Alito, Schlafly, slavery
January 23, 2006
--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).
As for why to fight Alito, what the New York Times said. I got nothing better than that.
Perhaps the most important piece of the entire editorial is this:
"The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around this nomination. But there is no reason to believe that Alito is any more popular than the president who nominated him. Outside a small but vocal group of hard-core conservatives, America has greeted the nomination with a shrug - and counted on its senators to make the right decision."Elsewhere, in a column published in humorously right wing Human Events Online, Phyllis Schlafly concludes her rant in favor of the court's adherence to her belief system with this fresh perspective (emphasis mine):
"When liberals rant about the need for an independent judiciary, what they really want is a judiciary independent of the Constitution. Because Samuel Alito said during his interrogation that he respects the "text" of the U.S. Constitution, we trust he means what he said and will not succumb to the liberal equivocation that the Constitution is an evolving document that judges can reinterpret."Wasn't the lack of reinterpretation of the Constitution what led to the Dred Scott decision reinforcing the status of black Americans as property? In other words, according to the principles that Schlafly believes in, wasn't Dred Scott a good decision?
--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).
