PDA

View Full Version : Samuel Alito



cedar savage
10-31-2005, 06:52 AM
Let's do it one MORE time.

This guy might be a little too conservative even for me.

Wikipedia is already updated! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Alito,_Jr.)

Well, more is coming like a tsunami. He might be all right after all as he believes that congress doesn't have the right to control the private possession of machine guns. I've always wanted a machine gun, how about you?

[ 10-31-2005, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: cedar savage ]

Phillip Allen
10-31-2005, 06:58 AM
According to NPR, the DNC will protest all nominations...simply because of who nominates them...back to normal

ljb5
10-31-2005, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Phillip Allen:
...the DNC will protest all nominations...Fact check: Harriet Miers was sunk by the Republicans.

Keith Wilson
10-31-2005, 09:31 AM
Jesus T. Christ! The only dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey? Well, he seems competent but very far right; "Scalito" indeed. If Bush wants a bloody confirmation fight to take attention away from Fitzgerald's indictment(s), he picked the right man.

[ 10-31-2005, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

Bruce Hooke
10-31-2005, 09:34 AM
Yup, this is going to be "interesting." Bush clearly picked Miers to try to avoid this sort of battle. The right sank Miers' nomination. Will the left be able to sink Alito? We'll see.

Bruce Hooke
10-31-2005, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Phillip Allen:
According to NPR, the DNC will protest all nominations...simply because of who nominates them...back to normalFact Check #2. Was it really an NPR reporter who said this, or was it one of the quite partisan people they were talking to this morning? They had on people from both the left and right this morning to get their opinions on this nomination. I did not catch the statement you are referring to, but it certainly sounds like something that someone on the other side of the spectrum from the DNC would say, especially because, as ljb5 said, it is a demonstrably false statement.

John of Phoenix
10-31-2005, 11:22 AM
Pat Robertson:

This nomination is a grand slam home run.

[ 10-31-2005, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: John Teetsel ]

Alan D. Hyde
10-31-2005, 11:26 AM
He DOES seem to be a learned, experienced and competent judge.

Alan

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-31-2005, 11:32 AM
By noiminating Antonin Scallia's evil twin the Bush administration hopes to raise so much partisan dust that Prosecutor Fitzgerald won't be able to slap the cuffs on any more of their buddies. Or if he does the public will not be able to discern what is going on.
This scenerio is based on the idea that the public cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
How about it? Can we?
Charlie

[ 10-31-2005, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Cuyahoga Chuck ]

Keith Wilson
10-31-2005, 11:40 AM
He DOES seem to be a learned, experienced and competent judge.Yes, he is, and VERY far over on the right-hand end. Roberts wasn't too bad; this guy seems to be far worse. The nomination may be timed to be a distraction, but it's vastly more important than Scooter's misbehavior. I really don't want this fellow on the Supreme Court. This is going to be a nasty one.

ishmael
10-31-2005, 11:59 AM
What, exactly, is the advise and consent function of the Senate? I'm just asking. Is it to reject a competent judge on the basis of disagreements over what The Constitution says? Or, is it to find with the president if nothing illegal or incompetent turns up?

If Bush had a strong mandate in either of his elections, but especially the last, the opposition's job would be much more difficult. As it sits, the country is terribly divided, and boy is it going to play out on this one!

As with many Americans, my heart is torn about the major issue they are going to fight about, Roe v Wade. Most people don't realized that abortion had become legal in many states before R v W. I'm no Constitutional scholar but have long thought the Supremes should have refused to hear that case and left it to the states. And that's what overturning Roe v Wade on appeal would mean now, yes? Throw it back to the states? There is little that has caused more hard feelings and division. Maybe it belongs with the states?

This is going to be a rip snorter. I need to get a new TV, because I think it's important to watch and listen to the arguments. Given Alito's record he's not going to be able to slip all questions as easily as Robert's did.

John of Phoenix
10-31-2005, 12:01 PM
I sense a "nuceler" battle brewing. This is what dubya's presidency is all about. Swing the court as far right as is possible for as long as possible. Theocracy by any other name…

"Bring it on."

Keith Wilson
10-31-2005, 12:09 PM
What, exactly, is the advise and consent function of the Senate? Whatever the Senate says it is. The Constitution doesn't specify, so the Senate can approve or reject a presidential nominee for any reason. The party in power, whoever they are, always argues that the Senate should just rubber-stamp the President's choices as long as they're not obviously incompetent or crooked. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

FWIW, it isn't worth watching it on TV; just a buch of guys in suits sitting around talking. Radio is better for this kind of thing.

cedar savage
10-31-2005, 12:37 PM
Spent a little time reading the "machine gun" case. Alito's dissenting opinion is at the bottom of this link. (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_rybar.txt)

I really liked his final statement...

Without congressional findings or
empirical support, it is not possible for appellate judges, who
are not experts on firearms, machine guns, racketeering, drug
trafficking, or crime in general, to verify in any intellectually
respectable way that there is a reasonable case to be made for
the proposition that the intrastate possession of firearms
substantially affects interstate commerce.

Osborne Russel
10-31-2005, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by cedar savage:
I really liked his final statement...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Without congressional findings or
empirical support, it is not possible for appellate judges, who
are not experts on firearms, machine guns, racketeering, drug
trafficking, or crime in general, to verify in any intellectually
respectable way that there is a reasonable case to be made for
the proposition that the intrastate possession of firearms
substantially affects interstate commerce.
</font>[/QUOTE]It would be intellectually but not legally respectable. If Congress does make such findings, it would be intellectually but not legally respectable to uphold any Congressional regulation of intrastate possession of machine guns whatsoever, up to and including complete prohibition.

The way I see it, the 2d Amendment should in most cases "trump" the commerce clause. The 2d Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. That implies that it expresses a right. What right does it express? The right of the people to possess the means to secure their own liberty. This is more important than another part of the constitution, which grants the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce. That is a grant of power which is limited by its terms and should be construed strictly, especially in a conflict with the Bill of Rights.

But no one agrees with me, especially the Reds who already in a froth about all these new rights being invented by the Black Robes. "The right of the people to possess the means to secure their own liberty", who you kidding? That's as crazy as "the right to privacy." None of these words are in the constitution, end of story, pinkos! Didn't you notice who won the election?

[ 10-31-2005, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Osborne Russel ]

ishmael
10-31-2005, 01:01 PM
FWIW, machine guns, automatic weapons, came under the control of the feds during their "war on alchohol." The Tommy gun was taken up by Capone and his ilk in Chicago, and all the hotbeds of bootlegging. With it they made a lot of noise, which alarmed the populous, with a bit of reason, but nothing as the press drove it.

And it's still legal to own, you just have to jump through hoops and pay a very substantial annual tax.

Automatic weapons are pretty much a non-issue, in my book. Yeah a few drug dealers and gang bangers still find them, ilegally, and use them to terrorize, but com'on, is that a reason to make them a whipping boy? They are used in a very small percentage of actual crime.

One of the opposiition to Alito I heard on NPR, a woman from some women's legal rights organization, whimpered that if Alito is confirmed women and families will once again live in terror of the burp of "The Chicago Piano." It was rare bad theatre.

Phillip Allen
10-31-2005, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by ljb5:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip Allen:
...the DNC will protest all nominations...Fact check: Harriet Miers was sunk by the Republicans.</font>[/QUOTE]I made no mention of her, your Highness

Phillip Allen
10-31-2005, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Bruce Hooke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip Allen:
According to NPR, the DNC will protest all nominations...simply because of who nominates them...back to normalFact Check #2. Was it really an NPR reporter who said this, or was it one of the quite partisan people they were talking to this morning? They had on people from both the left and right this morning to get their opinions on this nomination. I did not catch the statement you are referring to, but it certainly sounds like something that someone on the other side of the spectrum from the DNC would say, especially because, as ljb5 said, it is a demonstrably false statement.</font>[/QUOTE]I was listening to NPR and heard (I think, Cokie Roberts speaking in those general terms...just a radio show)

Rogue Sailor
10-31-2005, 01:08 PM
Fact check: Harriet Miers was sunk by the Republicans. :D So what does that tell ya? :D

Alan D. Hyde
10-31-2005, 01:10 PM
Some more info, FWIW---

Brief biography

Judge Alito currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Prior to his nomination to the Third Circuit by President George H.W. Bush, he served as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey (1987-1990), Deputy Assistant Attorney General (1985-1987), and Assistant to the Solicitor General (1981-1985).

Judge Alito was born in 1950 in Trenton NJ. He attended Princeton University and Yale Law School. He clerked for Judge Leonard I. Garth on the Third Circuit.

Useful weblinks
Access a profile of Judge Alito at www.Law.com (http://www.Law.com)

Notable opinions:

A majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 1999), holding that the Establishment Clause was not violated by a city hall holiday display that contained a creche, a menorah, secular symbols of the season, and a banner proclaiming the city's dedication to diversity.

A majority opinion in Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993), holding that an Iranian woman seeking asylum could establish that she had a well founded fear of persecution in Iran if she could show that compliance with that country's "gender specific laws and repressive social norms," such as the requirement that women wear a veil in public, would be deeply abhorrent to her. Judge Alito also held that she could establish eligibility for asylum by showing that she would be persecuted because of gender, belief in feminism, or membership in a feminist group.

A majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001), striking down as contrary to the First Amendment a public school district anti-harassment policy that extended to nonvulgar, non-school-sponsored speech that posed no realistic threat of substantial disruption of school work.

A majority opinion in Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S., 381 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2004), holding that a school district did not provide a high school student with a free and appropriate public education, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when it failed to protect the student from bullying by fellow students who taunted the student based on his lack of athleticism and his perceived sexual orientation.

A majority opinion in Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003), granting a writ of habeas corpus to an African-American state prisoner after state courts had refused to consider the testimony of a witness who stated that a juror had uttered derogatory remarks about African Americans during an encounter in the courthouse after the conclusion of the trial.

A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld. As Judge Alito reasoned, "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems--such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition--that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent from the Supreme Court's 5-4 [corrected] decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito's dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito's reasoning.

A dissenting opinion in Homar v. Gilbert, 89 F.3d 1009 (3d Cir. 1996) arguing that that a state university did not violate the procedural due process rights of a campus policeman when it suspended him without pay and without a prior hearing upon learning that he had been arrested and charged with drug offenses. The Supreme Court, which reversed and remanded the case on other grounds, agreed with Judge Alito's reasoning that no hearing was required prior to the suspension because the drug charges showed that the suspension was not baseless.

A dissenting opinion in Sheridan v. Dupont, 74 F.3d 1439 (3d Cir. 1996) (en banc) arguing that a plaintiff in a sex discrimination case should not inevitably be able to survive summary judgment simply by casting doubt on the employer's proffer of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse employment decision.

***

Alan

Memphis Mike
10-31-2005, 01:14 PM
He's a closet homo.

Lone Star
10-31-2005, 02:06 PM
Keith Wilson quote:

Yes, he is, and VERY far over on the right-hand end. Roberts wasn't too bad; this guy seems to be far worse. The nomination may be timed to be a distraction, but it's vastly more important than Scooter's misbehavior. I really don't want this fellow on the Supreme Court. This is going to be a nasty one. As a baseline I'd be curious to hear your assessment of Justice Ginsburg.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-31-2005, 02:17 PM
For one thing, Justice Ginsberg does not wear silver-toed cowboy boots with formal attire.
Charlie

Figment
10-31-2005, 02:23 PM
Without congressional findings or
empirical support, it is not possible for appellate judges, who
are not experts on firearms, machine guns, racketeering, drug
trafficking, or crime in general, to verify in any intellectually
respectable way that there is a reasonable case to be made for
the proposition that the intrastate possession of firearms
substantially affects interstate commerce.
Hey, at least this time the republicans found a guy who could assemble a complete sentence! :D

Really though... so much for being a "unificator", eh? This guy's confirmation/not will be as divisive an issue as any we've seen. I suppose the country is due for a good debate, so let's have it.

It appeared that the Bush administration wasn't going to be able to get much done in the next few months anyway, so we might as well hash out a few good meaty issues while they get their act back together.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-31-2005, 03:02 PM
This nomination has Rove's prints all over it. He lives or dies by poll numbers. If his boss can regain 3%or 4% in the polls the campaign will be considered successful even if Alito gets blown away.
Charlie

LeeG
10-31-2005, 05:35 PM
maybe Rove is counting on the increase in noise to allow the loudest voice on the top of the pulpit to focus things.

Osborne Russel
10-31-2005, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Cuyahoga Chuck:
For one thing, Justice Ginsberg does not wear silver-toed cowboy boots with formal attire.
CharlieWho does?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
10-31-2005, 05:49 PM
I did once.
:D

Osborne Russel
10-31-2005, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Figment:
Hey, at least this time the republicans found a guy who could assemble a complete sentence! I thought they were trying to re-connect with their base.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-31-2005, 06:12 PM
Ozzie,
Where have you been. Hain't you ever heard about the black tie swareys in Texasland. Pinch-toe boots with silver heels and big brimed hats are de rigour. After all, Texans wouldn't be sissified enough to wear ordinary shoes.
Ya' gotta' get around more.
Charlie

Osborne Russel
10-31-2005, 06:30 PM
1. What do you call a little burro? A burrito.
2. What do you call a little taco? A taquito.
3. What do you call a little Samuel?

Osborne Russel
10-31-2005, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Cuyahoga Chuck:
Ozzie,
Where have you been. Hain't you ever heard about the black tie swareys in Texasland. Pinch-toe boots with silver heels and big brimed hats are de rigour. After all, Texans wouldn't be sissified enough to wear ordinary shoes.
Ya' gotta' get around more.
CharlieI know.

I once heard a song that went something like this:

If Heaven ain't a lot like Texas,
who the Hell wants to go?

I always thought that was a problematic argument but people seemed enthusiastic.