Alito must be stopped

I had already made up my mind that Samuel Alito was not a good choice for the Supreme Court, but I hadn't posted anything about it on my blog (except for the Ben Sargent post below). I then read an article by Kevin Zeese about it, and I decided to weigh in on the issue, because it's just too important for me to sit back and say nothing.

Samuel Alito is wrong for the Supreme Court because he's too radical in his views of expanded presidential power, repeal of privacy rights, hate for abortion rights, and adherence to a strict reading of the US Constitution, a document written over 200 years ago and that, although fundamental to the very fabric of this country, should be read keeping the current times in mind.

Unfortunately, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the one that just held the hearings on Alito's confirmation, don't seem to have come out very strongly in opposition to the candidate, and this could mean he'll be approved very easily in a full Senate floor vote later this month. That would be a blow to our democracy and our way of life. Samuel Alito has a record of siding with the government, the police, the corporations and never, ever with the little guy. He's anti minorities and for chipping away at abortion rights until they can be overturned completely. He's just not a desirable justice.

This is what Mr. Zeese thinks will happen if Alito is confirmed:

The Supreme Court will once again have "four horses of the apocalypse" -- four partisan justices who favor executive power, corporate power, expansive law enforcement authority, co-mingling of religion and government, and minimal individual rights. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will provide the foundation for right wing extremism for decades to come.

Not a happy image at all. And this is his advice for the Democrats in the Senate:

Democrats should not fall for the canard that if they stop Alito they are likely to get a worse nominee. Exactly the opposite will happen. If Alito is stopped it will draw a line that makes it clear what is unacceptable in Supreme Court nominees.
[...]
If the nomination of Alito is blocked there may only be time for one more nomination to be considered before the 2006 Congressional election. President Bush will realize that if he wants to get a conservative nominee through he will need to pick someone no less conservative that Justice O'Connor. The president will realize that if he misplays this next nominee there is a good chance he will have to deal with a more Democratic Senate when he puts forward his next choice.

Will they heed his words of advice? Unlikely if history is any indication:

The Democrats need to learn from their past failure to block Supreme Court nominees. Remember, Justice Antonin Scalia, the leader of the partisan conservative wing of the court was approved by a unanimous Senate controlled by the Democrats. And, Justice Clarence Thomas was approved by a Democratic Senate despite a lack luster record in the law and strong allegations of sexual harassment.

If the Democrats haven't stopped two staunch conservatives like Scalia and Thomas (not only that, but Scalia was approved UNANIMOUSLY!!) when they controlled the Senate, what's the likelihood that they will (or can) do something now that they are the minority party and that they're afraid to use the filibuster for fear of losing it (when Frist invokes the "nuclear option" and takes the filibuster power away from the minority when voting for a judicial appointment)? Very slim.

Like Ray wisely put it, if you're afraid to use the filibuster for fear of losing it... then you've already lost it.

Mr. Zeese also addresses the issue of the Patriot Act, which is coming up for debate again in a few weeks and which apparently has been touched up by the Republicans, who turned it into an even worse and less appealing piece of terror-legislation than it was:

The Democrats should highlight provisions that make it a crime to hold an "unauthorized sign" at the Democratic or Republican Convention, or at an event where the President or Vice President is speaking, or at an event where the Secret Service decides that unauthorized signs are illegal. What do these provisions have to do with preventing terrorism? How will veterans, who risked their lives to defend our freedoms, feel about such an affront to Freedom of Speech?

Where is the outcry? Where is the outrage? Does Bush really think he's King and can do whatever he pleases? I don't know how or when he got that idea, because he lost the first election and became president only after the Supreme Court appointed him to the post, and barely won the second time, and only through shady tactics that, if employed in any other country, would be called election-fraud.

The Democrats better get their act together, because this election year they have a real chance of taking back at least one of the houses of Congress, but they have to be careful not to disillusion and disappoint us by sitting back when we need them to act, and then expect us to vote for them in droves come November.