Bravo Alito!
- Thursday, January 28, 2010, 9:47
- Blogs, Krusty Konservative
- 855 views
- 34 comments
The one Supreme Court Justice that I admire most is Antonin Scalia. Time and time again, you can count on Scalia to adhere to the United States Constitution and the original intent of our founders. I have to admit however, that Justice Alito just vaulted up my list.
As we have all either seen or heard, Justice Alito mouth the words “not true” when President Obama had the audacity to scold the Supreme Court for its 5-4 ruling that overturned a portion of McCain-Feingold. What was in bad taste is that the President did so not in a press conference, but while the Justices sat directly in front of the President during his speech.
President Obama’s comments were repugnant. Can you imagine how President Obama would react if Chief Justice Roberts, the head of the judicial branch, publicly criticized the president is a similar fashion? I’m sure Obama’s reaction would make Alito’s outburst look tame.
If Americans learned one thing about President Obama in his first State of the Union speech, is that he needs a lesson in class. Usually the State of the Union speech is about our country and where we are going and the obstacles we must overcome. President Obama used the speech to blame former President Bush for all that ails his presidency, take pot-shots at Republicans for not going along with an agenda that the American people reject, and lay blame on the 41 Republicans in the Senate because they can now block his agenda.
The American people have had enough of this. The gut reaction that Justice Alito showed last night was refreshing. President Obama and his supporters have no one to blame but themselves for Alito’s outburst. The President was out of line.
Obama’s first State of the Union speech is the worse one I have seen in my lifetime. It was awful. Well unless you’re gay and in the military.
About the Author
Krusty Konservative has written 224 stories on this site.
Herschel Krustofski is the pseudonym for the anonymous author of Krusty Konservative, a blog which focuses on Iowa Politics. Created in February of 2006, Krusty Konservative is the undisputed heavyweight champion of the Iowa blogosphere. Since its conception, Krusty Konservative has never shied from tackling controversial issues, and providing insight to the inner workings of Republican politics in Iowa.
34 Comments on “Bravo Alito!”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Wait….so when the supreme court invalidates a law passed by the legislature…you don’t think they are activist judges? Shouldn’t we put this to a “vote” and let the people speak on this issue? Or is that only when it’s about gay rights?
I’m so confused!
> Well unless you’re gay and in the military.
Man, I hate queers too. I wish we could take *all* their rights away. They deserve it. And we all *know* gay people shouldn’t be a part of the 1% of Americans that serve our country in the armed forces. They probably would just want to wear pink digi-cams anyway and try to screw the drill instructors…
Stupid “god” that made them that way. He’s so stupid. And so are all the activist judges that keep calling our laws that discriminate against gay people “unconstitutional”. The only time I want the supreme court to make a decision is when they do what I want.
Then I’ll write a blog post about how *brave* they are for invalidating legislative decisions. But if they invalidate legislative decisions discriminating against gay people, then (and only then) will I claim that the people must be heard and have a chance to put this to a vote.
Hopefully you picked up my sarcasm previously. I don’t intend to specifically call out Krusty with this, he generally pretty constitutionally minded on issues. However, he brought up a related issue, so I posted here.
Yes, lets give three cheers for one of the guys who helped drown out the voice of real people with corporate campaign dollars.
Yes, Jeff. Where are the idiots calling for an Executive Branch decree nullifying the McCain/Feingold SCOTUS decision.
Don’t forget last year’s SCOTUS decision nullifying Washington, DC’s handgun law. I don’t hear conservatives demanding to let the people vote on that one.
Activist judges are bad, unless they’re our (ie: rethug) activist judges.
This recent decision about the campaign finance laws was about uholding freedom of speech. The DC gun decision from 2008(not last year) was about upholding the rigth to keep and bear arms. Both these rights are clearly in the constitution. Judges act improperly when they smuggle something like “gay marriage” into the constitution though an “evolving understanding” of vague phrases like “due process” and “equal protection”. That is the big difference between the Iowa Supreme Courts ridiculous decision and those other cases.
There’s also the fact that the other two decision involved the federal constitution. The people who disagree with any of these decisions are free to try amending either constitution, though the people don’t get to directly vote(as far as I know) on amending the federal constitution.
Of course, I meant “the right to keep and bare arms”.
I guess it is “bear”
Screw it. I’m just going to repost the whole thing:
This recent decision about the campaign finance laws was about upholding freedom of speech. The DC gun decision from 2008(not last year) was about upholding the right to keep and bear arms. Both these rights are clearly in the constitution. Judges act improperly when they smuggle something like “gay marriage” into the constitution though an “evolving understanding” of vague phrases like “due process” and “equal protection”. That is the big difference between the Iowa Supreme Court’s ridiculous decision and those other cases.
There’s also the fact that the other two decisions involved the federal constitution. The people who disagree with any of these decisions are free to try amending either constitution, though the people don’t get to directly vote(as far as I know) on amending the federal constitution.
Bigred: Oh, I get it. Those darn vague phrases like “due process” and “equal protection.” Guess what cornhusker, those darn vague phrases that are causing a bunch in your shorts are words that are contained in our bill of rights. Your thinking is a perfect example of how you are all for Executive invalidation of judicial decisions until one of your sacred cows is upheld by the court. That’s why Executive invalidation is tantamount to tyranny.
OH come now you disingenuous or ignorant libs. Let’s look at them side by said. First, the court STRUCK DOWN an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW. This was a RECENT law passed by Congress. Prior TO this law, corporations COULD do as they can now do ONCE AGAIN. This is not “activism” or “legislating”. This is UPHOLDING the right to free press.
Now, has the Congress PASSED a law CHANGING the status of Marriage. NO. It’s gays who WANT such a law but cannot get it. So it’s GAYS who are using the courts to CREATE a law where NONE has ever existed before OUTSIDE the Legislative system.
If, for the same example, Homosexuals were ALWAYS considered normal in marriage tradition and law, and then ONE DAY the Congress said NOPE. NO MORE OF THAT…. Then and ONLY then, would you have a comparison.
But, it would be weak at that… because Free Speech IS a historical liberty and an enumerated Guarantee… Where as Sodomy is not so.
In America we want Moral Natural Law Upholding Original Intend Strict Constructionist Judges. Otherwise, you just have made up as you go along laws.
My Cordless Drill will be asking for it’s first amendment rights next week, I expect every to support it’s cause. It plans to donate as many screws at it can to the campaigns this fall.
Waywardson, when the State passed the DOMA law, It took the gender neutral marriage laws of the state and redefined them by adding a qualification of 1 man and 1 woman that the court found to be unconstitutional.
No Wayward, it’s not about being lib or for that matter conservative. It’s a matter of recognizing that our judiciary is a co-equal branch of government whose job it is to interpret laws and interpret our constitution. The whole notion of Executive veto over judicial decisions, especially decisions that interpret the constitution has never been a part of our history. You fail to realize what is so clear to you is not clear to others. That is the gist of constitutional interpretation. Your statement that free speech is somehow different than equal protection is baseless–both are protections guaranteed by our bill of rights. If you want to change the constitution to discriminate against gays, then your remedy is to amend the constitiution. Go have at it but don’t insult us with this gibberish about Executive decrees. It’s one thing to be a conservative but don’t be a stupid conservative.
By the way Waywardson, being gay doesn’t mean that a person has no sense of morality or gives up morality. Also, being gay isn’t against natural law because being gay is simply another natural expression of sexuality which occurs through out all animal life on this planet.
good lord krusty, what a hypocrite and you don’t even understand why. I guess it is all right to overturn basically 100 years of law, ignore stare decisis on the basis that there had been spirited dissents on this issue, as long as you approve of the decision. and god only knows why, all this country needs is more money coming in from corporations and unions to control politicians and elections. However, if a court overturns a statute that you approve of, they are activist judges and should be thrown out of their jobs. (see you comments on varnum) at least be consistant and call for the five conservative judges you ruled this way to be impeached.
Silence
VV: You are so delusional. This is sad. There is nothing wholesome about homosexuality. It is a destructive, perverse lifestyle and you’re only trying to convince yourself it is normal.
Stay away from young people.
and oh, I forgot, if the court overturns a gun ban that congress passed, that isn’t activism either, because again, you agree with it. the hypocracy runs so deep on this board.
Silence
What is even more ironic about this decision, is four of the five judges who ruled this way, aren’t exactly known as defenders of free speech. I also think a former con law professor has a pretty good handle on what the court did. What is really funny about this decision, is roberts in his rational that stare decisis can be ignored when there are spirited dissents, basically set a precedent to overturn all of the many 5-4 decisions the court has made over the last 20-30 years, including the ruling he just made. They almost always have a spirited dissent. He just through stare decisis out the door, and opened the door to what krusty and his kind would refer to as “judicial activism”, overturning all kinds of precedent and legislation.
Silence
Deace, many people would say you are the one who should stay away from young people with your destructive and perverse logic.
Silence
Deace–why you hate gays is beyond me. I suggest you read Matthew and embrace his teachings on unconditional love. You and your ilk who cherry-pick scriptures to support your hate is truly sad and makes a mockery of Christ’s teachings.
By the way, Deace, point to me one word Christ has said where he condemns homosexuals. I need to be edified.
MIE, unforunately, deace and his kind skip over the red lines in the bible to the ones he chooses to take out of context to fit his perverse and destructive logic. In some ways, you could say that deace is an activist christian, cherry picking bible verses to “overturn” Jesus’s actual teachings. lol
Silence
> By the way, Deace, point to me one word Christ has said where he condemns homosexuals. I need to be edified.
Who cares? The Bible has nothing to do with our rights as Americans, nor should it.
“Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” –Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779
> You are so delusional. This is sad. There is nothing wholesome about homosexuality. It is a destructive, perverse lifestyle and you’re only trying to convince yourself it is normal.
> Stay away from young people.
This is a dangerously idiotic statement. This is why I am often repulsed by religion, because DVFO would not have this opinion BUT for religion. For all the good religion does, it is outweighed by all the ignorant hatred spewed by many of its sheep.
Jeff: It does you no good to be in denial of the dangers of homosexuality. Of course, my religious beliefs tell me it is wrong but plain old common sense also tells us that this is unnatural and we know it is dangerous.
There is no need to be defensive. Most people have the attitude of live-and-let-live. That describes my attitude. I want you to stop. I will tell you your mortal soul is in danger and your physical life is in danger. I don’t have to tell you that. You already know it. I have never spewed hatred toward you or any other homosexual.
Frankly, the word “hate” is also being overworked. You’re trying to make yourself out to be some kind of victim when in fact you are not.
Jeff: Anyone reading my posts over the past year knows about my aversion to using politics as a mechanism to witness one’s faith. First, conservatism in the classical sense has no time for rigid adherence to ideology. Remember Burke in formulating the foundation of modern conservatism was reacting to excesses of the French Revolution. Those that attempt to force their religious beliefs upon others through the political process are no different than the Jacobins. Secondly and as a corollary to the first propostition, conservatism should focus its efforts on problem solving. We DO have a problem with the health care system. We DO have too many abortions. We DO have too much unemployment. All of these problems require thought and sensible solutions, not unthoughtful religious-based reactions which seem the norm on these blogs. Finally, the bedrock of conservatism is constant vigilance against governmental intrusion upon our personal lives. The religious whack jobs talk a good game about keeping government out of our lives until its time to come down on those that don’t adhere to their religious beliefs. Then its game on with cameras in the bedroom.
> There is no need to be defensive. Most people have the attitude of live-and-let-live. That describes my attitude. I want you to stop. I will tell you your mortal soul is in danger and your physical life is in danger. I don’t have to tell you that. You already know it. I have never spewed hatred toward you or any other homosexual.
Ok, glad to hear you say that. I can support that you have your own faith and opinions on morality, but don’t want to simply legislate them at the cost of another’s liberty.
Also, I am not a homosexual…I am a man, that is married to a woman. Remember, you don’t have to be gay to support homosexual rights.
DVFO, All sexual activity is dangerous to some extent. A straight person is just as likely to get AIDS or any number of other STD’s as a homosexual. If you don’t believe me, then look at the disease rates in Africa where AIDS / HIV spreads faster through the straight population than the gay one.
@MIE – Anyone reading my posts over the past year knows about my aversion to using politics as a mechanism to witness one’s faith.
I know that, and I very much respect that.
> Finally, the bedrock of conservatism is constant vigilance against governmental intrusion upon our personal lives.
EXACTLY!!
> The religious whack jobs talk a good game about keeping government out of our lives until its time to come down on those that don’t adhere to their religious beliefs. Then its game on with cameras in the bedroom.
I couldn’t possibly agree more. This is dead on.
> It does you no good to be in denial of the dangers of homosexuality. Of course, my religious beliefs tell me it is wrong but plain old common sense also tells us that this is unnatural and we know it is dangerous.
Two virgin women having intercourse with each other is no more dangerous than 2 virgin men having intercourse with each other, which is no more dangerous than a virgin man and virgin woman having intercourse together. *THIS* is common sense and we both know this.
Promiscuity is what is dangerous, not the manner of intercourse.Unless you are arguing that intercourse with a man at anytime is dangerous, in which case you better not tell my wife.
(Apparently I can’t write the word s-e-x without it getting flagged as spam…note that 3 = E)
Or maybe you are arguing that anal s3x is dangerous…well then you better tell quite a few heterosexual couples about that as well as gay men….also if your beef is only with anal s3x, then that means you are for Lesbian marriage, right?
The problem with the argument against homosexual marriage, is that when you break it down, it turns out that it really is just the argument that you think it’s “gross” or “unnatural”…whatever that means.
Oral s3x is just as unnatural as anal s3x…but you wouldn’t be real popular in this state (or country) if you tried to outlaw that.
@MIE – By the way, Deace, point to me one word Christ has said where he condemns homosexuals. I need to be edified.
Well, God says a lot of hateful things in the Bible, and calls for death as the punishment for the following (I cited sources so you can look it up):
- Exodus 35:2 – God demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath day
- Deuteronomy 21:18-21 – God demands that we kill disobedient teenagers
- Leviticus 20:13 – God demands the death of homosexuals
- Deuteronomy 22:13-21 – God demands that we kill girls who are not virgins when they marry
- …there are *many* more, but I’ll leave it with these examples
So, don’t feel bad if Christians want to put gays to death…it’s only what they believe. However, you *can* call them out for not applying their death penalties uniformly to all offenses in which their Bible calls for it.
Just more examples of why we have a wall of separation between Church and State.