The Checks and Balances Fig Leaf

By January 20, 2006Judicial Nominations

OK, here’s a quiz: How many Democrat Senators can hide behind one fig leaf? the answer is at least three — in one day, that is. Thursday, the big shockeroo (not) was that Sen. Leahy (D-VT), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced his opposition to Judge Alito’s nomination. Word was back when that he was ready to oppose John Roberts, too, but once Minority Leader Reid (D-NV) beat him to the punch and opposed Roberts — thereby breaking with Senate decorum, by not deferring to the relevant Committee chair — he changed his mind. Well, Sen. Reid played by the rules this time and so Leahy opposed Alito. it’s important to note that he did so before a crowd of folks at Georgetown University Law School. Jeez, almost sounds like theater, doesn’t it? In any event, the reason he cited was his concern over checks and balances, specifically that Judge Alito wouldn’t be enough of a check on Presidential power. Right.

As it turns out, this was the same theme sounded by Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) and later today by Sen. Salazar (D-CO), who said he’d be open-minded but apparently became way too anxious about this whole checks and balances thing to support Judge Alito. Starting to sound like the party line, no?

So after the endless questioning about ethics, the Concerned Alumni of Princeton and yes, abortion, they decide they just can’t support him because of checks and balances? Don’t get us wrong — this is a big issue, but it’s one that really hasn’t resonated until now. Must’ve come up in somebody’s polling. What’s next, riparian rights?

At the moment, it seems like an intellectual fig leaf for them all to hide behind so they can check the box marked “opposition” and curry favor with their far-left constituents. Truth is, Judge Alito is an accomplished jurist and one who will make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice.

We hope you’ll drop a note to your Senators, urge them to support him, and urge them to get this thing to a quick up-or-down vote.

Join the discussion One Comment

  • David H. Marshall says:

    A fig leaf? 28 FEBRUARY 2006. ?Congress is responsible for? Dept. of Defense (DOD) human experiments is a 5 to 4 U.S. SUPREME COURT 6/25/87 STANLEY decision![1] A 1994 U.S. Senate response [2] is: 1. That the DOD should be held accountable for their now 62 years from 1944 MANY formal preplanned ?EXPERIMENTS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO HARM?! And 2. That the injured subjects be allowed a Judicial redress NOT be prevented as a from 1950 ?INCIDENT TO SERVICE?.[3] Yet in 2006 While Given to Convicted Rapists & Murderers [4] Still Withheld Are Those Rights That a Loved One Had Prior to Service!! Reported is these subjects are DOD prevented from recognizing that the experimentation ?TO HARM? is ?associated with their military service?. As post-STANLEY duplicated by a few in congress through the Dept. of Veterans Affairs (DVA) military disabilities and lower level U.S. Courts procedure. This is demonstrated by their giving to the Secretary of the DVA the final authority on questions of law; 511(a)![5] A result is their 12/8/88 established severely restricted US veteran?s court. Which is verified by its Chief Judge?s 1994, ?THE COURT MAY NOT REVIEW THE SCHEDULE OF RATINGS FOR DISABILITIES OR THE POLICIES UNDERLYING THE SCHEDULE.?[6] Starting with the DOD premeditated injuries through the entire process there are no specific ?disabilities? criteria for: 1. Its not identified each of the many experiment?s missing then known original disabilities that underlie the resultant ?to harm? protection. 2. The no followup 62 years of updated disability effects lessons learned! And 3.This key revealing evidence is missing for subject alert, diagnostic, disability and treatment purposes, i.e., The ?schedule? omitted exposing ?to harm? policy causes with their recorded What, How, Where & When! It is not addressed within the 1st level local DVA Regional Office and at the 2nd level Board of Veterans Appeals. Then the Chief Judge?s stated no judicial review at the 3d. level special veteran?s U.S. Court. After this court?s Final Decision the 4th level only U.S. Court then accessible is also issues restricted! The 1973 National Personnel Records Center fire destroyed most of these subject?s service documents. Congress?s 1974 Privacy Act censored the names of all witnesses from those that survived. Avoided is an INDEPENDENT checks and balances review of the Executive Branch acts and associated lower level Judicial restraints. Prevented is a revisiting by the U.S. Supreme Court of the 6/25/87 STANLEY DOD ?INCIDENT? as the deliberate ?DESIGNED TO HARM?! A few in congress have very effectively captured every experimental subject. All within their greatly extended must be completed unaccountable for ?to harm? cause & effects destroyed and missing evidence process. A justice denied, for the greater good, end justifies the means approval of past, present and NOW future unknowing in-service guinea pigs. Note the Report?s timing of their conduct under the secrecy cover of our nation?s wars.[2] PLEASE VOTE YOUR MEMBERS IN THE U.S. CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE SIXTY TWO (62) YEARS OF ?DESIGNED TO HARM? EXPERIMENTATIONS!!
    How Congress?s few no accountability is carried out is well demonstrated, without 2nd level end, by a DVA ongoing 15 of a 49 years negation of the cause & effects of a jet-engine 87,381X to 699,051X sound pressure experiment.[7] An outline is available on request. 8/1/05 rediscovered were their 49 years later original 6/3/57 layman received 1952 to 1956 service records. On 10/5/94 these were noted by a DVA Criminal Investigator as misplaced!
    REFERENCES:
    [1] U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY, 107 S. CT. 3054 (483 U.S. PAGE 669). It addresses the ?congress is responsible? for the issue of a 1958 DoD non-consensual, human drug trials and other experimentations.
    [2] ?Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans? Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century.? Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans? Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session (December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97)
    [3] Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950).
    [4] U.S. State Department, ?U.S. REPORT UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS JULY 1994, Article 7?.
    [5] ?United States Code (USC) Title 38, 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality.? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode38/uscsec3800000511—-000-.html
    [6] CHIEF JUDGE AND COLLEAGUE STATEMENTS, COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS, ANNUAL JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, FORT MEYER, VA., 17 & 18 OCTOBER 1994.
    [7] MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION. The veteran?s 21 May 1956 retained include 40 sets of USAF 1952-1956 in-service records with 11 medical exams & the names and serial numbers of 78 injured personnel. With the 1957 and to-date ignored Boston, MA. DVA Regional Office Physician?s 6/26/57 ?no vestibular function? directly submitted resulting USAF SURGEON HQ AARC, 25 June 1958 ?PERMANENTLY MEDICALLY DISQUALIFIED FOR MILITARY SERVICE?!