of Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist who founded Planned Parenthood. The ACLU’s goal is a secularized America where religious speech is not only silenced but punished; where unwanted human life is quickly and easily discarded, hopefully at taxpayer expense; where the God-ordained institution of marriage and the family is on the way to becoming a distant memory, and where their “tolerance” is the silence of many others. The ACLU is opposed to the Boy Scouts, but defends NAMBLA. The ACLU has fought virtually all efforts to shield children from exposure to pornography, making America safe for pornographers and dangerous for children. The ACLU has consistently fought on the side of death: no restrictions on abortions at any time during pregnancy; the right of privacy for parents to kill their handicapped infants even after they are born, and to euthanize adults whenever they become inconvenient. The ACLU fights to deny the free exercise of religious beliefs to individuals or any public expression of Christianity.

    What’s my point? The initial premise was that the original post that cited the ACLU passing out flyers on the Ann Arbor campus is the minority viewpoint in today’s society. That the ACLU does not represent mainstream America. However, it seems I struck a sensitive chord with several persons by the mere mention of the ACLU founders’ political activity. If a person belongs to the communist party, and leaves an ample paper trail to attest to that fact, why the outrage over mentioning it? No heresay or rumor – historical fact. And now I am being accused of using tactics similar to Joe McCarthy? I think you are absolutely right!

    Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the State Department. Though the subcommittee cleared them all, within one year a State Department Loyalty Board instigated proceedings against 49 of the 62, and by the end of 1954, 81 of those on McCarthy’s list had either resigned from their government posts or been dismissed.

    What was the real extent of the McCarthy reign of terror?

    Number of persons killed—zero.

    Number of persons wounded or injured—zero.

    Number of persons tortured—zero.

    Number of persons arrested without warrant—zero.

    Number of persons held or imprisoned without trial—zero.

    Number of persons evicted, exiled, or deported—zero.

    Number of persons deprived of due process—zero.

    Most of the books written about McCarthy say that he smeared thousands of innocent people. This is impossible since McCarthy never even mentioned thousands of people. At the most, he publicly exposed about 160 persons, all of whom had significant records of collaboration with or support for Communists and/or Communist causes. Detractors of McCarthy talk about the innocent people he destroyed. I say—name one. They usually come up with someone who came before some other committee, or Hollywood, or something that was never a focus of a McCarthy investigation. Joe McCarthy was a Senator and was never involved in any House Committee hearings dealing with Communist infiltration of the Hollywood film industry.

    Joe McCarthy was hated and denounced not because he smeared innocent people, but because he identified guilty people: Lauchlin Currie, Gustavo Duran, Theodore Geiger, Mary Jane Keeney, Edward Posniak, Haldore Hanson, John Carter Vincent, Owen Lattimore, Edward Rothschild, Irving Peress, and Annie Lee Moss.

    Tell me if you can, which one of the 160 persons publically named by McCarthy was misidentified?
       —Karen Luck    Feb. 1 '06 - 12:47AM    #
  24. wow, so much…but its getting late…

    many of those investigated where innocent…but moreoever, what were they innocent of…a minority of people targeted by mccarthy and hoover were communists…is holding a partiularly viewpoint that is unpopular illegal???

    if not, should it be???

    the point is that your attempt to undermine a group that defends the fundamentals of american liberty from christian fundamentalists who want to scrap the first amendment and roll back civil rights because a few of its founders several decades ago held unpopular views is cheap…moreover, scaring people by calling them “communist” because it is an epithet is outdated, to say the very least…

    i mean, you could get with the times and just call anyone who is to the left of genghis khan a terrorist, but it would still be just as absurd…

    it is funny though how people like karen claim to defend christian values, even though those values run contrary to everything jesus taught…oh well…guess whatever fits the political agenda…

    “Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”—Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

    take the mic,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Feb. 1 '06 - 01:15AM    #
  25. “Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the State Department. Though the subcommittee cleared them all, within one year a State Department Loyalty Board instigated proceedings against 49 of the 62, and by the end of 1954, 81 of those on McCarthy’s list had either resigned from their government posts or been dismissed.”

    Are you really arguing that McCarthyism proves that McCarthyism was justified?
       —Dale    Feb. 1 '06 - 02:03AM    #
  26. Let me ask you this, Karen (maybe this will explain why your opinion of McCarthy is so, um, sad):

    Let’s say a Senator calls a press conference and says that he has evidence that your local Christian church is a terrorist cell. All of your friends and coworkers know that you are a devout member of this church.

    You are fired from your job, and can no longer find work because a list of the people who belong to your church has been passed around. Your kids (for the sake of argument, let’s say you have kids) can no longer go to school because when they do, other kids tease them mercilessly, and often assault them.

    Now you can’t move because you have no money to move with (no job), and you can’t sell your home because no God-fearing American would ever give money to a known terrorist. And, of course, no one will hire or work with you.

    All the while, this Senator, when asked for hard evidence, merely changes the subject, and lists even more Christian churches that are filled with terrorists. Congressional Commitees are called, but your church is the last to be investigated. Do you know how long it takes for a Congressional Commitee to do its work? It can take years.

    Meanwhile, everyone hates you, you can’t feed your family, the Church you love has disbanded, you can’t move, and you can’t get a job. And worst of all you can’t prove that you aren’t a terrorist, because you can’t get a trial for that kind of thing.

    And all the while, the Senator never named you personally….what a swell guy, right? No harm done, right?

    Get it?
       —todd    Feb. 1 '06 - 02:12AM    #
  27. And on a personal note:

    I thought there were a few givens in American society. You know, like kicking puppies is bad, or littering is wrong, or don’t take another guy’s beer without asking first.

    You know. A priori. The givens.

    I thought “The McCarthy Era” was one the worst periods in the history of our country, and an affront to everything someone like John Wayne or the hardcore Christian Right stood for. Did I miss a meeting?? Do I need a new decoder ring?

    I gotta get out of the house more.
       —todd    Feb. 1 '06 - 02:44AM    #
  28. “The ACLU fights to deny the free exercise of religious beliefs to individuals or any public expression of Christianity.”

    This is simply a lie and no amount of Karen’s spin is going to make it true. The truth is that the ACLU regularly defends the rights of individuals to exercise their religious beliefs publicly and privately. What the ACLU has opposed is government expression of religious speech. They don’t think it’s the government’s place to serve as a mouthpiece for religious speech.
       —John Q.    Feb. 1 '06 - 12:28PM    #
  29. First Karen: Remember when I mentioned getting your information from nut-job right wing websites? Well, in the process of checking your facts, I found that you ripped your list of McCarthy traitors off this website verbatim – http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/mccarthy.htm

    A select quote from said website: “Peace as a goal means Communist world control.” Awesome. Right on.

    On to the rest…

    “What’s my point? The initial premise was that the original post that cited the ACLU passing out flyers on the Ann Arbor campus is the minority viewpoint in today’s society. That the ACLU does not represent mainstream America.”

    You mentioned the ACLU’s communist ties in the 1920s and 30s in order to point out that the ACLU is out of the mainstream today? In addition to being a truly bad argument, I don’t think that its accurate – the ACLU has never had more members than in the last five years.

    I’m not calling you a McCarthyite because you’ve used rumor or heresy to accuse individuals of being communist. Clearly the label refers to more behaviors than that. I’m calling you a McCarthyite because of the way you’re throwing around the word “communist” as though it were relevant to the discussion and as though it still carried its 50s defamatory punch. It is not and it does not.

    I’m not going to get into what appear to be clear differences of opinion on matters of church and state, gay rights, and abortion. But the ACLU doesn’t “oppose” the boy scouts; the ACLU opposes discrimination in the boy scouts. The ACLU doesn’t support the secularization of America; it opposes government property and resources being devoted to overty religious causes – something which is, by the way, against the law. The ACLU hasn’t fought “all” efforts at shielding children from pornography.

    These unsupported remarks and gross exaggerations of the fact reflect just how little you understand, or care to understand, the organization that you’re attacking. Has the ACLU defended NAMBLA and the KKK? Yes. Has the ACLU also defended the rights of Christians wrongly prohibited from religious expression and free association? Yes. The ACLU has been, contrary to what you’ve read on the internet, on both sides of the religious culture clash in this country. Everyone gets the same rights, everyone gets representation.

    Onto Joe McCarthy… I must admit – no one has ever asked me to prove to them that Joe McCarthy was a cancer. Its sort of like being asked to prove that Nixon was a bad guy. Anyway, here goes:

    Can I name one person identified by McCarthy who was innocent? Sure. From the list you cited, not one of those individuals was ever convicted of any crime relating to McCarthy’s accusations. Several of those individuals on that list were only guilty of pushing toward the state dept. towards supporting Mao and not the Nationalists during the Chinese civil war. Now you and the revisionist elements of the right wing may think that is a crime, but its not. Things that are criminal: Slander, libel, defamation, fraud… Get it?

    Other names? John Marshall. Dean Acheson. Bustavo Duran. All innocent.

    Not only was he dead wrong on a lot of these people, but his tactics likely had a negative impact on the pursuit of actual spies and traitors:

    “This new evidence is forcing the revision of many of the prevailing myths about the internal communist threat to American democracy in the postwar era. None of it exculpates McCarthy. He remains a political bully who hurt a number of people. But his exaggerated and baseless charges also harmed the anti-communist cause. In a variant of Gresham’s Law, his bad charges trivialized and weakened good ones. Genuine Soviet spies portrayed themselves as victimized by McCarthyism. They found sympathetic listeners, convinced that anyone accused of espionage or communism must be innocent because some innocent people were accused.” Dr. Harvey Klehr, Emory University

    Most of all, his tactics were disgusting. The only possible defense for McCarthy is that he got some of the names right. But he got a lot of the names wrong, and when you’re dealing with a person’s reputations, right some of the time isn’t good enough. Doing it for political gain is even worse. You can defend McCarthy. But know the devil that you’re defending.

    Phew.
       —Daniel Adams    Feb. 1 '06 - 04:26PM    #
  30. Very well written arguments Daniel

    Never went to the web site you mentioned – I think there are multiple sources of the same info.

    Just a short note to add. McCarthy wasn’t trying to get anyone convicted of a crime. His point was to make sure that persons holding sensitive government jobs had not sworn allegience to a foreign country that at the time was our most formidible foe.
       —Karen Luck    Feb. 1 '06 - 04:50PM    #
  31. Wasn’t this forum about filibustering Alito?

    What in the hell does Joe McCarthy or Communism have to do with either the filibuster or the appointment of Alito to the Supreme Court?

    Did I miss something?
       —Jared Goldberg    Feb. 1 '06 - 05:34PM    #
  32. Well, what brought up your comments on McCarthy is your mischaracterization of the ACLU.

    Here’s what the ACLU does, according to their own website:

    “The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights. (emphasis added).”

    Essentially, at this point in time, Karen, you are in the happy position of being part to the ‘democratic majority’. The ACLU is there to keep you and your pals from sticking it to the minority by trampling all over the Constitution and, more specifically, the Bill of Rights.

    So the idea that you don’t like the ACLU is, well, predictable. Of course you don’t like them. They keep you from making the Federal or State government from doing whatever you want it to, regardless of how this affects others. You should be happy that the ACLU is there for us, because sooner or later you are going to be in the minority, and the shoe will be on the other foot.

    Or course, the irony of the Right’s distaste for the ACLU is that the ACLU’s sole function is to preserve and protect the original 200 year old document that basically defines America. What can possibly be more ‘conservative’ than that?
       —todd    Feb. 1 '06 - 05:51PM    #
  33. Karen:

    “His point was to make sure that persons holding sensitive government jobs had not sworn allegience to a foreign country that at the time was our most formidible foe.”

    The job required a scalpel. McCarthy used a baseball bat. He was an asshole.
       —Daniel Adams    Feb. 1 '06 - 06:19PM    #
  34. jared:

    to clarify why we are talking about communism:

    according to ms. luck, there are some people who want to defend the basic tenants of american liberty…ergo, they are all communists…

    long live lennon,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Feb. 1 '06 - 08:17PM    #
  35. Todd –
    “Essentially, at this point in time, Karen, you are in the happy position of being part to the ‘democratic majority’. ”

    I have never considered myself a part of the ruling majority. Every 4 – 8 years we alternate seats between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. Is Bush, Frist, Rove, Libby and Kerry, Dean, Kennedy, and Clinton really the best we have? I think the majority want honest, ethical govenment and that’s never been the case as long as I have been alive.

    A couple dozen wealthy individuals control both parties for their personal advantage. We all screwed. As long as we keep attacking each other across an essentially narrow range of viewpoints, it provides the distraction to allow others to operate without any oversight by the people or the press. We argue over the “story/scandal of the day” while the Federal reserve prints up more worthless paper, sending scores of jobs overseas.
       —Karen Luck    Feb. 2 '06 - 09:45AM    #
  36. Meant to type, “We’re all screwed”.

    By the way, Ari, to save you some time:

    Jesus is a communist.
       —Karen Luck    Feb. 2 '06 - 09:50AM    #
  37. “A couple dozen wealthy individuals control both parties for their personal advantage.”

    “We argue over the “story/scandal of the day” while the Federal reserve prints up more worthless paper, sending scores of jobs overseas.”

    all this class warfare is starting to sound red to me…

    blessed are the cheesemakers,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Feb. 2 '06 - 09:53AM    #
  38. Exhibit A:

    Headline: Alito breaks with Conservatives on first vote.

    Can’t say I didn’t tell you…...

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/01/alito/index.html
       —todd    Feb. 2 '06 - 10:22AM    #
  39. todd,

    forgot what you told us…is it that you thought alito would turn out to be more moderate than we thought???

    we the people,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Feb. 2 '06 - 01:16PM    #
  40. “forgot what you told us…is it that you thought alito would turn out to be more moderate than we thought???”

    Yes. He may very well piss off the right (and the left sometimes, too). We don’t know how he will behave, that was my point. Judge him according to the well-established guidelines of the ABA, not by some deductive guesswork, that was my other point. The ABA has done a pretty fine job of evaluating judges in the past.

    There’s an awful long history of this happening in the Supreme Court. You never know how a judge is going to turn out…... look at Kennedy. Justices can change temperment with age, and they can change viewpoints under the serious weight that goes with their job.

    If you look at the CNN website I referenced, you’ll see some of the cases that are coming up. We’ll have a decent indication of where Alito sits in a few years.

    But I don’t think you can get full marks from the ABA and be a left or right wing nutjob. More than that, if anything, the ABA has been accused of being too liberal-leaning. I don’t agree with this, but that’s just me.
       —todd    Feb. 2 '06 - 01:40PM    #
  41. Todd:

    I dunno about Alito. Though this first vote is encouraging I suppose, there isn’t a way to see what his rationale was in breaking from the Scalia-Thomas block.

    At first blush, he strikes me as a lot more Scalia than Roberts. But this first case is encouraging.
       —Daniel Adams    Feb. 2 '06 - 02:11PM    #
  42. it is possible that alito, a catholic pro-lifer, brings his the rationale from his stance on abortion to an opposition of the death penalty…this isn’t uncommon…as you will recall, gov. engler was the same way…

    however, some will instead be inconsistant with that ideology in order to be a puppet of the far right wing of the republican party…

    scalia, i’m looking in your direction,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Feb. 2 '06 - 03:37PM    #
  43. Without actually talking to the guy, its hard to say. My guess is that Alito just had a different textualist interpretation of the same issue – proof if any that even the Scalias and Alitos don’t have one true, consistent way of interpreting the law.

    Scalia isn’t as bad as he’s made out to be in liberal circles. The nation has this image of the court as purely political, which is patently untrue. Quite often, Scalia has a point – the Constitution is the owners manual, after all.

    Now Clarence Thomas…
       —Daniel Adams    Feb. 2 '06 - 05:37PM    #
  44. Scalia did provide a swing vote on the flag burning cases. But he’s also pretty darn political. Several conservative legal commentators have noted how he dumps his originalist theories when it suits the outcome he wants to achieve.
       —John Q.    Feb. 2 '06 - 06:01PM    #
  45. Sure. But that makes him no different from any other justice – except for the fact that pushes the texualist thing so aggresively. There’s a bit of hypocrisy there for sure.

    But the man has brought a serious issue to the front burner. It’s just too bad that its become a banner issue for conservatives who love nothing more than dumbing down a complicated intellectual process into a two-word sound bite. “Activist judges.” Gack. Even typing the word makes me puke a little bit in my mouth.
       —Daniel Adams    Feb. 2 '06 - 07:49PM    #