Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The Alito nomination and the left’s strategy
Posted by: McQ on Monday, January 09, 2006

If Howard Dean is any indication, it's to base it's opposition on a false premise. Speaking of the Alito nomination today in an op/ed in The Baltimore Sun, Dean says:
The president hopes to make up ground with his right-wing base instead of appointing someone who will have the confidence of a wide range of Americans.
Question: When were nominations to the Supreme Court dependent on "the confidence of a wide range of Americans"?

After a litany of decisions, of which, apparently, Dr. Dean doesn't agree he states:
A Supreme Court justice must show impartiality and fairness. Judge Alito does not pass that test.
Well, of course, that's not what a SC justice must show. He or she must be very partial to interpreting the Constitution properly (review and precedent being critical in that regard) and shouldn't at all be worried about whether the interpretation is inherently fair to any one special interest group or politically favored group. And it is that sort of "fairness and impartiality" to which Dean appeals. The Supreme Court is an appellate court and its focus is how the law is interpreted and/or whether the law is constitutional, not it's fairness. Fairness, if it is to be addressed, is the job of the legislature.

We finally get to the political thrust of the Dean piece with these two paragraphs:
A culture of corruption, arrogance of power and insensitivity to the appearance of conflict of interest has plagued key Republican officeholders for the past five years. This includes Republican Senate Leader Bill Frist's ownership of stock that he falsely claimed was in a blind trust; the repeated evidence that Halliburton, formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, benefited from no-bid contracts in Iraq; and revelations that our government may be illegally spying on Americans and paying journalists for positive stories.

House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. has traveled the world, racking up $177,000 worth of lobbyist-funded trips. Tom DeLay has been indicted on money-laundering charges. Republican super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to three federal criminal charges. Karl Rove still has a security clearance, despite leaking the identity of a CIA agent. The vice president's chief of staff has been indicted on charges that he lied to a grand jury. We need honesty and backbone in Washington, most especially on the court.
Talk about stretching. A blatant attempt to attack Alito's character and infer he'd be a corrupt justice because Dean doesn't agree with his earlier rulings. Rather obvious and rather poor, in my opinion. But also vintage Dean.

What Dean is also suggesting, as are other Democrats, is what I'd call the "Corn gambit", named after David Corn who outlined it last November.
Yes, in the past, Republicans have voted for qualified Court nominees who were liberal (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for one), and Democrats have voted for qualified Court nominees who were conservative (Scalia, for some reason, comes to mind). But the Democrats should candidly declare such days are over—at least for now, with the Court hanging in the balance and Bush actively moving to shove it in a distinctly ideological direction. Democrats have no obligation to watch and wave as Bush and his now-happy and unified conservative base proceed in a manner they believe to be inimical to the interests of the nation.

So Democrats should be honest and blunt and declare they are opposing Alito because of how they expect he will vote. And they should explain—in broad, values-laden language, not the rhetoric of process—what they fear and how Alito's decisions could affect Americans. There is nothing wrong with a senator proclaiming that protecting reproductive rights and privacy rights is a top priority and that he or she would not vote for a Justice who is likely to restrict those rights or even seek to abolish some of them. The same goes for any senator who believes abortion is mass murder. Why should such a senator vote for a nominee who would protect such a practice?
Note what Corn says in the emphasized line. The days of only assessing whether a candidate is properly qualified for the court are over and Democrats shouldn't apologize for that, per Corn.

I wonder if he understands what that sort of precedent that would set for any future SC nominees under a Democrat president? Seems the left is willing to risk that.

I noted last year that I thought it was a mistake for the Republicans to allow the Alito hearings to be pushed into January.

John McIntyre, at RealClear Politics, points out what that has allowed the Democrats to do:
Over the last two months, Senate Democrats wisely have held back much of their firepower so as not to appear they were just giving a knee jerk “NO” to anyone Bush would nominate after Miers. Given their minority status, Democrats have followed a smart strategy. First, they got the hearings pushed back into January, slowing the entire process down considerably. Last week they indicated that they will invoke their right to hold the judiciary committee vote over for one week, creating a further delay. (Though the nominations are very different, a similar strategy of delay was very effective with the Bolton nomination and played a big part in his eventual recess appointment.)

Expect Democrats to press Alito this week in a way they did not with John Roberts in the hope that relentless pressure will cause Alito to slip up or lose his cool - something Roberts never came close to doing. Failing a “mistake” by the nominee, Democrats will declare his inevitable “non-answers” to be unacceptable and will try to paint him as out of the mainstream and different than Chief Justice Roberts.
While I doubt that Alito will lose his cool, I agree completely that the delay has allowed the Democrats the time to do more opposition research and form a plan to fight Alito's nomination and, as McIntyre points out, to appear less "knee-jerk" in their reaction to the nomination.

That, of course, brings us to the stated Democrat strategy and the filibuster.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and a member of the committee, said that if Judge Alito refuses to answer questions on issues that Democrats deem vital, the party will be more likely to block the nomination.

"If he continuously, given his previous record, refused to answer questions and hid behind 'I can't answer this because it might come before me,' it would increase the chances of a filibuster," Mr. Schumer said.

Also yesterday, another Judiciary Committee Democrat said she would likely block the nomination if she concludes that Judge Alito would overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that declared abortion a constitutional right.

"If I believed he was going to go in there and overthrow Roe ... most likely 'yes,'" said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, when asked on "Fox News Sunday" whether she would filibuster the nomination.
Of course, everyone who's followed this and other nomination hearings understand that "I can't answer this because it might come before me" has been invoked, properly I believe, from Ginsberg to Roberts. Here you see Schumer all but enunciate the Democrats plan to use the "Corn gambit" and to change the nomination process once and for all from a procedural one to an ideological one.

Democrats have been casting about for the two months since Alito has been nomintated for a reasonable way to use the filibuster without getting their political head's bashed in.

This is it. If Democrats can convince the public that it is the duty of all nominees to answer completely ideological questions (to the extent that a recusal wouldn't be out of the question should the issue come before the court), and their refusal to do so be seen as tantamount to stonewalling a committee in the execution of their duty, then the filibuster could be seen as a reasonable response.

However, they may not be able to hold such a filibuster and may also find that their favored obstructive tool is taken away from them if the Republicans can manage to find their spine and stand up in unison against it. What Republicans need to do is point out that what Schumer is demanding isn't and hasn't been what has been demanded of nominees in the past and that doing so could cripple the court by putting the new justice, if eventually confirmed, in a position where he or she couldn't participate in rulings on issues brought up and discussed in the hearings.

McIntyre further states he's changed his mind about the Democrats use of the filibuster:
Initially, I thought a filibuster would be very unwise for the Democrats because it would gin up the Republican base and it was a fight that they at the end of the day simply don’t have the cards to win. However, Democrats want to keep their based fired up and they want to display a willingness to confront Bush and the GOP. A rerun of the Roberts hearings ending with a 58-42 vote for Alito (as opposed to 78-22 for Roberts) is nothing but a loser to their base and a huge conservative victory. The 5-4 majority conservative decisions Alito will be part of for the next 25-30 years won’t contain an asterisk at the bottom saying he only received 55 votes in the Senate.

Even though the odds are that a sustained filibuster would be met with a change in the Senate rules and Alito’s ultimate confirmation, an argument can be made that strategically it is good political move for the Democrats. If Reid can hold 40 votes and sustain a filibuster (a big if), Democrats would throw down the gauntlet to the GOP. While I think Frist has the votes today to ram though the “nuclear” option, there’s always a chance Democrats get lucky and find three GOP Senators (Warner, Specter, and McCain, perhaps) to join Snowe, Collins and Chafee in refusing to change the Senate rules.

Win or lose, a filibuster would energize the Democrats' base, and even if they fail to stop Alito's confirmation....how much have they really lost? They could say correctly that Alito was going to get through anyway. They would lose their ability to dangle the filibuster threat for the rest of the Bush term in respect to judicial nominees, but the potency of that weapon has already been significantly reduced. In the previous three years they already have maxed out what was politically acceptable with filibuster tactics on judicial nominations before the GOP leadership finally got serious about fighting back this spring. So if the Senate rule on filibusters did get changed, while Republicans may like it now, I suspect it is a rule change the GOP would come to regret.
I couldn't disagree more. Base energization is a short-lived thing. Is it worth the loss of the filibuster? Don't get me wrong, I think the filibuster has at least a traditional place when used against legislation, but based on my reading of the Constitution, I find it hard to support in an 'advise and consent' role. But it is a tool, whether I like it or not. What McIntyre believes is the Republicans would regret killing it because at some future date they may want to use it. Well again, if you're against it to begin with, as am I, then I don't see the loss.

I'm of the opinion presidents should get their nominees, and the only time I think they should be in jeopardy is when the nominee is unqualified, such as was Harriet Miers. Other than that, the Senate's job is to confirm qualified justices, whether they're happy about the preceived ideology of that nominee or not ... as has been the case in the past ala Ginsberg and Scalia.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Qualifications for a Supreme Court clearly include their ’ideology’ as you put.

Indeed, if you remove their interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from the realm of inquiry, you are missing the core of what makes a
great or terrible Supreme Court.

By setting the bar low on Supreme Court nominees, you are simply trying to slip a bad apple into the pie ...

Regards,

Roderick S. Beck.
 
Written By: Roderick Beck
URL: http://
This whole "Republicans will rue the day they remove the filibuster for judicial nominees" is an absolute crock.

First, Republicans have traditionally allowed Democratic administrations their nominees, even when Republicans were in the majority. By their very character, Republicans seem ill-fitted and reluctant to play the kind of partisan hardball employed by the likes of Schumer, so I don’t think they would do it at any point, even if they got rolled by the Democrats (with the help of a few RINO defectors) this time.

Second, the Democrats enjoy a huge advantage in such conflicts. The Democrats know they will get a pass from the liberal mainstream press for their position, because they know the vast majority of those reporters agree with them about ideology. The Republicans would be blasted incessantly if they used exactly the same tactics at any point in the future. Thus the damage the Republicans would incur from using a future the filibuster over judicial nominees would be severe.

And if you think once the Democrats had successfully used the filibuster just because they don’t like the nominee’s ideology, then the Republicans could do the same with no opposition from the mainstream press, then I submit that your hold on reality is very weak. The two cases would never be painted the same in the media. The Democrats’ coverage would be all about how the crusader stopped the Neanderthal justice from riding roughshod over over country, and the coverage of the Republicans would be how they are vindictively retaliating against those selfsame crusaders.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Dean mumbles about;
someone who will have the confidence of a wide range of Americans.
... Forgetting, apparently that he himself doesn’t.

That said, the rest of your comments are spot on.
Note what Corn says in the emphasized line. The days of only assessing whether a candidate is properly qualified for the court are over and Democrats shouldn’t apologize for that, per Corn
Truely said.

If the standards the Democrats were imposing, were imposed by Republicans a few years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be memorable only for the way her USSC nomination went down in flames.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
If Democrats can convince the public that it is the duty of all nominees to answer completely ideological questions (to the extent that a recusal wouldn’t be out of the question should the issue come before the court), and their refusal to do so be seen as tantamount to stonewalling a committee in the execution of their duty, then the filibuster could be seen as a reasonable response

The double edge here of course, is that this gives the GOP a gigantic opening to push their main point right along that judges should enforce the LAW and not idealogy (which the main public agrees with) Given also the fact that the Dems totally lack tact and finesse, you can expect the loudmouths will say something stupid that will only further emphasize the point.

And really, at the end of the day the Dems don’t have enough votes to filibuster, enough of the 14 idiots will have reasons to vote for cloture to make this an irrelevant discussion
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
This whole "Republicans will rue the day they remove the filibuster for judicial nominees" is an absolute crock.

Couldn’t agree more, Billy.


Qualifications for a Supreme Court clearly include their ’ideology’ as you put.

Uh, no, they don’t ... they may come with the person nominated, but they’ve clearly not been a part of past "qualifications" for the SC. Both sides deny any "litmus" test ... until now. And frankly, I find such an inquiry into ideology to be beyond the traditionally understood role of "advise and consent".

Indeed, if you remove their interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from the realm of inquiry, you are missing the core of what makes a great or terrible Supreme Court.

That’s available, especially in terms of Alito and his prior service, without requiring he "rule" on the issues specified by Schumer from the nominee’s chair instead of the court’s bench.

I have no problem with general questions which touch generally on judicial temperment, feelings about precedent, views on Constitutional interpretation, etc. That to which I do object has to do with specific inquiry into issues liable to come before the court.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
What is interesting to me is McQ’s observation:

I wonder if he understands what that sort of precedent that would set for any future SC nominees under a Democrat president? Seems the left is willing to risk that.

It seems like there are a number of possible ways of viewing this situation.

First, that the Democrats fully expect to retake not only the White House (good chance), but also the Senate. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what kind of precedent they’re setting, b/c they’ll defeat it anyway.

Second, that the Democrats fully expect not to retake the Senate, in which case holding back their vitriol gets them little. Better to energize the base, b/c there’s little downside (if you’re going to lose anyway, why not vent?).

Third, that the Democrats have no idea about whether they can or will retake the Senate, and therefore have little clue as to whether they are setting a precedent or not.

Fourth, that the Democrats believe that this precedent has already been set (although this would be where evidence is somewhat questionable, since as others have noted, Clinton’s SC appointments were approved by the GOP as well as Dem Senators).

Fifth, that issues such as abortion and privacy rights (are they the same thing?) are such that qualifications don’t matter (but this goes back to whether Dems might not change their tune if one of their own were in the WH and/or if they were in charge of the Senate), and they honestly believe that this is such an important issue that all means are justified.

If, as I suspect most left commentators will claim, it is the last element, then one has to wonder: At what point would winning a majority of Senators, even 60 senators, matter? And would the GOP ever have issues or views that were equally compelling, such that it would justify disregarding qualifications, perhaps over the right to life, or the right of self-defense?
 
Written By: Lurking Observer
URL: http://
In Mr. Beck’s comment we see a “clear” example of the negative effects of a liberal getting all of his information from the MSM; probably the NYT. Mr. Beck reads an article here that “clearly” indicates that including ideology in the qualifications examined before confirming an appointment to the SCOTUS is controversial and very likely may be a bad idea. Some good reasons are given for this point of view. Mr. Beck feels compelled to share his NYT-inspired liberal knee-jerk response. This type of comment passes for discussion in the liberal cocoon. One searches in vain in his comment for any reason that changing our practice to include the examination of ideology is a good thing. I suppose that we are to simply accept the opinion of “Pinch” et al that it is. Such is the “clarity” of the cocoon. Mr. Beck’s clincher is a jingoistic mixed metaphor. Dreck. Surely there are lefties out there who can do better than this?
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Roderick Beck = Liberal Straw Man

Notherbob2, don’t argue against him like he is the chosen mouthpiece of the Left. His position was expressed weakly, perhaps unintelligibly, but that is hardly indicative of an overarching pattern of illogicity or msm brainwashing on the part of liberals.

And why be suprised that no better challenge of term usage or historical precedents has come forth in this forum?

I have described myself as Neolibertarian in the past, and agree with the vast majority of the arguments made in McQ’s commentary piece above, but I don’t think it is particularly effective to identify and criticize ’cocoons’ in this forum, which operates on an ideological level that may not seem particularly inviting to the best and brightest liberal minds.

Who wants to be an apologist for straw men so easily flamed?

 
Written By: JDS
URL: http://
Notherbob2, don’t argue against him like he is the chosen mouthpiece of the Left. His position was expressed weakly, perhaps unintelligibly, but that is hardly indicative of an overarching pattern of illogicity or msm brainwashing on the part of liberals.
Ah, give Beck some credit. I’ve not heard anyone on the left do much batter. A cook, after all, is only as good as his ingredients. Do you happen to, for example, hear Ted Kennedy’s opening remarks today? (Shake of the head)

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I don’t understand how anyone who uses the word ’Libertarian’ to describe themselves could be anything but against the confirmation of Judge Alito.

Based on his rulings and comments in the past, he seems to think the Constitution gives government a number of powers that I can’t find in the document.

Supreme Court nominations are simply far more ’politicly divisive’ now than they were many years ago - I think it started with Bork, although his nomination corresponds with a shift in poltical behavior... there is far more hate in political speech than there was 30 years ago.

Republicans HATE Bill Clinton.
Democrats HATE George W Bush.

The same wasn’t true about Presidents prior to Reagan, at least not from what I can see.

Couple that with 24 hour a day news (who need *something* to talk about), and you have this.

It’s all related.
 
Written By: Paul
URL: http://libertarianlifter.blogspot.com
The same wasn’t true about Presidents prior to Reagan, at least not from what I can see.

Yep, Richard Milhouse Nixon. Loved by all.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
And the Left LOVED Reagan, too. Had Reagan controlled Congress as Dubya does the contempt would have been just as bad, then as now. The difference was that Reagan had "Tip" O’Neill and a democratic Senate Majority LEader after 1986. Even so, the Left HATED Reagan.

And don’t forget FDR. He was DESPISED by Buchanan Right and Isolationsists.

And of course, LINCOLN...

The Whigs loved Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson

Finally, the Muckrakers truly loved Washington.

I guess people like to think that things were different "then" and the reality is that when my guy is in, YOU HATE my guy and vice versa.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Yeah, Mark, and I just adored Jimmy Carter.

{/sarcasm}
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
My point is there seemed to be a difference.

Democrats who were around when Nixon was president could find something they approved of about him.

Likewise with Democrats and Reagan.

Maybe I’m just a nieve optimist that someday we can get away from hating people we don’t agree with and instead debate politics where we disagree, but can still go get a beer. :-)

(Of course, given the similarites of the Republicans and Democrats, I’m not so sure they don’t already do that.)

 
Written By: Paul
URL: http://libertarianlifter.blogspot.com
Yes Paul you ARE a naive optimist....

We are Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians or whatevers not only in our heads, but our hearts. When you disagree with me, in part, you reject me and that will almost always inflame a person. We are not just debating public policy but also the nature of the "good and just" society. So emotions will be involved.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
In my opinion, anybody can be a SC judge (forgive me for making such a blunt comment) as long as he/she is a rational person. Because, if anything is not black and white by the Constitution, is subject to interpretation and anybody can interpret in anyway he likes as long as long it does not contradicts with other part of the Constitution. There is no right or wrong in that, there is nobody to challenge on that, you cannot fire them nor can you demote them (with all due respect), because, they are lifelong appointee (written in black and white in the constitute ion). While one judge can say abortion is right, the other judge (equally qualified, nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate) abortion is wrong, why? Because the answer is not written in black and write form in our constitution. It is how the individual judge interprets this. Only one’s biasness will say it is right while other’s biasness will say it is wrong. You cannot expect a fanatic religious person will ever condone abortion, and in the same token, you can very easily expect that an extreme liberal person will always side with pro-choice, even though both are equally qualified otherwise. Both rationalized in their way and nothing right or wrong about those rationales. So, where qualification played any role here?

Having said this, it is therefore imperative to look for one’s biasness/belief of social/religious/political controversial issues when he/she becomes a SC candidate (or for any lifelong appointee, for that matter). Because only biasness will dictate his/her interpretation as long as he/she can rationalize that biasness. There is nothing called neutral position. Everybody is biased to some degree at least on all controversial issues (after all we are all human being – so is a SC judge). Some argues that, just because he ruled that in the past in one way does not mean he will rule the same way once confirmed. Sorry to accept that argument. Since we cannot foresee future, a SC candidate’s past record is the only means to ascertain that biasness. You see, if you want to hire me based on one of your friend’s recommendation, it is ok to hire me, because if I do not live up to your mark, you can demote me or even fire me. My past record will play little role in that firing. But for all Federal and SC judges, it is not true. They are lifelong appointees. Past interpretation is extremely important and the only source of determination of ones biasness.

I am totally in disagreement with the writer’s view as described on his last Para. If president should typically get by with his/her nominee all the time, then the checks and balance concept of a true democracy goes out the doors. That’s why framers have set aside the confirmation process. And confirmation does not mean simply rubberstamping president’s nominee, based on qualification only. A qualified nominee can be expected to be more rationale than an unqualified person, which is necessary in judging a case true, but not necessarily he/she will be biasless. In my view, there lies the only the difference between a qualified and unqualified nominee. It was rude to say, "…the nominee is unqualified, such as Harriet Miers". Harriet Miers was definitely qualified to be the SC judge, only that her biasness were not aligned with those who disliked her biasness (disagreement were not necessary with Harriet Miers herself as a person).
 
Written By: Miah Baset
URL: http://
“Canada’s Supreme Court just ruled in favor of group sex and wife swapping. Maybe "ideology" might be a little more vigorously tested during our Confirmation hearings here in America if, you know, McQ doesn’t object.”
Yet another lame liberal comment. Let’s face it; liberals are litmus testers and they would favor a vote to confirm a yellow dog if it promised not to vote to repeal Roe v Wade and to always vote with the current liberal judges, regardless of the facts of any given case. Any other liberal rhetoric on the issue of what is appropriate for confirmation hearings is just that - rhetoric.

 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
My point is there seemed to be a difference.
That is because one party, the Democrats, was not as overwhelmingly radical as it is now. In the 1970’s there were at least ten democrat senators and several in the house, who were moderates, Now I honestly do not know of any reamining Demnocrats who are moderates in congress except Lieberman.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Many news reports, including The Baltimore Sun and Steven Lubet have recklessly published material misrepresentations about Judge Samuel Alito’s failure to recuse himself from a Third Circuit appeal involving Vanguard. Lubet even contradicted his other publications on judicial ethics. See, for e.g., “Disqualification Of Supreme Court Justices: The Certiorari Conundrum”, 80 Minn. L. Rev. 657, n9 (1996)”. There, Lubet CORRECTLY points out that federal judges have been prohibited from sitting in cases in which they have any financial interest since 1792.

I have seen the relevant court records, and here are the facts:

1. Ms. Maharaj’s appeal which was before Judge Samuel Alito concerned her deceased husband’s (Mr. Monga’s) lawsuit against Vanguard seeking compensatory and punitive damages because, in 1992, Vanguard unlawfully attached Monga’s IRA which was protected by law from seizure. Without any authority whatsoever, Vanguard illegally seized her late husband’s IRA in violation of federal and state laws, and Vanguard’s own IRA contract based only on a statement from a Massachusetts receiver, John Ottenberg, that Monga’s IRAs were “too much for Monga’s age.” Monga who died from cancer in 1996 was 56 years old, and was a petroleum/environmental engineer and a Member of the Massachusetts bar when Ottenberg sought to seize the IRAs. This is clear from the Court records in Maharaj’s late husband’s case No. 95-5235 in the Federal District Court in Philadelphia, and in the appeal of this case to the Third Circuit No. 01-1827 before Alito.

2. Judge Alito’s Unlawful Conduct: Judge Alito never recused himself from participating in this Third Circuit appeal involving Vanguard’s liability. Judge Alito misrepresented this important fact to the American public and the media simply reported what he said. Alito actually decided the appeal and wrote the opinion in Vanguard’s favor. Alito even acquired Vanguard’s shares three times during the appeal, each time while ruling on the case in Vanguard’s favor! Alito’s Financial Disclosure Report shows that for the 6 month period May – October 2002, while he ruled against Maharaj in this appeal, Judge Alito acquired between $60,000 - $95,000 in Vanguard Funds while issuing orders favoring Vanguard! These facts are all clear from the Court records should anyone care to check Appeal No. 01-1827. Would you want such a judge deciding your case?

3. There was never any hearing whatsoever in this appeal – not by Alito’s panel or the second panel. The second set of judges just rubberstamped Alito’s rulings word for word without giving any notice to Maharaj’s lawyer, Prof. John Flym. This too is clear from the Court records.

4. Vanguard’s Unlawful Conduct: Although Vanguard had documentation showing all the IRA assets were legitimate retirement savings, Vanguard unlawfully seized the IRA in 1992 and kept it frozen for 6 years – even while Maharaj’s husband was dying from cancer! When Vanguard realized it made a serious legal blunder, Vanguard didn’t want to tarnish its reputation so Vanguard lied in Court, stating that it had complied with a court order in freezing the IRA. No such order exists. Vanguard asked the court to kept $92,000 from the widow’s inherited IRA which Vanguard used to oppose their own customer! In clear violation of U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent, Vanguard then asked the court to block the widow from suing them. Would you want your life savings in the hands of such a company? I don’t think so. Vanguard gave the rest ($80,000) to the receiver Attorney John Ottenberg who shared it with his cohort Atty. Peter Brooks. No creditor received any of this money (as many of the reports have incorrectly stated.)

5. Attys. Peter Brooks and his wife and Cathy who initiated the fraudulent effort to seize Monga’s protected IRAs, had undisputed documentation showing all the money in Monga’s IRAs were legitimate retirement savings. The Brooks’ lied in an ex parte hearing in court, stating that Monga’s IRAs were fraudulent. Attys. Peter and Cathy Brooks did this in order to get Ottenberg appointed ex parte as a receiver to seize and liquidate Monga’s property before Monga could appeal the judgment. Ottenberg liquidated all of Monga’s property and other third parties’ assets and refused to disclose what he did with the money. After 10 years the whereabouts of hundreds of thousands of Monga’s assets which were placed under Ottenberg’s control as a “receiver” by the Middlesex Superior Court, are still a mystery! Ottenberg even objected to having the widow see any documents regarding the receivership of her late husnand’s assets and Judge Fabricant agreed with Ottenberg!

6. On Oct 14, 2005 in the course of oral argument before the Massachusetts Appeals Court regarding appeal of the receivership, Vanguard’s attorney, John Baraniak, Esq., of Choate, Hall & Stewart, Boston, (617-248-5000), in response to a direct question from an appeals judge, conceded that no evidence whatsoever exists to support the Receiver’s vague allegations of fraudulently contributions to the IRA.

7. WARNING - your IRAs are not safe in a case before Judge Alito or in Vanguard’s hands:

Judge Alito is not U.S. Supreme Court material. His nominations should have been withdrawn months ago when this conflict of interest first surfaced.

Take your IRAs to T. Rowe Price - unlike Vanguard they respected the law and protected the Mongas’ IRA!



 
Written By: miccos
URL: http://
Well, it’s time to make it official. Nothing but liberal losers out there willing to comment. Miah was well-intentioned, but lightweight. Miccos did a lot of work, but is unaware of the fact that, at several decision-points, he took a left [in both senses] turn and therefore lost credibility. Personally, I believe that the better liberal commenters are afraid to take on the commenters here. They know that their cocoon commenting skills are not up to speed for higher level environments like qando. So they wisely remain silent.
We are deprived of any real opportunities to learn.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
As, I think, are they.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
miccos: Shantee? Is that you?

You can see what we’ve been up against, folks.

Cathy Brooks
 
Written By: Cathy
URL: http://
Program on the emergence of civilization.

"14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. "
Favor.
And disfavor.

They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it’s applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.

The roots of racism are not of this earth.

Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.

The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.

AIDS in Africa.


Organizational Heirarchy/Levels of positioning.
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:

1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as "god"
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Evil/disfavored aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere

Terrestrial management/positioning:

4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - The seamless transition between Cleopatra and Julius Ceasar may be a clue alluding to a partnership.
6. Mafia - the real-world 20th century interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.


Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.


Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying "He has more money than god." There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says "I’m too old and rich for this."

This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere.

20 cent/hour Chinese labor, 50 cents for material.
An $80 sweater costs less than a dollar; tribute kicked upstairs vindicates the creative accounting.

I don’t want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe. But these individuals become wealthy exploiting those they hurt.

They have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won’t help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help.

The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial.

I offer an example of historical proportions:::

People point to Walmart and cry "anti-union".
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family’s problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an environment where there are fewer hurdles.

Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people’s belief that Walmart is evil in a subsegment of the indistry dominated by the middle and lower classes.
Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.

The middle class is being deceived. They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no assistance from their purchases with corporate america.

The coining of the term "Uncle Sam" was a clue alluding to just this::Sam Walton’s WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.

They desire a system based on duality:::good and evil. They seek to set up a system of two participants and assign them polar opposites:::
Coke and Pepsi (?)
BestBuy and CircutCity
Energizer and Duracell
Republican and Democrat
The list goes on and on:::
AMD and Intel
Microsoft and Apple (?)
Lowes and HomeDepot
Sam’sClub and Costco
WellsFargo and BofA. For the longest time in CA these two banks reigned supreme.
Pier1 and CostPlus
Borders and Barnes&Noble
PetCo and PetSmart


Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects. Italy sent its criminals, malcontents.
Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they decided who they didn’t want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation.
The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects. It is the reason for the myriad of problems not found in European countries. As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren’t their real names. I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire.

Royalty is the correct way to organize a society. Dictatorships and monarchies are a reflection of the antient’s hierarchical organization.
Positions go to those who have favor with the rulers, as opposed to being elected.
Elections bring a false sense of how the world is. Democracy misleads people.
Which is why the disfavored rejects were sent to the shores of America::To keep them on the wrong path.


Jewsus Christ is a religious figure of evil. He teaches of a begnign, forgiving god when quite the opposite is true.
The seperatist churches formed so they could capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god.
And now they do it to disfavored people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them.

Since Buddism doesn’t recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Asian representation is instead fully selected by the thrones.
Budda was the Asian’s Jewsus Christ::: bad for the people. It was a clue they both emerged at the same time. Timing may be a clue alluding to ranking.

Simpson’s foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. "Last one you ever suspect."
"You’ll see lots of nuns where you’re going:::hell." St. Wigham, Helloween VI:::missionary work, destroying cultures.
Over and over, the Simpsons was a source of education and enlightenment, a target of ridicule by the system which wishes to conceal its secrets.

The advent of the modern Christmas was a brilliant move. It creates a vested interest among those who would prefer the Church of Evil be destroyed::::
As goes the Catholic Church so goes the majority of annual retail sales.
The similarity between the names "Santa" and "Satan" is no coincidence.

Jews maim the body formed in the image of "god", and inflicted circumcision upon all other white people.
I think about how Jews (were used to) created homosexuality among Slavics, retribution for the Holocaust.
Then I think of the Catholic Church and its troubles.
What connection is here between Jews and the Catholic church???
If it is their sinister motives that’s behind the evil that is Jesus Christ are they being used at all?
Perhaps it is them who are pulling strings.
Their centuries of slavery in Egypt proves their disfavor.
For their suffering the Jew leaders were granted the right to prey on the up-and-coming Europeans to try to fix their problems with the ruling elite, a recurring aspect of the elite’s methodology.
Jews were ostracised for a reason.


Retribution for the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, the Korean War got the disfavored United States into this socially depraved environment in the latter 20th century because we attacked an antient, revered peoples. Our continued presence keeps us in trouble.
When the disfavored americans attack the wrong people again, as they suggested they will, in Korea or elsewhere, they will pay dearly.


All peoples are ranked in terms of favor and disfavor. And when the disfavored abuse those with favor there is hell to pay.
All the groups mentioned throughout are necessary to justify the will of the managing species. They conceive a strategy, devise a plan yet need a way to implement it, and without these groups the managing species would be exposed in the course of execution. So, based upon their rank they are assigned goals to accomplish and are rewarded with favors.



Mumia Abu-Jamal

Dhoruba Bin Wahad

Assata Shakur

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Malcolm X

Che Guevara

Black Panthers
 
Written By: grandpa stole bets
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider