Affirmative action on the Supreme Court

So, Bush did nominate a woman for the Supreme Court? So seems to say Grover Norquist in what may be one of the weirdest analogies I have ever heard.

Karl Rove cleverly offered up Harriet Miers to depress the base, so that when we got Alito, everyone was four feet off the ground ecstatic, as opposed to saying, "that's what we reasonably expected." They didn't plan it this way, of course. But that's the effect it has. Everybody is so pleased, everybody is so happy. Alito is one of seven or eight Bo Derek 10s that were out there, for the purposes of judicial philosophy.

The Grover must then have smacked himself on the side of the head like a conservative Mr. Gumby, because he's quickly back on talking point.

All anyone on the right is asking for is someone who will interpret the law fairly. We don't need them to move the ball down the court. We will go win the House and Senate seats to do what we need to do. What we need are judges who won't steal it from us. We will pass legislation and we need a judge who can read it and not make stuff up.

Right. Alito is famous for respecting the decisions of the House and Senate.

But Grover's constitutional analysis is not over. He concludes by noting that mob-controlled liberal New Yorkers will rise up in support of...I'm not sure...omerta?

As for why Bush didn't pick a woman with similar credentials to Alito, I don't know. I've heard speculation. I've heard that Alito is particularly well-liked by the head of the judiciary committee, Sen. Arlen Specter. When they first nominated Antonin Scalia, the Italians and New Yorkers really liked that, and that brought us some odd support.

What I find fascinating about this is the dilemma it puts moderate Republicans whom, clearly, the Cheney administration simply has no time for, whatsoever. The Chafees and the Snows of the Senate must be a wee bit concerned about a potential associate justice who believes a husband has property rights when it comes to his wife's uterus.

But even more of a dilemma is for corporate leaders (the real Republican base, mind you, not the batshit lunatics like Grover Norquist, despite their egos and colorful bombast). Alito may mean the end of Griswold v. Connecticut, but more troubling to CEOs is the threat Alito will pose to affirmative action in universities and anti-discrimination legislation that our corporate chieftains have worked hard to preserve in the last decade. For some, "diversity" is just a warm and fuzzy word, but it has become an important mantra at corporate campuses around the country.

For that reason alone they should oppose Alito, strongly and consistently for their own self-interest (not to mention what this polarizing choice is going to do in grinding to a halt the workings of the Senate). But along with their tacit approval of Republican lawmakers' refusal to even debate universal healthcare even though health care costs continue to be the single greatest threat to our Fortune 500ers, the corporate whores have put short term tax giveaways and GOP-fed porkfests ahead of their shareholders interests and the long term survival of their companies.