Tag Archives: Samuel Alito

How the minority seized the U.S. Supreme Court (and maybe finally sparked the next U.S. civil war)

Five of the current nine U.S. Supreme Court “justices” were chosen by two “presidents” who had lost the popular vote. If it feels to you like the current Supreme Court doesn’t represent the majority of the American people, that’s because it doesn’t: five of the “justices” were picked by “presidents” whom the American people did not actually elect and who thus were illegitimate “presidents” — and President Barack Obama treasonously and anti-democratically was denied a pick altogether.

How did we get to this point today, the day that the U.S. Supreme Court, now solidly dominated — 6-3 — by right-wing nut jobs (actually, they’re fucking fascists; “nut jobs” sounds too innocuous), ruled (5-4) that each state may decide whether or not a woman may obtain an abortion after it was decided in 1973 by Roe vs. Wade that no state may entirely prohibit abortion?

How did the anti-choice minority view — about two-thirds of all Americans support Roe vs. Wade — prevail in this fight for a woman’s basic right to choose what goes on inside of her own fucking uterus?

Let’s go back to the “election” of George W. Bush as president in 2000.

The official popular vote count for the presidential election of 2000 was 50,456,002 votes for Repugnican Bush and 50,999,897 for Democrat Al Gore.

Gore won the popular vote by 543,895 votes, yet, because of the Electoral Collegeand because of the infamous intervention of the U.S Supreme Court in the determination of a presidential election outcome — Bush, the minority’s chosen candidate, nonetheless became “president.” The pick of the majority of the American voters simply did not matter.

On September 29, 2005, “President” Bush’s first pick to the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

You might argue that yes, Bush “won” “re”-election in 2004 — the official popular vote count for that presidential election was 62,040,610 to 59,028,444 in Bush’s favor, a difference of 3,012,166 votes this time.

However, I’d argue that obviously had Bush not been installed as president when he’d lost the popular vote of 2000, of course he never could have been “re”-elected in 2004. Because Bush’s first presidential term was illegitimate — because he had lost the popular vote — I never accepted his second term as legitimate either, because his second term depended on the fruit of the poisonous tree from 2000.

Bush went on to get another right-wing U.S. Supreme Court “justice” confirmed — Samuel Alito, who authored today’s official decision to kill Roe vs. Wade — on January 3, 2006.

Fast forward to the next presidential election in which the loser of the popular vote still became “president”: In 2016, the official popular vote count was 65,853,514 for Democrat Billary Clinton to only 62,984,828 for Repugnican Pussygrabber; Pussygrabber lost even more bigly than did George W. Bush in 2000: he lost by 2,868,686 popular votes.

Yet the illegitimate “President” Pussygrabber would go on to nominate three U.S. Supreme Court justices in just his one (and what must be his only) term.

Former President Barack Obama, who won the popular vote in 2008 and in 2012, put only two justices (Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) on the Supreme Court during his two terms — and infamously and treasonously was denied a third pick to the nation’s highest court when then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell treasonously and anti-democratically refused to allow the Senate to recognize any nomination to the Supreme Court by Obama in the wake of the overdue death of fascist “Justice” Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016 — even though Obama had had almost a full year of his presidency left.

So “President” Pussygrabber’s first pick for the U.S. Supreme Court — Neil Gorsuch, who was confirmed on April 7, 2017clearly had been stolen from Obama.

The unelected-by-the-majority-of-the-American-people Pussygrabber would go on to make two more right-wing-nut-job/fascist picks to the U.S. Supreme Court: Brett Kavanaugh, who was confirmed on October 6, 2018, and Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed on October 26, 2020, even though the Repugnicans had told us that Obama couldn’t have a nomination to the Supreme Court so “close” to a presidential election (Barrett was confirmed only about a week [eight days] before the 2020 presidential election, while, again, Obama was denied a pick to the court with almost a full year of his second term remaining).

So under the Repugnicans’ own fucking argumentation in regards to the “required” timing for Scalia’s replacement on the court, Amy Coney Barrett clearly is illegitimate, and, of course, before her, Gorsuch illegitimately was put on the nation’s high court, because that pick clearly had belonged to then-President Obama.

But, even all of this aside, if we believe that only the majority of the American voters should pick the U.S. president, who then should be able to make nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court, then George W. Bush’s picks for the Supreme Court — Roberts and Alito — are illegitimate, since Bush never legitimately became president in the first fucking place. And ditto, of course, for the illegitimate Pussygrabber’s picks to the court, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

That’s five current U.S. Supreme Court “justices” who were nominated by “presidents” who had lost the popular vote. That’s five illegitimate Supreme Court “justices” — four of whom voted to kill Roe vs. Wade.

(Roberts did not vote to kill Roe, but of course Clarence Thomas did, because he is Clarence Thomas, who I always believed committed sexual harassment and thus never belonged on the U.S. Supreme Court in the first fucking place; I always have believed Anita Hill. [And, of course, Thomas’ baby-boomer cow of a wife’s meddling in the 2020 presidential election, which should land her behind bars along with the dozens of other traitors who illegally and treasonously tried to overthrow the 2020 presidential election results, alone makes Thomas an illegitimate Supreme Court “justice” — and a prime candidate for impeachment and removal. Thomas bemoans that the American people don’t trust “our” institutions anymore, but look what the hypocritical piece of dog shit Thomas has done: he probably committed pre-disqualifying sexual harassment, he apparently has allowed his wife to try to change the outcome of a presidential election, and he helped to kill Roe vs. Wade — and now he wants to deprive Americans of even the right to use contraception and to have sex with or marry a member of their same sex, although, of course, he’ll keep the right to have a mixed-race marriage intact, not because it’s the right thing to do, but because, being the typical baby-boomer asshole [redundant] that he is, he wants to retain his own rights while cavalierly destroying others’ rights.])

So that’s how we got to where we are today in the United States of America: the tyranny of the minority over the majority. Even though the clear majority of Americans support Roe vs. Wade, which had been settled law for almost five decades, the minority once again has acted against the majority.

Again, the American people had spoken: In 2000 and in 2016, the majorities of them — of us — voted for the Democratic candidate for president. Instead, because of the anti-democratic, obsolete Electoral College, the minority prevailed, and imposed on the American people were two Repugnican “presidents” for whom the majority of us did not vote, and these two fascist “presidents” put five fascists on the U.S. Supreme Court.

This, along with the blatant, bad-faith theft of President Obama’s third pick to the Supreme Court, is how the minority took over the Supreme Court — by 6-3, no less.

While I’d never rule out violent revolution by the majority against the tyrannical minority — if the minority dares to treasonously and anti-democratically tyrannize the majority, the tyrannical minority deserves whatever the fuck it gets — there are some ways that we, the majority of the American people, can take our nation back from the minority, even within our corrupt system of so-called “democracy,” including:

  • We need to abolish the Electoral College. The popular vote alone should decide who gets to sit in the Oval Office inside of the White House. It’s supposed to be one person, one vote, but the Electoral College gives the minority in the red states significantly more say in the presidency than their actual population does. This blatantly anti-democratic bullshit must stop.
  • We need to get enough U.S. senators to abolish the filibuster so that the U.S. Senate can enlarge — yes, pack, if you will — the U.S. Supreme Court. The number of justices on the Supreme Court is set by the U.S. Congress, not by the U.S. Constitution, so if the Democrats were in control of the U.S. House of Representatives and were in control of the U.S. Senate (and eliminated the filibuster, if necessary, which they could do on a simple majority vote, as the filibuster of course also isn’t in the U.S. Constitution, but is an obsolete, anti-democratic Senate rule, much like the Electoral College is obsolete and anti-democratic), they could add as many Supreme Court seats as they pleased (again, the Constitution fully allows this). After how the Repugnicans brazenly stole seats on the nation’s highest court, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. A situation in which only one side of the divide plays by any rules or norms at all is not tenable.
  • We need to radically reform the U.S. Senate, and this would be significantly more difficult than abolishing the Electoral College or finally killing the filibuster or expanding/packing the U.S. Supreme Court. The fact that no matter how tiny its population is each state gets two U.S. senators — while no matter how huge its population is, each states gets only two U.S. senators — clearly is anti-democratic. An analysis by Vox’s Ian Millhiser in November 2020 found that in the current 50-50 U.S. Senate, “the Democratic half [represents] 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half.” This anti-democratic situation no longer is tenable, and off of the top of my head, I’d start with this suggestion: Change the U.S. Constitution so that each state does not get two (and only two) U.S. senators, but, instead, each state gets from one to three U.S. senators, based upon its population, much how the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives that each state gets is determined by its population. We could keep it at 100 U.S. senators, but reapportion the number of senators based upon the states’ population (again, with one, two or three senators, based on the state’s population).* If it were necessary, I’d be OK with adding seats to the U.S. Senate (100 senators is an arbitrary number), but in any case, each state getting two senators each regardless of its population must end. Of course, the red states wouldn’t vote to change the U.S. Constitution to give them less representation in the U.S. Senate, even if their current level of representation is unfair (and it is blatantly unfair). It might be that only a civil war — a great fucking reset — could reform the U.S. Senate so that the minority doesn’t get to continue to tyrannize the majority in a so-called “democracy.”

Yes, that’s pretty much where I am: I’m OK with a second U.S. civil war at this point. The treasonous right wing has brought it on by insisting on running roughshod over the majority of us Americans who disagree with their politics and their (theo)fascist “vision” for the United States of America. We Americans don’t even get to vote for U.S. president, for fuck’s sake, not when the Electoral College simply hands the presidency to the fucking loser of the popular vote.

Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — the name of today’s dazzlingly overreaching U.S. Supreme Court decision, in which the minority yet once again has tyrannized the majority — very well might prove to have been the most proximate salvo fired in the Second American Civil War.

P.S. More to the point of the majority-illegitimate U.S. Supreme Court ruling that each state may decide whether or not a woman may control her own uterus, while I’m not a woman and so of course won’t ever need an abortion, and while I live in a state that has codified abortion rights into state law, the rolling back of anyone’s rights — perhaps especially by unelected theocrats wishing to impose their backasswards religious beliefs on the rest of us — is disturbing, and, of course, if it’s open season on others’ rights, your rights might be on the chopping block next. (And, of course, the Dobbs ruling might be just the intended first step in the theofascist-controlled U.S. Supreme Court ruling that no state may allow any abortion at all.)

I’m hoping that Dobbs inspires us, the majority, to finally take our nation back from the tyrannical minority — bloodlessly, if possible, but bloodfully, if necessary.

*Even if my plan to change the system so that each state gets one to three U.S. senators based on its population were enacted, the smallest states still would be overrepresented in the U.S. Senate based on their population, but this still would be a move in the right — that is, the actually democratic — direction.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Sarah Palin-Quayle, grand dragoness

“Tea party” convention headliner Repugnican Sarah Palin-Quayle greets adoring supporters in an excellent PhotoShop job.

President-wannabe Sarah Palin-Quayle wrote this in a public relations — er, opinion — piece for USA Today before fellow radical-right Repugnican Tom Tancredo, a former U.S. representative from Colorado and former presidential hopeful who has used or at least tried to use xenophobic, anti-Latin-American-immigrant sentiment for personal political gain, opened the “National Tea Party Convention” in Nashville, Tenn., on Thursday:

Their vision is what drew me to the Tea Party movement. They believe in the same principles that guided my work in public service — whether I was working on the PTA and city council or serving as a mayor, commissioner or governor. I look forward to meeting some of these great Americans this weekend.

Probably at least in part because she’s no longer in public office, having quit her job as governor of Alaska before she served even one full term, Palin-Quayle apparently thought it sufficiently safe to appear at the Wingnut Super Bowl in Nashville today.

Other Repugnican elected officials who are still in office decided not to appear the “tea party” convention, afraid that some wingnut might say some really whack shit at the convention that would reflect poorly upon them. Or maybe the Repugnican National Committee made that decision for them.

In any case, some really whack shit was said at the convention, right off.

This is what Tancredo (who, like fellow wingnuts Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia* [both U.S. Supreme Court “justices”], is an Italian American; now that their families got to immigrate to the U.S., we should hermetically seal our borders, you see) said in his opening speech for the convention on Thursday:

“…And then, something really odd happened, mostly because I think [that] we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this country. [Big applause from his audience.] People who could not even spell the word “vote” or say it in English [more big applause] put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House — [his] name is Barack Hussein Obama.” [More applause.]

You can watch the clip on Rachel Maddow’s show here.

So Tancredo, who is able to say whatever he wants to say because his political career is dead anyway — really, you can’t be a one-trick hater-pony like he is and get anywhere — has bashed the 53 percent of Americans who voted for Barack Obama in 2008. He has alleged that because of low intellect and ignorance and/or a language barrier, Obama is our president.

That’s pretty fucking funny, since wingnuts are notorious for being fucktards. Like this one:

(I should note that I Googled “get a brain morans,” and from what I can tell, the viral images of the white-trash fucktard with that sign apparently are authentic images of an authentic wingnut.**)

And, as I noted waaaaay back in 2002, the same fucktarded haters who call for a “civics literacy test” (actually, “civics test” is just fine; there is no need to add the word “literacy” in there) for those from other nations (usually from nations within Latin America, since their skin usually is brown) or even for fellow American citizens (that is, black Americans) could not pass the same fucking civics test that immigrants must pass to become an American citizen. (Seriously — see how many of the questions you can answer correctly yourself!)

Knowing his background, Tancredo’s hateful remarks yesterday most likely were aimed, at least primarily, at those from Latin America who want a better life, but his remarks are reminding those who know their U.S. history of the literacy tests that once were used to prevent black Americans from voting. Notes Wikipedia:

As used by the states, the literacy test gained infamy as a means for denying suffrage to African Americans. Adopted by a number of Southern states, the literacy test was applied in a patently unfair manner, as it was used to disenfranchise many literate Southern blacks while allowing many illiterate Southern whites to vote.

The literacy test, combined with other discriminatory requirements, effectively disenfranchised the vast majority of African Americans in the South from the 1890s until the 1960s. Southern states abandoned the literacy test only when forced to by federal legislation in the 1960s…. Since the passage of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, black registration in the South has increased dramatically.

So Repugnican former Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi in 2002 publicly mused that the nation would have been a lot better off had segregationist Strom Thurmond been elected president in 1948, and now, Repugnican former Rep. Tom Tancredo muses that he sures misses the good old days of the literacy tests.

And, as I have noted before, calling Obama a “Muslim” or insinuating that he is a Muslim by stating his middle name of Hussein, is simply code for “nigger,” as is “socialist.” (“Committed socialist idealogue,” then, would mean “biiiiig nigger.”) And the name Hussein, of course, is associated with former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, which is meant to associate Barack Obama with the “evildoers” of the Middle East. We whiteys are to be just as afraid of the niggers here as we are to be afraid of the sand niggers who hate us for our freedom, you see.)

But when you say that the “tea party” “movement” is all about (or at least largely about) white supremacism, the wingnuts crow that you’re wrong. But listen to the “tea party” convention crowd’s reaction to Tancredo’s racist, xenophobic clarion call for a “civics literacy test”; the crowd eats it up.

After Rachel Maddow shows the clip, she quips, “Although to be fair, it was sort of hard to tell exactly what the sounds coming from the crowd meant; they were sort of, a little bit muffled by the — you know, the white hoods.”

Yup. The “white hoods” joke is appropriate, but I believe that Maddow was kidding; it is clear from the clip that Tancredo had a doting audience, clapping and laughing and whooping in response to his comments.

So when Sarah Palin-Quayle, the keynote speaker of this weekend’s “National Tea Party Convention” in Nashville, gushes about the “tea party” “movement,” as she did in USA Today

Later this week I’ll head to Nashville, where I’ll have the honor of speaking with members of the “tea party” movement. I look forward to meeting many Americans who share a commitment to limited government, common sense and personal responsibility….

— it’s bullshit.

Things like “common sense” and “personal responsibility” and “limited government” are the “tea party” “movement’s” stated raison d’être (hey, look, this American who cast his vote for Barack Obama not only can spell the word “vote,” but he can mix it up with a foreign language sometimes, too!), and those things sure sound good — but the “tea party” actually is about white supremacism and patriarchy and misogyny and “Christo”fascism/theocracy and militarism (to spend any of our tax dollars on people instead of on war profiteers is deemed “socialist”) and xenophobia and jingoism and homophobia and ignorance and fear.

The “tea party” is comprised mostly of stupid, backasswards white men who can’t get over the fact that rapidly changing demographics in the United States of America are making it more and more impossible for the stupid white man to have the political control of the nation that he used to have.

There are some fucktarded white women, like Palin-Quayle, who support these fucktarded white men, but the “tea party” “movement” irrefutably is stupid-white-male driven. 

The “tea party” “movement” represents a small slice of the American electorate, and even that small slice is melting just like the polar ice caps are melting. Just as the “tea party” fucktards deny that the ice caps are melting, they seem to be in denial that their existence is endangered, too. They have become the dinosaurs that they don’t believe in.

So you have the “National Tea Party Convention’s” opening act, Tom Tancredo, call for a “civics literacy test,” and you have Palin-Quayle gushing about how great the “tea party” “movement” is before she goes to Nashville to be the keynote speaker at their first national convention.

How can we not associate Palin-Quayle with the rest of what has gone on at the Wingnut Super Bowl this weekend when she herself has chosen to associate herself with it?

*Well, Scalia’s father was an immigrant from Sicily and his mother was born in the U.S. to Italian immigrants. (Sicily, Italy — close enough…) Alito’s father was an immigrant from Italy. Wikipedia says of Tancredo, “Both sets of his grandparents emigrated from Italy.”

So it was OK to let all of these Italians and Sicilians into the United States, you see, but we need to keep the Latin Americans, especially the brown-skinned ones, out.

**I cannot vouch for the authenticity of this image, however:

Respect Are Country - Speak English

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Samuel Alito, judicial activist

I love the wingnuts’ pathologically hypocritical accusation that judges who disagree with their oppressive, retrogressive, anti-democratic, anti-American views — and who actually stand for the American principle of liberty and justice for all — are “judicial activists.”

Not the majority of the American voters, but the wingnut-stacked U.S. Supreme Court, chose the nation’s president in 2000. If that isn’t the epitome of judicial activism, I don’t know what the fuck is.

Now, the same 5-4 skewed-to-the-right U.S. Supreme Court, in order to help the dying Repugnican Party, has ruled, against a century of legal precedent, that corporations may funnel unlimited amounts of money to political advertisements.

But that’s not judicial activism or anything.

Both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden have pointed out that the court’s ruling allows — or would allow, if Congress cannot correct the court’s error through legislation — foreign interests to influence our elections for their benefit. To allow that to happen smells a bit like treason to me.

U.S. Supreme Court “Justice” Samuel Alito, a BushCheneyCorp appointee who is, of course, one of the Gang of Five, apparently pulled a silent Joe Wilson during President Obama’s State of the Union address last night when the president correctly criticized the court’s radical-right ruling.

“Alito made a dismissive face, shook his head repeatedly and appeared to mouth the words ‘not true’ or possibly ‘simply not true’ when Obama assailed the decision … in his State of the Union address,” The Associated Press reports.

Oh, fuck you, Samuel Alito!

You don’t uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. You’re a fucking judicial activist for the wingnuts.

Hopefully one of the wingnuts on the nation’s highest court will retire or drop dead soon and we progressives will start to see 5-4 decisions in our favor — that is, in favor of democracy and in favor of the principle of liberty and justice for all, not just for stupid rich white people.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Alito: ‘I have to think about people in my own family’ in decision-making

Sexy brainiac blogger Glenn Greenwald has had some insightful things to say about Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation process.

The best that most bloggers can do, in my estimation, is to make you think of something in a new light, to present an angle that the mainstream media are not presenting; most bloggers can’t act as news gatherers because most of them, myself included, don’t have the resources.

However, research via the Internet is easy enough, and I’m surprised that in all of the discussions of Sotomayor that I have seen on the Internet thus far, no one has bothered to include the latest photographic group portrait of the U.S. Supreme Court, which shows that seven of the nine justices (including the recently retired Justice David Souter, whom Sotomayor will replace) are white men. That one picture, which is whiter than a Repugnican National Convention, speaks thousands of words, methinks.

Here’s what you’re also not seeing in the mainstream media’s coverage of Sotomayor: 

In one recent post, Greenwald reminds us that Sotomayor’s appeals-court ruling affirming affirmative action — out of which the Repugnicans have been trying to make a lot of political hay for the Joe the Plumber set — was not really a minority opinion (bad pun fully intended). Writes Greenwald:

In light of today’s [U.S. Supreme Court] ruling, it’s a bit difficult — actually, impossible — for a rational person to argue that Sotomayor’s Ricci decision places her outside the judicial mainstream when: (a) she was affirming the decision of the federal district court judge; (b) she was joined in her decision by the two other Second Circuit judges who, along with her, comprised a unanimous panel; (c) a majority of Second Circuit judges refused to reverse that panel’s ruling; and now: (d) four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices — including the [one] she is to replace — agree with her.

Put another way, 11 out of the 21 federal judges to rule on Ricci ruled as Sotomayor did.  It’s perfectly reasonable to argue that she ruled erroneously, but it’s definitively unreasonable to claim that her Ricci ruling places her on some sort of judicial fringe.

What I like even more is this nugget of information from Greenwald (links and emphases are his):

At his Senate confirmation hearing, [George W. Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Samuel] Alito used his opening statement to emphasize how his experience as an Italian-American influences his judicial decision-making (video [and full transcript] here):

“But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, ‘You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country….

“When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”

Greenwald comments:

Did Alito’s Italian-American ethnic background cause him to cast his vote in favor of the Italian-American [firefighter] plaintiffs [in the Ricci case]?  Has anyone raised that question? 

Given that he himself said that he “do[es] take that into account” — and given that Sonia Sotomayor spent six straight hours today being accused by GOP senators and Fox News commentators of allowing her Puerto Rican heritage to lead her to discriminate against white litigants — why isn’t that question being asked about Alito’s vote in Ricci?

As I asked yesterday:

When is the last time that a white male nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court was admonished against allowing his whiteness or his maleness or his “personal background” influence his rulings?

So I’m exceedingly glad that Greenwald provided a specific instance in which a white male nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly stated that his personal background influences his rulings and yet he wasn’t called to the carpet for this as Sotomayor has been called to the carpet for having the gall to be a — gasp! — Latina.

Racism, thy name is Repugnican.

Misogyny, you too.

Hypocrisy: Ditto.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized