Please visit the new home of Majikthise at

7 posts categorized "Alito"

May 14, 2007

Voter fraud complaints drove attorney purge

Many of the fired US Attorneys were fired because they weren't sufficiently responsive to GOP accusations of voter fraud against Democrats:

Nearly half the U.S. attorneys slated for removal by the administration last year were targets of Republican complaints that they were lax on voter fraud, including efforts by presidential adviser Karl Rove to encourage more prosecutions of election- law violations, according to new documents and interviews.

Of the 12 U.S. attorneys known to have been dismissed or considered for removal last year, five were identified by Rove or other administration officials as working in districts that were trouble spots for voter fraud -- Kansas City, Mo.; Milwaukee; New Mexico; Nevada; and Washington state. Four of the five  prosecutors in those districts were dismissed. [WaPo]

We've known for a long time that voter fraud allegations were a factor in the purge, but the Washington Post is now concluding that the issue was "more central than previously known."

According to the WaPo article, AUSA Steve Biskupic of Wisconsin came within a hair's breadth of termination because Karl Rove deemed him insufficiently responsive to Republican fraud allegations.

As you may recall, Biskupic was responsible for sending Georgia Thompson to prison on trumped up corruption charges. The apolitical Ms. Thompson worked for Wisconsin's Democratic governor. Biskupic alleged that Thompson gave a contract to a particular firm because that firm's CEO gave to the governor's campaign. In fact, the firm submitted the lowest bid. The 56-year-old spent four months in prison and lost her home before a court reversed her conviction.

January 30, 2006

Monday Alito gameplan: Lead, follow, or get out of the way

The Vichy Democrats have the latest Alito filibuster game plan (and all contact info you could ever need for haranguing Senators to maximum effect):

Our theme today is: Lead, Follow, Or Get Out of the Way. In political terms, that's: EITHER SUPPORT THE FILIBUSTER OR ABSTAIN FROM THE CLOTURE VOTE, BUT DON'T GET IN OUR WAY.

The VDems are outdoing themselves. Check out their advice. Then go nag a Senator or two on your lunch break.

January 29, 2006

The filibuster fight is on

The fight to filibuster Alito is on. It's not too late to do your part.

After a conference call with Sen. Ted Kennedy, Jane of Firedoglake reports that Maria Cantwell is vulnerable to filibuster pressure:

Maria Cantwell is reportedly quite wobbly, and might be succeptible to pressure. If Cantwell falls, Murray will potentially fall too.

Levin, Harkin, Bayh, Lautenberg, Lincoln, Pryor and Lieberman (who has not in fact committed) all need pressure. As do Baucus and Menendez.

Voicemail boxes are already overflowing, so make sure to fax your Senators and urge them to filibuster Samuel Alito. If you are a Democratic donor, party activist, and/or a primary voter, make sure to work those details into your letter.

January 13, 2006

The myth of the pro-choice Republican

Blogging for Choice:

Anticipating the demise of Roe and finding the novel silver lining is a cottage industry in American political journalism. Newsweek columnist Eleanor Clift takes this fanciful genre to a new plane of implausibility when she argues that the end of Roe would destroy the Republican Party:

Politically, the end of Roe would crack open the Republican coalition in the country and on Capitol Hill. The party is full of secret pro-choicers, Republicans who signed on to a package that included the pro-life position with the belief that it would never happen. They've kept their mouth shut all these years, but they'll be mad as hell and not willing to take it any more.

There are no secret pro-choice Republicans. If you don't care enough about choice to oppose Alito, you just don't care. At this point, even "out" pro-choice Republicans like Arlen Specter don't care enough about Roe to vote against Alito.

Today's New York Times editorial lays it on the line: Alito said that the constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion in 1985, he also refused to say that Roe had become "settled law" in the meantime. So, Alito won't say that he's changed his mind since 1985, and he denies that the constitutional status of Roe has changed since then. Therefore, we know that his opinions about the constitutional status of abortion in 1985 are still operative.

A vote for Alito is a vote against Roe. If Clift's legions of secret pro-choice Republicans aren't speaking up now, it's safe to assume they don't exist.

Alito ditches weepy wife after hearings

I don't usually see eye-to-eye with Sam Alito--but if my spouse started bawling in the middle of my confirmation hearing, I'd be bent out of shape, too.* Talk an embarrassment.

Even Bush knows enough to surround himself with strong women. Strong, evil women, but still...

*Granted, it's a little passive aggressive to stay mad for a whole day after the outburst.

January 12, 2006

Specter: No evidence Alito belonged to CAP

Talk about a rock and a hard place: Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter claims that an overnight search of records in the Library of Congress revealed "no evidence" that Sam Alito was involved in the Concerned Alumni for Princeton. [Reuters]

CAP is the reactionary Princeton alumni group founded primarily to oppose the admission of female and minority students.

Alito claimed to have been a member of CAP in his job application to the Reagan Justice Department.

In in his questionaire for the Senate Judiciary Committee Alito disclosed that he had belonged to CAP. Later, during his confirmation hearing, Alito claimed under oath he couldn't remember anything about CAP.

"Other than that document, I have no recollection of being a member, of attending meetings, or otherwise participating in the activities of the group," Alito said.

So, according to Specter, Alito is lying about belonging to a hate group to appear more hateful than he really was in order to get a job?

December 12, 2005

Alito's backers threaten Dems

Matt Stoller notes that the Republican senators in charge of shepherding Sam Alito onto the Supreme Court are threatening to smear Democrats who question Alito's character:

The GOP team working with the White House to win confirmation of conservative Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito is putting out a warning to Alito's Democratic critics: Question his ethics and character at your own peril. In their sights: Sens. Edward Kennedy and Joe Biden. "We're absolutely prepared to have an ethics debate with Teddy Kennedy," says one insider who mentioned the "C" word: Chappaquiddick. "Questioning Alito's credibility and character will be hit back hard," said one of the Alito supporters. []

The arrogance of Alito's backers is appalling. How dare they try to intimidate their colleagues? It's the Senate's job to question Alito's credibility and character.