I’m conservative (actually more libertarian), and I don’t know anyone that agree with that statement. The Supreme Court is supposed to be impartial and make sure the Legislative and Executive branches follow the Constitution, but they have an agenda and have been activist for many, many years. Look at the past 8 years. The Supreme Court upheld portions of the Patriot Act (invasion of our privacy), in Kelo vs. New London ruled in favor of grossly expanded eminent domain powers, upheld parts of the MacCain campaign finance reform (free speech for everyone unless its political), and gave a safe, middle of the road ruling in Heller vs. DC. If any of those rulings were handed down when the nation was young, the Colonists woud tar and feather the bastards.

The GOP are LOVING this. They are lapping it up, but it’s completely delusional!

Great post.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/13/alito/index.html

“Two weeks ago, Alito cast the deciding vote in Ricci v. DeStefano, an intensely contested affirmative action case. He did so by ruling in favor of the Italian-American firefighters, finding that they were unlawfully discriminated against, even though the district court judge who heard all the evidence and the three-judge appellate panel ruled against them and dismissed their case. Notably, the majority Supreme Court opinion Alito joined (.pdf) began by highlighting not the relevant legal doctrine, but rather, the emotional factors that made the Italian-American-plaintiffs empathetic.

Did Alito’s Italian-American ethnic background cause him to cast his vote in favor of the Italian-American plaintiffs? Has anyone raised that question? Given that he himself said that he “do[es] take that into account” — and given that Sonia Sotomayor spent 6 straight hours today being accused by GOP Senators and Fox News commentators of allowing her Puerto Rican heritage to lead her to discriminate against white litigants — why isn’t that question being asked about Alito’s vote in Ricci?”