Wildalaska
Moderator
I dont debate silliness, let me know when you have something with a measure of historical truth to say
WildstillfightingthenewdealAlaska
Brady Center Announces Opposition to Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito
- Thread starter MoW
- Start date
I dont debate silliness, let me know when you have something with a measure of historical truth to say
WildstillfightingthenewdealAlaska
Well, I found the actual application Alito submitted for the position w/the Department of Justice. You can review it here.
I'll quote the most pertinent part of the Application:
"Most recently, it has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during Persident Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal proitions in which I personally believe very strongly. I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Superme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."
In no part of the Application does Alito assert that minorities should not be permitted to vote; that a poll tax should be implemented; that emminent domain should be without limit; and/or any of the other apparently unsupported claims that are being used to assert that Alito "doesn't respect anyone/shows no deference to the Rule of Law or precedent/is dangerous to America".
The Application does state that Alito is proud of his contribution to Government arguments that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion. Alito may (or may not) still hold this opinion. Many lawyers openly criticize the Roe opinion as lacking in a solid legal basis. But that view (if Alito still hold that view) does not, in and of itself, make him "dangerous to America."
And I still can't find decisions or memos authored by Alito which demonstrate that Alito doesn't respect anyone/shows no deference to the Rule of Law or precedent/is dangerous to America. I've looked -- despite the fact that I'm not the one asserting these claims. I'm beginning to think that the cases/memos don't exist. Let me know if I'm wrong, because if they do exist, I will learn a lot from them. Thanks!
I'll quote the most pertinent part of the Application:
"Most recently, it has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during Persident Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal proitions in which I personally believe very strongly. I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Superme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."
In no part of the Application does Alito assert that minorities should not be permitted to vote; that a poll tax should be implemented; that emminent domain should be without limit; and/or any of the other apparently unsupported claims that are being used to assert that Alito "doesn't respect anyone/shows no deference to the Rule of Law or precedent/is dangerous to America".
The Application does state that Alito is proud of his contribution to Government arguments that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion. Alito may (or may not) still hold this opinion. Many lawyers openly criticize the Roe opinion as lacking in a solid legal basis. But that view (if Alito still hold that view) does not, in and of itself, make him "dangerous to America."
And I still can't find decisions or memos authored by Alito which demonstrate that Alito doesn't respect anyone/shows no deference to the Rule of Law or precedent/is dangerous to America. I've looked -- despite the fact that I'm not the one asserting these claims. I'm beginning to think that the cases/memos don't exist. Let me know if I'm wrong, because if they do exist, I will learn a lot from them. Thanks!
I never said the application stated that Alito believed minorities shouldn't vote. Re-read my posts if you want to but I never said that.
What I said was that the application stated that he believed that the warren court made several decisions that he disagreed with personally.
Here's what I mean"
SCOTUS made the rulings which Alito now says he believes very strongly against. What's not in the memo is that the opinions he personally believes very strongly against were decisions were handed down by SCOTUS under Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 60's. SCOTUS opinons such as Baker v. Carr in 1962; Wesberry v. Sanders in 1963; and Reynolds v. Sims in 1964.
In those cases, SCOTUS commanded states to conform to the Constitutional requirement that each man be represented equally and the various legislative districts must be based on population. Alito would reverse that and allow states to redistrict based on political affilitation. Under such a plan, minorities and their districts would be lumped together and under-represented. Without equal representation, minorities couldn't muster enough political votes to change oppressive laws. Minorities would become (again) second class citizens.
A good read on this is at: http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/branches/spc/udall/congrept/88th/641014.html It's not directly on point about Alito but it WILL give you information to understand why one man - one vote is so important.
This points out that you have to go beyond the everyday tripe and THINK about what's being said and how it relates to the world. If Alito believes "very strongly" that SCOTUS decisions were wrongly decided, then his mindset is opposite to those decisions. It is also apparent that he puts his personal mindset before the rule of law.
This appears most vividly in Casey v. Plannedparenthood 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991).
It is an EXTREMELY well established rule of law by SCOTUS that a woman cannot be required to notify the father before having an abortion. This is the rule of law and HAS BEEN the rule of law. It's been challenged a few times in various forms and it still stands.
It is the law.
In Casey, Alito wrote a dissent that states that he cannot find any bar to the requirement of a state statute that a woman notify her spouse prior to having an abortion.
Say WHAT?
Last time I checked, a circuit justice is required to follow the rule of law. Which in this case says that notification requirements are unconstitutional.
It matters not what your opinion is on the abortion issue. What matters is that Alito DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW when he wrote his dissent. His dissent follows his personal strong belief instead and disregards the settled law in this area. Again, it doesn't matter how you feel about abortion. What matters is that Alito KNEW the law yet disregarded it because he personally believes that the law is "wrong".
Which means he uses his own personal views as his guide instead of the law.
To compound the problem Alito has stated that he does not intend to involve himself in re-addressing and/or changing well settled law. Which directly refutes his position in Casey.
So, the question now becomes: Which positon is the TRUE position regarding established law. Does he follow the law or will he interject his own personal beliefs into the law and hence upon us through his opinions? Based on his judicial record as well as comments he has made since being nominated, I think the latter rather than the former.
In other words, Alito is an untrustable liar attempting to gain one of the highest judicial seats in the country so he can change the nation to suit his personal views established law be damned.
Which makes him dangerous to America.
If you're looking for specific opinions or other written items which state explicitly that he is as I stated, then you won't find them. It's not that these things don't exist, it's that decisions by Alito don't explicitly state my personal opinion. I formed my opinion as a result of my own personal investigation and reading of his judicial decisions as well as following the news (both pro and con). I stuck it into that vast space I call my head, cogitated & stirred it around and didn't like the look of the result. YMMV.
What I said was that the application stated that he believed that the warren court made several decisions that he disagreed with personally.
Here's what I mean"
SCOTUS made the rulings which Alito now says he believes very strongly against. What's not in the memo is that the opinions he personally believes very strongly against were decisions were handed down by SCOTUS under Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 60's. SCOTUS opinons such as Baker v. Carr in 1962; Wesberry v. Sanders in 1963; and Reynolds v. Sims in 1964.
In those cases, SCOTUS commanded states to conform to the Constitutional requirement that each man be represented equally and the various legislative districts must be based on population. Alito would reverse that and allow states to redistrict based on political affilitation. Under such a plan, minorities and their districts would be lumped together and under-represented. Without equal representation, minorities couldn't muster enough political votes to change oppressive laws. Minorities would become (again) second class citizens.
A good read on this is at: http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/branches/spc/udall/congrept/88th/641014.html It's not directly on point about Alito but it WILL give you information to understand why one man - one vote is so important.
This points out that you have to go beyond the everyday tripe and THINK about what's being said and how it relates to the world. If Alito believes "very strongly" that SCOTUS decisions were wrongly decided, then his mindset is opposite to those decisions. It is also apparent that he puts his personal mindset before the rule of law.
This appears most vividly in Casey v. Plannedparenthood 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991).
It is an EXTREMELY well established rule of law by SCOTUS that a woman cannot be required to notify the father before having an abortion. This is the rule of law and HAS BEEN the rule of law. It's been challenged a few times in various forms and it still stands.
It is the law.
In Casey, Alito wrote a dissent that states that he cannot find any bar to the requirement of a state statute that a woman notify her spouse prior to having an abortion.
Say WHAT?
Last time I checked, a circuit justice is required to follow the rule of law. Which in this case says that notification requirements are unconstitutional.
It matters not what your opinion is on the abortion issue. What matters is that Alito DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW when he wrote his dissent. His dissent follows his personal strong belief instead and disregards the settled law in this area. Again, it doesn't matter how you feel about abortion. What matters is that Alito KNEW the law yet disregarded it because he personally believes that the law is "wrong".
Which means he uses his own personal views as his guide instead of the law.
To compound the problem Alito has stated that he does not intend to involve himself in re-addressing and/or changing well settled law. Which directly refutes his position in Casey.
So, the question now becomes: Which positon is the TRUE position regarding established law. Does he follow the law or will he interject his own personal beliefs into the law and hence upon us through his opinions? Based on his judicial record as well as comments he has made since being nominated, I think the latter rather than the former.
In other words, Alito is an untrustable liar attempting to gain one of the highest judicial seats in the country so he can change the nation to suit his personal views established law be damned.
Which makes him dangerous to America.
If you're looking for specific opinions or other written items which state explicitly that he is as I stated, then you won't find them. It's not that these things don't exist, it's that decisions by Alito don't explicitly state my personal opinion. I formed my opinion as a result of my own personal investigation and reading of his judicial decisions as well as following the news (both pro and con). I stuck it into that vast space I call my head, cogitated & stirred it around and didn't like the look of the result. YMMV.
The problem with that thinking is that even though he says he will support an individuals right to keep & bear arms, he's not trustable to DO what he says.
There are too many times in his history where he has said one thing and done exactly the opposite. Too many times.
Will he do the same on his 2nd amendment stance?
I don't know but I certainly don't want to risk losing MORE rights than are already gone.
There are too many times in his history where he has said one thing and done exactly the opposite. Too many times.
Will he do the same on his 2nd amendment stance?
I don't know but I certainly don't want to risk losing MORE rights than are already gone.
IMO...
Better than what Clinton 1 or 2 would appoint!!
The way the Senate is with the waffling,who the heck knows who "they" will even vote on!!:barf:
A bit of midol and prozac in their coffee may improve the chances!!
We hope for the best always-but are aware of the "other" side too..
Brenden
Better than what Clinton 1 or 2 would appoint!!
The way the Senate is with the waffling,who the heck knows who "they" will even vote on!!:barf:
A bit of midol and prozac in their coffee may improve the chances!!
We hope for the best always-but are aware of the "other" side too..
Brenden
Irrelevant since neither Clinton 1 or 2 is running for SCOTUS but....
So you're saying that you'd approve ANYONE as long as they aren't named "Clinton"? Even someone who's record is frighteningly anti-liberty? Just because that person "says" they support the 2nd amendment?
I'll take status quo on the 2nd amendment issue as long as the rest of our freedoms don't have to evaporate in order to keep our RKBA.
O.K. I found the memos, applications, and case law by Alito. They prove that Alito is actually a robot constructed by Carl Rove [
CARL ROVE ], and when confirmed, Alito plans on declaring the entire Constitution unconstitutional! And it gets worse! He will then rule that the United States armed forces are unconstitutional, which is the secret signal for the zombie army to rise up and take over the United States!!! I've been telling you people about these darn zombies for months, but no one has listened. Finally, Alito will hold that Carl Rove [ CARL ROVE ] is declared the Zombie ruler! It is all in the memos, applications, and case law (you guys can look this stuff up on Google -- I'm too busy to list 'em right now).
Frightenly anti-liberty? That is the understatement of the Century!
Yes, I'm just kidding and trying to provide a bit of humor here.
CARL ROVE ], and when confirmed, Alito plans on declaring the entire Constitution unconstitutional! And it gets worse! He will then rule that the United States armed forces are unconstitutional, which is the secret signal for the zombie army to rise up and take over the United States!!! I've been telling you people about these darn zombies for months, but no one has listened. Finally, Alito will hold that Carl Rove [ CARL ROVE ] is declared the Zombie ruler! It is all in the memos, applications, and case law (you guys can look this stuff up on Google -- I'm too busy to list 'em right now).Frightenly anti-liberty? That is the understatement of the Century!
Yes, I'm just kidding and trying to provide a bit of humor here.
RobP,
Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I'm still in the pro-Alito camp. I think some precedents need revisiting, most notably in the areas mentioned. In both cases, Raich and Kelo, I found Thomas' opinions most persuasive. They call them opinions for a reason; of course they are influenced by the person delivering them.
Given that, I'm sure you can see why I liked this bit by machine gun Sammy, unorthodox though it may be:
US v Rybar
Me too.
Here is another point: don't assume that Alito is pro-Second Amendment based on the Rybar case. Frankly, I don't understand why Alito has been nicknamed "machine-gun Sammy", which implies that he supports the possession of a machine gun and/or that he feels that the Second Amendment entitles an individual to possess a firearm. In fact, Alito's dissent in the Rybar case was not based on a finding that the Second Amendment entitles an individual to possess a firearm (fully automatic or otherwise). Instead, the dissent is based on Alito's opinion that for Congress to outlaw the possession of a machine gun (based on its power to regulate interstate commerce), there must be some evidence on the record concerning the effect that the intrastate possession of a machine gun has on interstate commerce.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
GOOD! Sounds like he's just the kind of guy we need, if he finds unconstitutional, notwithstanding poorly-decided 'established precedent', such things as gun control, not letting calif doctors prescribe proven medication for their very sick patients, cities forcing people from their lifelong homes via eminent domain to give to rich real estate investors for a song, a constitutional 'penumbra of rights' where there is only enumerated rights (i.e. Griswold/Roe), etc. [[For the record, I'm fully in favor of a right to abortion, but it needs to be done by const. amendment, or left to the states, cuz I got news for the moron justices who decided those cases - there ain't no right to contraception and abortion listed in the bill of rights, quite in stark contrast to the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS which so many justices would like to ignore.]] And he'll finally be in a position where he can no longer be overturned, when he actually reads and applies the plain english language as written in the Constitution! I'm a lawyer. I've studied many scotus decision in my studies. They are by and large, just ridiculous rationalizations and perversions of the law, which inconsistently rely on precedent, or even ignore precedent, and talk in such garbled convolutions that the lower courts find it nearly impossible to try to do what they say. They're plenty brainy enough to talk for pages without really saying anything, and they're just smart enough to make you think the masses think they've followed precedent when nothing could be further from the truth. The lower appellate courts follow/apply precedent far better than the scotus. Bah, I could go on....
I could not possibly disagree with you more.
Ok, then, I officially announce my A+ rating given to Don for when he runs for office!
Being anti-commerce-clause-stretching is being pro 2nd amendment in the context of current federal regulatory structure.