For any international historian who had been away for a time either on another planet or taking a Rip Van Winkle style nap, how would that person find contemporary America?

That individual would have found the "60 Minutes" interview time that CBS generously bestowed on Chief Justice Antonin Scalia highly informative.  He presented the term "originalist" as defining his philosophy on the U.S. Constitution, but after listening to him in detail the question would have to be asked whether what he presented is unstead unvarnished fascism.

The first point that would have to be questioned was when segment moderator Leslie Stahl referred to Scalia, without any supporting evidence, as "one of the most brilliant" jurists we ever had serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Where are his credentials to justify such a glowing introductory comment?

Earl Warren had as his enduring legacy Brown v. Board of Education and Baker v. Carr, both landmark decisions that positively changed the face of American education and legislative democracy.  John Marshall, who served 34 years on the Court, in Marbury v. Madison presented the cornerstone principles of judicial review that shaped the Republic during succeeding years.

Not long ago progressives launched a fervent effort to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.  

That effort was bolstered by communications from leading Democratic Party figures urging those concerned by Gonzales's politicization and unswerving loyalty to the Cheney-Bush neoconservative junta to petition the White House with e-mails and letters demanding justice.

I was contacted via e-mail by a highly prominent Democratic Party senator enlisting my effort by adding my name and e-mail protest toward this pursuit.

While I had earlier joined in such petition efforts to snowball the prevailing powers, I finally declined for what I believe to be the logical reason that enough misdirected effort had already been dispatched in that direction.

Remember Senator Orrin Hatch's great performance during the Clarence Thomas confirmation proceedings?  

In between pouting and childish tantrums he managed, with help from Arlen Spector, to trash Anita Hill when it was later confirmed by David Brock, who was helping lead the smear brigade and later turned on the radical right, that the law professor was telling the truth.

It was Hatch who hatched a booby hatch theory that Hill's testimony describing devout rightist Thomas's penchant for pornography stemmed from plagiarizing the famous seventies' book and later film, The Exorcist.  Hatch ultimately got his wish to have Thomas confirmed, where he has become a reliable rubber stamp marching to the tune of the patriarch of judicial reaction, Antonin Scalia.

Cross Hatch's path by daring to take an opposing view and he is quick to label you a "propagandist", a classic case of being called ugly by a frog.  He is currently singing his familiar tune again pertaining to Samuel Alito, Jr.  

"Under any reasonable, objective or traditional standard, the Senate would overwhelmingly confirm this exceptional nominee," the Utah solon declared in his traditional holier than thou fashion.

In 2000, Judge Samuel Alito authored an opinion in which he concluded that Congress did not have the power to require state employers to comply with the Family Medical Leave Act. This ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2003, with a 6-3 margin. Voting in dissent? That's right, everyone's favorite activist justice, Antonin Scalia.

Now why should this somewhat arcane labor issue be of interest to me, particularly in light of Alito's involvement in the much more controversial and interesting Casey decision? Well, I am an employee of the state of Washington. Had Alito and Scalia gotten their way, my employers could have denied me leave, and I wouldn't be in the position I am now--able to provide assistance to my disabled sister and brother-in-law while he fights for his life against an aggressive and deadly lymphoma. I am here at my sister's and brother-in-law's side because of the Family Medical Leave Act.