Alito's Dillema
ALITO’S DILEMMA - AMERICA’S QUANDARY
On the nomination of Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Judge.
The considerations below are not based on judgments about Alito personally. I assume he is decent, respectable man, competent within his sphere. It is, however, about his prima facie (un-)fittingness, as an open Roman Catholic, for the position, as an archetypal psychological factor.
First of all, he would make three of them. Scalia, Roberts, Alito; and there is a rumor that Thomas is a member or associate of Opus Dei. You don’t have to be a descendant of the Gustavus Adolphus, Lion of the North, conquerer of the Hapsburg Vatican conscripts – for all time, one would have supposed -- to notice that this influence on the bench of 9 justices far, far outstrips their proportion of the population. I don’t have figures at hand, but 1–in-3? – couldn’t be, not even close by 10x.
Apart from that, which is significant enough, as if Roman Catholicism was being tacitly installed as the official-unofficial philosophy of jurisprudence in America, there is the fact that a member of the Opus Dei sect of that religious group penetrated the highest levels of government and betrayed it to Soviet Russia. This was Robert Philip Hanssen, co-member of the same conservative church as ex-FBI director Louis Freeh, who used the bureau to frame the Lewinsky-Clinton impeachment episode; and Antonin Scalia, who undertook to do the right thing for America, at least in his eyes, and the eyes of the George W. Bush’s God, and cut off the Florida vote recount in 2000. Hanssen was liason man between several agencies of government for 25 years; Freeh and Scalia claimed to barely known him, however.
All that smells to high heaven, and is a terrible embarrassment to his family. The lawyer Plato Chiceris took over his defense, worked out the deal, and it was never determined whether he might not have been a 3-way spy, giving secrets, or arranging mischief, for the Vatican through his contacts with both. All who knew him testified to a sincere, if not fanatical, streak of religiosity in the man, and he was always gung-ho with the patriotic, pro-America rhetoric. Somewhere in there he is acting a knowing lie, living a duplicitious, or triplicitous existence. The question is: how do we know this is not true of Alito? Has anyone asked him if he owes allegiance to any power of principality higher than the U.S. Constitution? Would he take such an oath? Would he personally, as a citizen, support legislation requiring such an oath of all elected and appointed officials, lest the federal government become infected with subversives, fifth columnists or outright traitors, from this or some other source.
Beyond this, there is the matter of injecting right-wing Vatican-centric issues into American politics. Of specific impending interest are abortion rights and executive powers. Can Sam Alito swear his religious affiliation will not color his rulings on these issues? --calling on him to be a savior of the unborn, if he can, and preserving the prerogatives of the Father who protects and punishes for sin. Of course he can’t. And would probably take umbrage and feign indignation in being called upon to respond to such “anti-Catholic attacks”. That’s how far it has gone. But it cannot be allowed to go further.
Still further, there is the whip-saw way he is being sold to the public. The CNN TV ad is a straight negative attack ad – “Every day, liberals attack Sam Alito for his conservatism.” That is the first line you hear. “Those undisciplined, immoral liberals attacking The Man of Justice!” the sub-text reads. Then: seque to today’s hearings. Picture of Sam I am speaking! Saying (words to this effect) “I ask to be judged by the reasonings in my opinions, not according whether I am ‘left’ or ‘right’.” See? This juxtaposition of TV ad and snipet of the Senate Judicial committee hearings was not accidental; it was arranged, on the same program (Lou Dobbs). The effect is to have it both ways: he is above politics in his thinking, even while under scurrilous attack by the ideologues – leaving ‘liberals’ standing accused of obstructionist partisanship!
And how do they do it? – you wonder? It is to answer that I write. The answer is coming out on the blogs at sidthomas.blogspsot.com. (Where this will appear) The stunning realization of metaphysical crises; a bubble of systematic delusion about to burst, they show.
Finally, returning to the question of the prerogatives the constitution gives the executive branch, the question of Bush’s injection of personal religiosity into American group life, politics and war justification demands to be addressed, and will be addressed in one way or another in issues tracing directly to the Supreme Court pertaining to use of “God”. Did G.W. Bush have the authority to declare that federal funds could be used to support the charity work of those who used “God” in their mission? This was done prior to 9/11, with his actually declaring the reversal, “this uses God to discriminate.” This should have been litigated then, must be revived for litigation now. Do U.S. President’s have instrinsic authority to declare which things are and are not of God in the name of the people? I would like to hear what Judge Alito says on that.
If he says “Yes”, he is unfit for the position because he confuses leadership of the state with leadership of the ‘church’, as if America were his congregation. I guess the Khazars were obliged to stand for it when the head honcho (or head-chopping honcho) declared “you are all Jews”, back in 10th century (story in Arthur Koestler’s amazing book “The 13th tribe”) central Asia. But there is an ever-expanding group of Americans from the old order, reaching across to the youth of the new generations, who don’t need Gustavus Adolphus, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, or anybody else to tell them what stinks. One has only to sense the merest snatch of what is happening in Iraq to almost pass out. If Sam says “Yes”, down the road to forced religious conversion he would take us. “We’ll tell you who God listens to.”
If he says “no”, then Bush must go. He must be impeached for taking the Torah in his own hands, YHWH be damned. The attack from Bin Laden came almost immediately, as if it was Allah’s reply. He had no right to overthrow established barriers between church and state merely by reason of his personal zeal. He had no right to announce that Catholics and Jews would be the swing-votes for the ’04 re-election campaign, which he did mid-summer ’01. This skewed political statements on issues toward these groups, as judges. It is far from the only link between Catholics and Jews – not all of either, of course; but openly identified by prominent ones to rally the troops, as it were. This is the core of religious ingression into American politics from external influences. These are powers and principalities foreign to America, imported as a self-other absorbed complex working out WWII trauma on our psyche. I, for one, passed long ago from being tired, to being sick of it; especially the unction, a substance than which no more noxious can be conceived.
The horns of Alito’s Dilemma inexorably unfold. If asked about presidential power to issue statements using God’s name, if Sam says “Yes”, he gets no dress (robe); if he says “No”, then Bush must go.
On the nomination of Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Judge.
The considerations below are not based on judgments about Alito personally. I assume he is decent, respectable man, competent within his sphere. It is, however, about his prima facie (un-)fittingness, as an open Roman Catholic, for the position, as an archetypal psychological factor.
First of all, he would make three of them. Scalia, Roberts, Alito; and there is a rumor that Thomas is a member or associate of Opus Dei. You don’t have to be a descendant of the Gustavus Adolphus, Lion of the North, conquerer of the Hapsburg Vatican conscripts – for all time, one would have supposed -- to notice that this influence on the bench of 9 justices far, far outstrips their proportion of the population. I don’t have figures at hand, but 1–in-3? – couldn’t be, not even close by 10x.
Apart from that, which is significant enough, as if Roman Catholicism was being tacitly installed as the official-unofficial philosophy of jurisprudence in America, there is the fact that a member of the Opus Dei sect of that religious group penetrated the highest levels of government and betrayed it to Soviet Russia. This was Robert Philip Hanssen, co-member of the same conservative church as ex-FBI director Louis Freeh, who used the bureau to frame the Lewinsky-Clinton impeachment episode; and Antonin Scalia, who undertook to do the right thing for America, at least in his eyes, and the eyes of the George W. Bush’s God, and cut off the Florida vote recount in 2000. Hanssen was liason man between several agencies of government for 25 years; Freeh and Scalia claimed to barely known him, however.
All that smells to high heaven, and is a terrible embarrassment to his family. The lawyer Plato Chiceris took over his defense, worked out the deal, and it was never determined whether he might not have been a 3-way spy, giving secrets, or arranging mischief, for the Vatican through his contacts with both. All who knew him testified to a sincere, if not fanatical, streak of religiosity in the man, and he was always gung-ho with the patriotic, pro-America rhetoric. Somewhere in there he is acting a knowing lie, living a duplicitious, or triplicitous existence. The question is: how do we know this is not true of Alito? Has anyone asked him if he owes allegiance to any power of principality higher than the U.S. Constitution? Would he take such an oath? Would he personally, as a citizen, support legislation requiring such an oath of all elected and appointed officials, lest the federal government become infected with subversives, fifth columnists or outright traitors, from this or some other source.
Beyond this, there is the matter of injecting right-wing Vatican-centric issues into American politics. Of specific impending interest are abortion rights and executive powers. Can Sam Alito swear his religious affiliation will not color his rulings on these issues? --calling on him to be a savior of the unborn, if he can, and preserving the prerogatives of the Father who protects and punishes for sin. Of course he can’t. And would probably take umbrage and feign indignation in being called upon to respond to such “anti-Catholic attacks”. That’s how far it has gone. But it cannot be allowed to go further.
Still further, there is the whip-saw way he is being sold to the public. The CNN TV ad is a straight negative attack ad – “Every day, liberals attack Sam Alito for his conservatism.” That is the first line you hear. “Those undisciplined, immoral liberals attacking The Man of Justice!” the sub-text reads. Then: seque to today’s hearings. Picture of Sam I am speaking! Saying (words to this effect) “I ask to be judged by the reasonings in my opinions, not according whether I am ‘left’ or ‘right’.” See? This juxtaposition of TV ad and snipet of the Senate Judicial committee hearings was not accidental; it was arranged, on the same program (Lou Dobbs). The effect is to have it both ways: he is above politics in his thinking, even while under scurrilous attack by the ideologues – leaving ‘liberals’ standing accused of obstructionist partisanship!
And how do they do it? – you wonder? It is to answer that I write. The answer is coming out on the blogs at sidthomas.blogspsot.com. (Where this will appear) The stunning realization of metaphysical crises; a bubble of systematic delusion about to burst, they show.
Finally, returning to the question of the prerogatives the constitution gives the executive branch, the question of Bush’s injection of personal religiosity into American group life, politics and war justification demands to be addressed, and will be addressed in one way or another in issues tracing directly to the Supreme Court pertaining to use of “God”. Did G.W. Bush have the authority to declare that federal funds could be used to support the charity work of those who used “God” in their mission? This was done prior to 9/11, with his actually declaring the reversal, “this uses God to discriminate.” This should have been litigated then, must be revived for litigation now. Do U.S. President’s have instrinsic authority to declare which things are and are not of God in the name of the people? I would like to hear what Judge Alito says on that.
If he says “Yes”, he is unfit for the position because he confuses leadership of the state with leadership of the ‘church’, as if America were his congregation. I guess the Khazars were obliged to stand for it when the head honcho (or head-chopping honcho) declared “you are all Jews”, back in 10th century (story in Arthur Koestler’s amazing book “The 13th tribe”) central Asia. But there is an ever-expanding group of Americans from the old order, reaching across to the youth of the new generations, who don’t need Gustavus Adolphus, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, or anybody else to tell them what stinks. One has only to sense the merest snatch of what is happening in Iraq to almost pass out. If Sam says “Yes”, down the road to forced religious conversion he would take us. “We’ll tell you who God listens to.”
If he says “no”, then Bush must go. He must be impeached for taking the Torah in his own hands, YHWH be damned. The attack from Bin Laden came almost immediately, as if it was Allah’s reply. He had no right to overthrow established barriers between church and state merely by reason of his personal zeal. He had no right to announce that Catholics and Jews would be the swing-votes for the ’04 re-election campaign, which he did mid-summer ’01. This skewed political statements on issues toward these groups, as judges. It is far from the only link between Catholics and Jews – not all of either, of course; but openly identified by prominent ones to rally the troops, as it were. This is the core of religious ingression into American politics from external influences. These are powers and principalities foreign to America, imported as a self-other absorbed complex working out WWII trauma on our psyche. I, for one, passed long ago from being tired, to being sick of it; especially the unction, a substance than which no more noxious can be conceived.
The horns of Alito’s Dilemma inexorably unfold. If asked about presidential power to issue statements using God’s name, if Sam says “Yes”, he gets no dress (robe); if he says “No”, then Bush must go.
posted by Sid Thomas | 9:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home