The lying never ends with the 1600 Crew and their minions does it? It's starting to look like maybe leaving Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench until 2008 as punishment for her part in the stolen election of 2000 might constitute some actual justice at the Supreme Court. Skank-Lito is a liar, a boldfaced, in-your-face, liar and he's going to get away with it unless the filibuster card is played...with the mood of the country right now, I'd like to see Dr. Tele-Malpractice go for the nuclear option...go for it Bill, your fading presidential hopes and the Republican Senate would be but a wistful summer memory...

So here's Skank-Lito talking to DiFi:

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito distanced himself Tuesday from his 1985 comments that there was no constitutional right to abortion, telling a senator in private that he had merely been "an advocate seeking a job."

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito said Thursday he was "unduly restrictive" in promising in 1990 to avoid appeals cases involving two investment firms and said he has not made any rulings in which he had a "legal or ethical obligation" to step aside.

In a letter to Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Alito said a 1990 questionnaire he filled out for the panel covered his plans for "initial service" as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"I respectfully submit that it was not inconsistent with my questionnaire response for me to participate in two isolated cases seven and 13 years later, respectively," he wrote.
...
When he listed the companies in the 1990 questionnaire, "my intention was to state that I would never knowingly hear a case where a conflict of interest existed. ... As my service continued, I realized that I had been unduly restrictive," Alito said.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., criticized Alito's response in a statement. "I'm troubled to learn that Judge Alito does not stand by his 1990 promise to recuse himself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies," Kennedy said. "His letter raises serious factual questions as well as questions of law and judgment."

In the 2002 case, Shantee Maharaj, who had lost a suit against Vanguard, sought a rehearing after learning Alito held investments with the mutual fund company. She sought to have the ruling erased and Alito disqualified from further proceedings.

Letting the Frech-fry obsessed Roberts on the court could be really bad thing for the next 30 or so years, the jury is going to be out for a while, as it were (my view: bad mojo), but Skank-Lito, he's a frothing Christo-Fascists dream. Just think how happy they'll be with a camera in every bedroom and a bible in every public school desk, why just go ahead and bring out the stocks and dunking stools.

All your bodies will belong to the State anyhow, to be strip-searched, tattooed and sorted into "good" and "bad"...gee, is any of this sounding familiar? The only reasons they won't be using trains for the next go-round is that the republicans have killed Amtrack.

I guess if some Americans don't expect the Preznit to be truthful, then why expect a Supreme Court Judge to be honest as well? The lying just never stops with these asshats, does it?