Joe Biden wets his finger and sticks it up to see which way the wind blows
“The fact that he questioned abortion and the idea of quotas is one thing. The fact that he questioned the idea of the legitimacy of the reapportionment decisions of the Warren Court is even something well beyond that.”— Senate Judiciary Committee member and politician extraordinaire Sen. Joe Biden
I can’t be the only one tired of this gasbag. Today, he decided that Strip Search Sammy Alito may now be filibuster-worthy. HIs anti-choice views are just a little distraction to him. That tells progressive all they need to know about 2008, Joe. Listen to this mealy-mouthed, sorry excuse for a Senator. No wonder he dutifully licks his masters at MBNA and the rest of the credit card companies in Delaware. He is w-e-a-k. (AP):
The views that Samuel Alito expressed on reapportionment in a 20-year-old document could jeopardize his Supreme Court nomination and provoke a filibuster, a leading Democratic senator said Sunday.
“I think he’s got a lot of explaining to do, and depending on how he does, I think will determine whether or not he has a problem or not,” said Sen. Joseph Biden, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which plans confirmation hearings in early January.
…Biden, D-Del., said he was most troubled by Alito’s comment about reapportionment under the Supreme Court when it was led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Warren Court, as it became known, ended public school segregation and established the election principle of one-man one-vote. “The part that jeopardizes it (Alito’s nomination) more is his quotes in there saying that he had strong disagreement with the Warren Court particularly on reapportionment — one man, one vote,” Biden told “Fox News Sunday.”
In the document, Alito wrote, “In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause and reapportionment,” he said.
Biden said the chances of a filibuster against Alito had increased because of Alito’s assertions in the document.
This guy isn’t going to go on board for a filibuster. I guess Joe wanted to give Sammy a pass on all of this information that came out right after Alito got the nod from the Chimp. From Think Progress:
ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION:
Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]
ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]
ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]
ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]
Was this not enough to deserve a filibuster Joe? Oh, that’s right. You’re like the rest of the Dem establishment– you constantly have to put your finger up in the wind before you can actually form an opinion.