Now Comes the Fight

A few minutes ago, George Bush announced that Samuel Alito is his new nominee to replace the deciseve swing vote held by Justice O'connor. In this nomination, Bush has shown his hatred for all Americans who do not subscribe to his neo-facist, extreme far right Christainity. He has reduced the number of women on the court by 50%, refused to nominate an ethnic minority, and has nominated someone whoes philosophy is one of hate. We must begin the fight to have this 'Scalia clone' withdraw his nomination as soon as possible. He is under-qualified in the fact that his opinions and rulings are immature, offensive and derogatory to women and minorities.
We succeeded in removing the nomination of Miers, whom Bush nominated so that he would have a friendly face on the court should he be impeached, which he obviousley thinks could happen.

A Justice on the Third circuit court of Apeeals, out of New Jersey, here is a round up of his far right charachter, such as demanding that women tell thier husbands if they are to have an abortion.

Samuel Alito
Age: 55
Graduated from: Yale Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Leonard Garth.
He used to be: deputy assistant attorney general under Reagan, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (appointed 1990).
His confirmation battle: Alito has the Scalia-esque nickname "Little Nino" and the Italian background to match it.
As the author of a widely noted dissent urging his court to uphold restrictions on abortion that the Supreme Court then struck down, in a decision that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, Alito could be especially filibuster-prone. Like Scalia, he frequently makes his mark in dissent.

Separation of Church and State

For a unanimous panel, upheld a lower-court order requiring a school district to allow a Bible-study group to set up an information table at an elementary-school back-to-school night. Reasoned that by preventing the group from displaying its literature, the district was discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. (Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Township School District, 2004)
For a unanimous panel, denied standing to a group seeking to take down a municipal holiday display that included a menorah and a crèche. Alito said that the group couldn't challenge the display as taxpayers because the items were donated rather than bought by the town. (ACLU-NJ v. Township of Wall, 2001)
Dissented from a ruling by the 3rd Circuit as a whole that an elementary school did not violate the First Amendment rights of a kindergartener by taking down (and then putting back up) a Thanksgiving poster he'd made that said the thing he was most thankful for was Jesus. The majority decided to throw out the case on a technicality; Alito protested that the child's claim should go forward. (C.H. v. Oliva, 2000)

Criminal Law

Allowed a federal probation office in Delaware to condition the release of a man who had pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography on his willingness to submit to random polygraph tests about whether he'd had impermissible contact with children. (United States v. Warren, 2003)
Dissented from a refusal to grant police officers immunity from a civil suit brought by a mother and her 10-year-old daughter who'd each been strip-searched because they lived in the home of a suspected drug dealer. Alito felt the police had behaved reasonably because the warrant led them to conclude that there was probable cause to search everyone in the house for drugs. (Doe v. Groody, 2004)

Habeas Corpus

Granted the habeas claim of an African-American defendant who sought to introduce evidence that a juror made a racist remark after the jury reached its verdict. (Williams v. Price, 2003)

Abortion

Dissented from a decision holding that Pennsylvania could not require women to inform their husbands before getting abortions. Alito argued that because the law only required the husbands to have notice and did not give them a veto over their wives' decisions, it did not pose an "undue burden" for women. This approach was rejected by the Supreme Court. (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1991)

Agreed that an immigration judge was within his discretion to find not credible an application for asylum based on China's forced-abortion policy. (Xue-Jie Chen v. Ashcroft, 2004)

Victory, but for who?

Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court today, with whoops of 'got the bitch' from myself, but who is this a victory for?

Harriet Miers nomination confused a lot of people. There was definitely no clarity on the issues at hand. One could see evidence of her being a staunch right winger, then there was hints of gay rights, or at least no fire and brimstone comments against gays.

Right wing conservatives certainly did not like her nomination. They didn't like the fact that they couldn't prove she was a conservative through a paper trail, and Bush told the country we 'had to trust him' in picking someone who shared his political and judicial philosophy, which obviously many far righters were not prepared to do.

But are we to take from this, however, that she was not a clear cut far right conservative? Bush said she shared his philosophy, which has been proved to be of the far right persuasion, ala the now dead Defense of Marriage amendment, the Patriot act and tax cuts for the rich. However, Democratic Minority leader Senator Harry Reid praised her nomination, and even today blamed far right religious fanatics in the republican party for trampling on Harriet Miers nomination. So was Harriet the best liberal appeasement we could have expected from the Bush White House? Will Bush now appoint a clear cut Far Righter such as Edith Jones or Priscilla Owen? Or will Bush take this as the opportunity to appoint a real consensus candidate such as Edith Clement or even possibly Alberto Gonzales, who has shown to be moderate in teen abortions anyway, but has been criticized by Democrats for his approval of torture and of the unconstitutional 'Patriot Act'?

The shortlived Harriet Miers nomination, however, could also highlight the complete incompetentcy of the Bush administration in proposing a candidate which angers his base, has absolutely zero judicial experience, a limited knowledge of Constitutional law, and an inherent bias and questionable independence in dealing with any case which involved the Bush administration.

Miers owed just about every job she has had to George Bush, and would also have owed her place in US history and to become one of the most important women in America to Bush, thus compromising her ability to be independent should a case arise involving Bush, or should Bush ever appear before the Supreme Court after being impeached.

Could Bush have been so stupid? It is almost unbelievable that Bushes brain, Karl Rove, would have let him pick a person like this. Rove must have known that she would have been contentious to the Republican base despite Bushes' continued pleas that she believes the same things as him, and her being religious. Puting aside the total uncostitutional factor in nominating someone because of their 'religious belief's' why on earth would he have wanted to have someone controlling the Swing Vote on the Supreme Court who's only qualification was that she was an ally?

In a seemingly unrelated story, Washington is waiting to hear who is going to be indicted in the CIA-Plame case. Karl Rove, the man behind Bush and Scooter Libby, Cheney's CoS, are likely to become criminal defendants. It may become clear during their trial, if they are indicted, that it was the Vice President himself who authorized the leak, as it seems unbelievable that Libby or Rove would be able to authorize this, and as Libby received information from Cheney just before he met with reporters. It seems even more unlikely to me that Dick Cheney would have leaked the name without even informing the President.

So if we hypothetically follow this leak up the chain of command, there is the possibility that Bush was aware of, or authorized the leaking of Plames name as a CIA agent to discredit her husband, a harsh critic of the Presidents Iraq policy. Therefore were this to come out in any criminal case involving Rove and Libby, the President would face impeachment at the hands of the Supreme court, and of course, it would be in the Presidents intrestes to have an Associate Justice who owed everything she had to Bush.

Now of course this is all just an idea, but it is an idea that makes sense to me. I don't understand why Bush would nominate someone who so angered his base, and got approval from Democrats otherwise? Where is that Political Capital he promised to spend in appointing a hardline ideologue? But an ideologue who is against abortion is possibly not someone who is in favour of Presidents breaking the law to discredit political opposition.

In summary, I believe the President, George W. Bush authorized the leak of Valerie Plames name, and then nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to protect his back as the Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, closed in on the top White House staff.

The withdrawal of Miers nomination may not be directly related to this, however, as conservatives disliked her anyway, and many people questioned her experience, or total lack of. But I think the withdrawal does represent a huge blow to the safety of Bush in the CIA case, and a President in trouble. A Victory, perhaps, for all the Bushwhacker Liberals out there who want to see Bush exposed and convicted for the criminal he is.

Sooner or Later...Iran

President Mahmoud Ahmandinejad today called for the State of Israel to be "wiped of the map" on the same day that suicide bombers again struck the Jewish State. These comments are horrid and evil, and a totally obvious incitement for Islamic Jihad, Hamas and the Iranian group Hezbollah to attack Israel and its people with all the ferocity it has seen in the past. This is completley and totally unnaceptable. For a head of state to say that another sovreign nation to be destroyed is a public warning in the straightest of terms to prepare for war, and another holocaust of Jews in their own nation, by a hardline controlled Iran.

When Ahmandinejad won the election, a man whoes opinion I greatly respect, Sky New's foreign affairs editor Tim Marshall, said that although this man was a hardliner, we shouldnt expect to see him declaring war on Israel right away. Well it looks like the time has come.

As we all know, Iran has had some Nuclear problems. It says it is for peaceful purposes, but I had my doubts, as did many, many people. I truly believe this is why Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, to attack Israel, and as the President has so openly stated, to wipe it off the map.

So what can actaully be done about Iran? It is a very difficult issue. There is no chance of action in the UN. Bush wouldnt think about it, and Putin is still playing cold war politics in supporting Syria and Iran.

I highly doubt the world could stomach another Iraq in its neighbour. Britain could not go to war with Iran. It could not be done by the Labour party without Labour destroying itself. Just rember the opposition we had in the UK to involvement in Iraq, and the protests would be doubelled, they would certanily bring down the government. If Blair was still there when the Iranian issue reachd a head, he really couldnt put his name to another of what people would see as 'Bushes wars.' Indeed, Jack Straw has said that action against the Islamic Republic is 'inconcievable.'

However, I think Iran, unlike Iraq at the time, represents a great danger to the world, as well as its people. Iraq was a threat to itself, and i still think we did the right thing in going into Iraq, allthough totally for the wrong reasons. To say that we should get rid of Saddam because he is an evil dictator, yes, i agree, but the 45 minute claim, and everything else, well, lets not get into that, but in short, Britain, and Europe especialy, will not follow America into a pre-emptive war against Iran

Iran does represent a danger to its people through its hardline government. I saw a picture of two young boys recently being hung for homosexuality. Disgusting. I cant bring myself to talk anymore about that issue, its too, too horible.

Iran represents a dager to the world, and more specificly, Israel. If Iran got the bomb, that would certanily be extremley dangerous, although I am confident Isreal would do everything in its power to prevent that, and I have no doubt that Isrealis and Americans are working tirelessly in Iran to prevent that.

There is a limit to what can be done through espionage and diplomacy however. And the latter seems to be getting us nowhere. We then have to come to the conclusion that Iran will eventually become nuclear capable, which then leaves us with few options.

The most obvious I think, would be Special Forces targetting Nuclear facilities, possibly with Isreali air strikes to surgically cripple Irans nuclear arsenal, but this could prove a diplomatic nightmare, possibly full scale war with Iran, and if even one missile was not destroyed, it would leave Isreal vulnerable. However I think this sort of action might propmt Iran to invade Irag, or at least the Shia areas anyway, and be possibly welcomed by the overwhelming Shia majority there. Iran has already proven a tit for tat ideaology to foreign affairs. Diplomatic pressure vis a vis the nuclear issue resulted in the deaths of British soldiers at the hands of Iran, and then the bombings in south western Iran, which their government acused the UK of involvement in, which is certanily a possibility. Therefore a crippling of Irans nuclear weapons program could see the Revolutionary Guard rolling across the oilfields of Basra, with pictures of cheering crowds on the TV.

The second option is a full scale inviasion of Iran, and thus another Iraq. This could in no way be done untill Iraq is stabilised, which could be a long way away. The British and Americans just dont have the non-consciption manpower to launch that kind of inviasion. And as I doubt we would get involved anyway, America would have to go it alone, and I cant see Bush getting away with introducing conscription to pre-emptivley invade Iran, i think it is inconcievable. The backlish would be astounding. It would just prove that all opposition has been stamped out in America if Bush could pull that off. The only way we could handle Iran millitarily is through a totally worldwide coalition. With UN, Russian, European, even Chinese support, and the only way I can see that happening is if Iran attacks Israel with Nuclear weapons. By then it could be too late, and Isreal may have been wiped off the map, as Mahmoud Amedinejad wants. However I am sure Isreal would respond in kind, which would blow up the powder keg that the middle east has been every day for so long.

I cant see anyway to peacefully resolve this issue soon. The Iranian president has fired off a warning shot, and we have to respond in kind. Jack Straw is going to give an Iranian diplomat a telling off, but Nato should admit Isreal in, thus giving Iran a clear signal that if they were to attack Isreal, then the force of the free world will bear down on it.

However things, as they usually are, will be far more murky than that, with Iran supporting more terrorist attacks against the Jewish State and British troops, while Jack Straw gives them a right seeing too, but, sooner or later, we have to deal decisevley with Iran.

Hyperbole

Someone once commented on my use of millions of hyperboles, so heres my best one. To put it in context, this is how much sum cool chick i was once good friends with smoked...

not even a 19th century steel mill with columns of children with sooted faces marching in for work to create the largets oceanliner the world has ever seen and working at it for 19years dya in day out till they reach the point of exhaustian and are thrown into the furnace could equall the Co2 output of my aileen!

I consider it a fine piece of wit? (hehe...geddit?)

...Personal Update...

Well The DeLay post below has been my first one in months, and i heartily apologise to my fan. But I am back, at least for a while, to spouting liberal bile into the WWW with every despicable, anti-bush feeling in my same-sex liking body.

Anyway ill let you know what ive been doing. Did pretty good in my exams! 2 A's and 2 B's!! failed french though...ahh well, je ne ce...eh...no wonder i failed ay? But me got on A im Engblish! Woohoo! and in History of course, i still reckon i got full marks like i did in the prelim (go the poof)

And another big addition, well the addition of the other half of my mind, heart, body and soul. The wonderful, adorable, gorgous Scott! My Australian boyfriend!

Well in the summer, just after i stopped posting probably, went to Australia, Perth, in WA on holiday with ma dad, step mum and wee bro adam. During our time their i just fell in love with the place, its so gorgous, so amazing. So i decided to stay for three months, as my visa permitted, and maybe travlel round oz, then my dad has a friend who owns a bar in spain in which i could work in too. So i decided to take a year out before Uni to live my life in other places. I was getting fed up of Glasgow, although i didnt get to go like clubbing and pubbing all the time their, coz i wasnt 18, i have been to some clubs in glasgow, such as Fury Murrys and Bennets, and I know what their like. Entertaining, but really fufilling. And I was going from boyfriend to boyfriend and i just couldnt find the right person.

As it turns out, the right person was on the other side of the world, and actually at that particualr time, three weeks before we met, was telling his friends he would love to have a boyfriend with a scottish or irish accent. Well babe, hows this : "Alrighty their, ah pihnt of Guiness an' wheres mhe loocky charms?

Anyway despite the best efforts of laura and andy and angy and nicola and clairey and the rest to get me to come home, home is now a nice new flat in South Perth, WA, Australia. With my amazing boyfriend, and may i say, my last boyfriend ever, Scott.

Im in Glasgow right now, had to come back about a month ago coz i was kicked out of my stepmums dads house coz i was gay, and couldnt stay at scotts parents forever, altho they were so nice in puttin me up, anyway, will be taking off from Glasgow Airport on the 13th november for a life with Scott, a job with Greenpeace, and the world at my feet.

Dont DeLay, Convict Today!

Former Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay, as we all know, is facing trial on charge of laundering money through the national Republican party to Texas legislators campaigns. Because of this, the GOP managed to take the Texan state congress, then gerrymandered out of all proportion the boundouries so it would be near impossible for the Democrats to take back the Texan legislative assembleys.

On the face of it, this is a totally and absolutley abhorrent crime to commit. Getting elected through illegal campaign funds, then changing the rules of the game to hold on to power. Tbis could be true os some third world country, but surley not the United States of America?

What makes this seem even worse, is that the perpetrator was until recently, the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives of the United States! One of the most important jobs in the nation, on of the most influential and the one with great responsibilitys to the nation, and the job was held by a man who has commited crimes against Democracy, and wishes to deny the political opposition their voice, which is true of many, many dictators, not least some in the Republican Party.

That should not, must not be the way business is conducted in the United States; its just not on.
And not only this, with the trial starting, DeLay has demanded a new judge because Judge Bob Perkins, a supporter of Kerry, the Democrats and MoveOn.org, is a supporter of Kerry, the Democrats and MoveOn.org!!

THAT is also not how we do buisness in America. First of all, a judge must apply the law, as it is written, fairly, accuratley, and punnish appropriatley those who break the law. This demand for a new judge, and the fact that the demand is being taken seriousley, has vast and scary consequences for America. It suggests that a republican judge may throw out the case, or a democrat judge would give too harsh a punnishment. And it seems to me if the former Majority Leader believes that having judges of different political view points will produce different results, then the judiciary is not independent or fair. And that is really not on.

Does this mean a Republican supporting judge would hand out the death penalty to say, a teenage first offence drunk driving conviction because the judge wanted to make an example? That is really not fair, that is obvious. Judges, in their work, cannot, under any circumstances, take politics into account, or take their own feelings on a matter into account. IT IS NOT FAIR.

This also stems to the Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers. She has not been a judge before, and Bush has actually said that he has nominated her for her religious and moral stances, not for her ability to judge and apply the constitution. So why does he think he can do this? Why can he rip the bottom out of the idea of liberty and justice for all in America? That, however, is a different rant.

Rep. Tom DeLay is the personification of what is going wrong in Bushes America. The Judge cannot be repalced, as Democrats understand the idea of fair trials. If DeLay hasnt done anything wrong, he has nothing to fear from a liberal judge. However, I am going to skip the trial and give my verdict that DeLay is guilty, although this is not a legal opinion, only a personal opinion based on facts given by the newsmedia, and he should be convicted without Delay.