Matt Ortega

President Bush is set to announce his Supreme Court nomination “do-over” with the appointment of Judge Samuel Alito from the Third Circuit Appeals Court.

Already, there has been much uproar over this pick as many akin him to current Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, earning him the monikers of “Scalito” and “Scalia-lite.” Despite what one Republican strategist claims is a racial slur towards Mr. Alito’s Italian heritage, Faiz of Think Progress highlighted five years of “liberal media” using the nicknames and explictly pointing to his “judicial philosophy” as the reason.

While Alito’s resume is nothing to scoff at, his rulings on a number of cases in race and sex discrimination are alarming to say the least. People for the American Way have an extensive fact sheet on Alito. Jonathan Turley, professor at George Washington University’s law school, weighed in on Alito’s nomination, on NBC’s Today in an interview with Katie Couric:

“He’s the top choice for particularly pro-life people. Sam Alito is viewed as someone is likely to join the hard right in likely narrowing and possibly voting to overturn Roe … There will be no one to the right of Sam Alito on this Court. This is a pretty hardcore fellow on abortion issues.”

Politicians are already coming out of the woodwork, drumming their war-drums and rallying the armies for a fight. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) released a statement and said:

“Rather than selecting a nominee for the good of the nation and the court, President Bush has picked a nominee whom he hopes will stop the massive hemorrhaging of support on his right wing. This is a nomination based on weakness, not strength.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) also released a statement concerning the nomination of Alito saying he was “disappointed” by the nomination for “several reasons” as he categorized this selection as “not the product of consultation with Senate Democrats.” Reid also expressed disappointment due to the lack of diversity on the court:

“This appointment ignores the value of diverse backgrounds and perspectives … The President has chosen a man to replace Sandra Day O’Connor … For the third time, he has declined to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the court … And he has chosen yet another federal appellate judge to join a court that already has eight justices with that narrow background. President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club.”

There’s a flipside to this coin. Obviously the left is up-in-arms over Alito’s nomination so how is the news received on the right?

Adam C. of RedState, as many Republicans and right-wing advocates will be doing in the coming weeks, cites Alito’s exceptional resume of fifteen years served on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. No one is debating his qualifications. All hell would have broken loose if Bush fumbled his nomination on a obviously unqualified choice. But as Adam continues, he labels Alito as “ordinary in a good way.” He cites Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) that a Democrat filibuster “will not stand.”

Michelle Malkin provides nothing much more than a reference guide for sources on Alito. I am not surprised after the brutal bashing she has received on her “journalistic integrity.”

PoliPundit reviewed how some politicians would potentially vote up or down on Alito, concluding that “confirmation is almost absolutely assured.”

Updated 10/31/05 at 3:12pm: Since the nomination of Alito, some right-wing nutjobs were trying to say that critics were making racially derogatory nicknames by calling him “Scalito.”

In every news article I read about him, the writer always noted why he had that nickname. The truth about it? People refer to him as “Scalito” because of his judicial philosophy-likeness to that of Antonin Scalia, not because of his Italian-heritage.

The allegations are completely false and the right-wingers are just fishing for some kind of moral high road when every path in front of them sinks below sea level.

“Scooter” Libby to Judith Miller: “I see your 85 days and raise you 30 years…”

–Kevin, AMERICAblog commenter
(AMERICAblog, 10/28/05)

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald held a press conference today on the CIA leak case as a grand jury handed down an indictment of a top Bush Administration official. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff, was indicted on five counts. Two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice and two counts of making false statements. As a result of the indictments, Libby has resigned from his post. If you would like to read the press conference in full, the New York Times has the transcript.Currently available on the website for Fitzgerald, a list of new documents released today (Adobe Acrobat required):

October 28, 2005 Press Release
I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Indictment

I think it is important to note the focus of Fitzgerald in this case. He refused to comment on separate issues from the case itself, and anybody not indicted today, specifically the President’s Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

The Arizona Daily Star reported that a Fry’s Pharmacy refused to fill a prescription for emergency contraceptives for 20-year old woman on religious and moral objections. The woman, who was a victim of rape, is a college student at the University of Arizona but her name is being withheld.

The blogosphere has gone nuts over this, especially John at AMERICAblog, who correlates the incident with a Target policy that allows its own pharmacists to do the same.

Crooks and Liars jumped into it, and I brought it to the attention of TalkLeft.

The whole situation is infuriating.

Separately, in an e-mail sent by Jennifer Hanson of Target Executive Offices on October 20 in response to a Missouri incident, she wrote: “… Target has a policy that ensures a guest’s prescription for emergency contraception is filled, whether at Target or at a different pharmacy, in a timely and respectful manner…” So if the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription on religious grounds, they are to direct you to someone who will fill it.

It is difficult to understand several things about such a policy. (1) The company loses business, at least if there are no other stores in the area. (2) It reduces the likelihood that the desired result of the pill — prevention of fertilization, that is, prevent a pregnancy, not end one — reduces with time. (3) If the whole point is to honor the pharmacist’s (unfounded) religious and moral objections, wouldn’t they be just as complicit if they were to send the prescription-holder to a pharmacy that would fill it?

You’re a pharmacist, do your job. Nothing more, nothing less.

How someone could back up the comments of Bill Bennett is beyond me. I was surprised that people in the mainstream media attempted to do so (Fox News anchorman Brit “The only black people I see are on TV” Hume). However, Scott Patterson’s recent column “Bennett owes no apology” did just that.

Bill Bennett served as the secretary of education under President Reagan from 1985 until his resignation in 1988, and often ridiculed (heaven forbid) multicultural courses. In the conversation, which Bennett describes as a “thought experiment about public policy on national radio,” he was speaking with a caller about abortion and lost revenue from the aborted babies, who in life would have become consumers and eventually taxpayers.

He and the caller hypothesized about it, “assuming they were all productive” (i.e. did not sponge off the government). Bennett asked the caller about the “disproportionate” occurrence of abortions with single mothers. However, one could not link all single mothers to poverty, but that “fact” is assumed in this instance.

Of course, everyone knows the age-old equation “poverty = crime.” Thus if you abort black babies, his argument claims, the crime rate would go down. There is no differentiation between poor or wealthy blacks, but it is only insinuated on the belief that a woman could not possibly support a child financially by herself - not with what their “traditional values” would allow anyhow. But that’s beside the point.

Bennett’s “thought experiment” is laden with the “traditional view” (i.e. his conservative view) of American society, which is, of course, always right. His argument is an “extrapolation,” as he puts it, of the “poverty = crime” equation. In it, he’s saying because black children are typically born into broken homes, the child is raised by a single mother who is, of course, poor and unable to raise her child properly. Thus the child is going to commit crime. The result? An “unproductive” delinquent who, if aborted, would cause the crime rate to go down.

Well since we’re making “morally reprehensible” suggestions, I suppose if you aborted every white baby, race-related hate crimes would go down, because every white child is predisposed to hating every other ethnic group and culture on this planet. Right? I’d like to see Mr. Patterson come out of the woodwork to support that comment as “factually accurate.”

(Editor’s Note: This originally appeared as a Letter to the Editor in the Arizona Daily Wildcat, the student-run newspaper for the University of Arizona, on October 19, 2005.)