Supreme Court Guts Brown v. Board of Education

Today, the headline would read "Supreme Court Used to Ban Segregation in Public Schools"
When I wrote "Supreme Court Overturns Brown v. Board of Education" yesterday, I knew that technically that wasn't true. The decision only guts Brown. That's the practical effect. Segregation is de facto OK under the new ruling. So I was overstating the case, just a tad.

But I knew I was on to something when I read this headline in the Wall Street Journal today: Race and the Roberts Court: Brown v. Board of Education has not been overturned. If the cretins writing editorials for the Journal felt the need to write that piece with that headline, you know that the opposite is true. (It's like Bush talking about progress in Iraq. Every time he opens his mouth, you know he's lying.)

And I'd like to pat myself on the back, because I saw this coming two years ago when I wrote this:

Leahy, Kohl and Feingold (D - Spineless) Vote for Roberts (September 22, 2005)

Senate Panel Endorses Roberts's Nomination as Chief Justice

Dear Senators Leahy, Kohl and Feingold:

F**k you. When "Justice" Roberts starts eroding civil rights protection and votes to overturn Roe v. Wade, it's your fault. Spineless bastards.

Sincerely,

truth

And with this post, I'd just like to extend a hearty FUCK YOU to all 22 Democrats who voted for Chief Injustice Roberts, the author of yesterday's horrible decision:

* Max Baucus (D - MT)
* Jeff Bingaman (D - NM)
* Robert Byrd (D - WV)
* Thomas Carper (D - DE)
* Kent Conrad (D - ND)
* Christopher Dodd (D - CT)
* Byron Dorgan (D - ND)
* Russell Feingold (D - WI)
* Tim Johnson (D - SD)
* Herb Kohl (D - WI)
* Mary Landrieu (D - LA)
* Patrick Leahy (D - VT)
* Carl Levin (D - MI)
* Joseph Lieberman (D - CT)
* Blanche Lincoln (D - AR)
* Patty Murray (D - WA)
* Bill Nelson (D - FL)
* Ben Nelson (D - NE)
* Mark Pryor (D - AR)
* Jay Rockefeller (D - WV)
* Ken Salazar (D - CO)
* Ron Wyden (D - OR)

Dumbasses.

Supreme Court Overturns Brown v. Board of Education

George E.C. Hayes, Thurgood Marshall, and James Nabrit, congratulating each other, following Supreme Court decision declaring segregation unconstitutional (wikipedia)

Segregation is back. Today the Supreme Court ruled that cities cannot address segregation within their school systems by taking race into account in assigning students to schools. Here's the opinion (pdf file, 185 pages)

In other words, separate is equal. Again.

Chief Injustice Roberts says in his opinion that he's not overturning Brown. Right.

Here's (part of) what Justice Breyer had to say, in dissent:

These cases consider the longstanding efforts of two local school boards to integrate their public schools. The school board plans before us resemble many others adopted in the last 50 years by primary and secondary schools throughout the Nation. All of those plans represent local efforts to bring about the kind of racially integrated education that Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), long ago promised -- efforts that this Court has repeatedly required, permitted, and encouraged local authorities to undertake. This Court has recognized that the public interests at stake in such cases are "compelling." We have approved of "narrowly tailored" plans that are no less race-conscious than the plans before us. And we have understood that the Constitution permits local communities to adopt desegregation plans even where it does not require them to do so.

The plurality pays inadequate attention to this law, to past opinions' rationales, their language, and the contexts in which they arise. As a result, it reverses course and reaches the wrong conclusion. In doing so, it distorts precedent, it misapplies the relevant constitutional principles, it announces legal rules that will obstruct efforts by state and local governments to deal effectively with the growing resegregation of public schools, it threatens to substitute for present calm a disruptive round of racerelated litigation, and it undermines Brown's promise of integrated primary and secondary education that local communities have sought to make a reality. This cannot be justified in the name of the Equal Protection Clause.

Justice Stevens:

There is a cruel irony in The Chief Justice's reliance on our decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 (1955). The first sentence in the concluding paragraph of his opinion states: "Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin." This sentence reminds me of Anatole France's observation: "[T]he majestic equality of the la[w], forbid[s] rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." The Chief Justice fails to note that it was only black schoolchildren who were so ordered; indeed, the history books do not tell stories of white children struggling to attend black schools. In this and other ways, The Chief Justice rewrites the history of one of this Court's most important decisions....

The Court has changed significantly since it decided School Comm. of Boston in 1968. It was then more faithful to Brown and more respectful of our precedent than it is today. It is my firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today's decision.

The sound you just heard was Thurgood Marshall, who argued Brown v. Board of Education before the Supreme Court in 1953, rolling over in his grave.

SCOTUSblog: Court strikes down school integration plans, ends Term

I hope that the 22 Democrats who voted to put Roberts on the court are sick to their stomachs today.

Scalito Court Limits Employment Law

WaPo: Supreme Court Limits Pay Discrimination Suits
Justices Back 180-Day Deadline for Claims

Today the Supreme Court said a worker can be discriminated against for years, and if they sue for back pay, they can only get it for the preceding 180 days before they file suit. This is a massive change in prior precedent, and gives employers an incentive not to tell employees how much their co-workers are paid. How do you know you're being discriminated against if you don't know what everyone else makes? So most employers make a big point of telling employees not to tell each other what they make.

This decision ignores the practical realities of the workplace. Many workers are still on probation for the first 180 days. They're supposed to be figuring out they're being discriminated against, and hiring a lawyer, while they're trying to hold on to a new job? Ridiculous.

''This short deadline reflects Congress's strong preference for the prompt resolution of employment discrimination allegations through voluntary conciliation and cooperation,'' Alito said.

The decision was written by Strip Search Sammy Alito, and we have these weasel Democrats to thank for his presence on the court, because they voted for cloture and let Alito through:

Akaka (HI), Baucus (MT), Bingaman (NM), Byrd (WV), Cantwell (WA), Carper (DE), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lieberman (CT), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Rockefeller (WV), Salazar (CO)

In dissent, Ruth Bader Ginsburg calls on Congress to pass legislation overturning this cramped view of discrimination law; let's hope the Democrats in Congress can find a little courage on this one.

Environment 5, Bush Administration 4

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gases, pursuant to its statutory authority to regulate pollutants. Hurrah!

Already the decision has had ramifications, as today EPA reopened the state of California's petition for an exemption from the Clean Air Act so that it can reduce tailpipe emissions by 25%. The petition has been sitting in limbo for two years.

Massachusetts et al v. Envivonmental Protection Agency et al, No. 05-1120 (pdf file)

For the environment:

John Paul Stevens, writing for the Court [appointed by Gerald Ford]
Stephen G. Breyer [appointed by Bill Clinton]
Ruth Bader Ginsburg [appointed by Bill Clinton]
Anthony M. Kennedy [appointed by Ronald Reagan]
David H. Souter [appointed by George H.W. Bush]

For the Bush Administration:
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the dissent [appointed by George W. Bush]
Samuel A. Alito Jr. [appointed by George W. Bush]
Antonin Scalia [appointed by Ronald Reagan]
Clarence Thomas [appointed by George H.W. Bush]

The decision begins,

"A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species--the most important species--of a "greenhouse gas."

WaPo: High Court Faults EPA Inaction on Emissions
Critics of Bush Stance on Warming Claim Victory

The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration yesterday for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, siding with environmentalists in the court's first examination of the phenomenon of global warming.

The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming.

WaPo: The Case of the Term Goes Against the White House

Some Reasoned Dems Oppose Filibuster

I'm in the "If you don't fight, you can never win" camp and support the attempt to filibuster Strip Search Sammy Alito. I also believe that we must take principled stands. This is right. Alito is a right-wing idealogue who has no intention of changing any of his core beliefs against checks on executive power and abortion rights. I am in favor of filibuster because the Constitution is at stake.

There are some persuasive voices on the other side. I don't agree with their conclusion, but I agree with their take on the players and the strategy.

Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast: Who said the blogosphere is homogeneous?

Sam Alito, or someone like him, was a foregone conclusion when John Kerry took his $14 million of leftover campaign money and left Ohio, while his running mate was still telling supporters that the ticket would not give up until every vote was counted.

[]

The time for hue and cry was November 2004.

John Aravosis at Americablog: Why I Oppose the Filibuster

4. So the question remains, what possible good comes from the Democrats launching THIS filibuster now? No one has been able to answer that question for me. If you are going to support a filibuster, you support it because you think it is going to, on average, help and not hurt Democrats, when all is said and done. You do not do it just because it feels good. That's political masturbation. It's not politics. It's not smart. It achieves nothing, other than an endorphin high.

I'm here to make a difference in the world, not get high, and not base my political moves on what feels good. I support filibusters, or any other in-your-face political move, when they accomplish something beneficial for our side. I don't support them simply because John Kerry wants to be president, and decides to use the Netroots in a futile, unwise, half-cocked effort that he knows is bad politics, but that he runs with anyway because he wants to win the hearts of the Netroots in order to get our support for his future run at the presidency - to hell with how much damage he does to us.

The man announced the filibuster from Switzerland, people? What, he couldn't get a camera on his windsurfer? If John Kerry were serious about this filibuster he wouldn't go off gallivanting to Swizterland in the middle of it. He'd have stayed in DC, met with the million-dollar groups, met with the blogs and the grassroots, and coordinated a REAL campaign to win this, a REAL campaign to win public support, or at the very least he'd try to lose this in a way that's still "a win."

5. You don't have to win to win, but...
And let me expand a little on that last point. It's not always necessary to win in order to win. You can win by losing. Democrats have a big problem with the public. The public thinks we stand for nothing, and even if we do believe in something, we have no backbone. So, yes, I can see why some people might think this filibuster at this time meet both needs - shows we stand for something and shows we have backbone. But I'd submit to you that neither need is being met by this particular campaign.

Tell me exactly what clear message John Kerry, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the million-dollar non-profits are telegraphing to the public about why Alito is bad? Tell me, seriously, because I haven't heard any clear message at all from any of these people. We know Alito is going to overturn Roe, but the Dems and the groups are terrified to talk about abortion - even though the majority of the public supports OUR position on abortion - so that issue is gone from the debate. So again, tell me, what's the clear anti-Alito message the Dems and the groups are channeling to the public right now - the clear standing-up-for-something position they're standing up for? I can't enunciate it, and neither can you, because they don't have one.

Stop A-Lie-To

More phone numbers and addresses for contacting Senators to stop Strip Search Sammy; from dailykos. Hit the dailykos link as there may be updates and additional information:

A-LIE-TO FILIBUSTER CALL-ATHON: It Continues This Weekend!
by patrioticliberal
Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 02:13:28 AM PDT

(Note: Updates are being made as you post, in some cases, to update numbers, e-mails, links, etc. Thanks! Please recommend!!)

Yesterday, I posted a diary asking people to call their Senators to make sure that they support John Kerry and Ted Kennedy's call for a filibuster of, as Sam Seder of The Majority Report has called him, Sloppy Seconds Strip-Search A-lie-to.

It may be the weekend, but you can still fight for this cause. Yesterday afternoon, this diary was only about Ken Salazar taking tallies on how many people wished for him to support the filibuster. Later, we learned that other Senators were also taking tallies of people who call in - even people who have indicated that they may even vote for A-lie-to.

* patrioticliberal's diary :: ::
*

Below are numbers for the various offices. However, many of the voicemails are full, so use other numbers, fax, and e-mail. Please do this no matter where you live in the U.S. (And no, you don't need to lie about where you live. If they ask, be honest. If they don't, fine.) Also included in the list: people on the fence or people that we need to work on, indicated by various offices. Robert Byrd already said he would vote in support of Alito. Some offices have given out these names. We need them. If they don't want to vote "No" on cloture, ask them to "Abstain". Don't vote at all - stay home.

Here we go:

Senators You Can Contact:


* (Reports are Mary may vote for cloture!!!): Mary Landrieu (D-LA) - PHONE: (202) 224-5824 . FAX: (202) 224-9735 OR New Orleans FAX: (504) 589-4023 . OFFICES: http://landrieu.senate.gov/services/offices.cfm . WEB FORM: http://landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm .
* Kent Conrad (D-ND) - PHONE: (202) 224-2043 . He has indicated he may even vote YES on Alito! NO! At the very least, do not vote at all, Conrad! OTHER OFFICES: http://www.senate.gov/~conrad/contact.html . WEB FORM: http://www.senate.gov/~conrad/webform.html

* Tom Harkin (D-IA) - PHONE: (202) 224-3254, FAX: (202) 224-9369, http://harkin.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
District Offices: Des Moines - (515) 284-4574, Cedar Rapids - (319) 365-4504, Davenport - (563) 322-1338, Dubuque - (563) 582-2130, Sioux City - (712) 252-1550 .

* Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) - PHONE: (410) 962-4510 and FAX: (410) 962-4760 for the Baltimore office, PHONE LINES: 410-263-1805, 410-269-1650 and FAX: 410-263-5949 for the Annapolis office. PHONE: 202-224-4654 and FAX: 202-224-8858 for the D.C. office.

* Ken Salazar (D-CO) PHONE: 1-888-355-3588 press 2, or (202) 224-5852 . FAX: (202) 228-5036 OR FAX: Denver, CO (303) 455-8851 .

* Maria Cantwell (D-WA) - PHONE: (202) 224-3441 . OFFICE LOCATIONS AND NUMBERS: http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/office_locations.cfm . WEB FORM: http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/

* Mark Pryor (D-AR) - PHONE: (202) 224-2353

* Mark Dayton (D-MN) - PHONE: (888) 224-9043 . (He will vote no. But he's unsure about a filibuster.)

* Evan Bayh (D-IN) - PHONE: (202) 224-5623

* Ben Nelson (D-NE) - PHONE: (202) 224-6551 or FAX: (202) 228-0012. Ben Nelson originally stated that he would vote Yes for Alito. His office even stands by it. But they are taking a tally of people supporting the filibuster. So call.
OTHER NUMBERS: Omaha - PHONE: (402) 391-3411, FAX: (402) 391-4725. Lincoln - PHONE: (402) 441-4600, FAX: (402) 476-8753. Chadron - PHONE: (308) 430-0587. Scottsbluff: (308) 631-7614 . WEB FORM: http://bennelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

* Bill Nelson (D-FL) - PHONE: (202) 224-5274 . Bill Nelson says that he is not getting enough calls from his constituency. Even if you don't live there, call. The Republicans are calling him continously to ask him to oppose a filibuster. OTHER OFFICE NUMBERS AND FAX NUMBERS: http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/offices.cfm
WEB FORM: http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

* Robert Byrd (D-WV) - PHONE: (202) 224-3954 or (304) 343-7144 or (304) 342-5855, OR FAX: (202) 228-0002 OR FAX CHARLESTON, WV OFFICE: (304) 343-7144. http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html

* Daniel Akaka (D-HI) - RECONSIDER PLEASE! 1-888-355-3588 ask for Akaka. OTHER OFFICES: http://akaka.senate.gov/offices-b.html . E-MAIL ADDRESS: senator@akaka.senate.gov .

* Joe Lieberman (D-CT) - PHONE: (800) 225-5605 OR FAX (860) 549-8478 . WEB FORM: http://lieberman.senate.gov/contact/

* Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) - PHONE: (202) 224-2921 . WEB FORM: http://chafee.senate.gov/webform.htm

* Joe Biden (D-DE) - PHONE: (202) 224-5042 . E-MAIL FORM: http://biden.senate.gov/contact/emailjoe.cfm

* Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ) - PHONE: (202) 224-3224 ,
http://lautenberg.senate.gov/webform.html

* Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - PHONE: (202) 224-4744



* Tim Johnson (D-SD) - PHONE: (202) 224-5842

* Barack Obama (D-IL) - PHONE: (202) 224-2854 . FAX: (202) 228-4260 . PHONE (SPRINGFIELD, IL): (217) 492-5089, FAX (SPRINGFIELD, IL): (217) 492-5099 . EMAIL FORM: http://obama.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm?cat=legal

* Olympia Snowe (R-ME) - PHONE: (202) 224-5344 · Toll Free in Maine: (800) 432-1599 · Fax: (202) 224-1946 OR FAX BANGOR, MAINE OFFICE: (207) 941-9525 .

* Susan Collins (R-ME) - PHONE: (202) 224-2693 OR FAX (202) 224-2693 . FAX: (202) 224-2693 or FAX BANGOR, MAINE OFFICE: (207) 990-4604 .

* Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) - PHONE: 202-224-2551

* Republican Lamar Alexander (R-TN) - Not likely, but he's a moderate. Try? PHONE: (202) 224-4944

More will be added - no doubt. Unsure about your Senator? Call. Fax. Email. If you can visit their local office on Monday in person, even better.

As a commenter stated below, it's possible the fax machines could run out of paper, or the mailboxes could be full. But here are some other resources for you:

1. congress.org directory listing
2. Senate's member listing
3. visi.com search tool
4. ACLU's search page
5. Congressional leadership listing

So what else can you do? Host a house party. Call local TV and radio outlets. Make some noise.

Call in and watch the Young Turks filibuster-athon. They're going to be live on the air until 4:30 PM on Monday. Thom Hartmann is coming in this weekend to host, as well.
And as someone else said, actually Cedwyn - isn't it filibuster freeway blogging weekend? ;) . And a LTE weekend?


And did you know, you can fax your Senators via the Internets? http://www.tpc.int/

Call Senators, Save the Constitution

My brother and I went to Florida in 2004, monitored a polling place. That didn't work out. Spending a few hours calling a few senators is child's play in comparison.

Please call your own senators, if you don't have time to call the rest. I've read on other blogs that senators are taking and counting calls from outside their states in support of filibuster. Strip Search Sammy is a Borklette. Even the right knows this. They love him. We can stop him.

From Democrats.com: WE CAN STOP ALITO THIS WEEKEND

The last two days have been amazing.

Early Thursday afternoon, we broke the news that Senator John Kerry would lead a filibuster against Judge Sam Alito if he could get 41 Senators to sustain the filibuster. Three hours later, CNN confirmed our story.

Naturally, the White House freaked out and told Senator Bill Frist to schedule a cloture vote as quickly as possible - Monday at 4:30 p.m. - to prevent Democrats from uniting behind Kerry.

[]

At the start of the day, only Dick Durbin and Debbie Stabenow supported Kerry and Kennedy. Just before noon, Hillary Clinton's office called to say she supported us. Then Harry Reid came on board, along with Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden, Chris Dodd, and (I think) Chuck Schumer.

Most importantly, we even picked up Dianne Feinstein, who just yesterday said she opposed a filibuster.

That's 12 votes for a filibuster - and exactly 12 more votes than we had two days ago!

I believe we really can stop Alito by Monday at 4:30 p.m. - but here's what we must do.

[]

2. Keep calling the Senators who are undecided or opposed to a filibuster. You can call their DC office all weekend and leave polite but firm voicemails urging the Senators to support Kerry's filibuster. When offices open on Monday 9 a.m. ET, make another round of calls. Let's shut down the Capitol switchboard on Monday!

http://democrats.com/alito-48

3. Call the DNC (202-863-8000) and the DSCC (202-224-2447) and tell them your 2006 contributions will depend on the success of the Alito filibuster. Tell them they need to get every Democratic Senator on board.

Here are the "Filibuster 48" with their direct phone numbers. You can also use these toll-free numbers (and ask for the Senators by name): 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.

Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D- AR), 202-224-4843
Joseph I. Lieberman (D- CT), 202-224-4041
Thomas R. Carper (D- DE), 202-224-2441
Daniel K. Inouye (D- HI), 202-224-3934
Tom Harkin (D- IA), 202-224-3254
Barack Obama (D- IL), 202-224-2854
Evan Bayh (D- IN), 202-224-5623
Barbara A. Mikulski (D- MD), 202-224-4654
Paul S. Sarbanes (D- MD), 202-224-4524
Carl Levin (D- MI), 202-224-6221
Mark Dayton (D- MN), 202-224-3244
Max Baucus (D- MT), 202-224-2651
Frank Lautenberg (D- NJ), 202-224-3224
Robert Menendez (D- NJ), 202-224-4744
Jeff Bingaman (D- NM), 202-224-5521
Jack Reed (D- RI), 202-224-4642
Lincoln D. Chafee (R- RI), 202-224-2921
Patrick J. Leahy (D- VT), 202-224-4242
Maria Cantwell (D- WA), 202-224-3441
Patty Murray (D- WA), 202-224-2621
Herb Kohl (D- WI), 202-224-5653
John D. Rockefeller, IV (D- WV), 202-224-6472
James M. Jeffords (I- VT), 202-224-5141

Mark Pryor (D- AR), 202-224-2353
Ken Salazar (D- CO) , 202-224-5852
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D- DE) , 202-224-5042
Bill Nelson (D- FL), 202-224-5274
Daniel K. Akaka (D- HI) (1,), 202-224-6361
Mary Landrieu (D- LA) (1,), 202-224-5824
Byron L. Dorgan (D- ND) (1,), 202-224-2551
Kent Conrad (D- ND) (1,), 202-224-2043
Olympia Snowe (R- ME) (1,), 202-224-5344

Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551
Tim Johnson (D- SD) , 202-224-5842
Robert C. Byrd (D- WV) , 202-224-3954
Ted Stevens (R- AK) , 202-224-3004

Hell Will Freeze Over Before CNN Runs a Poll Like This About George W. Bush

QUICKVOTE

Why do you think John Kerry wants to filibuster Samuel Alito?

Conviction

Politics

Please go vote.

Personally, I think Kerry is doing it because people like me called his office and said "Oppose Alito. In favor of filibuster. Save the constitution." That's called representing your constituents.

NYTimes Calls For a Filibuster

Senators in Need of a Spine

A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

Count Me Skeptical

From alternet:

Kerry will filibuster

He said so.

Two quotes:

"As a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. helped devise a legal strategy to persuade the high court to restrict and eventually overturn Roe v. Wade , the historic decision legalizing abortion."
-- Page A01, Washington Post, 12/1/05

"I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman's right to choose..."
-- Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), AP, 6/20/03

(Kerry quote via Buzzflash)


Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.

The King of Zembla writes Kerry a "Dear John" letter.

Dear Senator Kerry,

[]

The one and only way to keep Alito from sitting on the Supreme Court for the rest of our natural lives is to filibuster his wack ass, and that means pulling your own party into line. Could you do us that little favor? Are you up to it?

Scalito Skating Onto SCOTUS

I keep meaning to mention this. Why don't the Senators on the Judiciary Committee use their staff to ask questions?

None of them could cross examine themselves out of a paper bag. They're lucky to get a question or two in during their long, bloviating soliloquies.

Now, you don't have to be a brain surgeon to examine a witness. But there are certain, simple rules.

Like, don't start out by saying "Just a few questions", when you're going to be up there for an hour.

Or don't trivialize your questions before you ask them by making only-funny-to-you self-deprecating statements (like this: BIDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand, Judge, I'm the only one standing between you and lunch, so I'll try to make this painless.)

This applies to all the Senators, not just Joe Biden (D-MBNA). But Biden was certainly the worst offender. Here's another little Biden gem:

[] But again, this is just by way of why some of us are puzzled. Because if I was aware of it, and I didn't even like Princeton...

(LAUGHTER)

I mean, I really didn't like Princeton. I was an Irish Catholic kid who thought it had not changed like you concluded it had.

I admit, one of my real dilemmas is I have two kids who went to Ivy League schools. I'm not sure my Grandfather Finnegan will ever forgive me for allowing that to happen.

But all kidding aside, I wasn't a big Princeton fan. And so maybe that is why I focused on it and no one else did. But I remember it at the time.

If you want your audience to take you seriously, be serious. Don't make stupid jokes. Is this a serious proceeding or not? Does a doctor make jokes in the middle of informing you about the medical condition of a loved one? Of course not. That would be inappropriate to the occasion. Biden's inability to stay on topic was incredibly annoying.

Also incredibly annoying, his/their habit of stating glowing conclusions about Alito's opinions and motives BEFORE asking questions in those very areas. Like this:

BIDEN: I don't think anybody thinks you are a man lacking in integrity. I don't think anybody thinks that you are a person who's not independent.

[]

So again, I'm not questioning your commitment to civil rights. What I do wonder about is, whether or not -- it's presumptuous of me to say this -- whether you fully appreciate how discrimination does work today.

Why bother questioning someone about their opinions on discrimination when you preface it like this:

I know you want to eliminate discrimination. Explain to me how that test is distinguishable from just plain old discrimination.

Well, why are we bothering to have these hearings if we "know" Scalito wants to eliminate discrimination? Isn't the reason we're here is that most of us Democrats believe, since he almost always rules against discrimination victims, that he's against the very concept of anti-discrimination law? As an employment lawyer, that's one of the reasons I don't want this jamoke on the Court. He's got his finger on the scale on the side of the employer.

Bring back the questioning by staff. Where is our Sam Dash, our Arthur Liman?

Tomorrow I'm calling my Senators and asking them to filibuster. Call yours.

President Gore Speaks

Just listened to Gore's speech on C-Span. Couldn't stop thinking, remember when our leaders were smart? Could string thoughts together? Didn't just parrot pet phrases over and over?

Last week during the Scalito hearings I was irritated to hear all the senators praising Sandra Day O'Connor to the skies. She's the bitch who gave us President Bush by stopping the counting of legitimate votes in Florida. I spit on her.

"Of course he's against abortion."

Alito's Mom: 'Of Course, He's Against Abortion'

From the mouths of old people. So we know he passes that ultra-right wing litmus test.

The lefty blogs are calling him "Scalito", for Scalia. If he is confirmed there will be five Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court.

Let's see if the Democrats in the Senate really have a spine.