While George W. Bush on his \"Hey I wasn\'t so bad … really I wasn\'t!\"\' book tour going on, we can now look back at “some” of the Bush Presidency. Using hindsight we know that he has admitted to war crimes, was tortured by his mother as a kid, and was called a liar by former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. While these are just some of the egregious acts that Dubya was behind, maybe the greatest attack on our country was appointing Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court.

As if Chief justice Roberts, committing commiting perjury in his confirmation hearings, and blatantly overstepping in his Citizens United ruling. Now comes word that Justice Alito has been been fundraising for right wing causes. When asked about this recently he gave the glib answer of:

“It’s not important that I’m here,” Alito reportedly told Fang.

The Code of conduct for a United States Judge says differently:

a justice should not “solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.”

So when we have Supreme Court Judges blatantly disregarding the law, and this is not the only time, then truly what hope is there for anyone else. The democrats are too timid to speak up and try and stop this, and the republicans just want power and could care less about the rule of law.

As my hero Thomas Paine said: “These are the times that try men’s souls.”

5 Responses to losing my faith…

  1. Anon says:

    Wow…you covered a lot of ground.

    The story about Barbara Bush keeping her fetus/baby in a jar is very disturbing. What was her doctor thinking letting her leave with her fetus/baby in a jar? What was she thinking when she showed her fetus/baby to her young son? She always did seem a little off IMO. Kind of cold or detached.

  2. Anon says:

    The story about Anita Hill is interesting…in light of another woman who used to work for (or with) Clarence Thomas coming out and basically verifying Anita Hill’s accusations against Thomas. It’s (also) disturbing to think a man like Clarence “Long John Silver’s” Thomas sits on the Supreme Court of the United States.

  3. Super Id says:

    “a justice should not “solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.”

    Nice try but by the express lanaguage the Code of Ethics only applies to:

    “This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges. Certain provisions of this Code apply to special masters and commissioners as indicated in the “Compliance” section. The Tax Court, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have adopted this Code.”

  4. Super Id says:

    “As if Chief justice Roberts, committing commiting perjury in his confirmation hearings”

    As the article PP cites states:

    “This is neither well-advised nor plausible,” said Geoffrey R. Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. “Nominees may not perjure themselves, of course, but nothing in Roberts’ testimony along these lines can fairly be characterized as perjury.

  5. Proud Progressive says:

    SID see that is why I fear for our country. Do you really think the rules should only apply to the “lesser” judges? or do you think the SCOTUS should be held to a higher standard than anyone else? I personally feel, that since they are the most powerful people in the world, they should be held to THE highest standard.

    As for the impeachment proceedings he obviously lied in his confirmation hearings and gave the most activist ruling since bush v gore in 2000. As Justice Stevens wrote:

    He pointed to former Justice John Paul Stevens’s dissent in the case, in which he said the Citizens United case was not properly brought before the Supreme Court. “This procedure is unusual and inadvisable for a court,” Stevens said of the process. “Our colleagues’ suggestion that ‘we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell,” ante, at 1, would be more accurate if rephrased to state that ‘we have asked ourselves’ to reconsider those cases.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.