"You cannot deal in good faith with a White House that does not act in good faith."

the nyt gets it, after the fact, and AFTER the democrats have already thrown in the towel (see previous post)...

Mr. Bush . . . seems to see no limit to his imperial presidency.

[...]

[T]he offensive theories at work here - that a president's intent in signing a bill trumps the intent of Congress in writing it, and that a president can claim power without restriction or supervision by the courts or Congress - are pet theories of Judge Samuel Alito, the man Mr. Bush chose to tilt the Supreme Court to the right.

The administration's behavior shows how high and immediate the stakes are in the Alito nomination, and how urgent it is for Congress to curtail Mr. Bush's expansion of power. Nothing in the national consensus to combat terrorism after 9/11 envisioned the unilateral rewriting of more than 200 years of tradition and law by one president embarked on an ideological crusade.

yeah, so what are we gonna do about it NOW...?

meanwhile, the wapo prefers to stick its head in the sand and hope for the best...

Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an appellate judge and because of the dangerous precedent his rejection would set. [...] Judge Alito is superbly qualified. His record on the bench is that of a thoughtful conservative, not a raging ideologue.

"the dangerous precedent his REJECTION would set...?" WHAT...? confirming alito is confirming unfettered executive power in the hands of a criminal president and the gang of thugs that surround him... and THAT'S not a dangerous precedent...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet