| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
 Posted: 10/31/05 9:10 am ::: Alito nominated |
Reply  |
|
| If confirmed, it would mean a majority of the supreme court is catholic. That would have been unthinkable a generation ago.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/31/05 11:52 am ::: |
Reply |
|
The fight is on I think. This is pretty good. Top ten daily Kos reactions:
http://decision08.net/2005/10/31/top-ten-kos-kidz-reactions-to-the-alito-nomination/
My favorite:
Number 7 - metal prophet: …I think that it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that Rove or one of his disciples could start a deceptive ad campaign. They’ll form a fake group with a liberal sounding name and make a bunch of anti-Alioto ads that make use of Italian-American stereotypes. Then, the outrage will break out and Bush will loudly denounce “liberal bigotry” or somesuch and will totally change the subject from Alioto’s views to the fake controversy. In the end, the fake ads will be revealed to be by some GOP front group, but that conviently won’t be revealed until after Alioto is confirmed.
Tin foil for sale on Amazon.  |
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/31/05 12:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| vanyogan wrote: |
The fight is on I think. This is pretty good. Top ten daily Kos reactions:
http://decision08.net/2005/10/31/top-ten-kos-kidz-reactions-to-the-alito-nomination/
My favorite:
Number 7 - metal prophet: …I think that it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that Rove or one of his disciples could start a deceptive ad campaign. They’ll form a fake group with a liberal sounding name and make a bunch of anti-Alioto ads that make use of Italian-American stereotypes. Then, the outrage will break out and Bush will loudly denounce “liberal bigotry” or somesuch and will totally change the subject from Alioto’s views to the fake controversy. In the end, the fake ads will be revealed to be by some GOP front group, but that conviently won’t be revealed until after Alioto is confirmed.
Tin foil for sale on Amazon. |
I can't imagine why people thought that Bush would nominate a moderate. That would go against everything he has ever said or done. He doesn't care much about consensus-building and the like, he cares about getting done what he thinks should be done. Like him or hate him, he is at least consistent.
It's unclear to me why people thought Meirs might not be conservative enough. Had she not been, she never would have been nominated.
This judicial activist should get nominated no problem as the Repulicans will be glad to have someone they can unite behind. |
Alito is conservative, but doesn't appear to be an ideolog. There are ruling that the right are not going to like either.
Here's an interesting one.
SCALIA VERSUS ALITO: Time has an interesting discussion of
a little-known Social Security case in 2002 which may be instructive when it comes to comparing Alito to Scalia.
In that case, Alito argued passionately with other members of the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court that a disabled woman, Pauline Thomas, should be granted benefits because she had been laid off from her job as an elevator operator and could not find a new job since the position of "elevator operator" had virtually disappeared from the economy. A lower court had ruled that a narrow and technical reading of the Social Security statute did not entitle Thomas to benefits. Alito called this result "absurd" and overrode the objections of several of his colleagues and convinced the full 3rd Circuit to overturn the lower court decision.
Alito's passion didn't move the Supreme Court, however, which overturned his decision in 2003. In a pointed rejection of Alito's opinion — accusing him of "disregarding" basic grammatical rules for interpreting the law — the Supreme Court fell back on the narrow and technical reading and denied Thomas her Social Security benefits. The author of this stinging rebuke to Alito? Justice Antonin Scalia.
RE: http://andrewsullivan.com/ |
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/31/05 12:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Interesting, since the CNN article references his nickname, "Scalito."
Time to hit Westlaw....
|
|
CourtsideTix
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 4565
Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/31/05 1:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
He isn't called "Scalito" for nothing.
Besides Alito's dissent in Casey, in which he would have upheld a state law requiring a woman to notify her husband before getting an abortion (even the Supreme Court struck that down), there's also Alito's scary "new federalism" dissent in US v. Rybar, in which he would have held that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to enact a law prohibiting the transfer and possession of machine guns. That's just for starters.....
|
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/31/05 1:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
He isn't called "Scalito" for nothing.
in which he would have upheld a state law requiring a woman to notify her husband before getting an abortion (even the Supreme Court struck that down) |
Boy now that's radical. He upheld a law, backed by voters that would require that the husband be "notified". All Alito did is apply O'conner's own "undue burden" on the mother test. Is it an undue burden to notify your spouse of an intended abortion? It also applies to almost no abortions anyway. O'conner in her typical finger in the air style, waffled on her own precedent! No wonder conservatives celebrate her retirement. In another abortion case, Alito struck down an abortion case because it had no provision "health" of the mother. He applies the law using Supreme Court precedent.
As for the machine gun case. Gun control law is all over the map, state by state and city by city. He is simply recognising that and leaving the question in that arena. I'm sure you would have a different view if Congress passed a law LEGALISING machine guns as an idividual gun right. THEN you would be quoting Alito instead of roasting him. You'd be saying what an impartial judge he was!
Further:
The court denied Rybar's motion to dismiss Counts I and III.
The court held that section 922(o) was "a valid exercise of the
authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause" and was
compatible with Second Amendment protections "because this
defendant's possession of a machine gun was not reasonably
related to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated
militia." App. at 16.
This militia arguement is completely bogus because...
It is quoted from the 2nd "amendment" which came after the constitution which gives congress FULL AUTHORITY to fund and arm the militia. Therefore the arguement that the 2nd amendment is there to ensure the militia is "armed" is ludicrous on the face. It's completely redundent to the constitution. |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/31/05 1:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Casey isn't the only abotion case he's heard. Check Planned Parenthood v Farmer.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/31/05 2:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Casey isn't the only abotion case he's heard. Check Planned Parenthood v Farmer. |
Yep, that's a case where Alito sided with majority opinion, upholding The District court which ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood. |
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/31/05 2:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
the lesson of both abortion cases: it's difficult to predict what a judge will be like on the SC by looking at his circuit court record.
On the lower court, your primary job is to apply the SC precedent. On the SC, you are largely unbound by precedent and you can say whatever you like.
They are very different jobs.
|
|
Carol Anne
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1739
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/31/05 6:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Here's a link to Dahlia Lithwick's take on Samuel Alito. (It's sure hard not to type "Alioto," after growing up in San Francisco!) Dahlia is my favorite jurisprudence explainer. http://www.slate.com/id/2129106/
|
|
Carol Anne
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1739
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/31/05 9:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
LAMBDA LEGAL: “In 2001, Judge Alito authored a decision in Saxe v. State that declared unconstitutional a public school district policy that prohibited harassment against students because of their sexual orientation or other characteristics. The policy focused only on harassment that had the purpose or effect of interfering with a student's educational performance or creating and intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. Nonetheless, Alito reasoned that the policy was unconstitutional because it could cover what he called ‘simple acts of teasing and name-calling.’ Many LGBT students report that they are subjected to verbal harassment; LGBT students are at heightened risk for dropping out of school because of harassment and discrimination.
"Where does Alito stand today?
"When it comes to LGBTQ students, what some would call 'simple acts of teasing and name-calling' can make the difference between getting the same education as every other student or dropping out of school. As senators consider Alito’s nomination, they must ask him if he believes federal laws should protect LGBTQ students." http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/courtingjustice/index.html?page=justice_index
|
|
caune
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 17919
Location: Valley of the Bun
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/31/05 10:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
| Boy now that's radical. He upheld a law, backed by voters that would require that the husband be "notified". All Alito did is apply O'conner's own "undue burden" on the mother test. Is it an undue burden to notify your spouse of an intended abortion? |
You are joking, being sarcastic right?
You do know that 95% of women who are married DO discuss this difficult decison and make the choice with their husbands, and the 5% that don't, don't you think they may have valid reasons for not discussing it?
_________________
Because there is only one Diana Taurasi.
@Phoenix Mercury
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/31/05 11:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
| Nonetheless, Alito reasoned that the policy was unconstitutional because it could cover what he called ‘simple acts of teasing and name-calling.' |
i hate to play devil's advocate here, and i support (and donate to) Lambda, but that is really an unfair and misleading criticism of Alito's Saxe opinion.
The Lambda release makes it sound like Alito said: teasing gay kids isn't that bad, so you can't prevent anyone from doing it. But he said nothing of the sort -- not remotely.
The "simple acts of teasing and name-calling" was actually a quote from the Supreme Court's opinion in Davis. The Court in Davis held (rightly or wrongly) that teasing and name-calling aren't protected by Title IX.
The school district in the Saxe case before Alito argued that State College's (yes, home of Rene) policy was no broader than Title IX, and because Title IX is constitutional, the policy must also be constitutional. But Alito quite rightly wrote that the very terms of the policy made it clear that it did include things like teasing and name-calling.
The whole "teasing" part was simply to note that the policy was broader than Title IX, so the district's Title IX syllogism didn't work.
He struck down the policy because it was way too broad (which it was). It basically prohibited negative remarks about anything at all -- from "clothes" to "values."
The First Amendment part was really pretty simple, and probably correct: you can't pass a law saying that people can't say something negative about someone else's values.
Alito may or may not be gay-friendly -- I fear that he won't be. But that opinion is really not a good piece of evidence either way.
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/31/05 11:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CourtsideTix wrote: |
| there's also Alito's scary "new federalism" dissent in US v. Rybar, in which he would have held that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to enact a law prohibiting the transfer and possession of machine guns. |
he didn't say that Congress has no power to prohibit the transfer and possession of machine guns. he said that Congress had no power to prohibit the "purely intrastate possession" of machine guns unless it added a jurisdictional hook element to the crime.
In fact, he didn't even say that. he said that under Lopez, findings are required (Rybar was before Morrison). so if Congress would go back and make some "findings that the purely intrastate possession of machine guns has a substantial effect on interstate commerce," then it could simply repass the law.
a bunch of liberals in the Ninth Circuit (Reinhardt, eg) reached the same conclusion. in fact, they reached a broader conclusion -- that those laws were unconstitutional regardless of findings.
given how i'm on the dissent's side in Raich, i'm not sure i disagree...
|
|
hooper1
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 2300
Back to top |
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/01/05 12:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S.
381 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2004)
Agreed with the majority in a ruling that held a school district failed to provide free education to a high school student because it did not protect that student from bullying and taunting from fellow students who harassed him because of his lack of athleticism and his perceived sexual orientation. |
that description is also a bit misleading. that case was a question of deference -- an administrative law judge had found in favor of the student, and then the federal district court had reversed the ALJ because it disagreed about the evidence, and then Alito reversed the district court judge.
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033438p.pdf
the reason: ALJs get to decide the basic facts, and you can't overturn their decision just because you weigh the evidence differently. Alito didn't say whether he agreed with the ALJ's underlying ruling or not -- he just said that it's up to the ALJ to decide.
still, it at least shows that he's not going to rule against gay kids at all costs.
so much of the time, these cases turn on technical legal grounds rather than the political/moral question. so much of the time, the press totally misconstrues what these cases mean...
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/01/05 12:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
| Quote: |
Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S.
381 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2004)
Agreed with the majority in a ruling that held a school district failed to provide free education to a high school student because it did not protect that student from bullying and taunting from fellow students who harassed him because of his lack of athleticism and his perceived sexual orientation. |
that description is also a bit misleading. that case was a question of deference -- an administrative law judge had found in favor of the student, and then the federal district court had reversed the ALJ because it disagreed about the evidence, and then Alito reversed the district court judge.
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033438p.pdf
the reason: ALJs get to decide the basic facts, and you can't overturn their decision just because you weigh the evidence differently. Alito didn't say whether he agreed with the ALJ's underlying ruling or not -- he just said that it's up to the ALJ to decide.
still, it at least shows that he's not going to rule against gay kids at all costs.
so much of the time, these cases turn on technical legal grounds rather than the political/moral question. so much of the time, the press totally misconstrues what these cases mean... |
Interesting. All I had seen was the description on CNN.
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/01/05 1:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| Interesting. All I had seen was the description on CNN. |
yeah, the media really can't be trusted to report on these things. for the most part, they can't report accurately because they don't understand the law or they just are trying to make something fit their story.
if you really wanna learn about alito, check out some of the good law blogs out there.
here is an example of some commentary from the left. talkleft doesn't like him, but they are at least fair and insightful about it:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/012956.html
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/01/05 1:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Speaking of law blogs, WH, do you ever read Law Dork?
|
|
caune
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 17919
Location: Valley of the Bun
Back to top |
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/01/05 2:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| Speaking of law blogs, WH, do you ever read Law Dork? |
yep. not every day, but sometimes...
|
|
|
|
sign when you're playing devil's advocate. ( 
)
