Let the Bloodsport Begin!

American Politics are a bloodsport. Anyone that decries "negative campaigning" has ignored American History. Second POTUS John Adams, that revolutionary father and firebrand for American Freedom, jailed sharp-tongued dissidents of his administration under a trumped up--and ultimately unconstitutional--law. Andrew Jackson's enemies so poisoned American High Society against him and his wife on account of her unresolved divorce that the strain eventually killed her. The list goes on and on. To the best of my knowledge (and I invite any reader that knows differently to tell me otherwise), however, the same bloodsport politicing so common to the struggle for elected office ended at the threshold of a Judicial nomination. At least, until the infamous Robert Bork judicial hearings.

Well, since then, the Reasonable liberal elites have sought to preserve their hegemony over the US through the security of the Judiciarium. Thus, they've launched embittered attack after embittered attack upon any SCOTUS nominee--and his nominating President--that they perceive as an ideological threat to their precarious position. Their rhetoric has grown more and more shrill and irresponsible.

Today, they've resorted to the naseating. With a hat tip to Captain Ed, the bloggers of Red State, and Tim Chapman of Town Hall, allow me to let the big dogs of the Democratic National Committee speak for themselves:

U.S. Attorney Alito Failed to Obtain Conviction of 20 Mobsters, Saying “You Can’t Win Them All.” Federal law enforcement agencies sustained a major rebuff in their anti-mafia campaign with the August 1988 acquittal of all 20 defendants accused of making up the entire membership of the Lucchese family in the New Jersey suburbs of New York. The verdict ended what was believed to be the nation’s longest federal criminal trial and according to the Chicago Tribune, dealt the government a “stunning defeat.” Samuel Alito, the US Attorney on the case, said, “Obviously we are disappointed but you realize you can’t win them all.” Alito also said he had no regrets about the prosecution but in the future would try to keep cases “as short and simple as possible.” Alito continued, “I certainly don’t feel embarrassed and I don’t think we should feel embarrassed.” [Guardian, 8/29/88; Chicago Tribune, 8/27/88; UPI, 8/26/88]

So, of all the issues in which they find Judge Alito wanting, like those that uphold the Absolute Individualism necessary to pursue the One Thing that Matters, what do they lead with?

Why, a derogatory stereo-type of Americans of Italian descent, of course!

The prosecutor with a vowel at the end of his name failed to nail twenty mobsters with vowels at the end of their names(wink-wink, nod-nod!). Clearly, he's La Cosa Nostra.

Gee, didn't slandering all Italians as members of the Mafia go out with The Godfather? Isn't that even slightly politically incorrect? Oh, wait; of course, how silly of me! It's all good if it furthers the agenda. After all, he isn't one of the proper Italian-Americans; he supports the mean old Republicans. He wants to stop the sacred rites to the One Thing that Matters, so it's OK to libel him through a blatent distortion of a seventeen-year-old failed prosecution. It's actually Judge Alito's fault; if he wasn't so Foolish, his Reasonable betters wouldn't have to resort to these tactics.

If any of President Bush's disgruntled supporters harbored any doubts about this candidate, the DNC should hopefully put them to rest. Those among the Miers 'Illin, such as Professor Bainbridge and the crew over at Southern Appeal, are delighted with Judge Alito's nomination. I like that he upsets the right people; anyone that causes the mouth-foamers to go apocalyptic like this must be alright! On a more serious note, he appears eminently qualified and experienced. Most important of all, he demonstrates a committment to interprete the constitution based on what it says, and on the principles the Founders incorporated within it, not on his judicial imagination. Our society requires an institutional recommitment to the Rule of Law. A Supreme Court of the United States that interpretes the law, not hands down policy-by-fiat, implements that recommitment.

Mouth-foamers among the Reasonable may celebrate the disgratzia perpetrated by Chris Pendergast, Douglas Graham and Devorah Adler of the DNC. I have only three words for them: Carpet. Broom. Door.