Samuel Alito
- Thread starter Cnon
- Start date
I've been watching this. I've come to the conclusion that:
Either he's a bald faced liar or he's a political windsock.
He is doing the about-face on what he wrote when he applied for a position under the Reagan Admin. His "heart-felt belief" sounds like he's stuck in the early 1940's. He disagrees with the Warren court on just about everything yet most would agree that the Warren court did good things for America and the citizens. His position sounds suspiciously discriminatory without being so bold as to actually say it.
He's waffling around about his "beliefs". If the political scene today requires that he be "moderate" and gentle, then he's trying to give that appearance. If the political climate is to "be tough", then he's doing his best for that look while disavowing his "moderate" stance. What's happening is that he looks like he has no backbone and has no opinion of his own - just the opinion of others he's trying to impress.
If he was truly the man he (and others) says he is, then why doesn't he just come out and say something about why he wrote the things he did? He won't because that would sink his chances and he knows it.
So, either he's a liar or he's spineless. Either way, he's not a good choice for America no matter what his opinion on the 2nd amendment. I wish it were otherwise.
Either he's a bald faced liar or he's a political windsock.
He is doing the about-face on what he wrote when he applied for a position under the Reagan Admin. His "heart-felt belief" sounds like he's stuck in the early 1940's. He disagrees with the Warren court on just about everything yet most would agree that the Warren court did good things for America and the citizens. His position sounds suspiciously discriminatory without being so bold as to actually say it.
He's waffling around about his "beliefs". If the political scene today requires that he be "moderate" and gentle, then he's trying to give that appearance. If the political climate is to "be tough", then he's doing his best for that look while disavowing his "moderate" stance. What's happening is that he looks like he has no backbone and has no opinion of his own - just the opinion of others he's trying to impress.
If he was truly the man he (and others) says he is, then why doesn't he just come out and say something about why he wrote the things he did? He won't because that would sink his chances and he knows it.
So, either he's a liar or he's spineless. Either way, he's not a good choice for America no matter what his opinion on the 2nd amendment. I wish it were otherwise.
Bottom line is he is a great judge. He will be approved for this reason. Doesn't make a bit of difference what his personal views are--he rules under the law.
All the lefties that are against him make no sense. Whomever was going to be nominated was either going to be for or against abortion. Did they really think that Bush would nominate somebody in favor of abortion? They would rather have a lesser judge who favors abortion then a better judge that opposes.:barf:
All the lefties that are against him make no sense. Whomever was going to be nominated was either going to be for or against abortion. Did they really think that Bush would nominate somebody in favor of abortion? They would rather have a lesser judge who favors abortion then a better judge that opposes.:barf:
wow again for people who are so worried about your rights you want to limit them. I am completely against abortion, and would try to talk anyone thinking of getting an abortion out of it. that being said do i think someone should tell anyone else what to do? hell no. you can give advice, counseling, whatever, there will be no more government control than there needs to be.
just like the 2nd, it is a big issue.
just like the 2nd, it is a big issue.
Noone,
I am Libertarian. Even hyper-Libertarian. I don't like law that contradicts the Constitution. And I personally feel exactly the same way as you on the subject.
*But*... Look at this from a practical standpoint. Roe is bad law contrived at through improper means. Even Sandra Day herself freely admits it.
If it is overturned, what is the harm? It will not keep Americans who want abortions from getting them, it will merely return the question to the individual states. And we know that most of our states would keep the law as it is.
Therefore it is irresponsible IMO to focus on the subject as a pass-fail litmus test when there are so many other issues that more directly affect our civil liberties.
Why aren't they talking about more explicit violations of the BoR such as "Due Process" (Padilla), "Freedom of Religion" (gay marriage), and "Illegal Search and Seizure" (USAPatriot) and such?
Case in point: the left blogs endorsed Gonzales because of his position on Roe despite the fact that he's authoritarian on nearly everything else.
I'm just sayin' I think they're shooting themselves in the foot by focusing on abortion...
I am Libertarian. Even hyper-Libertarian. I don't like law that contradicts the Constitution. And I personally feel exactly the same way as you on the subject.
*But*... Look at this from a practical standpoint. Roe is bad law contrived at through improper means. Even Sandra Day herself freely admits it.
If it is overturned, what is the harm? It will not keep Americans who want abortions from getting them, it will merely return the question to the individual states. And we know that most of our states would keep the law as it is.
Therefore it is irresponsible IMO to focus on the subject as a pass-fail litmus test when there are so many other issues that more directly affect our civil liberties.
Why aren't they talking about more explicit violations of the BoR such as "Due Process" (Padilla), "Freedom of Religion" (gay marriage), and "Illegal Search and Seizure" (USAPatriot) and such?
Case in point: the left blogs endorsed Gonzales because of his position on Roe despite the fact that he's authoritarian on nearly everything else.
I'm just sayin' I think they're shooting themselves in the foot by focusing on abortion...
I dont disagree, as i have stated the whole spectrum of politics is at the point right now that i think everyone should be fired. I am tired of all of it. I just dont wanna sit by and listen to people harp on how terrible the dems are and how wonderfull the repubs. are.
I think that just concentrating on one is issue is ignorant. But its not like bush is ever going to put up someone who everyone agrees is a good judge(if there even were one). he has to nominate someone who the far right wants. I personally am sick of all that crap. we need to have good people running this country, not just people who agree with a certain set of ideals from a certain side. there should be no teams, just a fight for the common good.....but it will never happen.
I think that just concentrating on one is issue is ignorant. But its not like bush is ever going to put up someone who everyone agrees is a good judge(if there even were one). he has to nominate someone who the far right wants. I personally am sick of all that crap. we need to have good people running this country, not just people who agree with a certain set of ideals from a certain side. there should be no teams, just a fight for the common good.....but it will never happen.
The debates about Supreme Court Justices have become absolutely ridiculous. If the measure of a judge was whether people liked their decisions, we could just go ahead and elect them. Turning the selection of Supreme Court Justices into a popularity contest is foolish and dangerous.
It seems that 75% of the consideration of SCOTUS nominees revolves around their views on Roe. I support choice in abortion, but I also think Roe should be overturned because it is bad law. When the SCOTUS considers cases, I don't want the Justices to decide what they think is the "right thing" to do based on their personal opinions and then look around the nooks and crannies of the law for penumbras, and emanations, and shadows, and dust bunnies to try to justify their views.
When the SCOTUS honestly decides cases by interpreting the law, unpopular decisions can be addressed by the people electing representatives to change to laws that led to the unpopular decisions. When the SCOTUS decides cases based on the views of the Justices, the American people are subject to the whims of a handful of unelected, life-tenured tyrants and there is no recourse.
And what does that have to do with anything? The Supreme Court is not a social services agency with a mandate to go forth and 'do good things' for the country. The Court exists to interpret the Constitution and federal law.
It seems that 75% of the consideration of SCOTUS nominees revolves around their views on Roe. I support choice in abortion, but I also think Roe should be overturned because it is bad law. When the SCOTUS considers cases, I don't want the Justices to decide what they think is the "right thing" to do based on their personal opinions and then look around the nooks and crannies of the law for penumbras, and emanations, and shadows, and dust bunnies to try to justify their views.
When the SCOTUS honestly decides cases by interpreting the law, unpopular decisions can be addressed by the people electing representatives to change to laws that led to the unpopular decisions. When the SCOTUS decides cases based on the views of the Justices, the American people are subject to the whims of a handful of unelected, life-tenured tyrants and there is no recourse.
GC70,
The Warren court did good things for AMERICA. Not just good things that were/are politically or socially popular. Things like Brown v. Board of Ed which eventually lead to the creation of The Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Just TRY to tell me that isn't a "good thing". TRY to convince me it was just a "socially popular" decision.
Then there's the issues of The right of privacy, racial segregation and interracial marriage, reapportionment (one man - one vote), Miranda, & mixed race juries. All these things were in decisions made by SCOTUS under Warren that advanced liberty and freedom for everyone.
JUSTICE requires that the court look at everything, interpret everything, and make decisions about EVERYTHING. SCOTUS is no different and it's mandate under the constitution requires/demands that the court exercise its jurisprudence while also including equitable results. In other words: equal justice for ALL, not just a few, not just for the socially acceptable. For everyone.
Remember, justice and equity demand that the result be the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Otherwise you're not interpreting the constitution and laws. You're making exceptions on an individual basis for those constituents lucky enough to get granted a hearing.
I also believe that Warren would have said (although I can find no context of his belief on this) that the 2d amendment is an individual right.
"It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties which make the defense of our nation worthwhile." Chief Justice Earl Warren.
I also believe that, had the issue come before him, he would have decided that the 14th amendment included all of the BofR's and that as such, the states were prevented from banning firearms, outlawing concealed carry, and requiring permits to posess weapons.
ANYONE who believes that the Warren court was headed in the wrong direction needs to get examined for mental deficiencies. At the time, Warren was hated by the conservatives (the slogan "Impeach Warren" was rampant) but time has since proven that he, and SCOTUS, were correct in their interpretations and decisions. Rightly or wrongly, The Warren court advanced America and the freedoms we're guaranteed under the Constitution.
Alito wrote that he had a "heartfelt belief" that these decisions were wrong. I submit to you that Alito needs to be examined for a heartbeat and brain activity for writing such STUPIDITY on a public document. I also submit that anyone who truly believes that to be true does not belong on our SCOTUS and anyone who writes pap like that just to look favorable in order to get a government job doesn't belong on SCOTUS either.
Alito is NOT the justice he was promoted to be. He is NOT the candidate I thought he was at first.
The Warren court did good things for AMERICA. Not just good things that were/are politically or socially popular. Things like Brown v. Board of Ed which eventually lead to the creation of The Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Just TRY to tell me that isn't a "good thing". TRY to convince me it was just a "socially popular" decision.
Then there's the issues of The right of privacy, racial segregation and interracial marriage, reapportionment (one man - one vote), Miranda, & mixed race juries. All these things were in decisions made by SCOTUS under Warren that advanced liberty and freedom for everyone.
JUSTICE requires that the court look at everything, interpret everything, and make decisions about EVERYTHING. SCOTUS is no different and it's mandate under the constitution requires/demands that the court exercise its jurisprudence while also including equitable results. In other words: equal justice for ALL, not just a few, not just for the socially acceptable. For everyone.
Remember, justice and equity demand that the result be the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Otherwise you're not interpreting the constitution and laws. You're making exceptions on an individual basis for those constituents lucky enough to get granted a hearing.
I also believe that Warren would have said (although I can find no context of his belief on this) that the 2d amendment is an individual right.
"It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties which make the defense of our nation worthwhile." Chief Justice Earl Warren.
I also believe that, had the issue come before him, he would have decided that the 14th amendment included all of the BofR's and that as such, the states were prevented from banning firearms, outlawing concealed carry, and requiring permits to posess weapons.
ANYONE who believes that the Warren court was headed in the wrong direction needs to get examined for mental deficiencies. At the time, Warren was hated by the conservatives (the slogan "Impeach Warren" was rampant) but time has since proven that he, and SCOTUS, were correct in their interpretations and decisions. Rightly or wrongly, The Warren court advanced America and the freedoms we're guaranteed under the Constitution.
Alito wrote that he had a "heartfelt belief" that these decisions were wrong. I submit to you that Alito needs to be examined for a heartbeat and brain activity for writing such STUPIDITY on a public document. I also submit that anyone who truly believes that to be true does not belong on our SCOTUS and anyone who writes pap like that just to look favorable in order to get a government job doesn't belong on SCOTUS either.
Alito is NOT the justice he was promoted to be. He is NOT the candidate I thought he was at first.
Today's headlines about Alito are interesting:
Somehow, during his original appointment to the bench in 1990 he said that he would recuse himself if he was asked to decide a matter which involved the Vaanguard Group (a mutual funds company) because he held stock in some of their funds.
Somehow, in spite of his promise, in 2002 Alito decided a case against a woman and in favor of, (wait for it), The Vaanguard Group. The woman filed a conflict of interest appeal (and lost at the re-hearing before another justice).
Now, Alito says that his original promise to: "stay out of Vanguard appeals only applied to his initial service, and that the promise was "unduly restrictive."
HUH? He promised to not hear those cases involving that party but it only applied to his "initial service"? What the heck does "initial service" mean anyway? Only during his appointment and not after he was confirmed? For the first few months? What?
And looking further, WHY would he say that his promise to stay out of some cases had an UNMENTIONED sunset clause?
I believe that Alito is doing the political shuffle. Disavowing ANYTHING that is disfavorable to his potential advancement while at the same time saying that his deviations from his promises are meaningless. This is more of the same stuff he's already done and REALLY starts to show his true character.
I have a BAAAAD feeling about this one.
Somehow, during his original appointment to the bench in 1990 he said that he would recuse himself if he was asked to decide a matter which involved the Vaanguard Group (a mutual funds company) because he held stock in some of their funds.
Somehow, in spite of his promise, in 2002 Alito decided a case against a woman and in favor of, (wait for it), The Vaanguard Group. The woman filed a conflict of interest appeal (and lost at the re-hearing before another justice).
Now, Alito says that his original promise to: "stay out of Vanguard appeals only applied to his initial service, and that the promise was "unduly restrictive."
HUH? He promised to not hear those cases involving that party but it only applied to his "initial service"? What the heck does "initial service" mean anyway? Only during his appointment and not after he was confirmed? For the first few months? What?
And looking further, WHY would he say that his promise to stay out of some cases had an UNMENTIONED sunset clause?
I believe that Alito is doing the political shuffle. Disavowing ANYTHING that is disfavorable to his potential advancement while at the same time saying that his deviations from his promises are meaningless. This is more of the same stuff he's already done and REALLY starts to show his true character.
I have a BAAAAD feeling about this one.
uh oh, more bad press.
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
43 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Judge Samuel Alito has said he did not break a federal ethics law when he ruled in a case involving the company that handles his mutual fund investments
Legal experts are divided over whether Alito did anything wrong in the case three years ago. Of more immediate concern is his explanation of his role in that case — along with questions about what his recusal practices will be if confirmed to the high court.
Judges, including Supreme Court justices, are required by law to stay out of cases in which they have a financial stake. Members of the high court, however, decide for themselves when to recuse with no oversight.
Alito serves on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and has most of his money in mutual funds. When he joined the court in 1990 he told senators he would avoid cases in which Vanguard Group was a party.
Senators questioned him about the 2002 Vanguard case, which was the subject of a conflict of interest complaint filed by the woman who lost her lawsuit. Alito withdrew after first ruling against her and the decision was reaffirmed without his participation.
Alito and the White House have offered several explanations: that a computer glitch allowed the disqualification issue to slip through undetected, that Alito's 1990 pledge to stay out of Vanguard appeals only applied to his initial service, and that the promise was "unduly restrictive."
"The explanation causes greater concern than the problem," said Stephen Gillers, a professor specializing in legal ethics at New York University's School of Law. "It would have all gone away if Judge Alito had said, `This was an oversight.' People can forgive oversights. We all have them."
Doug Kendall, executive director of the Community Rights Counsel, a public interest law firm, said the response was "inconsistent and somewhat incoherent."
"His explanation has made it an issue that will continue through the (Senate) hearings," said Kendall.
Judges who have even one share of stock in a company are not allowed to rule in cases involving that company. Because of that, recusals are common at the high court.
Steven Lubet, an ethics expert at Northwestern University, said the rules for judges and their mutual funds is not clear. If the mutual fund company is compared to a bank, which just holds deposits, then recusals are not required.
Lubet said that Alito should be praised for keeping the bulk of his money in mutual funds instead of in individual stocks.
Alito reported holdings of about $80,000 in Vanguard funds when he was confirmed in 1990. Last year he reported shares in 14 Vanguard Group mutual funds, worth $455,000 to $1 million.
Nominated late last month by President Bush, Alito would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has extensive stock holdings.
O'Connor has had about 730 recusals during her 24 years on the court, according to Goldstein & Howe, a Washington law firm that tracks Supreme Court statistics.
New Chief Justice John Roberts has already had several major recusals, including one that followed an acknowledgment that he wrongly participated in a case. He took himself out of a patent infringement case the same week that he and the other justices picked the case for review. The conflict apparently was related to his former law firm, Hogan & Hartson.
Like Roberts, who also had served as an appeals court judge, Alito as a justice would be sidelined in a few cases he previously ruled on.
Justices recently agreed to hear a prison lawsuit in which Alito argued that states should be allowed to restrict inmates' reading material. The appeals court found that the rules were an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
Roberts and Alito also have family legal ties, which could prompt them to step aside in some cases. Roberts' wife is a partner with a prominent Washington law firm. Alito's sister is a lawyer in New Jersey.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should question Alito sharply during his confirmation hearings in January about what his recusal policies will be, said Kendall, because "once confirmed, a justice has unreviewable discretion in this area."
Gillers said the criticism about the mutual fund case might have a long-term impact.
"This experience may have had a personally bruising effect on Judge Alito. If he gets onto the court he might err on the side of recusal to clear his name," Gillers said.
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
43 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Judge Samuel Alito has said he did not break a federal ethics law when he ruled in a case involving the company that handles his mutual fund investments
Legal experts are divided over whether Alito did anything wrong in the case three years ago. Of more immediate concern is his explanation of his role in that case — along with questions about what his recusal practices will be if confirmed to the high court.
Judges, including Supreme Court justices, are required by law to stay out of cases in which they have a financial stake. Members of the high court, however, decide for themselves when to recuse with no oversight.
Alito serves on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and has most of his money in mutual funds. When he joined the court in 1990 he told senators he would avoid cases in which Vanguard Group was a party.
Senators questioned him about the 2002 Vanguard case, which was the subject of a conflict of interest complaint filed by the woman who lost her lawsuit. Alito withdrew after first ruling against her and the decision was reaffirmed without his participation.
Alito and the White House have offered several explanations: that a computer glitch allowed the disqualification issue to slip through undetected, that Alito's 1990 pledge to stay out of Vanguard appeals only applied to his initial service, and that the promise was "unduly restrictive."
"The explanation causes greater concern than the problem," said Stephen Gillers, a professor specializing in legal ethics at New York University's School of Law. "It would have all gone away if Judge Alito had said, `This was an oversight.' People can forgive oversights. We all have them."
Doug Kendall, executive director of the Community Rights Counsel, a public interest law firm, said the response was "inconsistent and somewhat incoherent."
"His explanation has made it an issue that will continue through the (Senate) hearings," said Kendall.
Judges who have even one share of stock in a company are not allowed to rule in cases involving that company. Because of that, recusals are common at the high court.
Steven Lubet, an ethics expert at Northwestern University, said the rules for judges and their mutual funds is not clear. If the mutual fund company is compared to a bank, which just holds deposits, then recusals are not required.
Lubet said that Alito should be praised for keeping the bulk of his money in mutual funds instead of in individual stocks.
Alito reported holdings of about $80,000 in Vanguard funds when he was confirmed in 1990. Last year he reported shares in 14 Vanguard Group mutual funds, worth $455,000 to $1 million.
Nominated late last month by President Bush, Alito would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has extensive stock holdings.
O'Connor has had about 730 recusals during her 24 years on the court, according to Goldstein & Howe, a Washington law firm that tracks Supreme Court statistics.
New Chief Justice John Roberts has already had several major recusals, including one that followed an acknowledgment that he wrongly participated in a case. He took himself out of a patent infringement case the same week that he and the other justices picked the case for review. The conflict apparently was related to his former law firm, Hogan & Hartson.
Like Roberts, who also had served as an appeals court judge, Alito as a justice would be sidelined in a few cases he previously ruled on.
Justices recently agreed to hear a prison lawsuit in which Alito argued that states should be allowed to restrict inmates' reading material. The appeals court found that the rules were an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
Roberts and Alito also have family legal ties, which could prompt them to step aside in some cases. Roberts' wife is a partner with a prominent Washington law firm. Alito's sister is a lawyer in New Jersey.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should question Alito sharply during his confirmation hearings in January about what his recusal policies will be, said Kendall, because "once confirmed, a justice has unreviewable discretion in this area."
Gillers said the criticism about the mutual fund case might have a long-term impact.
"This experience may have had a personally bruising effect on Judge Alito. If he gets onto the court he might err on the side of recusal to clear his name," Gillers said.
You appear to evaluate SCOTUS decisions by how well you like the results or how 'good' the results were. It would be silly to argue with you over personal perceptions of the results of court decisions.
I evaluate SCOTUS decisions on whether the court followed a sound, reasoned judicial process, firmly based on interpreting the law is my primary interest. All I want are nine Justices who will honestly interpret the law.
If Justices make decisions on their personal feelings, or perceptions of what would be 'good' for the country, or on any basis other than interpreting the law, they are nothing more than tyrants.
gC,
You mean strict-constructionists like Scalia? (5 yard penalty to myself for unnecessary baiting)...
Look, I agree with you about Justices interpreting the law instead of voting what they think the law should be. But just as everything else, the interpretation of the law has a grey area and is politically charged. We can't put this guy on the box, so how do we *know* that he will actually interpret the law as it is?
We don't. That's why we seek moderate Justices; those who believe the law as it is written.
You mean strict-constructionists like Scalia? (5 yard penalty to myself for unnecessary baiting)...
Look, I agree with you about Justices interpreting the law instead of voting what they think the law should be. But just as everything else, the interpretation of the law has a grey area and is politically charged. We can't put this guy on the box, so how do we *know* that he will actually interpret the law as it is?
We don't. That's why we seek moderate Justices; those who believe the law as it is written.
GoSlash27,
I am not advocating or defending Alito. I am expressing a strong opinion that evaluating SCOTUS decisions or potential Justices on the basis of how well you like the results of their decisions is not very wise.
As you point out, there are always voids in the law that judges have to fill in - hopefully with wisdom and equity. But judges should only fill voids in the law, not disregard the law and substitute their own opinions simply because they feel like doing so.
Regarding moderate judges... I honestly wish we could find some (or a bunch). Unfortunately, the selection of judges has become too political. Special-interest groups have too much influence and essentially demand that nominees swear allegiance to their pet interest.
(no penalty re: Scalia, but the man does write some entertaining opinions
)
I am not advocating or defending Alito. I am expressing a strong opinion that evaluating SCOTUS decisions or potential Justices on the basis of how well you like the results of their decisions is not very wise.
As you point out, there are always voids in the law that judges have to fill in - hopefully with wisdom and equity. But judges should only fill voids in the law, not disregard the law and substitute their own opinions simply because they feel like doing so.
Regarding moderate judges... I honestly wish we could find some (or a bunch). Unfortunately, the selection of judges has become too political. Special-interest groups have too much influence and essentially demand that nominees swear allegiance to their pet interest.
(no penalty re: Scalia, but the man does write some entertaining opinions
)