Jones Alley
why is this so hard to grasp?
There has been much talk about Democratic "tactics" to prevent ScAlito from being confirmed as a justice of the Supreme Court. First, many articles and quotes from pundits and cognoscenti hinted that his positions on Roe v. Wade would be a big obstacle that those who oppose his confirmation would use to prevent his being appointed. Then, talk started about using his support of expanded powers in the Executive branch as a method of effectively stopping him.
I don't see why it is so difficult.
Alito is a proven liar. He has claimed to not recall being a prominent member of a Princeton college hate group, despite having bragged of his membership and importance in the group in a 1985 job application.
He has said that some of the opinions he has expressed were just part of the quest for employment, and that he only said them to make him a more palatable candidate for prospective employers.
He said that he would recuse himself from cases involving a company he had a significant financial stake in and went ahead and sat in judgment of these cases anyway. When called on it, he first said that his word was given with an expiration date, and that what he did wasn't illegal anyway.
If I told my best friend that I wouldn't sleep with his wife, and did it anyway, I would be a liar. If I then turned around and told him that because of how long ago I told him I wouldn't sleep with his wife that the promise wasn't in effect any more, and that sleeping with his life was not illegal anyway, that would make me a scoundrel as well as a liar.
When a witness in a court case can be shown to be a liar, the court often tells the jury that they are free to decide the credibility of that witness with the knowledge that they are dishonest. During the O.J. Simpson murder trial, witness Mark Fuhrman was largely discredited because it was proven that he had not been forthcoming during some of his testimony.
Why can we not apply that same standard to decide if a person is fit to be on the dominant chamber of the American judicial system?
Judge Alito is a proven liar. Untruthful in one, untruthful in all.
He is not fit to be a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
(post script: Today, 1/10/06, I just noticed a post by the Rude Pundit that parallels some of the points I made in this post very closely. Strictly coincidence, but spooky. I'm not quite sure what to make of the idea that I may think like the Rude One!)
I don't see why it is so difficult.
Alito is a proven liar. He has claimed to not recall being a prominent member of a Princeton college hate group, despite having bragged of his membership and importance in the group in a 1985 job application.
He has said that some of the opinions he has expressed were just part of the quest for employment, and that he only said them to make him a more palatable candidate for prospective employers.
He said that he would recuse himself from cases involving a company he had a significant financial stake in and went ahead and sat in judgment of these cases anyway. When called on it, he first said that his word was given with an expiration date, and that what he did wasn't illegal anyway.
If I told my best friend that I wouldn't sleep with his wife, and did it anyway, I would be a liar. If I then turned around and told him that because of how long ago I told him I wouldn't sleep with his wife that the promise wasn't in effect any more, and that sleeping with his life was not illegal anyway, that would make me a scoundrel as well as a liar.
When a witness in a court case can be shown to be a liar, the court often tells the jury that they are free to decide the credibility of that witness with the knowledge that they are dishonest. During the O.J. Simpson murder trial, witness Mark Fuhrman was largely discredited because it was proven that he had not been forthcoming during some of his testimony.
Why can we not apply that same standard to decide if a person is fit to be on the dominant chamber of the American judicial system?
Judge Alito is a proven liar. Untruthful in one, untruthful in all.
He is not fit to be a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
(post script: Today, 1/10/06, I just noticed a post by the Rude Pundit that parallels some of the points I made in this post very closely. Strictly coincidence, but spooky. I'm not quite sure what to make of the idea that I may think like the Rude One!)
posted by Milo Johnson at 12:50 AM
3 Comments:
"First lie--say goodbye!"
Thanks for your comment on my blog. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what entry you were commenting on, so need to find out just what only 11 of constitutes amateurism.
I admit to being an amateur at almost everything, if I can take the literal meaning of "amateur," doing things for the love of doing them.
My blog template flat refuses to do links in the sidebar, but I wrote a post with your site linked. I hope you don't mind; I'll take it down if you prefer, but you write very well, and I have some friends that might appreciate what you have to say. As do I.
Post a Comment
<< Home