Via Stop The ACLU come this not so surprising news.
NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it will oppose the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court.I think Bryan Preston summed it up best, "Alito's record shows no such thing. But you can't expect anything within miles of honesty from the ACLU anymore.""At a time when our president has claimed unprecedented authority to spy on Americans and jail terrorism suspects indefinitely, America needs a Supreme Court justice who will uphold our precious civil liberties," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Unfortunately, Judge Alito's record shows a willingness to support government actions that abridge individual freedoms."
...The ACLU vote came after a special meeting of its 83-member national board this weekend, which has voted to oppose only two nominees in its 86-year history: Justice William Rehnquist (in his initial nomination to the Court) and former Solicitor General and law professor Robert Bork.
Update: Removed the misplaced apostrophe in the title. I can thank the spell checker for that one...
Comments (12)
Disappointing, but not surp... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Chris Meisenzahl | January 11, 2006 1:20 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Disappointing, but not surprising. ;-(
1. Posted by Chris Meisenzahl | January 11, 2006 1:20 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 11, 2006 01:20
2. Posted by Omni | January 11, 2006 1:30 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
ACLU = worthless idiots
(Don't click here)
.
2. Posted by Omni | January 11, 2006 1:30 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 11, 2006 01:30
3. Posted by Mrs. Davis | January 11, 2006 8:01 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
A great deal of sound and fury signifying nothing.
3. Posted by Mrs. Davis | January 11, 2006 8:01 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 11, 2006 08:01
4. Posted by ICallMasICM | January 11, 2006 8:03 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Why don't they just have the vote now since all the Sen have already received their payoffs and everybody's mind is already made up?
4. Posted by ICallMasICM | January 11, 2006 8:03 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 11, 2006 08:03
5. Posted by bobdog | January 11, 2006 8:47 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Best reason I've heard yet to confirm the man.
5. Posted by bobdog | January 11, 2006 8:47 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 11, 2006 08:47
6. Posted by -S- | January 11, 2006 10:00 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yeah, what bobdog wrote (^^). It's an excellent statement as to Samuel Alito's qualifications and worth that he's being opposed by the ACLU.
6. Posted by -S- | January 11, 2006 10:00 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 11, 2006 10:00
7. Posted by Look What We Have Become | January 11, 2006 11:19 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hunger for Dictatorship
War to export democracy may wreck our own.
by Scott McConnell
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html
[Editors Note: Posting copyrighted materials is not allowed. All text has been removed. Further copyright violations from the IP address will result in banning.]
7. Posted by Look What We Have Become | January 11, 2006 11:19 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 11, 2006 11:19
8. Posted by kbiel | January 11, 2006 12:25 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I vote that Kevin sends the previous "comment" from "Look What We have Become" to the bit bucket and permanently the "author"'s IP from commenting ever again.
8. Posted by kbiel | January 11, 2006 12:25 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 11, 2006 12:25
9. Posted by Jeff Medcalf | January 11, 2006 12:34 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Define "individual" and "freedom".
9. Posted by Jeff Medcalf | January 11, 2006 12:34 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 11, 2006 12:34
10. Posted by IQ140 | January 11, 2006 12:35 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Your title should read "Borks" not "Bork's."
Recommended reading: "Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation," by Lynne Truss,
10. Posted by IQ140 | January 11, 2006 12:35 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 11, 2006 12:35
11. Posted by Faith+1 | January 11, 2006 1:08 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It's insignificant. As soon as the nominee was made by a Republican President it was pre-determined they would oppose them. It just took this long to gather a weak rationalization for the prejudiced opinion.
11. Posted by Faith+1 | January 11, 2006 1:08 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 11, 2006 13:08
12. Posted by Eural | January 11, 2006 4:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You guys are starting to sound like some of those knee jerk liberal blog sites I visit from time to time. The ACLU has only opposed three nominations in its history and yet everyone declares it was "pre-determined" and "not surprising"? The ACLU is one of those groups that everyone loves to hate until they need it or it stands up for their side in an issue and then suddenly...
12. Posted by Eural | January 11, 2006 4:51 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 11, 2006 16:51