The Truth will prevail, but only if we demand it from Congress!

9-11 Inside Job and Neocons Hacked 2004


Home ] 9-11 Inside Job ] Federal Reserve ] Hacking Elections ] Iraq War ] Fake War on Terror ] New World Order ] Media ] Peak Oil-Petro Euros ] Fascism in U.S. ] Editorials ] About Us ] Links ] Contact Us ]


Supreme Court Won't Review Bush's Terrorism Powers
Dems that Voted For Cloture
Alito- G.O.P. Reaps Harvest
No Tomorrow-If Alito Confirmed
Boxer's Opposition to Alito But No Filibuster
Judge Alito's Radical Views
Incredibly Un-Credible Alito
Alito Hearings: Democrats' 'Katrina'
Alito & the Ken Lay Factor
Alito & the Point of No Return
The Alito Myths
Are We Getting Borked Again
Stop Alito or Democracy Will Die
Alito Urged Eavesdropping Immunity
Frist Says He's Ready to Block Filibuster
Papers Energize Alito's Critics
From Alito's Past, a Window on Conservatives
Biden-Alito's Views May Bring Filibuster
Business leaders love Alito's judicial activism
Alito Leans Right
Dems Want Alito Hearings In 2006
Alito- Where were you in '72
Bush Nominates Alito for Supreme Court
Right Wrangles over Miers
White House Stonewalls Senate concerning nominee


                 US Supreme Court Take-Over

With everything else that has been happening involving

the Bush Administration, I honestly have not been paying

much attention to Bush's nomination to the United States

Supreme Court. 

Now I am.  I will try to catch up on this ongoing example of

Bush's political corruption and cronyism.


Supreme Court Won't Review Bush's Terrorism Powers

News Updates from Citizens for Legitimate Government
03 April 2006

Supreme Court won't review Bush's terrorism powers.



Dems that Voted For Cloture:

By brent,

Mon Jan 30th, 2006 at 07:27:45 PM EDT ::

These are the ones that voted WITH the Republicans for cloture. It was never that the Dems needed

41 TO filibuster, it was that the Republicans, having only 55 votes, needed another 5 to invoke cloture,

which means end a filibuster.

They needed 5 Dems; they got 12.


In Alito, G.O.P. Reaps Harvest Planted in '82

January 30, 2006


Last February, as rumors swirled about the failing health of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist,

a team of conservative grass-roots organizers, public relations specialists and legal strategists

met to prepare a battle plan to ensure any vacancies were filled by like-minded jurists.

The team recruited conservative lawyers to study the records of 18 potential nominees —

including Judges John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — and trained more than

three dozen lawyers across the country to respond to news reports on the president's eventual pick.

"We boxed them in," one lawyer present during the strategy meetings said with pride in an

interview over the weekend. This lawyer and others present who described the meeting

were granted anonymity because the meetings were confidential and because the team had

told its allies not to exult publicly until the confirmation vote was cast.


No Tomorrow-If Alito Confirmed

01/25/2006 @ 3:50 pm

Filed by John Steinberg - Raw Story Columnist

As Benjamin Franklin left the final day of deliberation by the Constitutional Convention

in 1787, a citizen supposedly asked him, "Well, Doctor, what have we got--a Republic or

a Monarchy?" Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

If all goes as planned, in a week or so that Republic will finally escape our grip. When the

Senate votes to affirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the central tenet of our government -

the separation of powers - will take a blow from which it will likely never recover. In its place

a de facto monarchy will solidify and expand, and our Constitution will join the Geneva

Convention as a quaint anachronism. And the Republic we have kept for two hundred

years will join its Athenian and Roman predecessors as good ideas whose time has passed.


Senator Boxer's Opposition to Alito Is Meaningless

Without a Filibuster

This is more of her efforts to be ready to run for president in 2008.

Today, I am announcing my opposition to the nomination of Samuel Alito to the

Supreme Court of the United States. 

According to Article II of the Constitution, justices of the Supreme Court may not be

appointed by the president without the advice and consent of the United States Senate.

So it is our solemn duty to consider each nomination carefully, keeping in mind the

interests of the American people. And this nomination is particularly crucial because the

stakes have rarely been so high.


Judge Alito's Radical Views

Published: January 23, 2006

New York Times Editorial

If Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings lacked drama, apart from his wife's

bizarrely over-covered crying jag, it is because they confirmed the obvious. Judge Alito

is exactly the kind of legal thinker President Bush wants on the Supreme Court. He has

a radically broad view of the president's power, and a radically narrow view of Congress's

power. He has long argued that the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. He wants

to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and has a history of tilting the

scales of justice against the little guy.


Incredibly Un-Credible Alito

In yesterday's Senate hearings, Judge Samuel Alito once again proved he will say anything

to get hired. Alito's testimony was, according to Sen. Patrick Leahy (R-VT), " vague,

inconsistent, and at times, what his record shows." By dodging questions,

making excuses, and feigning ignorance in response to senators' questions, Alito presented

himself as an untrustworthy Supreme Court nominee, unwilling to answer tough questions

with truthful, forthright answers. "It's what we call in law school the slippery slope and if you

start answering the easy questions you are going to be sliding down the ski run into the hard

questions, and that's what I'm not so happy to do," said Alito to Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC),

summing up his own strategy for the day. But while Alito hoped not to reveal any of his

substantive views yesterday, he ended up revealing his lack of credibility. As Sen. Edward

Kennedy (D-MA) noted, "'Credibility' has rarely been an issue for Supreme Court nominees,

but it is clearly a major issue for Alito." (For more on Alito, check out


Alito Hearings: Democrats' 'Katrina'

By Robert Parry
January 14, 2006

For a constitutional confrontation at least five years in the making, the Democrats

on the Senate Judiciary Committee looked as prepared to confront Samuel Alito as

FEMA chief Michael Brown did in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

As with the hurricane that zeroed in on New Orleans days before coming ashore,

there should have been no surprise about Judge Alito. He was exactly what the

Republican base had long wanted in a Supreme Court nominee, a hard-line judicial

ideologue with a pleasant demeanor and a soft-spoken style.


Alito & the Ken Lay Factor

By Robert Parry
January 12, 2006

The “unitary” theory of presidential power sounds too wonkish for Americans to

care about, but the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court could

push this radical notion of almost unlimited Executive authority close to becoming a


Justice Alito, as a longtime advocate of the theory, would put the Court’s right-wing

faction on the verge of having a majority committed to embracing this constitutional

argument that would strip regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange

Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, of their independence.

If that happens, George W. Bush and his successors would have the power to instruct

these agencies what to do on regulations and enforcement, opening up new opportunities

to punish enemies and reward friends. The “unitary” theory asserts that all executive

authority must be in the President’s hands, without exception.


Alito & the Point of No Return

By Nat Parry
January 9, 2006

The U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito may represent a point of no

return not only on the issue of abortion and other longtime conservative political targets

but on the checks and balances that have been the cornerstone of American democracy.

With Alito’s confirmation to fill the swing-vote seat of Sandra Day O’Connor, George W. Bush

could well consolidate a majority on the high court to endorse his expansive interpretation of

presidential authority, including his insistence that his commander-in-chief powers are virtually

unlimited throughout the indefinite “war on terror.”

But Alito might face a tougher confirmation battle than Chief Justice John Roberts did, in part

because controversies over Bush’s claims to unfettered Executive power have deepened over

the past several months, such as the dispute over Bush’s asserted right to conduct warrantless

wiretaps of Americans.


The Alito Myths

Senators in yesterday's Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito were

spinning myths about the type of nominee they would like to have, failing to recognize

the actual man standing before them. But don't let the conservative senators fool you --

their statements that Alito will practice judicial restraint, will not have an agenda, and will

decide each case on an individual basis if appointed to the Supreme Court don't hold water.

Throughout his career, Alito has pushed a right-wing agenda and "could prove [to be]

more conservative than Antonin Scalia" if approved to the Supreme Court.


Are We Getting Borked Again?

By Martin Garbus,
Posted on January 12, 2006, Printed on January 12, 2006

By most accounts, Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court nominee, couldn't get past the

Senate Judicial Committee to a full Senate vote because of his extreme conservative views. But

Samuel Alito (and, for that matter, new Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts) arrive at the

exact same case results, just with a little more nuance and a lot less bluster.

A painstaking view of Bork, Roberts and Alito (all three were at the founding of Federalist Society)

and their cases show they all seek to expand presidential powers and minimize the restrictions of the

Bill of Rights, extend state power at the expense of federal power and destroy the separation of church

and state.

Roberts and Alito both articulated their views in Reagan's Justice Department. Bork was then Reagan's

eminence grise and of course got the Supreme Court nomination.




Bush is now completely and certifiably out of control. But to remove the last restraint

on the creation of a new American dictatorship they must install one more lock down

vote on the Supreme Court, in the person of Sam Alito.

Despite Alito's extreme right wing voting record and lifelong ideological agenda, nobody

expects him to show up at his hearing sporting a tail and horns wearing a red suit. Instead

he will lie and evade like some Wal-Mart smiley face, just as he did when in his confirmation

for the Court of Appeals he promised to recuse himself from cases involving his own

investments. Then he fought to do precisely otherwise. He will make absolutely any

misrepresentation of his views and his agenda to try to sneak past public accountability

yet again, while his record shouts otherwise. And only your voices speaking out now can

turn the tide against this judicial coup.


U.S. high court nominee,Alito urged eavesdropping immunity

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito once argued that

the country's top law enforcement official should be immune from legal action for authorising

domestic wiretapping if it was done in the interest of national security, newly released documents show.

In a 1984 memo written when he was an assistant to the solicitor general, Alito said: "I do not

question that the attorney general should have this immunity."


Frist Says He's Ready to Block Filibuster

Sun Dec 11, 5:10 PM ET

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Sunday he is prepared to strip Democrats of their

ability to filibuster if they try to stall Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.


Newly Released Papers Energize Alito's Critics

Credibility Questions Are Raised Anew

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 2, 2005; A02

Newly released documents by Samuel A. Alito Jr. touching on abortion and other issues

have pumped new life into efforts to sharply challenge his nomination to the Supreme Court,

liberal activists said yesterday.


From Alito's Past, a Window on Conservatives at Princeton

NY Times


WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 - In the fall of 1985, Concerned Alumni of Princeton was entering a crisis.

The group's members at the time included Samuel A. Alito Jr., now President Bush's nominee

to the Supreme Court, although there is no evidence that he played an active or prominent role.

The group had been founded in 1972, the year that Judge Alito graduated, by alumni upset that

Princeton had recently begun admitting women. It published a magazine, Prospect, which

persistently accused the administration of taking a permissive approach to student life, of

promoting birth control and paying for abortions, and of diluting the explicitly Christian character

of the school.

As Princeton admitted a growing number of minority students, Concerned Alumni charged

repeatedly that the administration was lowering admission standards, undermining the university's

distinctive traditions and admitting too few children of alumni. "Currently alumni children comprise

14 percent of each entering class, compared with an 11 percent quota for blacks and Hispanics," the

group wrote in a 1985 fund-raising letter sent to all Princeton graduates.


Biden-Alito's Views May Bring Filibuster

Sun Nov 20, 6:49 PM ET

The views that Samuel Alito expressed on reapportionment in a 20-year-old document could

jeopardize his Supreme Court nomination and provoke a filibuster, a leading Democratic senator said Sunday.

But Biden, D-Del., said he was most troubled by Alito's comment about reapportionment under

the Supreme Court when it was led by Chief Justice Earl Warren.

The Warren Court, as it became known, ended public school segregation and established the

election principle of one-man one-vote.

"The part that jeopardizes it (Alito's nomination) more is his quotes in there saying that he had

strong disagreement with the Warren Court particularly on reapportionment — one man, one vote,"

Biden told "Fox News Sunday."


'Business leaders love Alito's judicial activism'

Posted on Wednesday, November 09 @ 09:54:02 EST

Joe Conason
Source: The New York Observer

Assessing the philosophy, character and fitness of Samuel Alito to sit on the U.S. Supreme

Court will require more than eliciting vague and unresponsive answers about whether he will

remain faithful to Roe v. Wade, the precedent that protects abortion rights in America. It

means that Senators should take the time to closely examine his voluminous record on the

appellate bench, and ignore the Bush administration's drive to confirm Judge Alito before

the new year.

Fortunately, the Senate no longer seems quite so inclined to kneel before Mr. Bush, whose

power and popularity are now so plainly in decline. Members of both parties seem to be regaining

the capacity for independent thought and action that allows them to fulfill their duty and rise above

their reputation as a Republican rubber stamp.

As Senators analyze the Alito record, they must also discard the cliches of right-wing propaganda

that create illusions and obscure reality.

The President has often said that he opposes "judicial activists" who would legislate from the bench

and overturn the popular will. Echoing him, conservatives regularly scold liberals for seeking to win

in court what they cannot achieve in Congress. According to this argument, the nomination of

Judge Alito is meant to guard against such undemocratic jurisprudence.


Alito Leans Right, Where O'Connor Swung Left

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 1, 2005; A01

In 1991, Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. voted to uphold a Pennsylvania statute that would

have required at least some married women to notify their husbands before getting an

abortion; a year later, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cast a decisive fifth vote at the

Supreme Court to strike it down.


Dems Want Alito Hearings In 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 1, 2005

(CBS/AP) Senate Democrats pushed on Tuesday for a 2006 date for hearings on

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, challenging President Bush's call for confirmation

by year's end.

"There's no way you can do an honest hearing by the end of December, or a fair hearing,"

said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.


Alito-Where were you in '72

A lot has been said this morning about Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court,

and his impeccable legal resume. Well, here's one portion of his resume we hope gets some very,

very close scrutiny over the next few weeks, before his confirmation hearings.

Where were you in '72?

Specifically, what were the circumstances of Alito getting a coveted slot in the Army Reserves that

year, while the Vietnam War was still raging? Is Alito yet another "chickenhawk" who avoided the

war and now will be deciding on life-or-death cases involving our young men and women fighting in

Iraq and elsewhere today?


Bush Nominates Alito for Supreme Court

The President has given in to the right wing's demand to be rewarded for his reelection,

nominating Judge Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme

Court. The extremist faction that helped kill Harriet Miers' nomination has gotten

what it wanted: a nominee in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. In fact, Alito has earned

such a reputation for ideological activism while serving on the US Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit that he has been nicknamed "Scalito."


Right Wrangles over Miers

Though President Bush and some of his allies have repeatedly asserted that they know exactly what kind of justice Harriet Miers would be if confirmed to the Supreme Court, nothing has yet turned up in her record that could give the American people a similarly clear picture of the nominee.

The New York Times' review of documents from the President's tenure as governor of Texas reveals what already seemed apparent: Miers holds Bush in the highest regard. Our research team continues to review public information in Miers' record that might shed light on her legal views and judicial philosophy -- but such information remains thin.


White House Stonewalls Senate
Refuses to release documents concerning nominee's work with Ken Starr

All 8 Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee have requested 

documents concerning key cases litigated by the Solicitor General's office 

during Judge John Roberts' tenure as political deputy to then-Solicitor 

General Ken Starr. Late Friday afternoon the White House refused these 

senators' request.

There is no basis for this denial.  Such documents have been released in 

previous Supreme Court confirmation proceedings including the Supreme 

Court nominations of Robert Bork and William Rehnquist. 








The Washington Post story headline says it all, "A Deep Dedication to

the President." The nomination of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day

O'Connor is a non-starter. It does not even deserve serious consideration.

The universal chorus of catcalls and derision from every corner of the media

should tell you something.