Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
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.
|11.17.05 @ 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|11.17.05 @ 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.
|11.17.05 @ 2:05PM|#
JL - no shit. They make the guy seem awesome.
But again, as you said, we really don't know.
|11.17.05 @ 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?
|11.17.05 @ 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?
|11.17.05 @ 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.
|11.17.05 @ 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.
|11.17.05 @ 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.
|11.17.05 @ 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. :)
|11.17.05 @ 2:34PM|#
atheistic, unpatriotic, perverted baby murderers
now that sounds like a fun group!
|11.17.05 @ 2:36PM|#
I too hate the others, but I'm growing more fond of 'stupidistic' by the minute.
Jeff P.|11.17.05 @ 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.
|11.17.05 @ 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?
|11.17.05 @ 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|11.17.05 @ 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.
|11.17.05 @ 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
|11.17.05 @ 3:21PM|#
I was going to make a comment about Joe's rampant cromulentalism, but dammit, I got beat to the punch.
|11.17.05 @ 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.
|11.17.05 @ 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!
|11.17.05 @ 3:37PM|#
Oh, and don't forget that Judge Alito is all for giving
machineguns to school children.
Brady
Campaign Press Release on Alito.
|11.17.05 @ 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.
|11.17.05 @ 3:44PM|#
For the record, I would like to state that I am neither decent nor god-fearing.
Larry A|11.17.05 @ 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.
|11.17.05 @ 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.|11.17.05 @ 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.
|11.17.05 @ 5:19PM|#
...his opponents are atheistic, unpatriotic, perverted baby
murderers.
Dude...that is so condescending...
|11.17.05 @ 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)
|11.17.05 @ 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.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.17.05 @ 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?
|11.17.05 @ 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.
|11.17.05 @ 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.
|11.17.05 @ 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|11.17.05 @ 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|11.18.05 @ 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".
|11.18.05 @ 6:07AM|#
After reading People for the American Way's hit piece on Janice Rogers Brown, I am inclined to support anyone they oppose.
|11.18.05 @ 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|11.18.05 @ 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.
|11.18.05 @ 12:30PM|#
raymond,
Let me try that again:
You can have my political label when you pry it from cold, frothy
iced latte.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245