The Most Partisan Supreme Court Justice Of All
Posted by Michelle Moquin on July 7th, 2014
Good morning!
Well…I HOPE everyone had a fabulous holiday weekend! For once it felt like it went on and on. Love when that happens. Speaking of going on and on…the comments yesterday seemed to. Still catching up.
Here’s the latest that I found while perusing Think Progress. It’s a long one so grab your java…oops I just realized how late it is…well grab something and get comfy.
The Most Partisan Supreme Court Justice Of All
In mid-November of 2012, hundreds of tuxedo-clad Republican lawyers gathered at a hotel ballroom in Washington, DC. They were a mix of heads hung in dejection and chests puffed out in compensatory bluster. Less than two weeks earlier, they’d seen President Obama vanquish his opponent at the polls. Their last chance to knock a hated president out of office — and their last real chance to halt that’s president’s even more hated health reforms — ended in failure. They and their allies had made their best case that liberalism was a path to economic ruin, and the American people had lined up at their polling places to pull the lever for liberalism.
And yet, at this annual gathering of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, arguably the most powerful legal organization in the country, Justice Samuel Alito was defiant. Not long after rising to give his keynote address to the room full of conservative senators, judges, and attorneys gathered before him, Alito launched into a story of a particularly uninspiring law professor whose course he took in law school. The professor, Alito recalled, authored a book in 1970 warning of a decaying society trapped in a “moment of utmost sterility, darkest night, most extreme peril.”
At this point in his speech, Alito paused, and looked over the roomful of lawyers still licking their wounds from Mitt Romney’s very recent defeat. “Our current situation,” he told them, “is nothing new.”
Justice Alito’s speech came during a brief moment of respite between two great constitutional battles. Just a few months earlier, the Court had rejected a request that it repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, based on a tenuous reading of the Tenth Amendment that one prominent conservative judge dismissed as having no basis “in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent.” Justice Alito dissented in the Court’s health care decision. He wanted Obamacare gone.
Almost exactly one month after his speech, a gunman named Adam Lanza walked into an elementary school in Sandy Hook, Connecticut and murdered 26 people, 20 of whom were children. What followed was a nationwide debate over the proper way to solve gun violence and over the scope and the wisdom of the Second Amendment. Many of the lawyers and lawmakers who attended Justice Alito’s speech would fight hard — and, ultimately, successfully — to defeat President Obama’s proposals to prevent future Sandy Hooks.
In the moment of calm between these two storms, Justice Alito let the audience know where he stood on both questions. Referring to the text of the Constitution, Alito quipped that “[i]t’s hard not to notice that Congress’ powers are limited, and you will see there is an amendment that comes right after the First Amendment, and there’s another that comes after the Ninth Amendment.” He spent much of the rest of the speech criticizing legal arguments the Obama Administration had made in his Court.
So, when Chief Justice Roberts opened the final session of the Supreme Court’s term on Monday by announcing that Justice Alito would deliver both of the Court’s remaining opinions, liberals immediately knew that they were about to hear some very bad news. In quick succession, Alito dealt sharp blows topublic sector unions and to women whose employers object to birth control.
A Straight Face
If Alito’s Hobby Lobby opinion — the second of the two decisions he handed down on Monday — proves anything, it is that Alito has mastered the art of reading legal authorities that cut sharply against his position, and then authoring a legal opinion that passes them off as if they actually bolster his argument. In Hobby Lobby, Alito was confronted by decades of legal precedents establishing that religious liberty claims could not be used to diminish the rights of third parties, especially in the employment context. Worse, at least for Alito’s belief that employers with religious objections to birth control could deny legally mandated coverage to their employees, Hobby Lobby turned upon how the Court interpreted a 1993 law — a law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or RFRA — that explicitly stated that its purpose was to “restore the compelling interest test” set out by these earlier precedents after that test was overruled by an unpopular Supreme Court decision. This was the same legal test that was in place when the Court held that “[w]hen followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”
Yet Alito ignored Congress’s clearly stated purpose, he offered little explanation for why he was justified in doing do, and what little justification he did offer falls apart upon a very cursory inquiry. At one point in his opinion, for example, Alito points to a 2000 amendment to a largely irrelevant provision of RFRA, claiming that the amendment was “an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law.” Elsewhere, Alito argues that RFRA strengthened the legal protections available to religious objectors prior to 1990. Both claims, however, are difficult to square with RFRA’s statement that its entire purpose is to restore prior precedents — and there is nothing in the 2000 amendment which alters this statement of purpose.
Hobby Lobby is also the latest in a series of decisions Alito has handed down diminishing the rights of women in the workplace. Prior toHobby Lobby, his most famous decision was undoubtedly Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, the pay discrimination case that Congress overturned in the very first bill President Obama signed into law.
Alito, however, does not appear at all humbled by the experience of having a successful presidential candidate campaign against his most well-known opinion and then eradicate that opinion just over a week after moving into the White House. Last year, in an opinion with potentially much further reaching consequences than Ledbetter, Alito gutted a core protection helping prevent workers from being racially or sexually harassed by their boss. Harassment suits of this kind are notoriously difficult to win, especially when a worker is harassed by colleagues without direct authority over them. When a worker is sexually or racially harassed by their “supervisor,” however, the law recognizes that employers should have a special incentive to halt this kind of exploitation immediately. In many cases, when a worker is the victim of harassment by their boss, their employer is automatically liable for this harassment.
Except that, in Vance v. Ball State University, Alito’s opinion for a majority of the Court defined the word “supervisor” so narrowly as to render it practically meaningless. In Alito’s view, a person’s boss is only their “supervisor” if their boss has the power to make a “significant change in [their] employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.”
In a modern workplace, where final personnel decisions are often delegated to a distant human resources office, this means that few workers’ bosses will qualify as supervisors. Indeed, in dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gives several examples of women whose bosses no longer count as “supervisors” under Alito’s framework. One of these non-supervisor supervisors was a man assigned to evaluate a female co-worker’s job perfomance, who then “forced her into unwanted sex with him, an outrage to which she submitted, believing it necessary to gain a passing grade.”
A Corporation’s Best Friend
Lest there be any doubt, these three cases are not isolated decisions. The Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) releases occasional reports tracking how often the Supreme Court sides with the United States Chamber of Commerce in cases where the Chamber files a brief. In large part because the Chamber is both a prominent corporate interest group and an especially active Supreme Court litigant, CAC maintains that tracking the Chamber’s performance is a good proxy for how likely the justices are to side with big business. Year after year, their data shows that Alito is a corporation’s best friend on the Court:
Other studies show similar results. According to data by Washington University Professor Lee Epstein, Alito is more likely to cast a conservative vote than anyone else on the Court.
To be fully precise, that does not make Alito the Court’s most conservative member. That honor belongs to Justice Clarence Thomas, who is the only member of the Court who openly pines for the days when federal child labor laws were considered unconstitutional. Yet, while Alito can’t match Thomas’s radicalism, he is far and away the most partisan member of the Court.
To explain this distinction, Thomas not a partisan. He is an ideologue. His decisions are driven by a fairly coherent judicial philosophy which would often read the Constitution in much the same way that it wasunderstood in 1918. While this methodology typically leads him to conservative results, it does occasionally align him with the Court’s liberals. In 2009, for example, in a case brought by a drug company seeking lawsuit immunity after one of their products caused a woman to lose her hand, Thomas arguably took a position well to the left of the Court’s liberal bloc. While Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an opinion for the Court rejecting the drug company’s quest for immunity, Thomas argued that the legal doctrine the drug company relied upon should be tossed out entirely.
What makes Alito a partisan is that there is no similar case where his judicial philosophy drove him to a result that put him at odds with his fellow conservatives. Shortly after Hobby Lobbywas handed down, ThinkProgress contacted several legal scholars and Supreme Court advocates asking if they could identify a single closely divided case where Alito broke with his fellow conservatives to join the liberals. Most replied that they could not think of any. One, Boston College Law Professor Kent Greenfield, added that “Scalia is a Roosevelt liberal in comparison” to Alito. Another, a progressive attorney who frequently practices in Alito’s Court, wrote back with just four words — “Nope. He’s the worst.”
Kedar Bhatia, who compiles statistics on Supreme Court decisions for SCOTUSBlog, agreed that “I don’t believe there have been any true instances of a 5-4 majority with Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens/Kagan, Souter/Sotomayor, and Alito,” (although he was able to point to a handful of cases where Alito joined a 5 justice majority that included one other conservative and three liberals). The four other conservatives, Bhatia added, “are more prone to creating that sort of lineup.”
In contrast to Alito, some of his fellow conservatives have joined 5-4 decisions that absolutely enraged many Republicans. Chief Justice John Roberts famously cast the key fifth vote saving Obamacare, while Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the fifth vote striking the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act. Even Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court’s most outspoken conservative, once broke with the other four conservativesto join the liberals in support of a state fair lending law.
Nor is Alito’s partisanship matched by the Court’s left flank. Both Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the Court’s conservatives in rewriting Obamacare to make its Medicaid expansion optional, a decision that deprived millions of Americans of health coverage. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg broke with her fellow liberals in a case brought by unions seeking to make it easier for them to collect funds. Justice Sonia Sotomayor sided with the conservatives in a major privacy case.
Fahrenheit 451
Alito is a reliable partisan, but it would be a mistake to dismiss him as a substanceless hack. Alito may be the smartest member of the Court’s conservative bloc, and he is their best questioner. Recounting the oral arguments in the Citizens United campaign finance case in his book The Oath, Supreme Court reporter Jeffrey Toobin recalled that “[i]t was easy to tell which way Alito was leaning, because his questions were so hard to answer for the lawyer he was targeting. Alito had a radar for weak points in a presentation.”
Indeed, Alito asked a question during the Citizens United argument which has come to define that case for many conservatives. If the Constitution permits campaign finance law to regulate movies and television ads intended to influence an election, Alito asked, could the law also do “the same thing for a book?” After Malcolm Stewart, a longtime Justice Department attorney tasked with arguing this case while the newly inaugurated President Obama was still filling the top jobs in the Solicitor General’s office, answered that books could be regulated under campaign finance law, the argument descended into what Toobin labeled an “epic disaster.” Alito had somehow recast a case about whether corporations could spend unlimited money to shape electoral results into a case about banning books.
Several months later, when Solicitor General (and future Justice) Elena Kagan reargued the case, she tried to undo the damage Alito’s question had caused by announcing that “[t]he government’s answer” to his question “has changed.” But the damage had already been done. Alito’s single question continues to inspire conservative talking points to this day. Just last month, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) labeled supporters of campaign finance regulation “Fahrenheit 451 Democrats.”
In 2005, When President George W. Bush announced Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, he praised his nominee as someone who “understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people.” Less than a decade later, Alito rewrote American religious liberty law, and he did so despite an explicit statement by Congress indicating that Hobby Lobby should have come down the other way. Along the road to Hobby Lobby, Alito made the workplace a harsher, meaner place for women. He inspired talking points for Ted Cruz. And he has an unblemished record as the most committed partisan on the Court.
And, unlike the many partisans in Congress and other elected positions, Alito cannot be voted out of office. His appointment to the Court lasts for his entire life.
*****
Lots here to talk about. Th3 form is open. Blog me.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Thank you for your loyal support!
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2014
“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream
" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
July 7th, 2014 at 3:54 pm
Too bad that these supreme court justices are appointed for life. We get an obviously unfit an unjust asshole like Alito on the bench and we are stuck with him until he dies or retires, unimpeachable and no way to remove him. Now fill the entire SCROTUS bench with idiots such as Alito and the country goes down the drain. They have zero integrity.
What a brilliant idea to give anybody a position in this government for life, life in prison is more like it for the rulings of the majority of the SCROTUS judges, and for their decision to sell us all out. I spit in the face of the US Supreme Court, those lying, thieving, and treasonous friggin’ bastards.
July 7th, 2014 at 6:31 pm
Actually all five of S.T.A.R.K. suck. They are bought an paid for. this is true of all their rulings, but especially of the Hobby Lobby ruling.
———————————————
“In the Hobby Lobby cases, five male Justices of the Supreme Court, who are all members of the Catholic faith and who each were appointed by a President who hailed from the Republican party, decided that a huge corporation, with thousands of employees and gargantuan revenues, was a “person” entitled to assert a religious objection to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate because that corporation was “closely held” by family members.
To the average person, the result looks stupid and smells worse.
To most people, the decision looks stupid ’cause corporations are not persons, all the legal mumbo jumbo notwithstanding. The decision looks misogynist because the majority were all men.
It looks partisan because all were appointed by a Republican. The decision looks religiously motivated because each member of the majority belongs to the Catholic church, and that religious organization is opposed to contraception.
While “looks” don’t matter to the logic of the law (and I am not saying the Justices are actually motivated by such things), all of us know from experience that appearances matter to the public’s acceptance of the law.”
Quote from Judge Richard George Kopf, a George H.W. Bush appointee to the federal bench who maintains his own personal blog.
—————————————————————-
Religious liberty is the right to practice religion as you wish and the freedom to not have religion imposed on you by others, especially corporations.
July 7th, 2014 at 6:32 pm
Welcome back Al. I think I recognize your style. I definitely agree. 20 years is the most one should be allowed to sit on the bench.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:08 pm
Welcome back Al. I believe no one should hold an important political position for more than Eihht Yearas — Taht is two Presidential Terms . . . Isn’t that enough?
Lifetime is ridiculauos.
Agree or disagree?
HOWIE
July 7th, 2014 at 8:08 pm
Welcome back Al. My Al is back. I like to think I have dibs on you as Zen Lill has on Anonz. We both have A class guys whose names begin with that letter so everyone knows you’re the best.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:19 pm
I agree with you Al, SCOTUS is nothing but politicians clad in fine robes.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:23 pm
Of all the current supreme court judges Scalia has got to be one of the most out of whack judges ever to sit on the court. He is fooling himslef if he thinks he is impartial.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:24 pm
I agree to a point with you Howie. I would extend the 8 to say 20 years.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:25 pm
Thomas and Scalia are jokes… they might want to try doing their jobs. Must be nice to have job security for life.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:26 pm
These are not cases that involve hard evidence such as a low level court murder case. These are semi-subjective, logical, moral, and personal questions. Thinking these “Justices” can be objective and neutral is absurd.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:27 pm
Welcome back Al. Your bitting wit has been missed.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:27 pm
“Justice Scalia must resign” E. J. Dionne
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
July 7th, 2014 at 8:28 pm
Well, let’s see if we can fix that.
Maybe we just elect Romney, and the 3 oldest justices retire during the next 4 years.
Then, the margin on these decisions will be 8-1, and won’t look so partisan.
All fixed!!!
July 7th, 2014 at 8:30 pm
S.T.A.R.K. represents the true definition of judicial overreach by activist judges working overtime to entrench the plutocracy.
This at the expense of the rest of us who are not of the billionaire class.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:32 pm
Ed#13, You must be living in a conservative “dream world”. The only way Romney could get elected is if only bird brained republicans voted and even then it would be close enough for Scalia to have to make the final call.
How did I do Al?
July 7th, 2014 at 8:33 pm
Ed#13, though the robot takeover of Earth may be inevitable, it won’t start with Romney.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:33 pm
Good luck with that Ed.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:35 pm
The Citizens United decision showed that Roberts and the rest of S.T.A.R.K. were doing far more than “calling balls and strikes”.
They had been completely purchased by the corporate powers.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:37 pm
Alito is a stooge of the very wealthy and he isn’t bashful about holding his hand out for more.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:38 pm
Linda like with Zen Lill & Anonz, there are others who believe the field is open for us to toss our panties into the ring.
TOSSED.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:40 pm
What makes Alito a partisan is that there is no similar case where his judicial philosophy drove him to a result that put him at odds with his fellow conservatives.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:43 pm
Shortly after Hobby Lobby was handed down, ThinkProgress contacted several legal scholars and Supreme Court advocates asking if they could identify a single closely divided case where Alito broke with his fellow conservatives to join the liberals.
Most replied that they could not think of any. One, Boston College Law Professor Kent Greenfield, added that “Scalia is a Roosevelt liberal in comparison” to Alito. Another, a progressive attorney who frequently practices in Alito’s Court, wrote back with just four words — “Nope. He’s the worst.”
July 7th, 2014 at 8:45 pm
The liberals better get tougher skin. George Bush’s influence is going to be felt for years to come with the nominations of Alito, and Roberts.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:47 pm
Ditto Mary. Linda that sound you are hearing is Al cheering the appearance of my panty in the ring.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:48 pm
I agree with you Howie#4, he Supreme Court is really a third legislative branch with the significant hurdle of not being able to change their conclusions without a constitutional amendment.
I think it is time to amend the Constitution, limiting Justices to one 14 year term and prohibiting the overruling of any Congressional enactment without a super majority(ie. 7 – 2).
Otherwise, we are left with a unelected and, therefore, anti-democratic third branch, who can make decisions without any practical ability to change them(there being only 20+ Amendments).
July 7th, 2014 at 8:50 pm
What the political left describes as “conservative judicial activism” is almost always remedial in nature; a reaction to prior left-wing judicial activism.
Indeed, on this board, you’ll often hear members of the political left cry ‘Stare decisis’ whenever conservative members of the court are able to cobble out a majority to reclaim ground that political left wing majorities of the court illegitimately claimed in prior holdings of the court.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:52 pm
There are two ways of looking at the Constitution. The view promoted by Justices Holmes and Brandeis of judicial restraint, took the view government could do that which was not prohibited by the Constitution. The view represented by Justices Taft and Hughes was the government can only do what the Constitution specifically says it can do.
Personally I prefer Holmes’ view.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:55 pm
I like the idea that anyone can toss their panty into the ring of hope. I am adding my bra to gain a slight advantage.
Al, we ladies missed that mercurial temperament that was uniquely you. It was not always fun to be on the other end of one of your tirades, but your true fans knew it was just a bad day waiting for the good ones to follow.
GLAD YOU ARE BACK.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:56 pm
This, like the soon-to-be irreversible impact of climate change, is the totally foreseeable – and foreseen by many – result of Ralph Nader’s ego-driven decision to throw the 2000 election to GWBush because mainstream Dems didn’t give Nader sufficient respect.
July 7th, 2014 at 8:57 pm
Lol…I dont toss my panties in rings for anybody, don’t care who it is…it rarely impresses the man who’s left holding them anyway, if he’s that worthy then he’s seen that game to the yawning point.
I did take my panties out of my 5+ year thing ring recently, I left it friendly but sometimes being friends after a long term affair just makes it harder than it needs to be…I know he wants that and in theory, so do I – we’ll see ….
Al’a'mode, is it really you?? Missed you here, welcome back!!
Luv, Zen Lill
July 7th, 2014 at 8:57 pm
Well, the improtant thing is that corporations have finally been recognized for the first time in Amercian history to have the First Amendment right to anonymously launder money to political candidates just like Jefferson and Madison always intended.
You know, just callin’ balls and strikes.
July 7th, 2014 at 9:03 pm
I suppose it is only natural that an article about the partisan bias which has undermined our Courts would be rife with posts by people who do not seem to get that they themselves contribute to that same partisan bias and lack of objectivity that has so politically spit the US since the early 1990s.
If as Michelle has often made a point about they had gotten off their asses and voted the republican bastards out, we wouldn’t be here now lamenting the bias of S.T.A.R.K. because a democratic president would not have appointed them.
“The fault…lies not in our stars but in ourselves.”
July 7th, 2014 at 9:04 pm
Oh and I forgot…I’m all for term limits for the supreme courts appointees, this batch is bought and paid for – for life right now, at least we could dump them on their buns after 8 year terms but even then 8 years is plenty of time to do damage.
-ZL
July 7th, 2014 at 9:04 pm
Linda, excuse me, but I have a pair of panties that would look real good in that ring. Al, if you are interested I am in the runnings too.
Welcome back and bring on the sarcasm, we can certainly use it now and then.
July 7th, 2014 at 9:05 pm
I don’t usually wear panties ( I a natural sort of girl) but for you Al, I purchased a real pretty pair.
TOSSED.
July 7th, 2014 at 9:09 pm
I don’t doubt that the Supremes have always been political animals, but I seriously can’t think of another group like S.T.A.R.K. quite as intellectually corrupt as they are.
We still have substantial residue in robes from the Bush v Gore court whose judicial coup was so Constitutionally embarrassing, even to the majority, that they asserted their decision had no precedential value. Let that sink in for a moment.
It is truly a wonder that someone hasn’t taken it in their hands to solve this blatant act of corruption.
July 7th, 2014 at 9:11 pm
You hussies and tramps will end up sending Al back to isolation. I now understand how Zen Lill felt when those sluts when viciously after her man.
There is a special place in hell for the likes of you bitches.
July 7th, 2014 at 9:14 pm
I was horrified when I read an interview with Scalia, where he happily admitted to living in the right-wing bubble, insulated from the real world, his news filtered, sanitized, and bent to fit his preconceived worldview through the Wall St. Journal and Washington Times.
On the Court, he’s the equivalent of the insufferable relative who knows only what he’s told by Fox News.
July 7th, 2014 at 9:15 pm
The Court should not even be making these high-level policy decisions. Those should be made by the democratic process designated in the Constitution – amendment. However, today’s amendment process is moribund.
We need to reform the amendment process so that major constitutional issues can be decided as the Framers intended by democratic super-majorities, not by five unelected, unaccountable judges no matter what their partisan make-up is. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
July 7th, 2014 at 9:16 pm
The Rehnquist and Roberts courts have continually acted to limit individual freedom and expand that of the corporations. As for partisanship, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and Earl Warren were Republicans, as was Harry Blackmun. Warren was the former Republican governor of California and was the GOP’s Vice-Presidential candidate in 1948. Yet today we constantly see splits along party lines.
July 7th, 2014 at 9:18 pm
Harris#38, “horrified” by Scalia … bwaahaahaahaa, compared to that affirmative action wisewoman recently appointed, the man is an intellectual giant.
July 7th, 2014 at 9:22 pm
Linda#37, I hardly think that Al will be frightened by a few over Zealous fans. He is a big boy and has demonstrated his satirical skills more than once.
Me, thinks your admonition is more for your own sake than anything else. So with that said, I am tossing these extraordinary panties into the ring with a 36 DD matching bra.
29 and so fine.
July 7th, 2014 at 9:23 pm
Owen#41, so obviously you live right there in that same bubble with Scalia. Denial, Denial, Denial…
July 7th, 2014 at 9:48 pm
Zen Lill#30, I’m like you I don’t toss my panties in any ring for any man. I will admit I did give a pair to a lead singer at the local hangout two years ago with my phone number Sharpied on them.
He banged me for a few months and then the creep acted as if he didn’t know me. I keyed the asshole’s car and had my BFF tell his wife about our affair.
July 7th, 2014 at 10:13 pm
Linda, don’t let others’ panties rattle your cage… If a man is interested he will just ignore the offers. I’m not saying Al is interested, really have no idea what’s in his heart (or anywhere else : ) for any woman here, he’s been gone awhile….
Hmmm, Why when you toss in panties and get banged and then dumped is that man an asshole?
You offered up side salad, he took, got done with it bc he’s married, end of story…
I’m not defending men but listen to yourselves – if you’re going to act like low hanging fruit you’ll get picked, tasted and tossed and (I don’t care what fancy words he throws in there that sound otherwise), this topic has been worked over here before and I thought everyone agreed with our blog host and steve Harvey that women should vet for 90 days (or they are basically thought of as sluts though I was willing to defend less time and took plenty of shit for it, so 90 it is!) … Is it now 90 days except for Anonz AND Al?
Lol… Whatevs … I live and let live … And don’t actually care what anyone else does with their own panties (or Lack thereof) … Let the tossing continue…!
-ZL
July 8th, 2014 at 5:35 am
Zen Lill, I completely agree with you. Although at first glance one might attempt to make the argument that Anonz has demonstrated that he is the proverbial Exception to the Rule, I would suspect he would not object to the 90 day rule.
I would also venture to guess that both Al and Anonz would probably be vetting the lady to see if she would put out too soon. Of course in Anonz’s case, life’s events occur on a more perilous stage than most of us, and that might make a 90 day wait about 89 days too long if his life ended in some noble cause somewhere.
Therefore I would give him a pass. The urgency by which he lives demands it. One can hardly say that about 99.9% of those other two legged male creatures however desirable they may be.
Anonz is in a class of his own. My advice to the ladies seeking his attention, give it your all. If he takes the time to notice, consider yourself fortunate to have garnered it.
The man seems to live at such a fierce and dangerous pace that if I were interested and he merely had time to bed me. No regrets sugar. Sometimes we eat the sweet merely for the sweetness.
I know that I could go on with the knowledge that I had shared a tinder moment with a gentleman and a hero to women everywhere. I sincerely believe that Anonz is not the type who would deliberately harm a woman emotionally or otherwise. But he is a man and as such, a quickie before the battle could be appealing since it could be his last.
I am too old, 73, for an Anonz, but I do have money to provide sources for information. From what I’ve learned, the term PALADIN is well deserved. If I had a single daughter, I would not hesitate to give my blessing to any union she was fortuitous to have happen between them.
I have donated and continue to support his causes in Africa, and Asia. Anonz, may God always bless his heart and look after him, has done more for the plight of defenseless women and to advance the cause of democracy than most will ever know.
I was one of those women during a most perilous time in Northern Africa. I saw fist hand how incredibly inconsiderate he was of his own life when a woman needed his assistance to preserve hers. He will always be my PALADIN.
I don’t know what your relationship was with him, Zen Lill, and I don’t expect you would reveal it here. No woman that Anonz took to heart would. But I envy the time you have shared with him. He saved my life, opened my eyes to the sufferings of those less fortunate than I, changed my politics, and got me to donate millions to his causes without once stepping down from the lofty pedestal I put him on.
Ah, to be younger and have those arms hold me or to see that smile that springs upon his face when he gets his way. After all I went through before he arrived like a one man calvary to save us, I sleep very well, because I remember that smile on his face as he said “don’t worry, I’ve got you, no one will hurt you while I live.”
Nine horrific hours later he got us all out. We stay in touch to honor this man. He put his body and life before us and brought us home safely. We all made it. When we were put on that plane to safety, he remained, even though he was wounded because his job wasn’t done.
I returned home callous and angry. But I had to know if that man had survived. When I discovered who he was, I made sure to meet him again. I was much younger and more obstinate then.
He entered the room not with swagger, but with a shyness one would not expect from one with such a fierce reputation. I thought to impress him with my wealth, connections and power. He smiled and said “I see you are as determined to have your way today as you were to live that day.”
The smile, the very same smile that comforted me that day, won me over again. I smiled and we have been good friends ever since. I absolutely adore Anonz.
So let me say, if he is harmed in any way by anyone, I will move Heaven and Hell to avenge him.
Helena
July 8th, 2014 at 6:22 am
Helena, what a lovely testimonial, there’s no doubt that Anonz is and always will be a palladin and quite a hero to many women and it’s likely must take his lovin on the run these days bc of that lifestyle…
I’m sure he appreciates each and every story he reads here (if he gets a chance to read here)?
Thanks for telling yours,
Peace and luv to you and yours, Zen Lill
PS your statement about good men like Anonz or Al or Howie doing their own type of vetting is for sure, man or woman, we all vet on some level to test if someone meets our personal standards.
In many ways – The true vetting in life is in who keeps in touch with you after the affair is over…in my experience within 2 weeks or 2 months or 2 years (once) I get the call about how much they miss my smile, how much they learned from me and how different I am, etc…and if they didn’t behave like a total jack at the end I remain in contact (unless their current GF or wives take issue with the friendship bc I don’t like causing trouble in anyone’s paradise…& sometimes my archetype is trouble in and of itself)
July 8th, 2014 at 12:33 pm
Sorry for all of the typos in my comment #4 which qas written and posted last night. I feel that I must apologize for all those typos in such a short comment.I had a fever of 102.8 and I was seing double.
I am embarrased but I think my intentions were understood.
Sorry about that.
HOWIE