2
   

Bush Picks Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

 
 
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 08:24 am
Once again, Bush has demonstrated that his presidency represents only his base, which is less than 20 percent of americans, instead of all of them. ---BBB

Bush Picks Alito for Supreme Court
By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer
10/31/05

President Bush, stung by the rejection of his first choice, nominated longtime judge Samuel Alito Monday in a bid to reshape the Supreme Court and mollify his conservative allies. Democrats said that Alito may be "too radical for the American people."

"Judge Alito has served with distinction on that court for 15 years, and now has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years," Bush said, drawing an unspoken contrast to his first choice, Harriet Miers.

Unlike her nomination, which was derailed Thursday by Bush's conservative allies, Alito faces opposition from Democrats.

"The Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

Alito's nomination is one step in Bush's political recovery plan as he tries to regain his footing after a cascade of troubles rocked his presidency. His approval rating in the polls has tumbled to the lowest point of his presidency and Americans are unhappy about high energy prices, the costly war in Iraq and economic doubts. Bush also has been hit by a criminal investigation that reached into the office of Vice President Dick Cheney and led to the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, on perjury and other charges in the CIA leak investigation.

On top of it all, Miers' nomination angered Bush's conservative backers. Most welcomed the Alito pick.

So consistently conservative, Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. But while Scalia is outspoken and is known to badger lawyers, Alito is polite, reserved and even-tempered.

"The Supreme Court is an institution I have long held in reverence," said the bespectacled judge, a former prosecutor and government attorney who has argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court. "During my 29 years as a public servant, I've had an opportunity to view the Supreme Court from a variety of perspectives."

From the bench, Alito has staked out positions supporting restrictions on abortion, such as parental and spousal notification.

If he is confirmed by the Senate, Alito would join another Bush pick on the bench, Chief Justice John Roberts. He would replace retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a decisive swing vote in a host of affirmative action, abortion, campaign finance, discrimination and death penalty cases.

Wasting no time, the White House arranged for Alito to go to the Capitol after the announcement.The schedule called for Senate Majority Leader Bill First to greet him and accompany the nominee to the Capitol Rotunda to go to the coffin of the late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.

"The president has made an excellent choice today which reflects his commitment to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas," said Kay Daly, president of the conservative Coalition for a Fair Judiciary.

Conservative activist Gary Bauer who had challenged Miers' nomination predicted Democrats will fight Alito. "At least now the president is having a battle with his political opponents and not with his friends," Bauer told CNN. "I will help him any way I can."

Alito signaled his alliance with Daly and other conservatives, speaking of the "limited role the courts play in our constitutional system."

Reid, who had jumped to the support of Miers, promised to give Alito a "hard look."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., pulled no punches. "Rather than selecting a nominee for the good of the nation and the court, President Bush has picked a nominee whom he hopes will stop the massive hemorrhaging of support on his right wing. This is a nomination based on weakness, not on strength."

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America immediately called on the Senate to reject the nomination.

Miers bowed out last Thursday after three weeks of bruising criticism from members of Bush's own party who argued that the Texas lawyer and loyal Bush confidant had thin credentials on constitutional law and no proven record as a judicial conservative.

Senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the deliberations, said Alito was virtually certain from the start to get the nod from the moment Miers backed out. The 55-year-old jurist was Bush's favorite choice of the judges in the last set of deliberations but he settled instead on someone outside what he calls the "judicial monastery," the officials said.

Unlike Miers, who has never been a judge, Alito, a jurist from New Jersey, has been a strong conservative voice on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, seated him there in 1990.

Judicial conservatives praise Alito's 15 years on the Philadelphia-based court, a tenure that gives him more appellate experience than almost any previous Supreme Court nominee. They say his record shows a commitment to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, ensuring that the separation of powers and checks and balances are respected and enforced. They also contend that Alito has been a powerful voice for the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and the free exercise of religion.

Liberal groups, on the other hand, note Alito's moniker and say his nomination raises troubling concerns, especially when it comes to his record on civil rights and reproductive rights. Alito is a frequent dissenter on the 3rd Circuit, one of the most liberal federal appellate benches in the nation.

In the early 1990s, Alito was the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a case in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.

"The 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," Alito wrote.

He has not been a down-the-line abortion foe, however. In 2000, Alito joined the majority that found a New Jersey law banning late-term abortions unconstitutional. In his concurring opinion, Alito said the Supreme Court required such a ban to include an exception if the mother's health was endangered.

The case ended up at the Supreme Court where the justices, in a 6-3 decision struck down the spousal notification provision of the law. The late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist cited Alito's reasoning in his own dissent.

Alito, an Italian-American who grew up in Trenton, N.J., has a resume filled with stepping stones to the high court. He was educated at Princeton University and earned a law degree from Yale University, the president's alma mater.
---------------------------------------------------

White House reporter Deb Riechmann and special correspondent Dave Espo contributed to this report.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 25,293 • Replies: 427
No top replies

 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 08:37 am
anone he picks will be to rubber stamp him, so this guy sucks too as far as I'm concerned.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 08:44 am
Who is Judge Alito?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Alito,_Jr.

Samuel A. Alito Jr. (born April 1, 1950) is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On October 31, 2005, he was nominated by President George W. Bush to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Some claim he is ideologically similar to United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and nickname him "Scalito." This nickname has been seen by some Republicans as ethnically insensitive. [1]

Alito and wife, Martha, live in West Caldwell, New Jersey. He has two children: a son in college and a daughter in high school.

With the announced retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 2005, Alito was widely reported as being narrowly passed-over as her replacement by the Bush Administration, having been edged-out by close personal Bush aide and confidant, Harriet Miers. Miers's nomination was withdrawn on October 27, 2005 following opposition from conservative Republicans and some Democrats. Shortly thereafter, on October 31, 2005, the Bush administration announced that it had selected Alito as its nominee for O'Connor's position.

Alito was born in Trenton, New Jersey on April 1, 1950. He graduated from Princeton University with an A.B. in 1972, and went to Yale Law School, where he earned a J.D. in 1975.

Career

From 1976 to 1977, Alito clerked for the Honorable Leonard I. Garth of the Third Circuit.

From 1981 to 1985 he was assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee, and was deputy assistant to the Attorney General Edwin Meese from 1985 to 1987. Alito then served a brief stint as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

Alito was nominated by George H. W. Bush on February 20, 1990 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On April 27, 1990, the United States Senate confirmed him. His chambers are in Newark, New Jersey.

He served in The United States Army Reserve and was honorably discharged as a captain.

He is known for his conservative views and pointedly written rulings, in the mold of Justice Scalia. Women's rights groups point to a Pennsylvania law that he voted to uphold that required women to tell their husbands before having an abortion. The Supreme Court struck down the law in 1992.

George W. Bush nominated Alito for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on October 31, 2005. If he is confirmed by the Senate, Alito will be the twelfth Catholic ever to serve on the Supreme Court, and the fifth on the current Court (along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas).

Case history

Alito wrote the majority opinion [2] 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.

Granted the habeas corpus claim of an African-American defendant who sought to introduce evidence that a juror made a racist remark after the jury reached its verdict. (Williams v. Price, 2003)

A majority opinion in Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993)

A majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001) [3], 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) [4] reinstating an administrative law judge's ruling in favor of parents who claimed the school system's failure to protect their child from bullying justified their placing him in a different high school.

A majority opinion in Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003)

A dissenting opinion in Homar v. Gilbert, 89 F.3d 1009 (3d Cir. 1996).

A dissenting opinion in Sheridan v. Dupont, 74 F.3d 1439 (3d Cir. 1996) (en banc).

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).

External links

Profile from Law.com
US News profile
SCOTUSblog analysis
Washington Post Profile
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Alito%2C_Jr."
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 09:09 am
Scalito's Way? No Way!
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 09:09 am
ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980's. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito's view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by "immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer's belief that it had selected the ?'best' candidate was the result of conscious racial bias." [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito's dissent was so restrictive that "few if any…cases would survive summary judgment." [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one." The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito's disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito's dissent "guts the statutory standard" and "ignores our precedent." In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito's opinion contradicted "well-recognized rules of statutory construction." [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 09:36 am
Anyone else who heard the president's introduction of Alito this morning notice how much he emphasized his nominee's experience? Alito is clearly the "anti-Miers" -- he's more qualified to serve on the supreme court than most of the current membership.

I'm glad to see that Bush actually picked someone who has a clearly identifiable judicial philosophy -- although it took him three tries to do it. Maybe this choice will end the string of "stealth nominees" (including John Roberts) that have made it to the court over the past twenty years. There are only three things about Alito's background that I have some problems with:

(1) Once again, the nominee is someone who served time in the federal executive branch. Although many lawyers spend time there, it is somewhat disconcerting from a separation-of-powers perspective to see so many justices at the apex of the third branch who served an apprenticeship in the second.

(2) Alito is yet another member of the court from the east coast. It used to be that there was some geographical diversity on the court. Now, however, most justices are either from the east and northeast (Souter, Ginsburg, Scalia) or else sat on a federal court on the east coast (Roberts, Breyer, Thomas). After the installation of Alito (to replace Arizona native O'Connor) there will be only two non-easterners on the bench: Stevens and Kennedy.

(3) With the appointment of Alito the court will have a Roman Catholic majority (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito). That's rather odd, to put it mildly. I certainly don't adhere to the tired notion that Catholics can't be trusted because they serve a foreign master, but I do think that the court should represent a broader cross-section of the American population. Perhaps this is a welcome change from all the Episcopalians and Presbyterians who have populated the bench in the past. But the US isn't 5/9ths Catholic, so should we have a supreme court that is?
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 09:44 am
Interesting points Joe. But I have a question. Why does it matter what one's religion is when it comes to filling out the SC? And why would one even be legally allowed to base his confirmation or non-confirmation on anything having to do with his faith? That seems to me to violate all kinds of discrimination laws if any senator should even question him on his religious views.

Aren't we supposed to ignore a person's color, religious faith, sex, etc. when it comes to appointing or hiring them to a job? So I am just curious as to why his being catholic would be a concern to you.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 09:48 am
CoastalRat wrote:
Interesting points Joe. But I have a question. Why does it matter what one's religion is when it comes to filling out the SC? And why would one even be legally allowed to base his confirmation or non-confirmation on anything having to do with his faith? That seems to me to violate all kinds of discrimination laws if any senator should even question him on his religious views.

Aren't we supposed to ignore a person's color, religious faith, sex, etc. when it comes to appointing or hiring them to a job? So I am just curious as to why his being catholic would be a concern to you.


because catholics like to have inquisitions and f**k altar boys. I thought everyone knew that. Laughing
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 09:53 am
Well, if they discover that he has participated in either of the above activities, I for one will fully support the rejection of his confirmation. Laughing
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 09:56 am
CoastalRat wrote:
Interesting points Joe. But I have a question. Why does it matter what one's religion is when it comes to filling out the SC? And why would one even be legally allowed to base his confirmation or non-confirmation on anything having to do with his faith? That seems to me to violate all kinds of discrimination laws if any senator should even question him on his religious views.

Aren't we supposed to ignore a person's color, religious faith, sex, etc. when it comes to appointing or hiring them to a job? So I am just curious as to why his being catholic would be a concern to you.


SCOTUS nominees are not subject to discrimination laws. There is however a clause in the Constitution that prohibits religious tests. (Somebody tell Bush vis avis Miers! :0) However, I interpreted Joe's comments that we should have greater ethnic/cultural/geographical diversity on the High Court. And I might add we need gender and racial diversity as well.

Rat, a SCOTUS nominee is not the same as a job applicant. Odd that that even needs to be pointed out.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 09:57 am
BBB
Some people's legal opinions are based on their religious convictions. Catholics are not alone in that trait. That is not an appropriate basis for supreme court decisions.

BBB
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 10:08 am
BBB, of course religious convictions should not be the basis for legal opinions. I think that is obvious. But again, why is the simple fact that a person is a catholic and we already have x number of catholics on the SC a reason to question his ability to be a SC justice? In and of itself it is no reason. (I'm not Catholic, btw, so I'm not grinding an ax of any kind here)

As far as the appointment not being subject to discrimination laws, I do understand that is the case. My point in mentioning it was simply a way of highlighting why it should matter what how many Catholics serve on the court. For that matter, why does it matter how many women, easterners, westerners, hispanics, blacks, whites or whatever, as long as those appointed to serve are qualified to serve? That is the only thing I was asking of Joe.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 10:09 am
CoastalRat wrote:
Well, if they discover that he has participated in either of the above activities, I for one will fully support the rejection of his confirmation. Laughing


so you're not a total conservative then.......good news.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 10:24 am
You are way too kind BVT. And deep down, I'm sure you are not really a full-blown liberal either. :wink:
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 10:24 am
BVT wrote:
ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980's. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito's view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]


A dissenting opinion to Casey shouldn't be stretched to infer that Alito would overturn Roe v. Wade. Quite properly at the time, Alito made a judgement call based on previous Supreme Court rulings that including spousal notification would not add "undue burden" to a woman desiring an abortion. In my opionion, this was a proper role and position for a judge to take i.e., interpreting the law based on the Constitution and earlier Supreme Court rulings.

In the Casy decision, the SC basically employed stricter standards than it had previously defined. thus Alito should not be faulted for his dissent. He did exactly what judges are supposed to do, evaluate a case based on a past precedent and acknowledgement of the proper limited role of the courts.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 11:33 am
CoastalRat wrote:
Interesting points Joe. But I have a question. Why does it matter what one's religion is when it comes to filling out the SC? And why would one even be legally allowed to base his confirmation or non-confirmation on anything having to do with his faith? That seems to me to violate all kinds of discrimination laws if any senator should even question him on his religious views.

Aren't we supposed to ignore a person's color, religious faith, sex, etc. when it comes to appointing or hiring them to a job? So I am just curious as to why his being catholic would be a concern to you.

Twin Peaks pretty much answered the points about religious discrimination. I'll just say that the court is best served when it has a diversity of viewpoints on the bench. It wasn't a good thing when most of the judges were Episcopalians and it won't be a good thing when most of them are Catholics.

Indeed, I am much more concerned about the lack of professional diversity on the court (something, ironically, that was one of the few selling points on behalf of Harriet Miers). In the "good old days," it was not uncommon for the court to have members who spent their pre-court careers in the legislative branch (e.g. Hugo Black, George Sutherland). Given that the supreme court spends a lot of time examining legislative processes, it would be good to have somebody with experience in drafting laws on the bench. Similarly, it's always good to have someone on the bench who actually has experience as a trial judge, considering how the rulings of the court affect the day-to-day activities of judges across the nation. Now, however, no one on the supreme court (including Alito but excluding O'Connor) will have experience in anything but the executive or judicial branches, and only one will have been a trial court judge (Souter). With the addition of Alito, we will have one of the most homogeneous supreme courts since the early decades of the twentieth century: it will be largely white, male, eastern, catholic, and professionally insulated. I don't think that's a good thing.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 11:45 am
Thanks Joe. That clarified things for me. Sorry if I seemed a bit dense at your reasons for the points you made.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 11:47 am
Given that we are talking about lifetime appointments to the most powerful decision-making body in our society, I think Senators should be able to use whatever goddamn criteria they like to oppose whatever nominee comes up.

It isn't as if we get a second shot at this; we can't afford to screw it up. There should be three rejections for every acceptance.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 11:55 am
Oh yeah,

http://media.pfaw.org/stc/AlitoPreliminary.pdf

24 pages of info for informed conversations...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 02:36 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Given that we are talking about lifetime appointments to the most powerful decision-making body in our society, I think Senators should be able to use whatever goddamn criteria they like to oppose whatever nominee comes up.

It isn't as if we get a second shot at this; we can't afford to screw it up. There should be three rejections for every acceptance.

Cycloptichorn



Three rejections for every acceptance? Yikes, the Senate might also want to reserve some time for legislating, no? And "whatever goddamn criteria" is a wee bit broad when considering race-,gender-, and religion-based rejections. Nor do I think that the S.Ct. needs any sort of religious or ethnic balance. A diversity of opinions is nice, but we needn't religious balancing to achieve such a goal.

I'll reserve my final judgment for after the hearings, but I'm fairly happy with the Alito pick. He seems reasonable, and some initial opposition (anti-discrimination, anti-immigrant, etc.) seems overblown when you read the actual opinions. For instance, I think the following post contained some serious oversimplifications:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:
ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980's. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito's view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by "immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer's belief that it had selected the ?'best' candidate was the result of conscious racial bias." [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito's dissent was so restrictive that "few if any…cases would survive summary judgment." [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one." The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito's disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito's dissent "guts the statutory standard" and "ignores our precedent." In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito's opinion contradicted "well-recognized rules of statutory construction." [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]




For starters, Alito hasn't always upheld abortion restrictions (see BBB's earlier post). None or few of the above generalizations are fair considering the actual legal issues involved in the cases cited. Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, for instance, was not a case about "immigrant rights," per se, but a question of whether a certain tax offense constituted an "aggravated felony" as defined in by the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The FLMA case, Chittister v. Dept. of Community & Economic Development involved an 11th amendment question (state immunity). Alito's holding was limited to municipal employers, and it wasn't an outlier among courts of appeals. See Laro v. New Hampshire, 259 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2001); Townsel v. Missouri, 233 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000); Kazmier v. Widmann, 225 F.3d 519, 526, 529 (5th Cir. 2000); Sims v. University. of Cincinnati, 219 F.3d 559, 566 (6th Cir. 2000); Hale v. Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 2000); Garrett v. University of Alabama Birmingham Board of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1220 (11th Cir. 1999).

My point is that it doesn't make any sense to characterize a judge as "pro- or anti-" anything unless you look at the legal issues in question.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush Picks Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/03/2026 at 02:09:37