Bush nominates Samuel Alito to Supreme Court

I know little about him, the only thing I heard someone say was that he didn't place too much stock in precedence, which to mean sounds like a possible activist judge.

I don't know enough to say one or the other at this point.

 

if harry pelosi doesn't like him, he's got my vote.

 

It's funny when the right wing rails against activist judges that legislate from the bench.......and then praise someone like Alito, a right-wing activist judge that legislates from the bench.



Hypocrites.

 

I'm still reading up on him, obviously, but I've found enough in a few minutes to oppose his nomination.
From the Washington Post:


"His record on the appeals court makes Alito less liable to suggestions made about Roberts, with only two years as a judge, that he is somehow a judicial mystery.

Rather, liberals are likely to focus on his opinions and dissents, most notably in the 1991 case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

In that case, Alito joined joined a Third Circuit panel in upholding most of a Pennsylvania law imposing numerous restrictions on women seeking abortions. The law, among other things, required physicians to advise women of the potential medical dangers of abortion and tell them of the alternatives available. It also imposed a 24-hour waiting period for abortions and barred minors from obtaining abortions without parental consent.

The panel, in that same ruling, struck down a single provision in the law requiring women to notify their husband's before they obtained an abortion. Alito dissented from that part of the decision.

Citing previous opinions of O'Connor, Alito wrote that an abortion regulation is unconstitutional only if it imposes an undue burden on a woman's access to the procedure. The spousal notification provision, he wrote, does not constitute such a burden and must therefore only meet the requirement that it be rationally related to some legitimate government purpose.

"Even assuming that the rational relationship test is more demanding in the present context than in most equal protection cases, that test is satisfied here," he wrote.

"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.

"In addition," he wrote, "the legislature could have reasonably concluded that Section 3209 [the spousal provision] would lead to such discussion and thereby properly further a husband's interests in the fetus in a sufficient percentage of the affected cases to justify enactment of this measure. . . . The Pennsylvania legislature presumably decided that the law on balance would be beneficial. We have no authority to overrule that legislative judgment even if we deem it "unwise" or worse. "

The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the appeals court decision, disagreed with Alito and also used the case to reaffirm its support for Roe v. Wade , the 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

On the spousal notification provision, O'Connor wrote for the court that it did indeed constitute an obstacle. The "spousal notification requirement is . . . likely to prevent a significant number of women from obtaining an abortion," she wrote.

"It does not merely make abortions a little more difficult or expensive to obtain; for many women, it will impose a substantial obstacle. We must not blind ourselves to the fact that the significant number of women who fear for their safety and the safety of their children are likely to be deterred from procuring an abortion as surely as if the Commonwealth had outlawed abortion in all cases," she said.

Plus, it "embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry, " she said.

"The Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of governmental power, even where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the individual's family."

While lauded by conservatives, Alito has also been criticized by women's rights organizations for his 1996 dissent in a sex discrimination case, Sheridan v. Dupont , in which he argued that the Third Circuit that had made it too easy for discrimination complaints to reach a jury trial. The standards for deciding when a discrimination case reaches trial are hotly controversial as they determine whether such a case moves forward at all.

The dissent ended a significant dispute in the circuit over the analytical framework for granting summary judgments dismissing a complaint without a trial under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Alito initially challenged the existing framework and prevailed when the case was before a three-judge panel. He lost the battle when the full circuit ruled."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103100180_2.html



Women have struggled since the beginning of the Republic for their due rights. They still suffer from the "glass ceiling," a term used to describe the barriers faced by professional women trying to get promoted, only to find, all things being equal except for their sex, that men get the promotions instead. As for women in the working class, I remember too well the jobs I had during college, when I would get raises and promotions after a few months, and my female co-workers, more experienced and competent at the job than I, got a fraction of what I did, and were passed over for promotions.

As for "spousal notification," it totally ignores all the instances when a woman is being abused by her husband and, most importantly, places restrictions on what a woman may do with her own body.

This man is far from being anything remotely like Sandra Day O'Connor. He clearly has a sexist view of women's rights. That may be fine and dandy with some conservatives, but it is opposed to everything I believe in regarding women's rights.

It didn't take Bush long to nominate a white man, who is deeply conservative and out of the mainstream, did it.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Thanks for the info, Deckard. That is a great bit of info to get me started on investigating the nominee.

 

Filibuster. Why waste time on specifics? Alito is the dream judicial activist of the wacho far right. Nuff said. Next.

BTW, this is exactly what the wingnut right wants. The defeat of Alito will energize their base going into the 2006 election. Shrewd political move on their part.

 

Does that mean he is a Christian conservative?
If so (a true one mind you) he won't make it to the bench.
(Unless God intervenes )

 

Souter is a Christian conservative. Kennedy is a Christian conservative. O'Conor is a Christian conservative. Roberts is a Christian conservative. etc.

 

I strongly disagree. (on all four counts)
That's my opinion.

 

Before the very surprising nomination of Miers, I always figured that Bush would nominate someone like Alito. With her flaming out, he basically had no choice but to nominate a Scalia type to shore up his base support. The fight over Alito will be interesting. I expect that if he is confirmed, it'll be a very close vote with a possibility of a filibuster taking place.

 

Disagreee with the 'conservative' or the 'Christian'?

 

I haven't seen any conservatives praise him for being activist.

 

Conservatives don't consider Conservative Activist judges "activist".

The rest of the world, however, do.

Therein lies the rub.

 

IMHO when you link the two you get a stricter interpretation.
There are those political conservatives who seem hardly Christian.
And then there are many Christians who would seem hardly conservative.

I consider Bush a liberal if that helps clarify my own perception.
Liberal by actions not rhetoric. He can give a fair conservative rah rah speech but his own policies are liberal in most of the cases I care about.

 

I understand what you are saying, but I wouldn't classify his policies as "liberal", per se.

I would classify his policies as "insane".

He certainly is not a textbook conservative, because real conservatives don't spend money like Bush is spending. Hell, liberals don't even spend money like Bush is spending.

That's but one reason why I would classify his policies as "insane".

 

Your opinion is that those four judges are not both conservative AND Christian?

From the jurisprudence perspective, those four are conservatives.

From the social conservative's perspective, those four are not conservatives. Of course these bozos want a bunch of unconsitutional stuff made constitutional via a "strict reading of the constitutiion", which is really them saying that the bible (or better said the parts they like) overrides the constitution.

 

Unlike mathematics and science, law is almost literally like literature interpretation and analysis that you do in English lit class. Its not rocket science, its just reading the "literature" of law and writing your opinion of that "literature". This is especially the case for laws that are so unclear and vague that, without too much hyperbole, they are like inblot test interpretations. You can write as brilliantly and intellectually sounding of a legal opinion as you want but in the end its just an "opinion" although one with the force of law.

Within very loose bounds you care interpret and see almost whatever you want to see.

Crappy phrases like "strict constructionist" and "strict interpretation" is just SPIN to say that what you agree with is "strict construction" of the constitution whereas what you disagree with is "judicial activism" and "legislation from the bench". Let's just be intellectually honest about that! I'm sure all those Jim Crow era laws could be spun as being "strict construction" despite that to a common sense person, most of them blatantly defied the 14th and 15th amendments.

 

Another Scalia sounds good to me. In fact, I would be pretty pleased if everyone on the court was like Scalia. How long until the rest of the 80+ year olds on the bench clear out and we can get a few more Scalias in there?

 

Well word-play makes it hard any more to express opinions because everyone has a definition and the media spins everything...

So here's how I view conservative- very very limited federal government, strong states rights, little if any federal debt, individual property ownership, the highest responsibility upon the individual not the government, individual liberty ie. a people protected from the government not by the government, integrity in leadership with accountability, free economy without government intervention, sound money with intrinsic value, rule of moral law, and justice to all under the law.

So here is how I view Christian- comforming to the teachings of Christ through the inward power of Christ's Spirit.