...but there's no liberal bias...
Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.
[...]
A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.
This, coming from the same paper that setback the war on terror by revealing a classified NSA program that monitored al Qaeda suspects... I'm not surprised.
Posted by Matt at January 26, 2006 09:16 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
The Times editorial expresses dismay that Judge Alito finds precedent for both presidential and congressional authority in the Constitution.
He might not accept the NY Times (and MSM) as the controlling legality. If the criminal leaking of classified information is appealed to the Supreme Court, Judge Alito may actually hold that the laws created by congress have validity, and the president has taken an oath to enforce such laws.
No wounder the Times is calling for a filibuster!
Posted by: omapian at January 26, 2006 10:13 AM
That NY Times piece almost qualifies as libel. You can't find even one person who knows or works with Judge Alito or who is directly familiar with his casework that says any part of history is anything less than astute and open-minded. Ridiculous.
Posted by: Burky at January 26, 2006 11:03 AM
Democratic opposition to Alito is about fundamental values and their use of the judicial system to achieve ideologically driven results as opposed to impartial justice.
Democrat Senator Herb Kohl admitted this in the hearings when he stated, “The neutral approach, that of the judge just applying the law, is very often inadequate to ensure social progress…”.
Is this the extraordinary circumstance they will claim exists to push a filibuster?
Posted by: Lola at January 26, 2006 11:18 AM
Here is my letter to NY Times Editorial: doubt it will be published.
To: letters@nytimes.com
Re: Filibuster Alito?
In regards to your editorial about filibustering Alito, we can understand why you would support such an act.
You think that you are the voice of America and that what you write, and what you stand for, are Americans values.
Hardly! You are the voice from Hell,
What the real problem is, is that Alito and the Bush Administration both agree that what you did in exposing our national security secrets is treasonous.
In a time war, the President also has the power to shut down certain media outlets that seem to encourage the enemy.
Let's hope the NY Times will turn their lights out very soon.
Semby
Hawthorne, NJ
Posted by: semby at January 26, 2006 12:48 PM
Is it a surprise to anyone that at the NYT that ideology trumps the law, even constitutional law? The Grey Lady just gets wackier in her old age.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon at January 26, 2006 01:11 PM
"Liberal bias"...
Umm, what about the word "editorial" do you not understand?
Learn the rules of journalism before shooting your mouth off.
Posted by: charles dodgson at January 26, 2006 02:44 PM
My problem with the NY Times is that the conclusions carried in headlines and lead paragraphs of stories are not supported by the details provided later in the articles - hence it is impossible to distinguish the news they choose to print from their editorials.
Posted by: omapian at January 26, 2006 05:18 PM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
The Times editorial expresses dismay that Judge Alito finds precedent for both presidential and congressional authority in the Constitution.
He might not accept the NY Times (and MSM) as the controlling legality. If the criminal leaking of classified information is appealed to the Supreme Court, Judge Alito may actually hold that the laws created by congress have validity, and the president has taken an oath to enforce such laws.
No wounder the Times is calling for a filibuster!
That NY Times piece almost qualifies as libel. You can't find even one person who knows or works with Judge Alito or who is directly familiar with his casework that says any part of history is anything less than astute and open-minded. Ridiculous.
Democratic opposition to Alito is about fundamental values and their use of the judicial system to achieve ideologically driven results as opposed to impartial justice.
Democrat Senator Herb Kohl admitted this in the hearings when he stated, “The neutral approach, that of the judge just applying the law, is very often inadequate to ensure social progress…”.
Is this the extraordinary circumstance they will claim exists to push a filibuster?
Here is my letter to NY Times Editorial: doubt it will be published.
To: letters@nytimes.com
Re: Filibuster Alito?
In regards to your editorial about filibustering Alito, we can understand why you would support such an act.
You think that you are the voice of America and that what you write, and what you stand for, are Americans values.
Hardly! You are the voice from Hell,
What the real problem is, is that Alito and the Bush Administration both agree that what you did in exposing our national security secrets is treasonous.
In a time war, the President also has the power to shut down certain media outlets that seem to encourage the enemy.
Let's hope the NY Times will turn their lights out very soon.
Semby
Hawthorne, NJ
Is it a surprise to anyone that at the NYT that ideology trumps the law, even constitutional law? The Grey Lady just gets wackier in her old age.
"Liberal bias"...
Umm, what about the word "editorial" do you not understand?
Learn the rules of journalism before shooting your mouth off.
My problem with the NY Times is that the conclusions carried in headlines and lead paragraphs of stories are not supported by the details provided later in the articles - hence it is impossible to distinguish the news they choose to print from their editorials.