We've Got Justice and the American Way. Can Truth Be Far Behind?
Contrary to a TV ad sponsored by the Committee for Justice, a People for the American Way (PFAW) spokesman says the group never took a position on the God-fortified Pledge of Allegiance. According to The New York Times, PFAW "considered the question too close to call because the phrase could be read to be merely ceremonial and not coercive." Although the Times doesn't say, I'm guessing PFAW also does not really "support partial birth abortion" or "sanction the burning of the American flag," as opposed to thinking both should be legal. Meanwhile, PFAW and its allies are sponsoring two commercials that urge us not to allow the Supreme Court to fall into the hands of the "radical right wing."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I agree the Supreme Court shouldn't fall into the hands of the radical right wing.
So what does everyone think of Alito?
Let's ask his mutual fund companies, and his sister's law firm.
Gosh Chief, I thought Truth was why Reason was founded.
nice title
I just saw one of those "let's not let the supreme court fall into . . ." not fifteen minutes ago while eating a burrito. Each one of the things they mentioned (searching that ten-year old girl, his comments on abortion and its constitutionality, and "making it easier for corporations to discriminate against workers") seemed either obviously manipulative (that last one) or ambiguous in the actual details of the cases. I agree with him, incidentally, that abortion is not guaranteed by the constitution-- and I believe that in spite of whatever opinions I have on the matter. Joe's points are a little more disconcerting, but even then they seem hardly damning. I mean, if the guy's a heartless, party-whore, troll then here's to him getting in, but I haven't seen anything like a justifiable case made for that yet. Just my opinion of course.
Of course, I meant "heres to keeping him from getting in." I'm completely against heartless, party-whoring trolls.
If we get truth, justice, and the American way worked in here, will Alito skip right past the SCOTUS and be promoted to the Hall of Justice? Like that Daily Show bit on how Bush v. Gore would be appealed to the Hall of Justice?
eric,
Was it bean or beef? Sometimes that ground beef is just too generic.
Sage,
Chicken, actually. With Beans
I have no thoughts so far on Alito. Certainly I'm not going to base my opinions on what the interest groups say. I'm not even sure that the cases concerning his broker and his sister's law firm amount to anything significant.
I'll just see what everyone says in confirmation hearings.
And would the Surgeon General go to the Halls of Medicine?
"Breathe, my pasty little friend, breathe!"
Don't know all the details about Alito, but the WSJ went into some detail about one of the alleged conflict problems. If they're all like that, then it is truly nothing.
When "conflict" problems start being cited as reasons to vote against a S Ct Justice, it looks like desperation to me.
like I emailed Jacob yesterday, I made the "Trouble" commercial. I designed the look and editing the footage. The only things I can't take credit for is the audio and script. It's a low point in my career, but a kid has to make some Christmas money. I am truly sorry.
JL,
"I'm not even sure that the cases concerning his broker and his sister's law firm amount to anything significant.
I'll just see what everyone says in confirmation hearings."
I feel the same way. It's something that needs to be looked into. But the fact that he was specifically asked about both his sister's law firm, and about his holdings in the fund companies during his last confirmation, and promised under oath that he would recuse himself, then broke those promises on three occasions, is at least as troubling as the underlying conflicts themselves. We already have Thomas who flat out lied during his confirmation to get the job, and we have Alito saying, openly, that his about Roe v Wade when he applied to work in the White House were just an attempt to tell the people hiring him what they wanted to hear - how can we trust anything the guy says in confirmation hearings?
Although the Times doesn't say, I'm guessing PFAW also does not really "support partial birth abortion" or "sanction the burning of the American flag," as opposed to thinking both should be legal
I don't support torture, I just think it should be legal.
'When "conflict" problems start being cited as reasons to vote against a S Ct Justice, it looks like desperation to me.'
Uh, yeah, who cares about conflict of interest in a judge? Obviously just a talking point by the desperate - not a legitimate concern at all.
Uh, yeah, who cares about conflict of interest in a judge? Obviously just a talking point by the desperate - not a legitimate concern at all.
Yawn. When the same folks banging on Alito for this start with Ginsburg and her husband's holdings, call me.
Quote: Yawn. When the same folks banging on Alito for this start with Ginsburg and her husband's holdings, call me.
How can he call if you didn't leave your number?
If the God phrase in the pledge was merely ceremonial, you'd think it would be the right wing "Christian" loons that would be most eager to take it out, since the idea that God is purely ceremonial in any circumstance should be anathema to them.
Ted, you're referring to the same Christians who claim Intelligent Design is science because they don't say the intelligent designer is God.
I agree Ted; I always find it odd to see holier-than-thou Christians arguing, "Don't worry, we're only taking the Lord's name in vain."
The name and image of the King of Kings should not be thrown around like so much red, white and blue bunting to class up the place, and should be used like dog piss to mark a place or thing as somebody's turf. If you're statue, plaque, engraving, or whatnot isn't put up as an act of worship, it's one of those other things.
"...should NOT be used like dog piss..."
Obviously.
Time for left-wing groups like PAW and atheist jerks like MICHEAL NEWDOW to ether practic tolerence or just leave the country