Why All Decent, God-Fearing Americans Must Support Alito

Here is the script of a new Committee for Justice commercial:

In 1990, the U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed Samuel Alito to serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Today, liberal groups led by People for the American Way oppose Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Their agenda is clear.

They want to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and are fighting to redefine traditional marriage. They support partial birth abortion, sanction the burning of the American flag, and even oppose pornography filters on public library computers.

Do these groups represent you? If not, call your Senators. Tell them to support Judge Alito.

One way of interpreting this ad is that we should support Alito because his opponents are atheistic, unpatriotic, perverted baby murderers. But it also implies that Alito would reject an Establishment Clause challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance, uphold federal attempts to dictate state marriage laws and to ban certain abortion methods, and reject First Amendment challenges to filtering software in public libraries and bans on flag burning. Assuming Alito actually holds these positions, most of them count against him as far as I'm concerned. The mention of flag burning is especially puzzling, inasmuch as Antonin Scalia, one of two models President Bush supposedly had in mind when he picked Alito, agrees that flag burning is protected by the First Amendment.

Comments

Jason Ligon | November 17, 2005, 1:56pm | #

Alito to Committee for Justice - Stay off my team.

We at least know that nobody can speak with confidence about what Alito will do in any of these situations. Liberal groups oppose him because they fear he won't be a liberal, which is not the same as knowing that he is Ultra Right Wing Man.

Rodney | November 17, 2005, 1:57pm | #

"They want to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and are fighting to redefine traditional marriage. They support partial birth abortion, sanction the burning of the American flag, and even oppose pornography filters on public library computers."

Well, yeah.

Lowdog | November 17, 2005, 2:05pm | #

JL - no shit. They make the guy seem awesome.

But again, as you said, we really don't know.

theCoach | November 17, 2005, 2:06pm | #

I oppose Alito mostly because another defeat for Bush would be damaging for him, and the more damaged Bush and supports are, the better off this country will be.

It also looks to be a good chance to eliminate the filibuster (through the nucular option) while reflecting badly on those that eliminate it, making it much easier to pass social security-sized legislation in the future -- how does that sound to you guys?

Akira MacKenzie | November 17, 2005, 2:06pm | #

Edit: ...clumsy?

Yogi | November 17, 2005, 2:10pm | #

Why does Antonin Scalia hate America?

joe | November 17, 2005, 2:18pm | #

Uh, yeah, the Committee for Justice is making a nuanced statement about the incorporation doctrine when it says his opponents are liberals who approve of flag burning.

Personally, I disapprove of the guy because he's been caught three times with his pants around his ankles in conflict of interest situations, after promising under oath at his confirmation hearings to recuse himself.

If the guy has a record of lying to the Judiciary Committee about what he's going to do on the bench, how can the Senate confirm him? And if he's ruling on cases he has a financial interest in, how can we trust him as a Supreme Court Justice?

joe | November 17, 2005, 2:20pm | #

Akira, of course they're real words. Don't be stupidistic.

The wed RINO | November 17, 2005, 2:21pm | #

Why does Antonin Scalia hate America?

Because we have this wierd idea that the right to govern eminates from we the people. Scalia believes on the otherhand that the right to govern is given by the divine.

APL | November 17, 2005, 2:29pm | #

There's already a perfectly good synonym for "atheistic" that lacks the clumsy semantics - "secular." Of course, secular is a much less loaded word, and less applealing to the average propagandist.

Jason Ligon | November 17, 2005, 2:31pm | #

"I oppose Alito mostly because another defeat for Bush would be damaging for him, and the more damaged Bush and supports are, the better off this country will be."

That is dangerous logic.

joshua corning | November 17, 2005, 2:33pm | #

"The mention of flag burning is especially puzzling, inasmuch as Antonin Scalia, one of two models President Bush supposedly had in mind when he picked Alito, agrees that flag burning is protected by the First Amendment."

jacob shut up man or you might alert the conservatives that a libertarain is about ot be put on the high court...why else do you think the lefties are all up in arms...its becosue they know already. :)

peachy | November 17, 2005, 2:34pm | #

atheistic, unpatriotic, perverted baby murderers

now that sounds like a fun group!

Jason Ligon | November 17, 2005, 2:36pm | #

I too hate the others, but I'm growing more fond of 'stupidistic' by the minute.

joe | November 17, 2005, 2:41pm | #

It's not stupid, exactly. But it's "stupidistic."

Akira MacKenzie | November 17, 2005, 2:44pm | #

"Stupidistic"

ROTFLMAO. Good one, joe!

Jeff P. | November 17, 2005, 2:44pm | #

Of course, the left could easily criticize the commercial for patronizing the viewers with alarmist shriekings and insulting thier intelligence, then raise some actual rational questions about the nomination, but that would require a rudamentary brain, spine, and balls.

Evan | November 17, 2005, 2:45pm | #

Jason: "I oppose Alito mostly because another defeat for Bush would be damaging for him, and the more damaged Bush and supports are, the better off this country will be."

That is dangerous logic.



Why is it dangerous?

Ken Shultz | November 17, 2005, 2:47pm | #

...inasmuch as Antonin Scalia, one of two models President Bush supposedly had in mind when he picked Alito, agrees that flag burning is protected by the First Amendment.

The ad isn't centered on Alito or Scalia or the Constitution or even the issues. It's about inspiring people to fight a caricature of opposition to the Bush Administration. ...I'm surprised they didn't throw in "latte swilling."

When we talk to people about libertarian ideas, we would do well to invoke apple pie and Mom along with reason and the Constitution.

gaius marius | November 17, 2005, 2:47pm | #

Uh, yeah, the Committee for Justice is making a nuanced statement about the incorporation doctrine when it says his opponents are liberals who approve of flag burning.

i agree, mr joe -- is someone actually trying to divine nuance out of this scare-tactic propaganda?

i think, mr sullum, you misunderstand the purpose of such advertising. this is a democracy. providing information to the voter is pointless -- is probably damaging, in fact, depressing turnout.

if the "committee for justice" could find a way to, it would simply have a hammer materialize out of the television to awake the slumbering voter with a proper smash to the head, and then convince the appropriately frightened voter that the enemies of alito, babies, puppies and america/god had hit them.

Umbriel | November 17, 2005, 2:48pm | #

They're perfectly cromulent words, Evan and joe. Or perhaps cromulentistic...

Me | November 17, 2005, 3:03pm | #

jacob shut up man or you might alert the conservatives that a libertarain is about ot be put on the high court

Cato thinks so also...

Alito's Libertarian Streak

Larry Edelstein | November 17, 2005, 3:21pm | #

I was going to make a comment about Joe's rampant cromulentalism, but dammit, I got beat to the punch.

theCoach | November 17, 2005, 3:29pm | #

all sorts of things are dangerous if they are taken to extremistic levels.

Pine | November 17, 2005, 3:32pm | #

I thought the Flag burning thing was a done deal. There was an amendment to the constitution right? Not a supreme court ruling that could be overturned, an amendment.
Congress shall prohibit the phisical desecration of the american flag.

ford | November 17, 2005, 3:33pm | #

"They want to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and are fighting to redefine traditional marriage."

Funny how they have no problem with the Pledge being "redefined." I mean, if we're going to force a return to the "good old days" by right-wing judicial activism, we should at least be consistent!

mediageek | November 17, 2005, 3:37pm | #

Oh, and don't forget that Judge Alito is all for giving machineguns to school children.

Brady Campaign Press Release on Alito.

The wed RINO | November 17, 2005, 3:43pm | #

Oh, and don't forget that Judge Alito is all for giving machineguns to school children.

Aren't we all? How are the little buggers suppose to defend themselves against bullies?

Clearly, the key to a civil playground is the fear that the other kid might be packin' heat.

Lowdog | November 17, 2005, 3:44pm | #

For the record, I would like to state that I am neither decent nor god-fearing.

Larry A | November 17, 2005, 3:46pm | #

There's already a perfectly good synonym for "atheistic" that lacks the clumsy semantics - "secular."

Not even close

"Atheistic" relates to believing there is no god. "Secular" pertains to things that are not part of a religion. It is quite possible to devoutly believe in God and hold membership in a religion, yet also believe that it's essential for government, while respecting religion, to remain secular. The First Amendment's establishment clause sets up exactly that relationship.

Unfortunately the folks from Committee for Justice agree with you. It amazes me that so many of them are dead set against socialized medicine because they understand the government will screw up health care, but they lust for Christian government not understanding that it will screw up their church.

linguist | November 17, 2005, 4:31pm | #

Hehe. Isn't English FUN? :-)

Happy Jack | November 17, 2005, 4:35pm | #

"latte swilling"

I think that sounds too manly. Latte "sipping", on the otherhand, conjures up dainty behavior with ones pinky finger extended.

Rick H. | November 17, 2005, 5:07pm | #

"Atheistic" relates to believing there is no god.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. The operative term here is "lack."

Belief is an action. Many people believe "there is no god" and also don't believe in god, but the belief in a negative and the lack of belief are not the same thing.

Atheistic, Unpatriotic, Perverted Baby Murderer | November 17, 2005, 5:19pm | #

...his opponents are atheistic, unpatriotic, perverted baby murderers.

Dude...that is so condescending...

jw | November 17, 2005, 5:39pm | #

Actually, my old Websters Collegiate defines ATHEIST both as someone who states there is no god and as one who has no belief that there is a god. It also says that it can mean a "free thinker" or even a "Deist".
Thomas Jefferson was often reviled by his contemporaries as an atheist, because he was a Deist. (Yes, I know that sounds contradictory)

peachy | November 17, 2005, 5:45pm | #

If you want to get really technical, there is both "positive atheism" (the assertion that there is no god) and "negative atheism" (lack of belief in a god.) Though obviously related, they are philosophically distinct viewpoints.

Lowdog | November 17, 2005, 5:51pm | #

peachy -

Which is also 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism', respectively.

The Wine Commonsewer | November 17, 2005, 6:05pm | #

ALL interest groups resort to hyperbole to make a point in their favor. I just shredded the recent direct mailing from ACLU so I can't quote, but essentially it went something like...

send us money, join up, or we'll all be stifled like Edith Bunker. It may already be too late.

And speaking of People for the American Way, have you seen their anti-Alito ad?

Doug Ginsburg's Bong | November 17, 2005, 6:53pm | #

Myers would have been worse!

Evan | November 17, 2005, 7:03pm | #

If you want to get really technical, there is both "positive atheism" (the assertion that there is no god) and "negative atheism" (lack of belief in a god.) Though obviously related, they are philosophically distinct viewpoints.

Ah, then throw in Agnosticism to the mix:

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

So what you call "negative atheism" could also be defined as agnosticism, according to definition #2 above. Ch-ch-chang chaaaaang.

joe | November 17, 2005, 7:44pm | #

TWC,

I haven't seen the ad. Care to sum it up?

peachy | November 17, 2005, 7:49pm | #

I wouldn't go that far - a "negative atheist" is more than simply skeptical about the existence of a God; unlike an agnostic, there is a definite lack of belief.

Ken Shultz | November 17, 2005, 8:42pm | #

I'm guessin' he's talkin' about one of these ads.

One of them says he approved the strip search of a 10 year old girl!

Jason Sonenshein | November 17, 2005, 10:31pm | #

I thought the Flag burning thing was a done deal. There was an amendment to the constitution right? Not a supreme court ruling that could be overturned, an amendment.

It has passed in the House, but is still pending in the Senate. If it is approved by the Senate, it would then have to be ratified by majorities in 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Congress shall prohibit the phisical desecration of the american flag.

I'm not sure of the actual language of the amendment, but I think it's precatory rather than mandatory.

raymond | November 18, 2005, 12:28am | #

I've always thought "libertarian" was a silly-sounding word. Let's take back "liberal". It sounds less sect-like.

And "Randian". I much prefer the more accurate "randy".


So, given that "atheist" can be either a noun or an adjective, but "atheistic" is only an adjective, it is a safe bet to use the latter if you want to make sure that people know that you're using it as an adjective and not a noun.

People who can't tell the difference between a noun and an adjective in a sentence don't know what nouns and adjectives are anyway. We call such people "bushistic".

kwais | November 18, 2005, 6:07am | #

After reading People for the American Way's hit piece on Janice Rogers Brown, I am inclined to support anyone they oppose.

Hakluyt | November 18, 2005, 8:27am | #

A "real word" is pretty much anything we agree is a real word.

joe | November 18, 2005, 10:40am | #

raymond,

Take it, huh? You and what army?

dagny | November 18, 2005, 10:59am | #

send us money, join up, or we'll all be stifled like Edith Bunker. It may already be too late.

I used to be a student assistant for my university's philosophy department. One of the professors got mail from some group that always decorated their fliers with little editorial cartoons that were about how John Ashcroft was building a giant robot army to exterminate philosophy professors, or something to that effect. I may have made the robot part up.

This inspired one of my favorite hobbies -- the John Ashcroft Game! A friend of mine had a cell phone that theoretically came with GPS, except it never worked. So she'd select the GPS function and it would report "No satellites found" and I'd reply "I guess John Ashcroft hasn't found us yet"

raymond | November 18, 2005, 11:53am | #

Take it, huh? You and what army?

Since I don't believe in armies, I guess I'll just have to do it by my own liberal-individual self.

joe | November 18, 2005, 12:30pm | #

raymond,

Let me try that again:

You can have my political label when you pry it from cold, frothy iced latte.

joe | November 18, 2005, 12:30pm | #

"... from my cold, frothy..."

raymond | November 18, 2005, 5:40pm | #

A mighty strange place to keep a label.