Supreme Court Justice Nominee
Alito Supports Orphanicide

By Mark R.
In his earlier writings, Supreme Court Justice nominee Samuel Alito supported the use of drowning and strangling of orphans if it served to support the interests of majority interests, according to documents released yesterday from his time on the bench on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1982.

In other documents released from his writings during from a more recent period, he discussed the rationale for destroying people in major cities for the purpose of "paving the way for apocalyptic grandeur, when the rapture is upon us."

Many Democratic senators felt that these writings indicate that Judge Alito's views lie outside the mainstream, but others felt that these opinions did not disqualify him from consideration for serving on the nation's high court. "I think it's a judgment call, and we should reserve judgment until a full hearing," Senator Charles Shumer said. He is a member of the "Gang of 14," whose agreement allowed for the use of filibuster of the nomination should he be judged to have deficiencies in judicial temperament. He denied that a filibuster would be necessary unless other writing emerged that more firmly place Judge Alito outside the mainstream.

In the orphan case, his judgment was based on the view that the situations where orphan children would be slain were sufficiently rare and the property rights of the plaintiff in this case should be respected, and that drowning and strangling were suitably humane. In ruling for the plaintiffs, in the minority dissenting opinion in Justin Electronics vs. Erie Humane Society, Judge Alito argued that the corporation was not acting outside its rights by destroying orphans, mistakenly sleeping on the company's premises over a two month period in violation of local zoning laws.

In the majority opinion, Justice Sturgeon labeled Alito's dissent as "outside of anyone's sense of common decency. This man is out of his fucking mind." Justice Bates, in support of the minority opinion, wrote, "I was just joking. This is pretty vile stuff. Is it just me?" The apocalyptic writing appeared in the margins of an application for a position in The Bush Administration in 2004, and Judge Alito insists that his views have changed since that time.James Dobson of Focus on the Family stated on his radio show that his listeners should not judge intolerance, fanaticism or sociopathy as disqualifying for a nominee to the high court, as long as his views on abortion are well-known.

After the documents were made available for review, several advocacy groups were moved to speak out, though supporters like Bill O'Reilly have said in response, "Organizations, like the ACLU and the Humane Society do not speak for the interests of all Americans."

Senator Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee chairman felt this case did not reflect what his views might be on the Supreme Court, and remained confident of his confirmation. Senator Bill Frist feels the latest revelations do not reach the bar whereby the nomination should be considered for withdrawal. "This is President Bush's nominee, and he deserves an up-or-down vote, whatever his philosophy or particular level of personality disorder might be.

About
Email Subscribe
Staff
Disclaimer
Contact