NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: It appears that the leftists just wanna win one, regardless of how much it may damage someone, or of any problems it may cause the Republic. Moral of this story: March in lockstep with the Left or they'll steal your cookie!


Liberal Coalition Is Making Plans
to Take Fight Beyond Abortion (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/politics/politicsspecial1/14alito.html?th&emc=th)


By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: November 14, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 - A coalition of liberal groups is preparing a national television advertising campaign against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. that seeks to move the debate over his selection beyond abortion rights and focus instead on subjects like police searches and employment discrimination, several leaders of the coalition said.

The possibility that Judge Alito could vote to narrow abortion rights has dominated discussion among both supporters and opponents of his nomination. But Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice and one of the leaders of the coalition, said a poll commissioned by her organization showed the potential to attack Judge Alito on aspects of his record that had received less attention.

In addition to the alliance, a liberal legal group that focuses on judicial nominations, the coalition includes the abortion rights groups Naral Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, as well as People for the American Way, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Sierra Club.

Last week, the alliance released results of a poll that highlighted elements of the judge's record unrelated to abortion that the liberal groups say could have greater resonance with moderate voters.

Among the issues raised by the poll was Judge Alito's support as a lawyer in the Reagan administration for an employer's right to fire someone who had AIDS. Another issue was a judicial opinion he wrote supporting a police strip-search of a suspected drug dealer's female companion and her 10-year-old daughter. Others included his votes as a judge against employment discrimination suits and an opinion overturning part of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Judge Alito has explained his reasons for supporting an employer's right to fire someone because that person had AIDS. He told The Washington Post, "We certainly did not want to encourage irrational discrimination, but we had to interpret the law as it stands."

He voted to uphold the strip search of the mother and daughter in Doe v. Groody, arguing in a dissenting opinion that the police were justified in their reading of their warrant because drug dealers often hid narcotics with the help of others in their households.

Besides the potential they see in other subjects, the liberal groups' advertising strategy also reflects the difficulty of pinning down Judge Alito's stand on abortion rights. Last summer, an abortion-rights group withdrew a commercial opposing the nomination of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. amid criticism that it misconstrued his defense of clinic protestors as support for a bomber.

The Alliance for Justice poll showed that a majority of Americans would oppose Judge Alito if they thought he would vote to overturn the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade. But although groups on both sides of the issue expect Judge Alito to narrow abortion rights, his judicial record is hardly definitive.

His most controversial opinion on the subject was a dissent supporting provisions of a Pennsylvania law that with some exceptions required married women to notify their husbands before obtaining abortions. Many polls have shown that a majority of voters favor such restrictions.

People involved in the advertising effort said the coalition was planning to spend several million dollars to broadcast commercials, perhaps beginning late this week, on national cable networks and in the home states of potentially pivotal senators.

The groups are starting their campaign much earlier in the process than they have for past nominees; liberal groups did not begin advertising against Judge Robert H. Bork until around the start of his confirmation hearings. Judge Alito's hearings are two months away.

Even before seeing the commercials, Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the White House, accused the groups of planning "millions of dollars worth of wildly inaccurate advertisements that border on character assassination."

Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, an organization that supports President Bush's nominees, said the liberal groups were recognizing that their opposition to abortion restrictions would alienate mainstream voters.

Mr. Rushton said the advertising campaign would end up helping Judge Alito by enabling conservatives to mount their own campaign in his defense, attacking the liberal groups for their stands on gay rights and other social issues. When Judge Alito testifies, the conservative groups' commercials "will just paint the accusers as the shrill and extreme ones," Mr. Rushton said.

Ms. Aron and Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way and another leader of the coalition, emphasized that the liberal groups were not backing away from the abortion rights issue.

"To put together the broadest possible coalition and to appeal to as many voters as we can," Ms. Aron said, "raising all aspects of his record are important, including the abortion issues."

The goal, Mr. Neas said, is "to make clear that that is one of many issues" in "an epic struggle between two competing and radically different judicial philosophies."

Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, said her organization was "lock step" with the rest of the coalition and understood the need to emphasize issues in addition to abortion, "to look at the whole man, so to speak."

COMMENTARY: It appears that the leftists just wanna win one, regardless of how much it may damage someone, or of any problems it may cause the Republic. Moral of this story: March in lockstep with the Left or they'll steal your cookie!

snip

So are you saying that the Senate should just rubber-stamp judicial nominees?

Are you saying that an opposition party should, in fact, do anything BUT oppose the majority party?

Are you saying that the personal damage done to the individual in the course of the confirmation process outweighs the effects his rulings will have in one of the most important positions of power in our country?

Are you saying that the Republic will be stronger if we discontinue the practice of analyzing our judicial nominiees on a wide range of important political and social issues?

What exactly are you trying to tell us here...:confused:

So are you saying that the Senate should just rubber-stamp judicial nominees?

Are you saying that an opposition party should, in fact, do anything BUT oppose the majority party?

Are you saying that the personal damage done to the individual in the course of the confirmation process outweighs the effects his rulings will have in one of the most important positions of power in our country?

Are you saying that the Republic will be stronger if we discontinue the practice of analyzing our judicial nominiees on a wide range of important political and social issues?

What exactly are you trying to tell us here...:confused:
That's what it sounds like to me--sounds like Eutrusca feels like the half of the country that isn't in power ought to just sit back and take it in the ass and smile about it. Well fuck that.

Here's why this is a problem--Bush found out that he's got no stroke outside his base anymore with the Miers nomination. I'll give him credit with Miers--he apparently went to the opposition and asked for suggestions. All that did, however, was inflame his base--they're the ones who killed the Miers nomination. So Eutrusca, don't act all surprised when the Democrats follow through with a fight when they warned Bush ahead of time not to nominate Alito.

What exactly are you trying to tell us here...:confused:

Sieg Heil maybe? :p

Its not like we don't expect stuff like this in politics. The usual advertisments, defamations, etc, etc.

In fact, isn't it a requirement?

And here I was, thinking that opposing things they don't like is exactly what an opposition party should do.

And here I was, thinking that opposing things they don't like is exactly what an opposition party should do.
Well, we are talking about the Democrats--sometimes referring to them as an opposition party requires a certain breadth of mind.

Those silly left-handed people.

Well, we are talking about the Democrats--sometimes referring to them as an opposition party requires a certain breadth of mind.

Well in this case they are. Calling the Republicans and Democrats "parties" requires a bigger breadth, methinks, as they aren't at all like political parties are here, but are more like enormous election machineries...

Well in this case they are. Calling the Republicans and Democrats "parties" requires a bigger breadth, methinks, as they aren't at all like political parties are here, but are more like enormous election machineries...
Oh, I know, and I'm proud of them at the moment, for precisely this reason. They've actually been acting more like an opposition party lately, which is why I think the right-wingers have been in such a twist. After all, when you're used to getting your way, you don't much like it when your opposition stands up and tells you no.

Those silly left-handed people.

*kicks, punches and tears out your hair*

Indeed. ^_^

It does beg the question, Eut, just how is this worse than the collective hissy fit that the right went through with Miers nomination?

COMMENTARY: It appears that the leftists just wanna win one, regardless of how much it may damage someone, or of any problems it may cause the Republic. Moral of this story: March in lockstep with the Left or they'll steal your cookie!


Oh, get over it, already....

Heaven forbid that a judicial appointee should be checked-out to see if he's right for the post...

Oh wait... I don't recall you bitching when the GOP opposed a Bush selection...?

Because, of course, Bush is SO good at picking his candidates... I mean, look at the validation of Bushist Croneyism... Michael Brown....

Gee, and here I thought that maybe a judge's entire record as a jurist SHOULD be what the confirmation process is about!

Silly me.

I guess that the only case that body has to deal with is the weekly rehashing of something long since deemed a matter of stare decisis... yep. Abortion. Abortion. Abortion. If you can't nail a guy with that issue then nothing else matters.....



"The Left", as you put them looked at Robert's record and raised a few issues from his record but no great objection.

"The left" as you put them were more willing to accept Ms Miers than the right, DESPITE the fact that she was very light on qualifications.

And now, once again, they have another nominee to examine.

In the old days before whining partisan bullshit reigned the day, that was considered to be a normal part of the process.


It seems from this posts that SOMEONE wants people "marching in lockstep", but I'm not seeing where that label gets put on "the left".

Now, would you care to explain to the group how examining the "whole man" is inherently "damaging to the Republic"? Or, after Miers, are you now convinced that GW DID have a divine inspiration this time around and has found the only candidate suitable for the job?

By the way, Eutrusca--and I suspect you know this and either don't care or use the term in order to try to bait us--the term "leftist" has very negative connotations in the US, even to those who consider themselves liberal, because it's linked to totalitarian regimes throughout the 20th century. Your use of the term may be denotatively accurate--although many people in the rest of the world would argue that only in the US's fucked up system could the Democrats be considered "left"--but it's connotatively insulting, and I think you know that. I'd have a lot more respect for you if you didn't play that bush-league bullshit.

By the way, Eutrusca--and I suspect you know this and either don't care or use the term in order to try to bait us--the term "leftist" has very negative connotations in the US, even to those who consider themselves liberal, because it's linked to totalitarian regimes throughout the 20th century. Your use of the term may be denotatively accurate--although many people in the rest of the world would argue that only in the US's fucked up system could the Democrats be considered "left"--but it's connotatively insulting, and I think you know that. I'd have a lot more respect for you if you didn't play that bush-league bullshit.

I did a poll on that last year. Most people here don't mind being called leftists.

I did a poll on that last year. Most people here don't mind being called leftists.

....provided it's not used in a derogatory fashion.

....provided it's not used in a derogatory fashion.
And is there any question as to how Eutrusca is using it? That's why I wrote the statement I did, Lacadaemon--I don't take it as insulting if it's being used in a discussion of political stances, but when it's being used as a way to lump my belief systems with, say, Castro or Stalin or any of those totalitarian thugs, I get a little pissed.

And is there any question as to how Eutrusca is using it? That's why I wrote the statement I did, Lacadaemon--I don't take it as insulting if it's being used in a discussion of political stances, but when it's being used as a way to lump my belief systems with, say, Castro or Stalin or any of those totalitarian thugs, I get a little pissed.

Fair enough.

And is there any question as to how Eutrusca is using it? That's why I wrote the statement I did, Lacadaemon--I don't take it as insulting if it's being used in a discussion of political stances, but when it's being used as a way to lump my belief systems with, say, Castro or Stalin or any of those totalitarian thugs, I get a little pissed.

Well, Nazz, you're a Democrat, and that's hardly "The Left" as the rest of the world sees it.

In my book, especially after the Clinton years, you're practically a Republican.

Well, Nazz, you're a Democrat, and that's hardly "The Left" as the rest of the world sees it.

In my book, especially after the Clinton years, you're practically a Republican.
I'm well to the left side of the Democratic party, and when I lived in San Francisco, I voted Green for the mayoral race. I'm a Democrat because I'd rather win elections and have a chance at making some changes than lose them and talk about how morally superior I am for not having wavered from my principles a la Nader voters.

What exactly are you trying to tell us here...:confused:
That to oppose on anything you can find with which you disagree simply because an appointee was proposed by someone you don't like is foolishness.

I'm well to the left side of the Democratic party, and when I lived in San Francisco, I voted Green for the mayoral race. I'm a Democrat because I'd rather win elections and have a chance at making some changes than lose them and talk about how morally superior I am for not having wavered from my principles a la Nader voters.

Still not a real Leftist, in my book.

And is there any question as to how Eutrusca is using it? That's why I wrote the statement I did, Lacadaemon--I don't take it as insulting if it's being used in a discussion of political stances, but when it's being used as a way to lump my belief systems with, say, Castro or Stalin or any of those totalitarian thugs, I get a little pissed.
It refers to those in the article, no one else.

Still not a real Leftist, in my book.
Well, depending on what you think of leftists, I can either take that as a compliment or as an insult, I guess. :D

That to oppose on anything you can find with which you disagree simply because an appointee was proposed by someone you don't like is foolishness.


I'm sorry, but where is your foundation for that statement? It is the job of the opposition to examine the actions of the party n power and raise questions about their decisions.

It's how the damn system is supposed to work!

Your notion that people could only find something in Alito's past that might be worth examination if they were anti-Bush is completely fatuous. And I don;t think you'de have wanted the Republicans to simply rubber-stamp every decision by a Democrat president either.

Indeed, the only group that is noted in that article that is specific about making the confirmation process about Bush instead of the judge is on the right

Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, an organization that supports President Bush's nominees, said the liberal groups were recognizing that their opposition to abortion restrictions would alienate mainstream voters

But I suppose that in a free domocracy, exercising your right to question your leadership and express dissent about their decisions are a BAD thing now.... at least in your books.

:rolleyes:

Well, depending on what you think of leftists, I can either take that as a compliment or as an insult, I guess. :D

A person who believes in social welfare, for instance, can be regarded as someone who is merely compassionate. I, for one, am fairly far to the right on some issues, but am a believer in more intelligently run social welfare (having seen it both work and fail based on how it was run).

And unless you eat whale meat, you're likely to want to save the whales, etc.

The leftist I fear (and the right-wing person for that matter) is someone who wants to hold the ideology sacrosanct above all human life. You know - the kind who rounds up the intelligentsia on the first day of the revolution and shoots them all in the head.

I don't have any relatives on my father's side of the family other than my father, due to Leftists who followed that dictum.

So, I encourage you to believe what you like (and I may even disagree with you).

That to oppose on anything you can find with which you disagree simply because an appointee was proposed by someone you don't like is foolishness.
That makes no sense--if you oppose on multiple grounds, the fact that the person was proposed by someone you don't like is irrelevant. I oppose Alito because he's anti-Roe (as shown from his own writings, mentioned in the Washington Times today), he's very weak on civil liberties, and he's very easy on corporations, not to mention he's got serious issues with conflicts of interest in his case history as a Circuit Court judge.

In an offhand way, I've said in the past that he's unqualified simply because Bush chose him, but I was making a joke about Bush's track record on appointees. There are good reasons to oppose Alito's nomination, and they extend well beyond abortion. So why not bring them up?

But I suppose that in a free domocracy, exercising your right to question your leadership and express dissent about their decisions are a BAD thing now.... at least in your books.
You couldn't be more wrong.

In an offhand way, I've said in the past that he's unqualified simply because Bush chose him ...
The Prosecution rests, Your Honor. :)

A person who believes in social welfare, for instance, can be regarded as someone who is merely compassionate. I, for one, am fairly far to the right on some issues, but am a believer in more intelligently run social welfare (having seen it both work and fail based on how it was run).

And unless you eat whale meat, you're likely to want to save the whales, etc.

The leftist I fear (and the right-wing person for that matter) is someone who wants to hold the ideology sacrosanct above all human life. You know - the kind who rounds up the intelligentsia on the first day of the revolution and shoots them all in the head.

I don't have any relatives on my father's side of the family other than my father, due to Leftists who followed that dictum.

So, I encourage you to believe what you like (and I may even disagree with you).
Okay, then I'm not a leftist, if that's how you define them--and that's a legitimate definition in my book. That's why I rankle at the way the term gets tossed around at times, because a leftist can be someone who simply believes in a more strongly regulated capitalism, in expanded social safety nets, in a more robust environmentalism--that's me. To my mind, the people you describe are no more left-wing than Fred Phelps is right-wing. They're all extremist nutjobs.

The Prosecution rests, Your Honor. :)
Objection--using quotes in a misleading way. :)

You couldn't be more wrong.


I'd believe you if you'd stop acting so dismissive of any time anyone raises legitimate issues about this administraton and if you;d stop tossing around lame partisan labels.


Bush has got almost every single appointment he has asked for, including a few that - in hindsight - were complete disasters. But expecting the opposition to abdicate their responsibility to question every appointment is a non-starter. And yet that is what you seem to want them to do when you state that it only being about "winning one".

Okay, then I'm not a leftist, if that's how you define them--and that's a legitimate definition in my book. That's why I rankle at the way the term gets tossed around at times, because a leftist can be someone who simply believes in a more strongly regulated capitalism, in expanded social safety nets, in a more robust environmentalism--that's me. To my mind, the people you describe are no more left-wing than Fred Phelps is right-wing. They're all extremist nutjobs.
LOL! I too would like to see corporations more closely regulated and a much more assertive approach toward environmental protection. We could discuss the "social safety nets," but I am in favor of providing effective ways of lifting people out of poverty and dependency. That does not make me a "leftist" any more than being pro military makes me a "rightist." I prefere to think of myself as a "pragmatist with a conscience." :)

That makes no sense--if you oppose on multiple grounds, the fact that the person was proposed by someone you don't like is irrelevant. I oppose Alito because he's anti-Roe (as shown from his own writings, mentioned in the Washington Times today), he's very weak on civil liberties, and he's very easy on corporations, not to mention he's got serious issues with conflicts of interest in his case history as a Circuit Court judge.

In an offhand way, I've said in the past that he's unqualified simply because Bush chose him, but I was making a joke about Bush's track record on appointees. There are good reasons to oppose Alito's nomination, and they extend well beyond abortion. So why not bring them up?

Well, I tend to back judicial appointees for the following reasons:
1. Extensive Constitutional law experience - either arguing before the Supreme Court (Roberts was extremely qualified by this measure), or experience as a judge (Federal appeals court, prefereably).
2. Stellar school record (Alito wins hands down here)
3. Extremely intelligent - IMHO, both Bork and Roberts have made the questioning Senators look like first year law students who forgot to do their homework.

I found, for instance, Thomas, to be unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice, but not because of his ideology.

I feel that if they are extremely experienced, and extremely well-schooled, and extremely intelligent, that those factors are the best factors on which to base a choice - not on whether or not they'll promise to uphold one political promise or another.

The problem with upholding political promises is that if they want to be consistent, they may end up applying that same logic to other areas which you wouldn't want them to change.

It's been said many times - there's no reason that the Congress can't craft amendments or laws that guarantee certain rights - but they don't have the balls to do it. Even in the area of regulation, most bills are intentionally vague, and the bureaucracy is given power and a free hand to write what they please - with no consideration given to the citizens' wishes.

I see the deep desire on the part of the political parties to have a politicized Supreme Court as an abdication of legislative power.

I'd believe you if you'd stop acting so dismissive of any time anyone raises legitimate issues about this administraton and if you;d stop tossing around lame partisan labels.


Bush has got almost every single appointment he has asked for, including a few that - in hindsight - were complete disasters. But expecting the opposition to abdicate their responsibility to question every appointment is a non-starter. And yet that is what you seem to want them to do when you state that it only being about "winning one".
I was referring to the people listed in the article. You did read the article, did you not???

LOL! I too would like to see corporations more closely regulated and a much more assertive approach toward environmental protection. We could discuss the "social safety nets," but I am in favor of providing effective ways of lifting people out of poverty and dependency. That does not make me a "leftist" any more than being pro military makes me a "rightist." I prefere to think of myself as a "pragmatist with a conscience." :)
If that's really the case, why do you vote Republican? They've never met a corporation they didn't want to give a handout to, or an industry they didn't want to deregulate.

And more to the point of this thread, why are you criticizing Democrats for hammering Alito on points other than abortion? Shouldn't we look at how he's judged on a wide array of issues before we put him on the highest court in the land for a lifetime term?

Okay, then I'm not a leftist, if that's how you define them--and that's a legitimate definition in my book. That's why I rankle at the way the term gets tossed around at times, because a leftist can be someone who simply believes in a more strongly regulated capitalism, in expanded social safety nets, in a more robust environmentalism--that's me. To my mind, the people you describe are no more left-wing than Fred Phelps is right-wing. They're all extremist nutjobs.

Labels are generally inaccurate.

I believe in the individual right to bear arms. And freedom of speech and religion. And I believe in intelligently applied social welfare. And I believe drugs should be legalized. And I believe that marriage should not be a civil institution - it should not receive any recognition by the State. I believe that just because the government does it does not make it right, correct, or good - but that right, correct, and good things CAN be done by a government if done intelligently. I believe in God - but I believe in evolution. I also believe that swinging (sexual) is a good thing. I believe that the role of soldiers is to engage in warfare, not peacekeeping, and that the purpose of a military is to kill people and blow things up, not to build nations and form governments.

So I'm not exactly the right-wing nut job that I'm cast as.

By the way, Eutrusca--and I suspect you know this and either don't care or use the term in order to try to bait us--the term "leftist" has very negative connotations in the US, even to those who consider themselves liberal, because it's linked to totalitarian regimes throughout the 20th century. Your use of the term may be denotatively accurate--although many people in the rest of the world would argue that only in the US's fucked up system could the Democrats be considered "left"--but it's connotatively insulting, and I think you know that. I'd have a lot more respect for you if you didn't play that bush-league bullshit.

Maybe in America being called leftist is an insult...
Certainly not where I come from. (Ah, the joy of being Canadian!)

And let's face it:

Economically, America's so-called "left" is about as left wing as the Alberta government.
Socially, they're about as left wing as the Liberal Party of Canada.
So really, a more accurate label would be "libertarian".

But that still doesn't mean that being called a leftist is an insult.

Maybe in America being called leftist is an insult...
Certainly not where I come from. (Ah, the joy of being Canadian!)

And let's face it:

Economically, America's so-called "left" is about as left wing as the Alberta government.
Socially, they're about as left wing as the Liberal Party of Canada.
So really, a more accurate label would be "libertarian".

But that still doesn't mean that being called a leftist is an insult.

Ummm.. Democrats in the US are hardly what Americans call "libertarian".

Democrats are big on the idea that the Commerce clause of the US Constitution can be as broadly interpreted as desired, in order to grant the legislature the ability to pass laws on virtually any topic with strong Federal authority.

Libertarians want the Commerce clause interpreted as tightly as possible, to sharply restrict the ability of the Federal government to do anything except what is explicitly listed in the Constitution - this would obliterate most of the legislation that has ever been passed by, or sponsored by, or wished for by the Democratic Party (not to mention most of what Republicans have passed).

Ummm.. Democrats in the US are hardly what Americans call "libertarian".

Democrats are big on the idea that the Commerce clause of the US Constitution can be as broadly interpreted as desired, in order to grant the legislature the ability to pass laws on virtually any topic with strong Federal authority.

Libertarians want the Commerce clause interpreted as tightly as possible, to sharply restrict the ability of the Federal government to do anything except what is explicitly listed in the Constitution - this would obliterate most of the legislation that has ever been passed by, or sponsored by, or wished for by the Democratic Party (not to mention most of what Republicans have passed).

Good point. Either way, I still wouldn't consider the Democrats leftists. Maybe "slightly less extreme rightists" economically (do remember I'm Canadian, we have a real leftist party to compare yours to) and "moderate rightists" socially.

Good point. Either way, I still wouldn't consider the Democrats leftists. Maybe "slightly less extreme rightists" economically (do remember I'm Canadian, we have a real leftist party to compare yours to) and "moderate rightists" socially.

I would agree that in general, Democrats are essentially Republicans, with a few minor differences. On particular issues more than on essential philosophy.

I was referring to the people listed in the article. You did read the article, did you not???


Yes I did. Some people looking bring up various bits of Alito's judicial past to the public discussing the fact that they HAVE found issues that they feel they don;t want on the court and are strategizing trying to get people to push to have the nomination blocked.

That is called "exercising their rights". And if Alito hadn't made the various judgements then they would not have the things they found on which to question him.

And, on the other side, members of a group focussed on pushng Bush's nominees forward whining about the opposition actually investigating Alito.


But, most importantly, I read your little commentary:

"COMMENTARY: It appears that the leftists just wanna win one, regardless of how much it may damage someone, or of any problems it may cause the Republic. Moral of this story: March in lockstep with the Left or they'll steal your cookie!"

You have no foundation within the article that they "just want to win one", not have you given any foundation for the spurious notion that questioning a nominee will cause problems for the Republic.

Moral of the story: Both sides presented in the article come off as far less of a partisan whiner than YOU do in your commentary.

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods." -- H. L. Mencken

And the Senators (and some of the people here) wish that Supreme Court justices were more like the men who only have a talent for getting and holding office.