Weasel-ito - Getting Worse?
I pointed out a while ago that one of the reasons I oppose making the lying, unethical, zealot Alito a Supreme Court judge is the fact that, when applying for a job with the corrupt Reagan administration, he bragged about his membership in CAP - an organization dedicated to keeping Princeton in the hands of rich, white males. It is bad enough that over-privileged punks get life handed to them on silver trays, but it is worse when they develop white-man-entitlement syndrome, and they come to believe that their life of entitlement is an organic part of "the way things ought to be".
How could Alito possibly make this situation worse? The only way possible - he turned into a gutless, lying weasel. "Last week Supreme Court nominee Alito told the Senate Judiciary Committee, in his response to their questionnaire, that he has 'no recollection of being a member, of attending meetings or otherwise participating in the activities' of CAP." I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that this man (I'm using the word solely as "male person", not as any sort of estimation of his manly integrity) highlighted his membership in CAP in 1985, and now claims that he can't conjure up that recollection. Let me be real clear hear, so there's no misunderstanding whatsoever. Alito is a liar.
How low can this guy sink? He has indicated that lying is an appropriate way to get around inconvenient laws. He has stated clearly that he is willing to say untrue things if it helps him get a job. He has ruled in cases where he has a financial interest, after promising he would not do so.
Who would have thought that the name Alito would allow for such wordplay? First he was ScAlito, because of his allegiance to the far right. Then he became Scandalito, because he valued his portfolio more than his word and the value of an impartial judiciary. Then he became A-Lie-to, because he told a senator that he lied to get a job, and because he wrote in an opinion that laws aren't burdensome if you can lie to get around them.
And now he is Weasel-ito. Because he is trying desperately to get a job he is utterly unqualified for, and he is wiling to lie about who he is to get it. If right-wingers still have a sense of shame, Alito should have them red-faced.
posted by Dan at 12/06/2005 08:53:00 PM
4 Comments:
Ya know, if you just keep lobbing hand grenades, sooner or later some shrapnel is bound to hit. Just don't let little things like facts get in the way. And remember, when the shoe is on the other foot (as it will inevitably someday) that you laid the ground rules for judicial nomination opposition.
Oh, and let's hope that no one ever has the chance to go through YOUR life with a microscope.
I have no doubt that, if one went through my past, I would have said things that I, looking back, would not now agree with. That I would have made statements that I cannot now remember. That I have held positions that I now no longer hold. You're a lawyer, for God's sake. Have you never advocated a position that you personally disagreed with? I have - most lawyers have. It's called advocacy. It's what lawyers do. I'd expect a lawyer to uderstand that, even if a layperson (think Thoughts from Kansas) cannot. If so, you're either an extremely lucky lawyer, or a broke one.
Get over it. He'll be confirmed. Easily. How he'll vote, no one can know.
If a democrat nominates a person who brags about being in a group dedicated to preserving white male privilege in 1985, and then lies to cover it up 20 years later, by all means, I will join you in deriding that candidate. You can bank on it.
And, you're damned right I don't want anyone going through my life with a microscope, even though I am positive that I had nothing on my resume 20 years ago I would lie about today. Regardless, I do not have that sense of entitlement that would lead me to expect to get away with crap like that. That's why I haven't run for public office, and, if President Hillary Clinton calls in a few years and asks whether I want to serve on the Supreme Court, I will gratefully decline.
And, please, read up a little about what we're talking about before talking to me about advocacy. He didn't lie in the course of advocacy, he lied in the course of seeking a job. I'd expect anyone to understand that.
You've never spiced a resume with items that you believed would make you more employable to a potential employer? Please. Call me when you're getting your halo fitted. And advocacy was exactly what he was being hired to do in the "corrupt" Reagan administration (your word - corrupt means only that you disagree with their policies).
BTW - as I read your posting, I take it that you LIE in the course of advocacy? Should I call your state disciplinary official?
Keep throwing the bombs - never mind credibility. And don't hold your breath for President Hillary (carpetbagger & coattail rider extraordinaire that she is). Her negatives are far too high. Are the democrats interested in winning, or left-wing purity? (Or perhaps not so left wing, or pure, given that Hillary is running as fast as she can to the center)
Anonymous -
No, I truly have never lied on a resume, and I'm honestly a little surprised to see you act like that's okay.
And, of course I have never lied in the course of advocacy, and that's not at all what I said. You had acted like it was okay for Weaselito to advocate the CAP position though he personally disagreed with it because it was part of his job as a lawyer. I was merely pointing out that you misunderstood the facts.
As for Hillary, I used her simply as a potential democratic president. I'm not supporting her - I haven't decided yet whom I will support.
Finally, the credibility problem is in Weaselito's court - his negatives are rising and he has another month before the Senate gets a crack at him. If I were forced to bet today, I would bet your way - he is most likely going to get confirmed. But only time will tell.
Post a Comment
<< Home