Bush picks Alito
- Thread starter JimW
- Start date
- Status
Some info relating to Judge Sam Alito, Bush's new nominee to the Supreme Court.
Bio:
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.
Various notable opinions:
* Alito wrote the majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 1999), holding that a holiday display on city property did not violate the Establishment Clause because it included secular symbols, such as a large plastic Santa Claus, in addition to religious symbols. Such mixed displays had previously been held constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU argued that a previous city display that was ruled unconstitutional because it lacked secular symbols colored the purpose of the new display. Alito wrote:
* A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania law 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 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.
* (Williams v. Price, 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 majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001) [2], holding that the public school district's anti-harassament policy was unconstitutionally overbroad and therefore violated First Amendment guarantees of free speech.
* 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 dissenting opinion in Homar v. Gilbert, 89 F.3d 1009 (3d Cir. 1996). Relating to a suspension without pay and subsequint demotion of a university police officer. 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). A civil rights case based upon sexual discrimination and wrongfull termination of employment. Alito argued 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.
* A concurring opinion in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, 220 F.3d 127 (3rd Cir. 2000) in which Judge Alito recognized that a New Jersey law banning "partial-birth abortions" was unconstititional in light of the recent Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000).
* 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 6-3 decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito's dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito's reasoning.
n.b. compiled from Scotusblog; CNN; FoxNews and a search of the 3rd Circuit. For more info on Alito's position on commerce and business, see Larry Ribsteins blog on Alito.
Comment:
I may just take back some of the things I said about Bush as it relates to tactics and strategy.
It is obvious (to anyone following such things) that the Senate confirmation hearings will not be concluded before the Thanksgiving recess. It is possible that Bush may appoint ALito during the recess (as provided in the Constitution). In which case, Alito will be a sitting Justice when the confirmation hearings proceed in the new congress, starting in January of 2007.
Doing this will enhance the Republican base and possibly increase the Republican dominance of the two Houses in the Fall 2006 elections. Should the Senate gain 6 more seats, then a Democrat filibuster will be nullified at the polls.
In which case, the Meirs debacle can be seen as a delaying tactic to achieve a broader strategic goal.
Bio:
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.
Various notable opinions:
* Alito wrote the majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 1999), holding that a holiday display on city property did not violate the Establishment Clause because it included secular symbols, such as a large plastic Santa Claus, in addition to religious symbols. Such mixed displays had previously been held constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU argued that a previous city display that was ruled unconstitutional because it lacked secular symbols colored the purpose of the new display. Alito wrote:
"As our prior discussion of Lynch and Allegheny County illustrates, the Supreme Court's decisions regarding holiday displays have been marked by fine line-drawing, and therefore it is not easy to determine whether particular displays satisfy the Court's standards. Under these circumstances, the mere fact that city officials miscalculate and approve a display that is found by the federal courts to cross over the line is hardly proof of the officials' bad faith."
* A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania law 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 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.
* (Williams v. Price, 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 majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001) [2], holding that the public school district's anti-harassament policy was unconstitutionally overbroad and therefore violated First Amendment guarantees of free speech.
* 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 dissenting opinion in Homar v. Gilbert, 89 F.3d 1009 (3d Cir. 1996). Relating to a suspension without pay and subsequint demotion of a university police officer. 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). A civil rights case based upon sexual discrimination and wrongfull termination of employment. Alito argued 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.
* A concurring opinion in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, 220 F.3d 127 (3rd Cir. 2000) in which Judge Alito recognized that a New Jersey law banning "partial-birth abortions" was unconstititional in light of the recent Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000).
* 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 6-3 decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito's dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito's reasoning.
n.b. compiled from Scotusblog; CNN; FoxNews and a search of the 3rd Circuit. For more info on Alito's position on commerce and business, see Larry Ribsteins blog on Alito.
Comment:
I may just take back some of the things I said about Bush as it relates to tactics and strategy.
It is obvious (to anyone following such things) that the Senate confirmation hearings will not be concluded before the Thanksgiving recess. It is possible that Bush may appoint ALito during the recess (as provided in the Constitution). In which case, Alito will be a sitting Justice when the confirmation hearings proceed in the new congress, starting in January of 2007.
Doing this will enhance the Republican base and possibly increase the Republican dominance of the two Houses in the Fall 2006 elections. Should the Senate gain 6 more seats, then a Democrat filibuster will be nullified at the polls.
In which case, the Meirs debacle can be seen as a delaying tactic to achieve a broader strategic goal.
Last edited:
Re Alito and Firearms Rights
The following, quoted from MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9874588/), provides extremely worthwhile insight re Alito’s RKBA position:
On gun rights, Alito in 1996 was the only appeals judge to vote against upholding Congress’ authority to ban fully automatic machine guns. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sarcastically described “Machine Gun Sammy” as a “perfect Halloween pick.”
He certainly appears to be an outstanding nominee from my perspective.
The following, quoted from MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9874588/), provides extremely worthwhile insight re Alito’s RKBA position:
On gun rights, Alito in 1996 was the only appeals judge to vote against upholding Congress’ authority to ban fully automatic machine guns. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sarcastically described “Machine Gun Sammy” as a “perfect Halloween pick.”
He certainly appears to be an outstanding nominee from my perspective.
progunner1957
Moderator
And the Demosocialists are already saying he is "too radical." If a nominee isn't a wishy-washy middle of the road type but is an actual conservative, he's "radical."
This crap is nothing more than Demosocialist newspeak.:barf:
A real conservative - oh horror of horrors!!!!
This crap is nothing more than Demosocialist newspeak.:barf:
A real conservative - oh horror of horrors!!!!
XavierBreath
New member
White House Talking Points on Alito
Responses to Likely Attacks: Judge Samuel A. Alito
1) Attack: Alito upheld a Pennsylvania anti-abortion law that the Supreme Court overturned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Response:
a) In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Alito agreed with the Third Circuit majority that Pennsylvania’s informed consent, parental consent, and reporting and public disclosure requirements were constitutional. The Supreme Court upheld these holdings.
b) Judge Alito also concluded that the spousal notification requirement was constitutional, based on the “undue burden” standard articulated by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in Supreme Court cases (Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and Hodgson v. Minnesota) that had addressed the abortion issue following Roe v. Wade.
c) Judge Alito did not make up the spousal notification provision. The voters of Pennsylvania enacted it, and it contained four exceptions to the spousal notification requirement: (1) if the woman believed the husband was not the father, (2) if the husband could not be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy was the result of a spousal sexual assault that was reported to authorities, and (4) the woman believed the notification was likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury on her. Judge Alito was merely called upon in his role as a judge to determine if the voters of Pennsylvania had violated the Constitution by enacting such a statute.
d) Judge Alito noted in his opinion in Casey that the Planned Parenthood plaintiffs challenging the Pennsylvania statute had made a facial challenge to the statute: that is, in order to strike it down, one would have to find that there was not a single circumstance in which the statute could be applied consistent with the Constitution. That he noted this in 1991 shows his attention to detail, precedent, and applicable legal standards: this term – 14 years later – the Supreme Court is finally attempting to clarify its own confusing precedents on the applicable standard of review question that Judge Alito identified.
e) Judge Alito has shown that he respects and follows Supreme Court precedent and does not automatically rule for or against abortion laws. Indeed, in Planned Parenthood v. Farmer, Judge Alito voted to strike down New Jersey’s ban on partial birth abortion. The Supreme Court previously had invalidated a similar Nebraska law, and Judge Alito emphasized the “responsibility” of judges “to follow and apply controlling Supreme Court precedent.”
2) Attack: Alito also subscribes to a states’ rights approach that undercuts the ability of federally elected representatives to enact laws that protect civil rights, an approach that leaves women vulnerable.
Response: Judge Alito’s federalism rulings faithfully applied settled Supreme Court precedents.
a) In United States v. Rybar, Judge Alito argued in dissent that Congress could not regulate wholly intrastate possession of machineguns. He simply applied the Supreme Court precedent United States v. Lopez, which struck down a nearly identical ban on possessing guns near schools. Judge Alito said explicitly that states can ban possession of machine guns and that Congress could reenact the law if it found that intrastate possession of machine guns substantially affected interstate commerce.
b) In Chittister v. Dep’t of Community and Econ. Dev., Judge Alito ruled that parts of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act violated states’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. That ruling was unanimous, joined by two Democratic appointees. Scores of other Democratic appointees have agreed that parts of the law were unconstitutional. States and the Federal Government remained free to ensure adequate family leave, and Judge Alito noted that every state in the Third Circuit had already enacted generous family-leave policies.
3) Attack: Alito has a disturbing record in cases involving discrimination based on race, disability and gender. Under his judicial philosophy, victims would face near-impossible burdens to prove their discrimination.
Response: Judge Alito is even-handed and fair to employees and employers.
a) In Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, Judge Alito reversed a trial judge’s decision to throw out the plaintiff police officer’s sexual-harassment claim. Judge Alito held explicitly that a plaintiff need not suffer monetary loss to show that she suffered an adverse employment action.
b) In Konstantopoulos v. Westvaco Corp., Judge Alito agreed that the plaintiff had not proved sexual harassment. Her only evidence of discrimination was that her co-workers had “squinted their eyes and shook their fists” at her, and that a colleague had once thrown her lunch away.
c) In Sheridan v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., Judge Alito argued that courts should not be required to rule automatically for employees whenever they show that an employer’s explanation is pretextual, but stressed that in practice employees should almost always win these cases.
4)Attack: Alito is a notorious foe of church-state separation.
Response: Judge Alito’s opinions stress the importance of neutrality, neither specially burdening religion nor granting it special benefits. He has resisted government efforts to impose discriminatory burdens, especially on religious minorities.
a) He struck down a police policy that required Sunni Muslim police officers to shave their beards, because they believed they had a religious duty to grow beards.
b) He struck down a school policy that allowed nonreligious student groups to distribute informational materials but forbade religious student groups to do the same.
c) He struck down a state permit requirement that made no exception for a Native American who wished to keep a wild bear, which his faith regards as sacred.
d) He has also ruled that a city could erect a holiday display that included not only a crèche and a menorah, but also a Christmas tree, Santa Clause, Frosty the Snowman, a sled, and Kwanzaa symbols. In doing so, Judge Alito simply applied the governing Supreme Court precedent, Lynch v. Donnelly.
Responses to Likely Attacks: Judge Samuel A. Alito
1) Attack: Alito upheld a Pennsylvania anti-abortion law that the Supreme Court overturned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Response:
a) In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Alito agreed with the Third Circuit majority that Pennsylvania’s informed consent, parental consent, and reporting and public disclosure requirements were constitutional. The Supreme Court upheld these holdings.
b) Judge Alito also concluded that the spousal notification requirement was constitutional, based on the “undue burden” standard articulated by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in Supreme Court cases (Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and Hodgson v. Minnesota) that had addressed the abortion issue following Roe v. Wade.
c) Judge Alito did not make up the spousal notification provision. The voters of Pennsylvania enacted it, and it contained four exceptions to the spousal notification requirement: (1) if the woman believed the husband was not the father, (2) if the husband could not be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy was the result of a spousal sexual assault that was reported to authorities, and (4) the woman believed the notification was likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury on her. Judge Alito was merely called upon in his role as a judge to determine if the voters of Pennsylvania had violated the Constitution by enacting such a statute.
d) Judge Alito noted in his opinion in Casey that the Planned Parenthood plaintiffs challenging the Pennsylvania statute had made a facial challenge to the statute: that is, in order to strike it down, one would have to find that there was not a single circumstance in which the statute could be applied consistent with the Constitution. That he noted this in 1991 shows his attention to detail, precedent, and applicable legal standards: this term – 14 years later – the Supreme Court is finally attempting to clarify its own confusing precedents on the applicable standard of review question that Judge Alito identified.
e) Judge Alito has shown that he respects and follows Supreme Court precedent and does not automatically rule for or against abortion laws. Indeed, in Planned Parenthood v. Farmer, Judge Alito voted to strike down New Jersey’s ban on partial birth abortion. The Supreme Court previously had invalidated a similar Nebraska law, and Judge Alito emphasized the “responsibility” of judges “to follow and apply controlling Supreme Court precedent.”
2) Attack: Alito also subscribes to a states’ rights approach that undercuts the ability of federally elected representatives to enact laws that protect civil rights, an approach that leaves women vulnerable.
Response: Judge Alito’s federalism rulings faithfully applied settled Supreme Court precedents.
a) In United States v. Rybar, Judge Alito argued in dissent that Congress could not regulate wholly intrastate possession of machineguns. He simply applied the Supreme Court precedent United States v. Lopez, which struck down a nearly identical ban on possessing guns near schools. Judge Alito said explicitly that states can ban possession of machine guns and that Congress could reenact the law if it found that intrastate possession of machine guns substantially affected interstate commerce.
b) In Chittister v. Dep’t of Community and Econ. Dev., Judge Alito ruled that parts of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act violated states’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. That ruling was unanimous, joined by two Democratic appointees. Scores of other Democratic appointees have agreed that parts of the law were unconstitutional. States and the Federal Government remained free to ensure adequate family leave, and Judge Alito noted that every state in the Third Circuit had already enacted generous family-leave policies.
3) Attack: Alito has a disturbing record in cases involving discrimination based on race, disability and gender. Under his judicial philosophy, victims would face near-impossible burdens to prove their discrimination.
Response: Judge Alito is even-handed and fair to employees and employers.
a) In Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, Judge Alito reversed a trial judge’s decision to throw out the plaintiff police officer’s sexual-harassment claim. Judge Alito held explicitly that a plaintiff need not suffer monetary loss to show that she suffered an adverse employment action.
b) In Konstantopoulos v. Westvaco Corp., Judge Alito agreed that the plaintiff had not proved sexual harassment. Her only evidence of discrimination was that her co-workers had “squinted their eyes and shook their fists” at her, and that a colleague had once thrown her lunch away.
c) In Sheridan v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., Judge Alito argued that courts should not be required to rule automatically for employees whenever they show that an employer’s explanation is pretextual, but stressed that in practice employees should almost always win these cases.
4)Attack: Alito is a notorious foe of church-state separation.
Response: Judge Alito’s opinions stress the importance of neutrality, neither specially burdening religion nor granting it special benefits. He has resisted government efforts to impose discriminatory burdens, especially on religious minorities.
a) He struck down a police policy that required Sunni Muslim police officers to shave their beards, because they believed they had a religious duty to grow beards.
b) He struck down a school policy that allowed nonreligious student groups to distribute informational materials but forbade religious student groups to do the same.
c) He struck down a state permit requirement that made no exception for a Native American who wished to keep a wild bear, which his faith regards as sacred.
d) He has also ruled that a city could erect a holiday display that included not only a crèche and a menorah, but also a Christmas tree, Santa Clause, Frosty the Snowman, a sled, and Kwanzaa symbols. In doing so, Judge Alito simply applied the governing Supreme Court precedent, Lynch v. Donnelly.
you gotta love a nominee that makes the brady bunch flip out like this:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/r...hp?release=701
"MACHINE GUN SAMMY," A PERFECT HALLOWEEN PICK
For Immediate Release:
10-31-2005 Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792
Washington, D.C. - How could it have gone in any other direction, from a White House that just gave blanket immunity to the gun industry, which refuses to bar terrorists from buying guns, that broke a campaign promise and put Uzis and AK-47s back on America’s city streets, and insisted that records of gun purchases be destroyed before the sun sets on them twice?
It had to be a Supreme Court pick that favors legal machine guns.
In 1996, Judge Samuel Alito was the sole judge who dissented from his Third Circuit Court of Appeals colleagues when they upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns.
“Earth to Sammy - who needs legal machine guns?” asked Jim Brady, chair of the Brady Campaign. “The Chicago mobsters of the 1930s would be giddy. But the man I worked for, who gave us Sandra Day O’Connor and signed the 1986 machine gun ban, would be shaking his head.”
“Judge Alito’s ludicrous machine gun decision is bad enough. But it also indicates that a Justice Ilito would attempt to prevent Congress from passing other laws to protect Americans from gun violence,” said Michael D. Barnes, President of the Brady Campaign. “If Judge Alito had his way, the federal machine gun ban would have been struck down as unconstitutional, and the private possession of these weapons would have become legal.”
Bobby
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/r...hp?release=701
"MACHINE GUN SAMMY," A PERFECT HALLOWEEN PICK
For Immediate Release:
10-31-2005 Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792
Washington, D.C. - How could it have gone in any other direction, from a White House that just gave blanket immunity to the gun industry, which refuses to bar terrorists from buying guns, that broke a campaign promise and put Uzis and AK-47s back on America’s city streets, and insisted that records of gun purchases be destroyed before the sun sets on them twice?
It had to be a Supreme Court pick that favors legal machine guns.
In 1996, Judge Samuel Alito was the sole judge who dissented from his Third Circuit Court of Appeals colleagues when they upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns.
“Earth to Sammy - who needs legal machine guns?” asked Jim Brady, chair of the Brady Campaign. “The Chicago mobsters of the 1930s would be giddy. But the man I worked for, who gave us Sandra Day O’Connor and signed the 1986 machine gun ban, would be shaking his head.”
“Judge Alito’s ludicrous machine gun decision is bad enough. But it also indicates that a Justice Ilito would attempt to prevent Congress from passing other laws to protect Americans from gun violence,” said Michael D. Barnes, President of the Brady Campaign. “If Judge Alito had his way, the federal machine gun ban would have been struck down as unconstitutional, and the private possession of these weapons would have become legal.”
Bobby
2 rulings that are going to drive the Liberals nuts:
Alito also has written a majority opinion holding that a city's holiday display that had a menorah did not violate the First Amendment's establishment clause -- which bars the federal government from declaring a national religion -- because it included secular symbols such as Frosty the Snowman.
He dissented in cases that loosened the legal standards for bringing a sex discrimination lawsuit.
In a dissent to a ruling that upheld the constitutionality of a federal law banning the possession of machine guns, Alito argued for greater state rights in reasoning that Congress had no authority to regulate private gun possession.
Go Scalito!
Alito also has written a majority opinion holding that a city's holiday display that had a menorah did not violate the First Amendment's establishment clause -- which bars the federal government from declaring a national religion -- because it included secular symbols such as Frosty the Snowman.
He dissented in cases that loosened the legal standards for bringing a sex discrimination lawsuit.
In a dissent to a ruling that upheld the constitutionality of a federal law banning the possession of machine guns, Alito argued for greater state rights in reasoning that Congress had no authority to regulate private gun possession.
Go Scalito!Blackwater OPS
New member
"n a 1996 ruling that upheld the constitutionality of a federal law banning the possession of machine guns, Alito argued for greater state rights in reasoning that Congress had no authority to regulate private gun possession."
I think its funny that the libs are calling him "machine gun Sammy" when all he did was advocate states rights and try to limit federal authority in an area where the feds should not have any, for obvious reasons.
I think its funny that the libs are calling him "machine gun Sammy" when all he did was advocate states rights and try to limit federal authority in an area where the feds should not have any, for obvious reasons.
I haven't been around much lately but....
I saw this on the headlines and wasn't that surprised. When Meirs withdrew, I KNEW that G-dub would nominate a man to be the replacement nominee rather than a woman.
Alito is well qualified for the job. Unfortunately too many are willing to be pro or con based on surface appearances. That may get us into trouble in the future.
On the surface, Alito "appears" to be even handed. He "appears" to be a constructionalist and a conservative. However, his application of the law is based on a concept of federalism that has been supplanted by the 14th amendment and goes against or ignores established SCOTUS precedent.
To allude that the 1993 FMLA laws violate 11th amendment rights is ridiculous. 11th Amendment states rights issues have NEVER been heard by SCOTUS. Thus, there is NO precedent to use to assert that a law violates this amendment. It's only a personal opinion that he used as justification for his ruling. SCOTUS has consistently refused ALL appeals based on this and it is pretty apparent that 11a issues will not be heard.
Furthermore, Congress HAS the right (as determined by SCOTUS) to create laws like the FMLA. Child labor/sweatshop laws were originally held to violate the 11th and weren't "interstate commercer" sufficient to come under that constitutional umbrella. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is also a legislative act that could be viewed as an 11th Amendment violation. However, SCOTUS decided that these types of laws, while not being fully under the commerce clause, do not violate States rights. Pretty consistent rulings on this issue which Alito either ignored or disagreed with when he made his decision.
Next, Alito is NOT going to be good for the 2nd Amendment based on his previous decisions. He is on record as saying that Congress has no right to ban weapons but individual States do have that right. Trust me on this one, we DO NOT WANT individual States passing who knows what all gun laws that restrict gun ownership to the point the 2nd is legislated out of existence. We would be much better off with a national law based on the Constitution and not on the moral philosophy of individual state legislators. California is a perfect example of this madness.
Alito's opinion on sexual harassment issues whereby a claimant need prove more than mere doubt to survive a summary judgement is flat WRONG. To survive a summary judgement motion it is only necessary to show that there is a triable issue of fact. It is not required that the triable issue of fact be more than doubtful. Alito even admits that in practice, most claimants will survive the motion based upon mere doubt but he rules against the claimant in that particular case. Which speaks loudly that despite what he says about "in practice", the rule is dump the plaintiff out the door. Not good lawmaking.
I also have some problems with his rationale in abortion cases such as when he would have upheld the spousal notification law. SCOTUS has determined that such notification laws are unconstitutional because if a woman is required to notify someone, then someone other than the woman has some input as to whether the woman controls her destiny and decision to procreate. If someone other than the woman has the right to make a decision EVEN IN PART, then that law is unconsitutional. Alito sort of ignored or sidestepped that one IMO.
I believe that G-dub wants to turn back the clock to the mentality of the 50's. The rationale that there are Pinko Commies everywhere so we need heightend security. The belief that people are so stupid they can't think for themselves so gov't needs to do it for them. Etc. It's a shame that our leaders talk about "creating freedom" when their decisions take away the freedoms that many have worked and fought for. It's a REAL shame that the people in Iraq have more freedom than we do "in the land of the free" because of people like G.W. Bush and the conservative party.
Alito will be confirmed (unless something untoward is uncovered) but the country may not be better off because of it.
I saw this on the headlines and wasn't that surprised. When Meirs withdrew, I KNEW that G-dub would nominate a man to be the replacement nominee rather than a woman.
Alito is well qualified for the job. Unfortunately too many are willing to be pro or con based on surface appearances. That may get us into trouble in the future.
On the surface, Alito "appears" to be even handed. He "appears" to be a constructionalist and a conservative. However, his application of the law is based on a concept of federalism that has been supplanted by the 14th amendment and goes against or ignores established SCOTUS precedent.
To allude that the 1993 FMLA laws violate 11th amendment rights is ridiculous. 11th Amendment states rights issues have NEVER been heard by SCOTUS. Thus, there is NO precedent to use to assert that a law violates this amendment. It's only a personal opinion that he used as justification for his ruling. SCOTUS has consistently refused ALL appeals based on this and it is pretty apparent that 11a issues will not be heard.
Furthermore, Congress HAS the right (as determined by SCOTUS) to create laws like the FMLA. Child labor/sweatshop laws were originally held to violate the 11th and weren't "interstate commercer" sufficient to come under that constitutional umbrella. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is also a legislative act that could be viewed as an 11th Amendment violation. However, SCOTUS decided that these types of laws, while not being fully under the commerce clause, do not violate States rights. Pretty consistent rulings on this issue which Alito either ignored or disagreed with when he made his decision.
Next, Alito is NOT going to be good for the 2nd Amendment based on his previous decisions. He is on record as saying that Congress has no right to ban weapons but individual States do have that right. Trust me on this one, we DO NOT WANT individual States passing who knows what all gun laws that restrict gun ownership to the point the 2nd is legislated out of existence. We would be much better off with a national law based on the Constitution and not on the moral philosophy of individual state legislators. California is a perfect example of this madness.
Alito's opinion on sexual harassment issues whereby a claimant need prove more than mere doubt to survive a summary judgement is flat WRONG. To survive a summary judgement motion it is only necessary to show that there is a triable issue of fact. It is not required that the triable issue of fact be more than doubtful. Alito even admits that in practice, most claimants will survive the motion based upon mere doubt but he rules against the claimant in that particular case. Which speaks loudly that despite what he says about "in practice", the rule is dump the plaintiff out the door. Not good lawmaking.
I also have some problems with his rationale in abortion cases such as when he would have upheld the spousal notification law. SCOTUS has determined that such notification laws are unconstitutional because if a woman is required to notify someone, then someone other than the woman has some input as to whether the woman controls her destiny and decision to procreate. If someone other than the woman has the right to make a decision EVEN IN PART, then that law is unconsitutional. Alito sort of ignored or sidestepped that one IMO.
I believe that G-dub wants to turn back the clock to the mentality of the 50's. The rationale that there are Pinko Commies everywhere so we need heightend security. The belief that people are so stupid they can't think for themselves so gov't needs to do it for them. Etc. It's a shame that our leaders talk about "creating freedom" when their decisions take away the freedoms that many have worked and fought for. It's a REAL shame that the people in Iraq have more freedom than we do "in the land of the free" because of people like G.W. Bush and the conservative party.
Alito will be confirmed (unless something untoward is uncovered) but the country may not be better off because of it.
Hugh Damright
New member
I am finding this hard to believe. Did he say that a State has a right to ban certain weapons, like for instance .25 auto pocket pistols, or did he say that a State has a right to ban all weapons?
I expect that he said that gun control powers were reserved to the States which means he respects the Constitution. And yes, that is what I want. I do not live in California, and I do not want an activist SCOTUS to come to my rescue. If California cannot handle free government, that is no reason to take it away from Virginia.
Blackwater OPS
New member
I disagree, states are not allowed to violate other amendments in the bill of rights, they should not be allowed to violate the 2nd.
Yes, I am a citizen of CA, so that might or might not be coloring my viewpoint.
So, you want a Supreme Court that limits it's decisions to interpretations of the Constitution based on the vision & views of the Framers? Wonderful.
Please show me in the Constitution the right of an individual to protest against a SuperWalmart? How about protesting against a convicted sex offender living in the neighborhood?
None of those are in the Constitution. The first amendment's free speech in a strict interpretation is only for the press and protests against the FEDERAL GOV'T. The right is not available against private citizens, businesses, or States so those "rights" listed above would not be upheld or protected should they be challenged. Yet, we use those rights all the time and they are for the benefit of our society.
Restricting the view restricts the rights. Restricting the rights restricts the growth. Restriction of growth leads to the death of whatever is restricted.
As for your view on individual states and gun control laws, California's gun bans are the role models for laws in other states. If it flys in Calif, then it may come to a state near you. Having a federal recognition that states do not have the right to limit gun ownership or posession would mean we all have the same rights no matter where we are in the country. And it would take an constitutional amendment to change it rather than a local municipal ordinance.
"The belief that people are so stupid they can't think for themselves so gov't needs to do it for them. Etc."
I agree with Rebar 100%.
It is actually the left and their many pet programs that are here to make everyone's decisions for them. Larger government, more programs for the stupid citizens. Higher taxes, give all your $$ to the government because they know how to best spend it. They'll make everything fair.
I agree with Rebar 100%.
It is actually the left and their many pet programs that are here to make everyone's decisions for them. Larger government, more programs for the stupid citizens. Higher taxes, give all your $$ to the government because they know how to best spend it. They'll make everything fair.
Hugh Damright
New member
It kind of sounded as if somebody was complaining that Alito believes in the 10th and 11th Amendments, and suggesting that what we really need is an activist Judge who will push an extremist 14th "Amendment" view. No thanks. I want to reel the US in, not give them more slack.
Hugh Damright
New member
First off, the people of every State WANT the right to limit gun ownership or possession. Not all gun laws are despotic.
Secondly, the States are not limited in the same way that the US is. The US is limited to delegated powers. The States have general powers, such as police powers which include gun control powers.
Mostly, I do not want us all to have the same rights no matter where we are in the US. That view is completely antithetical to the Constitution. That is like saying that we must all have the same religion no matter where we are in the US. The intent, and yes folks the intent is still relevant, is that rights vary from State to State.
- Status