Theocrats in action

http://www.pardonmyenglish.com/archives/2005/11/the_alito_smear.html
November 19, 2005
Prelude to the Alito Smear Campaign: Defining Some Terms
[excerpt]


We all know the idea that the Congress was just "too busy" to take up the
issue of confirming Samuel Alito before the "holiday break" is pure BS.
Last week they were busy grilling oil company execs on their non-obscene
"obscene profits" in a capitalist society, and Tom Harkin had plenty of
time to hold hearings to ***** about how Rush Limbaugh "dominates" Armed
Forces Radio with one whole hour a day: We all know how important the need
to balance one hour of Rush with five hours of some liberal crap soldiers
don't want to listen is. I'm sure they could've squeezed the Alito hearings
into their busy schedule somewhere. No, what the liberals -- Democrat and
Republican alike -- are doing is giving their little leftist extremist
lackeys time to come up with excuses to get them out of their previous high
praise for this supremely qualified nominee. The rumblings of a senatorial
filibuster are proof of that and the leftist extremists are more than happy
to oblige.

Comes now one Nan Aron of the Alliance for (Liberal) Justice, hitting the
news show circuit hot and heavy with her obnoxious left-of-Karl Marx
opinion on the nominee. Witness the New York Times report that a coalition
of like-minded socialist special interest groups plan on blitzing the
airwaves with stunning examples of "right wing extremism" by Sam Alito.
Pretty soon, all you'll be able to hear is the shriek of foaming at the
mouth socialist pigs slinging baseless charges about the nominee, taking
every bit of slimy leftist innuendo and plastering it against the wall,
hoping against hope that something will stick and, above all, attempting to
redefine our great Constitution to attempt to convince the unknowing that
contained therein is the recipe for the ultimate leftist wet dream of what
the Socialist States of America could be. Well before the mudslinging and
misdefinitions of the left begins, it's time to define the terms and
definitions of the debate the way they should be. Here we go.

Let's start with some common words and phrases you will hear bandied about
by the leftists that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the
constitution and the ability to be a good U.S. Supreme Court Justice:

The "penumbra" of the constitution: You may hear some high-brow leftist
elitists use this word in relation to constitutional interpretation but,
contrary to what they would have you believe, recognizing a "penumbra" of
the constitution is not the mark of an astute constitutional scholar; it
is, in fact, the mark of a liberal-elitist hack such as a Ruth Bader
Ginsberg or a Stephen Breyer. What is the "penumbra"? The dictionary
definition as it applies in this case is: An area in which something exists
to a lesser or uncertain degree. The "penumbra" is nothing more than a
fancy word with which liberals attempt divine a right of Supreme Court
justices to make any BS that they choose up and say they "found" it in the
Constitution. It is the implication of a meaning where none exists from
whence follows all unconstitutional crap a liberal court has foisted upon
us for the last 40 years: To wit:

A right to privacy: Search a copy of the Constitution backwards and
forwards and you won't find a right to privacy, fundamental or otherwise
anywhere in the document. Regardless, liberals would like you to believe
that from "something that exists to a lesser or uncertain degree" you find
something that is not only not lesser or uncertain, but in the liberals'
feeble minds something that encompasses everything the constitution stands
for: A "right to privacy" from whence springs forth the liberals holy
sacrament: