Andy Reid's Bad Seeds

"I liked being the rich kid in that area and having my own high-status life. I could go anywhere in the 'hood. They all knew who I was. I enjoyed it. I liked being a drug dealer." Garrett Reid

"This is a family in crisis. There isn't any structure there that this court can depend upon." Judge Steven O'Neill

When Andy Reid's two older sons imploded and exploded on the same day last January, it seemed like they'd just recently discovered drugs. In fact, they were already hard-core addicts, so why hadn't we heard about it sooner?

According to Britt Reid, 22, he's been a drug addict since age 14. He and his older brother Garrett, 24, have been using and dealing legal and illegal drugs for years, in a broad range of neighborhoods.

Yet they never got caught. We haven't heard much since January. Stone-faced Andy doesn't share anything, certainly not about his self-destructive sons.

He has no choice now. Both boys are in jail. And no, the "hidden" stash incident isn't funny, it was a sad act of sick desperation.

Which begs the question: Where were Andy and Tammy Reid all those years? And don't say "at a football game." Although Andy Reid's got a tough job, Tammy's the self-proclaimed full time mom who keeps him in the loop. Or not.

Is it possible local authorities have been cutting the Reid boys slack all these years? Did local doctors prescribe meds to curry favor with their father? Did teachers, clergy and other parents fail to come forward out of awe or fear of Coach Reid?

Oh come on, like that doesn't happen in celebrity drug situations. There has to be some explanation for these kids getting away with so much drug use, abuse and sales for so much time.

No matter who shared in the enabling, it starts --or stops-- at home.

The sentencing judge noted how very many prescription drugs were in the Reid house, calling it "more or less like a drug emporium." He wondered, as do I, how it was possible the Reid parents didn't know.

Of course they knew, they described in court the many times they'd put the boys in rehab without long term success. Maybe that lack of success was abetted by those same over-indulgent parents?

When your kids get out of rehab, you don't put them in a car and give them money ... you put them in an outpatient program and make them get a job. You watch them like a hawk. Or hire somebody to do it.

I know, especially in this town, it can't be easy to be the son of the Eagle's coach. Yes, you've got privilege and prestige, but you've also got a PR monkey on your back.

It seems Garret and Britt Reid abused their privilege and wound up with another kind of monkey on their backs. Now they're finding out jail isn't such a prestigious address.

Here's my last, and most important question: Why did Andy and Tammy Reid keep guns in the same house with their drug addict sons and their other three children?

It's downright amazing nobody in the Reid house got shot. Yet.

Stonewall Sam Alito

AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

"Alito's strategy is to be invisible in plain sight." Michael Scherer

We've been in Florida visiting the folks. Spent a lot a time outside and less time than usual in front of the TV. But the Senate held hearings this week, right? About confirming Sam Alito for the US Supreme Court.

Did anything happen in the Alito hearings?

Oh wait, somebody made Alito's wife cry! I saw front page coverage of that. Along with endless clips of a resolutely middle-American-looking woman welling up with tears and using her hankie, then rising and leaving the camera's view with nary a flounce or an audible sob. Heart-rending. Oh, the humanity.

Then another time some guy with white hair--had to be a senator--pulled out a giant chart with graphs and percentages displaying how many questions Alito was asked and answered compared to the hearings on Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Alito's percentage of queries and replies was higher. Now that was riveting political theater.

Before we left there were rumblings about a good healthy debate.

But we were so busy swimming, playing tennis and jet-skiing, we didn't catch most of the 9-hours-a-day hearings. Whenever we did tune in, it seemed less a political process than a badly produced school play. Everybody was speechifying. Bloviating. Pontificating. Gesturing. Posturing. Squabbling.

Well, not everybody. The nominee was preternaturally calm. Remote. Inscrutable. Determinedly equivocal. I could swear we were watching Mr. Peepers Goes to Washington.

You have to hand it to Alito. He came off as a combination of a mild-mannered nerd and Mohammed Ali in a suit and tie. Polite to a fault. Modest. Soft-spoken. Yet bobbing, weaving and executing the fanciest footwork in the room without breaking a sweat.

He had a non-answer for everything. If it weren't for his previous rulings, memberships, memos and other papers, we'd have no clue where he stands on anything. He even managed to equivocate when asked if it were true he's a Springsteen fan. "I am, to some degree, yes," Alito said.

We're talking about The Boss here, people. Not a constitutional touchstone. What, it's un-American to like Born to Run? Well, maybe. For certain it's anti-Republican.

Make no mistake, Alito's a very dangerous man. Chosen by George W. Bush. A conservative's Conservative. Another Scalia. Another Thomas. A man who believes more firmly in Executive Powers than in individual rights. A strict Constructionist who will look backward, not forward.

Here's the biggest clue:

"In interpreting the Constitution," Judge Alito said Wednesday, "I think we should look to the text of the Constitution, and we should look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption." New York Times

Samuel Alito's going to be the newest member of the US Supreme Court in 2006.

It's not just Roe V. Wade in danger now. It's all of us.

Alito's American Dream - A Nightmare

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

"What five members of the Supreme Court say the law is may be something vastly different from what Congress intended the law to be." Benjamin F. Fairless

Samuel Alito, Judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals right here in Philadelphia. Good grief, we don't have enough apologizing to do for the Eagles?

Pundits, politicians, partisan organizations are in a frenzy. Frankly, so am I. Ultra conservative Justice Alito would tip the balance of the court in such a dangerous direction, I don't know how anybody with half a brain can't see it. But what can we do? His confirmation would affect my future and my son's future in ways too devastating to imagine.

For now, I'll let MoveOn.org do my talking while I regroup.

Democrats in Washington are already speaking out. Here are few highlights:

"If confirmed, Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right, placing at risk decades of American progress in safeguarding our fundamental rights and freedoms." –Sen. Ted Kennedy

"It's sad that [Bush] felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America."
–Sen Charles Schumer

"Has the right wing now forced a weakened President to nominate a divisive justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia?" –Sen. John Kerry

"President Bush has...made a selection to appease the far right-wing of the Republican Party." –Sen. Barak Obama

"Last week after Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination, I asked the President: Who was in charge? Today, the President answered: the radical conservative right is in charge of this Administration." –House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi

"I look forward to...learning why those who want to pack the Court with judicial activists are so much more enthusiastic about him than they were about Harriet Miers." –Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid

I signed MoveOn.org's petition to be sent to PA's senators and added my own quote: Are there no teeth left in the moderate wing of the Republican party? Is there no heart there? Are there no brain cells? I recognize Senator Santorum is a lost cause, but Senator Specter, please stand up and show America and Congress the right way to represent ALL of the country, not just the Radical Right Wing.--Citizen Sally Swift

At the very least, you can sign the petition too. MoveOn.org Political Action: Stop Alito

And read about Alito's horrendous record on women, civil rights, privacy, disability, medical leave, immigration and more. I hope you have a strong stomach.

Think Progress » Samuel Alito’s America

Home - SaveTheCourt.org

Alito: Trick or Threat?

Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater,
Had a wife and couldn't keep her.
He put her in a pumpkin shell
And there he kept her, very well. Nursery Rhyme

Well, Dubya did it again. Nominated a White Guy for the Supreme Court with credentials destined to pacify the Radical Right and crucify the Inalienable Rights of women ... and minorities.

Just to review: first he gave us a White Guy with staunchly conservative leanings and a better stone face than Calvin Coolidge, too well qualified to debunk. Then he offered an egregiously unqualified White Gal who represented nothing more than cronyism at its most insidious and insulting. After she crashed and burned, the prez is back with another White Guy sop to his Right Wingnut base.

"Samuel Alito: This is all you need to know: In Doe v. Groody, Alito argued that police officers didn't violate the constitutional rights of a mother and her ten-year-old daughter when they strip-searched these females while carrying out a search warrant that only authorized the search of a man and his home," says my pal Jesse Kornbluth, AKA Swami Uptown.

Who are these people, so self-righteous they believe they can tell all the rest of us what to think and do, at the expense of our human rights? I remember when America was leery of a Catholic president. The stated fear: the Pope would guide his actions.

We don't have to worry about that any more. Ironically, Alieto's Catholic, as are a majority of the Justices. But more importantly, according to our president and his supporters, God speaks directly to them, no need for intermediaries. Crikey! How stupendously sanctimonious can you get.

How did we get to this sorry state of affairs? What's going on here? I'll tell you what. Just bidniz as usual in the Bush White House. A house filled with goblins and witches and devils and creeps and things that go bump for the Right.

I don't know about you, but that's not my idea of America the Beautiful.

No Buyers for Miers

AP

''Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues.'' Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid

So Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court today. Why is anybody surprised? She was not only stunningly unqualified for the position, but was also staggeringly unprepared for the process.

If cronyism was Miers' cross to bear, it should also have been her salvation. A game plan should have been in place, she should have been prepped and draped and fully vaccinated by the Bush spin doctors. Instead the administration, under fire themselves from so many fronts, left her to die on the table.

Let's face it, Miers' nomination was dead from the jump. Surely the Bush Bandits never expected her to get out alive. She was a placeholder, not a viable candidate. She knows where the bodies are buried, maybe she helped shovel some of them under. A Supreme Court nominee must be an open book. And Miers' Executive Privilege cover would never hold up under the demanding exploration of confirmation hearings.

Many pundits have said all along she'd be forced to withdraw before the hearings began. It gives me scant comfort to be among them. Why? Because it wasn't Us who derailed her, it was Them. Radical Right Wingnuts who feared she wasn't one of Them at all. Which is a pretty scary thought.

Robert Bork's nomination by President Reagan was undone by one of Us, and for good reason. Ted Kennedy summed it up in a rousing speech on the Senate floor. "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution."

Everything Kennedy claimed Bork would do is everything the Right feared Miers wouldn't. What a message. Bad enough in 1987. Downright horrifying in 2005.

What scares me even more is this: if Harriet Miers couldn't even make it to the confirmation hearings as a trial balloon, who in hell will be the real nominee? I fear it could be the Hindenberg.

Oy Vey is Miers!

Salon.com News

"I picked the best person I could find." George W. Bush

Look at the president's face. Look at his new Supreme Court nominee. You gotta think to yourself, George Bush really is drinking again.

How else to explain this incomprehensible choice? In the wake of the FEMA, Katrina, Plame, Iraq--and now the DeLay--disasters, the guy's gasping in a desert of unpopularity, licking desperately at the watery dregs of public approval. So why would he choose someone even his own supporters can't swallow?

Maybe it's not about them, or us, or her ... maybe it's about him. The president is losing it. He needs someone who adores him, gives him unconditional love and awe, protects his increasingly fragile sense of control and command. And it seems with this president, that's always a woman. Mommy, Laura, Condi, Karen Hughes. And now Miers. His own lawyer.

"In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met," David Frum, National Review Online.

There you have it in a nutshell. She thinks he's brilliant. He thinks she's Supreme Court material. A match made in Hell. And the American people set up once again to get burned, but good.

Out of a potential pool of thousands of highly qualified jurists, scholars, deep thinkers, ideological giants of either party, the best he can find is a mediocre patronage flunky? God help us, the man's gone round the bend.

I'm serious. It's damn scary. Bush's choice is so flawed on so many levels, you honestly have to wonder how coherent his thinking could possibly be. No matter how many ways you try to spin this--he's going for safety, solidarity, non-controversy, a distraction, political cover--the fact remains that Harriet Miers is the X-factor in an insolvable equation.

And where are the savvy bean counters who usually keep such tight reigns on their skittish leader and his public actions? Why didn't they stop this travesty? We've heard Bush has a temper. A mean and intractable one when he's drinking. We can only imagine the tantrums echoing from the Oval Office as they tried to talk him down from this dangerous ledge.

But he jumped. This time without the parachute of political cover. His own party is so stunned they're letting him free fall. Oh wait, Orrin Hatch is on board. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. And I bet Bush doesn't either.

Bush loyalists in Congress have stood by their man as long as he espoused their own conservative right wing ideologies, even in the face of growing pressure from the opposition. But they've got to get reelected, and this inexplicable choice is going to be a hard sell to their own home bases.

It's clear from their thundering silence they haven't a clue how to do it. And that the only sound echoing through the halls of Congress at the moment is a giant collective OY!

Because the elephant in the room has finally landed on them.


PS Who is Harriet Miers? Dan Rubin of Blinq has collected as impressive a raft of info I've seen so far. Blinq: Bullish Supreme Choice

Dems' Opposition to Roberts: ROFLMAO

"John Roberts is the wrong man for the job." Howard Dean

Well. That kind of tough talkin' surely has George W. Bush and his radical right wing Republican cronies quaking in their boots. It's no wonder they're still running roughshod over the country. The Democratic Party is so lame and lost, it doesn't seem to know there's a ten foot pole stuck up its ass -- a pole called Howard Dean.

Conservative Chief Justice nominee John Roberts has run rings around the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. And it looks like he'll easily turn those rings into a lasso to corral Congress when it comes to a vote on his nomination. We still don't know where he stands--or what he stands for--on the most fundamental and critical issues of individual rights and freedoms.

So what has the Democratic Party done to wrangle some straight answers out of this cunning cowboy, and to prevent his confirmation?

Did they hire a team of investigators to dig into Roberts' past? Heavens no. Too "sleazy" for the liberal, high-minded Party of the People.

Engage a firm of high powered lawyers to compel the release of more Roberts documents? Nope, didn't work in 2000, why bother to try it again.

Put together a group of marketing/psychology experts to advise committee members on how to finesse some direct answers out of Roberts? Nah, just get the same tired old Democratic warhorses to let him have it.

Have what? A victory party?

Well, yes. It would seem the Democratic Party has come to the conclusion that Roberts will win in a walk. And it's time to marshal their resources for Bush's next nominee. But it appears Howard Dean, titular head of the Democratic Party, missed that meeting. And like a crazed and dazed Energizer Bunny, is still going ... with the party's wan support.

And what is the Damn Dumb Dean 11th Hour strategy? Kick up a grassroots dust storm with an anti-Roberts Letter to the Editor campaign, starting with a leadoff national op-ed piece from Dean.

Oh yeah, baby. That'll get 'em where they live.

It gets better. The email, from democraticparty@democrats.org, says Here's what I think about John Roberts. So many mistakes, so little time. I'll give you my top three: 1. Forget Rallying Cry, even as an attention grabber, the title totally bites. 2. The sender is not identified, leaving us to wonder, "Who are you and why should I care what you think about anything?" 3. From the opening paragraph, the op-ed appears to written by a moderate REPUBLICAN.

I read it and literally blinked, then reread, then blinked again. Here it is, get ready:

"John Roberts is a decent family man and a bright, articulate, thoughtful judge. He has a quality absent in previous right wing candidates like Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork, namely a judicial temperament that makes litigants feel that they have been respectfully heard whether they are on the winning or losing side of a verdict."

Whose side is Dean on?? In the game of high stakes politics, you gotta play hard, and sometimes dirty -- at least as dirty as the other guy. By insisting on taking the High Road, the Democrats have handed Republicans access to the open road, directly to the Promised Land of Power. And if Dems haven't been taking the high road all these years, then they've been spinning their wheels around the kiddie track. Trust me, neither is a winning strategy.

The Democratic Party has managed to garner 54 thousand letters to the editor in the past two days. Pathetic. MoveOn.org generates triple that response in a few hours, not days. And here's one reason why: the opening paragraph from their editorial campaign,

"For the last three days, the Senate has been assessing whether John Roberts should be our next Chief Justice. But Roberts isn’t answering some of their most important questions. He’s directly refused to answer over 100 questions, and evaded countless more. His silence is unprecedented, and for someone nominated to shape the judiciary of this country for 40 years, unacceptable."

I swear to God, it's like comparing apples and idiots.

And if I'm laughing at the latest limp liberal salvo, can you imagine how the GOP gonzos are responding? Any one of them will be happy to tell you: Rolling On the Floor, Laughing My Ass Off.

While Roberts laughs all the way to the Supreme Court.

Judge Roberts - Bette Davis Eyes

Kevin Lamarque/REUTERS

"I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes." Judge John G. Roberts, Jr.

I don't know how the Reuters photog got that picture of Roberts, but you have to believe it's the only true look we'll get of him as a politician during his confirmation hearings ... and possibly ever, once he's on the Court.

The guy's a lock. If you've been watching the hearings you know it too. Even if you've only seen secondhand news reports, one detail is crystal clear: John Roberts comes before the committee with a major agenda. It's called Getting Confirmed.

And he's also got a solid platform. It's called Acting the Part. Hooboy, can this guy act. He can do Sincere. Thoughtful. Cool as a Cucumber. Above the Fray. Focused on Point. He can even do Humble. Most of all, he can act Judicial ... and as the hearings continue, he'll continue to give the winning performance: Chief Justice.

He's got it down pat. And with no notes--a master stroke--he's making his case. He's calmly laying out America's favorite buzz words, from baseball to individual rights to Ronald Reagan, like winning hole cards, always with the same blank poker face. Betraying nothing. Displaying nothing. Except a Judicial Mien. Interested. Respectful. Responsive. Proud but Not Arrogant.

Damn! Who's been coaching this guy? Whoever it is, my hat's off to a hell of a strategy.

Roberts appears to have an answer for everything. Yet he manages to say virtually nothing of substance. And when his questioners get frustrated and distracted by his superb evasions, he only seems more imperturbable, more unflappable, more Judicial.

Senators Biden, Kennedy and Feinstein have been doing their best to drill down into Robert's true inner beliefs and leanings, but they're getting nowhere fast. And when Biden interrupts and berates and complains, all he manages to elicit is a bit of comic relief from the committee Chairman at his own expense. And from the Nominee, nothing but the same steadfast adherence to calm, reasoned, Judicial demeanor.

Senator Biden, "His answers are misleading."

Committee Chairman Senator Arlen Specter, "Now, wait a minute, wait a minute. They may be misleading, but they are his answers."

Judge Roberts, "With respect, they are my answers. And, with respect, they're not misleading; they're accurate."

One could logically ask, What Answers? Accurate How? We still don't know where Roberts stands on Rove v Wade, Eminent Domain, Media Access, Judicial Review, Right to Privacy, Equal Protection of Women and Executive Power. The one question he answered directly is a no-brainer. When Senator Kennedy asked if he supports Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed segregation in public schools, Roberts replied simply, "Yes."

Yet when questioned on the president's right to authorize torture of prisoners in violation of international treaties, Roberts replied enigmatically, "No one is above the law."

What the hell does that mean? The Robert's confirmation hearings could have, should have been a penetrating evaluation of the man's credentials and ideologies as a candidate for Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Instead, they've become a game of high stakes poker, with Roberts and the Republicans holding all the aces. In the midst of the brouhaha over Katrina, Roberts is playing the game superbly.

A lot of rights for a lot of Americans are at stake here. But the players in this drama can't seem to get their acts together. Except for John Roberts. Who, as John Lovetz used to say on Saturday Night Live, is "Acting!" And about to bluff his way onto the Supreme Court by keeping us from seeing the real face behind the mask. For all we know, this apparently moderate judge could be as harshly conservative and dangerous as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Which makes me think back to the travesty of the Clarence Thomas hearings. And then I fantasize: if only John Roberts would pick up a can of Coke, we might be home free.

Supreme (Court) Decisions

"The Supreme Court's only armor is the cloak of public trust; its sole ammunition, the collective hopes of our society." Irving R. Kaufman

When the new Supreme Court nominee was announced, I was concerned about the President's choice, so I did my civic duty. I sent emails to my two US Senators -- and if you live in PA as I do, that means The Sublime and The Ridiculous.

Here's the gist of what I wrote to each:

To Senator Specter: Your constituents and the country count on you as always to represent us with honor, decency and intelligence, as a Senior Senator and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We know you vote with integrity and conscience, not special interest agendas. We value your leadership at this critical time in protecting the lives and futures of all Americans, not just those with narrow-minded religious and political goals.

To Senator Santorum: Please remember you represent ALL Pennsylvanians, and that your constituents include all faiths, creeds, cultures, races, ideologies and beliefs. We will not sit idly by while you and other radical right wing Republicans tamper with our most precious freedoms in furtherance of your own personal, political and religious agendas. Please try to do honor to yourself, your fellow Americans and the high office you hold. Bob Casey is waiting in the wings if you can't find a way to do the right thing for PA and your country.

I've been a registered Democrat all my life -- worked for quite a few top Dems at local, state and national levels in fact. There was a long period when Philadelphia District Attorney Specter, and then Senator Specter was a thorn in the side of many diehard liberals like me. But as time when on and his voting record in the Senate piled up, it became clear Senator Specter had become a moderate, a man of reason, not now and not ever a radical right wingnut like his current colleague Rick Santorum.

Not surprisingly, I received a reply from Senator Specter today.

Dear Ms. Swift:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding use of the filibuster or extended debate and the judicial confirmation process. I appreciate hearing from you.

I have stated publicly that I hope the Senate can avoid the constitutional or nuclear option to rule the use of a filibuster on a judicial nomination out of order. My goal is to continue to work with Senators from both parties to develop a fair judicial confirmation process that both sides of the aisle can support. I am hopeful that the Senate can, as it has throughout history, achieve this goal.

Thank you again for writing. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov/

Sincerely,
Arlen Specter

Yes, it's vague, noncommittal, politically tempered -- which to tell the truth, given his position and the fight we're facing, is as it should be. But it's still righteous. He--through his staff--gets major points for responding at all. Appropriate attitudes toward constituents are set by the person at the top.

Which leads me to something else I liked: Senator Specter's email addressed me formally as Ms., a lesson which could--no, should--be learned by most of the politicians hammering at my In Box every day. They all call me by my first name, as if we're lifelong buddies. I met John Kerry years ago, but a friend had to remind me of that, so he sure as hell doesn't remember me. And I never met Howard Dean, who cozies up to me on a first name basis ad nauseum in every email.

And speaking of nausea, of course I haven't heard peep one from Senator Santorum. Too busy flogging his book, I imagine. And readying himself for the fight for Judge Robert's confirmation. Santorum did issue a press release, available on his web site, which contains some ominous nuggets:

Americans deserve and will demand a dignified handling of the confirmation process. The personal insults and demeaning attacks on a nominee that have become the centerpiece of previous nominations must not manifest themselves in this confirmation.

Whoa, hang on: Santorum is opposed to personal insults and demeaning attacks? Unless they come from him, I guess. Unless the person's not gay or a working mother or a Jew who can't take a little joke about Nazis.

In nominating a Supreme Court Justice, it was imperative that the President chose an individual who has the educational and professional pedigree that befits a member of the highest court. In John Roberts, President Bush certainly found such a candidate. A summa cum laude graduate of Harvard University after only three years, Judge Roberts then attended Harvard Law School where he earned high honors and was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Oookay, so when it comes to Judge Roberts, Santorum is suddenly a big fan of Harvard. Oh please. Remember this lovely little Santorum quote about Boston Priests Molesting Children:

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

Then we come to the meat of this tubesteak's message:

The President took his time, interviewed a number of extremely talented individuals, and ultimately made a conscientious and sound decision that will help the Supreme Court return to its true function--interpreting the law, not creating it.

If it were up to Senator Rick Santorum, America would remain firmly mired in the 17th Century to achieve his goal that the Supreme Court ignore the monumental changes in lives and lifestyles and civil liberties and freedoms in order to return to its "true function: interpreting the law--not creating it." Perhaps Mr. Santorum would like some slaves to help the stay-at-home-wife he's so proud of -- since he's never there to help her himself. Except for photo ops to sell the book and promote Christian values.

Somebody needs to remind Senator Santorum that 53 percent of American citizens are NOT evangelical Christians. That would include his colleague and Senior Senator, Mr. Specter. We have to right to have our voices heard, and we can pray too. What we're praying for is a continuation of reason and compromise that's not about personal agendas, but about the welfare of all Americans.

I'm also praying for Arlen Specter to beat cancer, and for Rick Santorum to beat a path out of the Senate.

Supreme Insult

"Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever." William Howard Taft

Is America a great country or what? Only in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Can-Be-Bought would a President choose a Supreme Court nominee based on a campaign pledge.

In the 2004 election George W. Bush promised Republican voters in Ohio and Michigan that as President he would give them a right wing conservative Supreme Court nominee. They voted for him -- gave him the election in fact. (And let's not forget the Supreme Court gave him the first election, a Supreme Irony.) So he kept his promise: John G. Roberts.

Oh sure, Roberts has credentials. Harvard this and Harvard that. Big deal, Bush went to Yale and look what we got from him. Roberts has some other, more interesting credentials: Reagan and Bush administration lawyer, National Mining Association, Toyota and Fox News lawyer. Hmm, there's a trend here.

MoveOn.org is all over Roberts, and with excellent arguments about his lack of suitability as a reasonable replacement for Justice O'Connor.

He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion.

As a partisan lawyer for the Bush Sr. and Reagan administrations, Roberts threatened:

Civil rights by asking the Supreme Court to severely limit the ability of district courts to desegregate public schools, and working to ensure the Voting Rights Act could not be used to remedy many cases of actual discrimination against minority votes.

Women's rights by fighting for a law barring doctors from even discussing reproductive options in many cases, and arguing that Roe. vs. Wade should be "overruled."

Free speech by arguing to the Supreme Court that political speech that some considered offensive did not deserve First Amendment protections. The Court rejected his claim.

Religious liberty by arguing to the Supreme Court that public schools could force religious speech on students. Again, the Court rejected the argument.

As a corporate lawyer, Roberts threatened:

Community and environmental rights by working to strike down new clean-air rules and filing a brief for the National Mining Association, arguing that federal courts could not stop mountaintop-removal mining in West Virginia, even as it devastated local communities.

Workers' rights by helping Toyota to successfully evade the Americans with Disabilities Act and fire workers for disabilities they suffered over time because of the requirements of their jobs.

Public interest regulations by helping Fox News challenge FCC rules that prevented the creation of news media monopolies.

In his short two years as a judge, Roberts has threatened:

Individual rights by rejecting the civil rights claims brought on behalf of a 12-year-old girl who had been handcuffed, arrested and taken away by the police for eating a single french fry in the D.C. Metro.

Environmental protections when the dissent he wrote on an Endangered Species Act case, had it been in the majority, would have struck the Act down as unconstitutional in many cases, and would have threatened a wide swath of workplace, public safety and civil rights protections.

Human Rights by voting to strike down the Geneva Conventions as applied to prisoners that the Bush administration chose to exempt from international law.

And let's add another concern: Roberts has been a Judge for a mere two years. His experience as a lawyer is comprehensive, if arguably reprehensible. What kind of judicial knowledge does he bring to this most crucial of appointments?

Apparently the right kind -- the kind that's most important to the President and the radical right of his party: Roberts is a Corporate Conservative Right Wing Male. A member of the Club. Another White Guy.

That's where my blood pressure goes through the roof. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor toed the party line in giving him her approval, but said, "I am disappointed, in a sense, to see the percentage of women on our court drop by 50 percent."

Talk about understatement. So what's the composition of the Court now? One woman, one black man, one ... wait ... that's it. All the rest are WHITE GUYS.

Americans--all Americans--must depend on the United States Supreme Court to interpret and uphold the US Constitution, and to create the Laws of the Land for all of us. All of us. Women, African Americans, Hispanics, Gays, people of all colors, creeds, cultures, religions, beliefs. Our lives, our liberties, our futures, our children's futures have been too long in the hands of a bunch of White Guys with White Guy ideologies and attitudes. Their interpretations of the Law cannot possibly reflect or protect the needs and lifestyles and thoughts and expectations of all Americans, without reasonable representation among them of all Americans on the Court.

This isn't just about Roe V. Wade, people. It's not even about Conservatives Vs. Liberal ideologies. This is about civil liberties and human rights, personal and religious freedoms, public and environmental protections, community and individual prerogatives -- objective and responsible justice for ALL.

Yet with the kind of stunning mediocrity of vision we have come to loathe so well, George W. Bush, White Guy, has nominated yet another one-dimentional white Guy to the Bench.

Frankly, I hope both Laura and his mother Barbara slap him silly.

About the Supreme Court