There They Go Again. Democrats Distort Alito's Record
It’s really pitiful watching the Leftwing circus trying to destroy the reputation of a good man and a great future justice of the Supreme Court. Who would do such a thing? Why the usual suspects of course, Nan Aron, President of the so called “Alliance for Justice” and Ralph Neas, President of the equally euphemistically entitled “People for the American Way” (among others).
It’s very easy to see why they do it, they believe in outcome based adjudication, rather than obeying the laws as written. That, as you well know, is the very definition of judicial activism; something those on the left purport not to want. It is also precisely what they actually do want. They can’t afford to have judges making decisions based on what the laws actually say, because the laws are born of a republican society, based on individual freedom, and therefore diametrically opposed to what they believe in. Theirs is a society where everybody is equal in everything, except for those at the top, the elite who must tell those of us “less fortunate” plebian souls what to do, how to do it, and if necessary, will force us to do it. They are the same folks that ninety years ago would have been working in Russia to create the perfect “worker’s paradise.” Neas and Aron and their ilk are the Trotsky’s, Lenin’s, and Stalin’s of modern America. They believe that any means necessary to achieve their aims is fair, and that includes the distortion of a judge’s record and if necessary the destruction of his good name.
Democrats live in dire fear that a SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) comprised of followers of the doctrine of “original intent” will reverse those laws which are abhorrent to our society and its Judeo-Christian origins or which were arrived at through bad jurisprudence and are better left to the legislative branch to create. Such a court would also greatly constrict the expansive powers which the government has accrued for itself over the last seventy years using the commerce clause. They know that the indefensible use of the commerce clause allowing the government to control almost every aspect of life in America, at the whim of a majority of Congress, could and should be overturned at the first available opportunity.
The past seventy years have been some of the most repressive and oppressive years in the history of our great nation. The stripping away of individual and collective rights “for the good of all” has been relentless and only occasionally and temporarily stalled, by occasional Republican victories, in its march toward total Leftwing oppression. Remember, George Orwell was not warning us against the Right, he was warning us of the dangers of the all encompassing socialist state. The end result in Animal Farm is not a capitalistic democracy; it is a socialist “workers paradise” where freedom of speech is what the state says it is. The new-speak of 1984 is perfectly exemplified by the “politically correct” speech coming from the Left today. Though the threat to our freedom can come from the extreme Right, historically in America, it has far more commonly come from the Left. From the ideas of Karl Marx, to Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and their ever more oppressive “Socialist Republic,” from Hitler and his “National Socialists,” from Mao’s “Peoples Republic,” and Pol Pot’s “Khmer Rouge,” it has been the Left which has threatened freedom throughout the world. So why be surprised that the same tactics are being used now by the Left as they fight to retain some of the unconstitutional powers they have gained through judicial activism?
They love to cite that “X” percentage of Alito’s judicial opinions were against the individual, or were against blacks, or were for corporations. This is good propaganda; you see the numbers are true, but meaningless out of context. When put in their proper context we see that Judge Alito ruled the way he did because that is how the law stated he must rule. His record is the antithesis of judicial activism, it is one of strict adherence to the law as written, and that is what has the Left so upset. They know that much of the law which as been established over the last seventy years has been so established in direct contravention to how the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the other Amendments are written. Many of their sacred cows, and most especially their most high and sacred “right to have an abortion,” are nowhere in the law and were created out of whole cloth by an activist SCOTUS appointed for that very purpose.
If you examine their attacks, you will find them to be full of generalities but containing few specifics. People for the American Way issued a report that draws “a disturbing thread from the legal views he advanced while serving in the Reagan Department of Justice.” [emphasis added] Such inflammatory language is typical of their report. Their report offers innuendo and fear in the place of hard facts:
Note the false allegation of “unlawful detention,” and the implication that judge Alito was involved in those decisions. Want more? Alito is a racist...well that’s what they want you to think:
The fact is that in each case he has scrupulously followed the laws and judicial precedence (the famous stare decisis Democrat Senators are so adamant about). So what arguments can you expect from the Left? Expect them to talk about a “pattern of decisions.” One African-American scholar I saw on C-Span (I regret to say that I failed to get his name, and I have been unable to find his statement in an on-line search) put it this way-and I’m paraphrasing:
I again apologize for the lack of sourcing, and you can believe me or not, but that is a very close paraphrasing of what he said. The translation of that is very clear, “Even though he made the correct decision in each case, I don’t like the outcome.” What he is actually saying is his argument is not with Alito, it is with the laws as written, but he is going to oppose Alito because he can’t get the laws changed. Knight-Ridder found the same thing when they examined 311 of his decisions:
Of course Knight-Ridder takes the same approach as the scholar I referred to above, stating:
Those on the Left are not presenting themselves in a very good light. They come off as what they truly are, petty, deceitful, children who, not getting what they want, are going to throw a tantrum in an attempt to get their way. Pitiful, just pitiful.
It’s very easy to see why they do it, they believe in outcome based adjudication, rather than obeying the laws as written. That, as you well know, is the very definition of judicial activism; something those on the left purport not to want. It is also precisely what they actually do want. They can’t afford to have judges making decisions based on what the laws actually say, because the laws are born of a republican society, based on individual freedom, and therefore diametrically opposed to what they believe in. Theirs is a society where everybody is equal in everything, except for those at the top, the elite who must tell those of us “less fortunate” plebian souls what to do, how to do it, and if necessary, will force us to do it. They are the same folks that ninety years ago would have been working in Russia to create the perfect “worker’s paradise.” Neas and Aron and their ilk are the Trotsky’s, Lenin’s, and Stalin’s of modern America. They believe that any means necessary to achieve their aims is fair, and that includes the distortion of a judge’s record and if necessary the destruction of his good name.
Democrats live in dire fear that a SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) comprised of followers of the doctrine of “original intent” will reverse those laws which are abhorrent to our society and its Judeo-Christian origins or which were arrived at through bad jurisprudence and are better left to the legislative branch to create. Such a court would also greatly constrict the expansive powers which the government has accrued for itself over the last seventy years using the commerce clause. They know that the indefensible use of the commerce clause allowing the government to control almost every aspect of life in America, at the whim of a majority of Congress, could and should be overturned at the first available opportunity.
The past seventy years have been some of the most repressive and oppressive years in the history of our great nation. The stripping away of individual and collective rights “for the good of all” has been relentless and only occasionally and temporarily stalled, by occasional Republican victories, in its march toward total Leftwing oppression. Remember, George Orwell was not warning us against the Right, he was warning us of the dangers of the all encompassing socialist state. The end result in Animal Farm is not a capitalistic democracy; it is a socialist “workers paradise” where freedom of speech is what the state says it is. The new-speak of 1984 is perfectly exemplified by the “politically correct” speech coming from the Left today. Though the threat to our freedom can come from the extreme Right, historically in America, it has far more commonly come from the Left. From the ideas of Karl Marx, to Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and their ever more oppressive “Socialist Republic,” from Hitler and his “National Socialists,” from Mao’s “Peoples Republic,” and Pol Pot’s “Khmer Rouge,” it has been the Left which has threatened freedom throughout the world. So why be surprised that the same tactics are being used now by the Left as they fight to retain some of the unconstitutional powers they have gained through judicial activism?
They love to cite that “X” percentage of Alito’s judicial opinions were against the individual, or were against blacks, or were for corporations. This is good propaganda; you see the numbers are true, but meaningless out of context. When put in their proper context we see that Judge Alito ruled the way he did because that is how the law stated he must rule. His record is the antithesis of judicial activism, it is one of strict adherence to the law as written, and that is what has the Left so upset. They know that much of the law which as been established over the last seventy years has been so established in direct contravention to how the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the other Amendments are written. Many of their sacred cows, and most especially their most high and sacred “right to have an abortion,” are nowhere in the law and were created out of whole cloth by an activist SCOTUS appointed for that very purpose.
If you examine their attacks, you will find them to be full of generalities but containing few specifics. People for the American Way issued a report that draws “a disturbing thread from the legal views he advanced while serving in the Reagan Department of Justice.” [emphasis added] Such inflammatory language is typical of their report. Their report offers innuendo and fear in the place of hard facts:
“Judge Alito has shown a strong predilection to concentrate power in the executive branch and the President, eroding governmental checks and balances and diminishing the rights of private citizens. His record is especially troubling at a time when one party controls all three branches of government and allegations of abuse of power abound -- from warrantless wiretapping of American citizens to the unlawful detention and torture of suspects held by the government at home and overseas.”
Note the false allegation of “unlawful detention,” and the implication that judge Alito was involved in those decisions. Want more? Alito is a racist...well that’s what they want you to think:
“Judge Alito has consistently failed to protect civil rights. He has said he disagrees with historic Supreme Court decisions articulating the “one person – one vote” principle. As a judge, he has rarely sided with individuals seeking relief from discrimination on the basis of race, age, gender, or disability, and he has opposed efforts to redress the historic effects of discrimination in the workplace.”
The fact is that in each case he has scrupulously followed the laws and judicial precedence (the famous stare decisis Democrat Senators are so adamant about). So what arguments can you expect from the Left? Expect them to talk about a “pattern of decisions.” One African-American scholar I saw on C-Span (I regret to say that I failed to get his name, and I have been unable to find his statement in an on-line search) put it this way-and I’m paraphrasing:
“Taken individually each of his decisions seems logical and consistent with the law, it’s only when you look at the overall pattern of decisions that you see a judge who routinely takes the side of corporations and government.”
I again apologize for the lack of sourcing, and you can believe me or not, but that is a very close paraphrasing of what he said. The translation of that is very clear, “Even though he made the correct decision in each case, I don’t like the outcome.” What he is actually saying is his argument is not with Alito, it is with the laws as written, but he is going to oppose Alito because he can’t get the laws changed. Knight-Ridder found the same thing when they examined 311 of his decisions:
“Although Alito's opinions are rarely written with obvious ideology, he's seldom sided with a criminal defendant, a foreign national facing deportation, an employee alleging discrimination or consumers suing big businesses... Liberal and conservative supporters alike describe the quiet, scholarly Alito as a restrained judge who follows the law, not his personal beliefs.
“Those who've worked closely with him, including former law clerks and fellow judges, say they can't think of a case in which he took a partisan political stance.
"As you can probably glean from his opinions, he's a conservative," said former 3rd Circuit Judge Timothy Lewis, a more liberal judge who served with Alito from 1992 to 2000 and supports the nomination. "I'm very comfortable with his judicial philosophy, though it was very different than mine. It only works if the judge doesn't have an agenda. He is not result-oriented." [Emphasis added]
Of course Knight-Ridder takes the same approach as the scholar I referred to above, stating:
“But Knight-Ridder's review of Alito's record reveals decisions so consistent that it appears results do matter to him...A review of Alito's work on dozens of cases that raised important social issues found that he rarely supports individual rights claims.”What they should have said is that “he rarely supports individual rights because the laws support the position of their opponents.” So now you know what to expect. This is the pattern of argument the Left will unleash over the next several weeks. As usual with them, the truth is of little value unless, by some bizarre chance, it actually supports their agenda, which it rarely does. They have no legitimate arguments against Judge Alito other than he is not who they would have selected. They know, and that knowledge is the main source of their embarrassmentand defensiveness and hence their hostility and anger, that the mere fact that he doesn’t rule in the manner they would wish is not sufficient reason to reject his nomination, so they have to trump up false reasons to oppose him.
Those on the Left are not presenting themselves in a very good light. They come off as what they truly are, petty, deceitful, children who, not getting what they want, are going to throw a tantrum in an attempt to get their way. Pitiful, just pitiful.
<< Home