Alex Blaze

War on Christmas gets judge rejected?

Filed By Alex Blaze | October 21, 2010 3:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags:

Chuck Schumer recommended an openly gay lawyer, Daniel Alter, to the U.S. war-on-christmas.jpgDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York, who'd be the first openly gay judge to serve on a federal court. Obama rejected that nominee, and unnamed sources cited two quotations to the Washington Blade:

In a 2005 article published by Cybercast News Service, Alter is quoted as saying that a general holiday greeting is more appropriate and inclusive for retailers as opposed to saying "Merry Christmas."

"It seems both from a business ... and a community perspective, that if merchandisers were going to do that ... they would try to wish those in the community who may not share in celebrating Christmas a happy holiday as well," Alter is quoted as saying.

"Our diversity has made us great and will continue to make us great and ['Merry Christmas'] undermines both the holiday spirit as well as the message I think Americans should be sending to each other," Alter reportedly continued.

And on the pledge:

Additionally, in a 2004 article published in The New Republic, Alter is quoted as saying the U.S. Supreme Court case Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow "was a good case at the wrong time." The case challenged use of the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.

The article reported Alter was "relieved" the Supreme Court decision "left open a window for future challenges." The Anti-Defamation League had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Newdow case.

"When the right case does come along," Alter reportedly said, "We're there."

The Blade article cites a former employer saying that those were misquotes, and it's not like CNS is known for its journalistic scruples. Who knows.

But even if those quotations are correct, they're hardly controversial. The War on Christmas stuff may have died down a little last year, but just a few years ago it was a ginned up controversy, built on lies about towns banning the color green and rightwing demagogues getting people miffed about the fact that they weren't being recognized as Christian as they entered corporate establishments (and it's easy to recognize them as such since everyone's either Christian or should be). It was a new level of stupid in American discourse, a level that I don't think many people on the left were ready for, that was fundamentally about showing who belongs in this country and who doesn't. Of course the ADL would respond - it was built on both hippie-hatred and anti-semitism.

If the Blade's sources know what they're talking about, then this really just shows what we already knew about this White House: they're so concerned with avoiding even the appearance of supporting the left or liberals that they'll bend to the far right. It's strange, but in the US almost everyone hates whoever's to the left of them for some reason, and they usually get a lot more worked up about them than they do about people who are to the right of them. It explains why the tea baggers seem so angry - almost the whole country is to the left of them.

I'm not going to rally for Alter, though. I don't know much about how he'd be as a judge, but if a Wall Street Dem like Chuck Schumer would recommend him and try to make it about his sexuality instead of his qualifications, then he's probably not a friend to the cause. Still, I'd rather a judge get rejected for being too far to the right than for being a decent human being who possibly got Brietbarted. But when has any proposal been rejected in the last decade in Washington for not being liberal enough?


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


I hope that liberals follow the gay example and come out of the closet. Also, like the word gay, liberal need not be considered an epithet. The word "liberal" became radioactive for democrats since Ronald Reagan. The anti-liberal theme has been a constant drum beat by the conservative media, especially Rush Limbaugh, Dr Laura, Sean Hannity, Gorden Liddy, etc. They usually say the word with a sneer. This all coincided with attacks on the union movement and workers' benefits. The conservative movement is now seeing a giant shrinking of the middle class, the fruition of its work. Some how, middle and working class republicans have been persuaded to vote against most of their interests, usually based upon social wedge issue. Billionaires like the Koch brothers are funding the teabaggers to do their bidding of creating an American plutocracy. The Supreme Court's recent case allowing unlimited corporate political funding, and secret funding, will allow politicians to be bought, and to promote tax breaks and anti-regulatory legislation which will generally favor huge business, and more particularly favor the specific secret donors in particular ways that will disadvantage their business competitors. All said, it is a tough time for the middle class. The Huffington Post reported that Justices Scalia and Thomas recently were "guests" at a Koch brother weekend. Pretty bad when the Supreme Court feels brazen enough to do things like this. Let's hope that the liberals wake up and start using the word again.

How very interesting. It is not the "under God" part of the pledge that I object to but rather the end of the sentence ...."with liberty and justice for all". Those words make me want to scream ...WHEN!!!!!!!

Rick Sutton | October 22, 2010 7:24 AM

Excellent point, Deena.

Alex, I understand your rage. But if my President nominated someone who was stupid enough to utter comments like this, two things would happen:

1. The nominee would be defeated. Soundly. Perhaps not fair, but true. And the process could be a drawn-out water torture, to the shrieks and delight of the far right. They have to feed their monster.

2. Tremendous political capital would have to be waged, for the nomination, the fight over the nomination, and the exit or defeat. This White House has a capital deficit now. I'm not happy about that, and some of it is their own doing, but it's true.

A prospective federal judge should have the common political sense to self-censor. This is a relatively small pool of folks who want to be federal judges. They should be a lot more practical about their past comments. Good Lord, if they aren't paying attention, haven't they seen West Wing? Judicial nominees have every past utterance scrubbed and broadcast.

As we're seeing now with Judge Phillips, DADT, and numerous other issues, the federal judiciary is the new battleground, and we have two years left to pack the courts with the polar opposite of judges Bush appointed. And after Nov. 2, it will get either a little more complicated, or damned near impossible.

Time's wastin. We've got no time to sacrifice the agenda for a prospective federal judge who hasn't self-edited about sensitive religious issues. It's a shame, but it's a fact.