Skip to main content

Bush Selects Alito for Supreme Court

By Fred Barbash and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 31, 2005; 8:42 AM

President Bush today named appeals court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito, 55, serves on the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where his record on abortion rights and church-state issues has been widely applauded by conservatives and criticized by liberals.

Alito, appointed to the appeals court in 1990 by George H.W. Bush, has been a regular for years on the White House's short list for the high court. He was also among those proposed by conservative intellectuals as an alternative to Harriet Miers, the White House counsel who withdrew as the nominee last week.

Some Democrats, including Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), have threatened to oppose Alito, however. Immediately after the announcement, the liberal activist organization People for the American way announced the launch of a "massive national effort" to prevent Alito's confirmation.

Alito is Bush's second choice in a month for the seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has announced her retirement but has remained on the court pending confirmation of a successor.

Bush, fresh from withering criticism of Harriet Miers for her lack of judicial experience, stressed Alito's many years of litigation experience, first arguing 12 cases before the Supreme Court and then his years as an appeals court judge. Bush said Alito was the most experienced nominee in 70 years. Fresh from questions about Mier's intellect, Bush highlighted the fact that Alito went to the Yale Law School, where he was an editor of the prestigious law review. Bush called Alito "brilliant."

Alito's resume, including his service in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration, is very much unlike Miers's, who had no appellate experience, and very much like that of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Like Roberts, Alito served during the Reagan administration in the office of the Solicitor General, which argues on behalf of the government in the Supreme Court.

Unlike Roberts, he has opined from the bench on both abortion rights, church-state separation and gender discrimination to the pleasure of conservatives and displeasure of liberals.

While he has been dubbed "Scalito" by some lawyers for a supposed affinity to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his Italian-American heritage, most observers believe that greatly oversimplifies his record.

Alito is considered far less provocative a figure than Scalia both in personality and judicial temperament. His opinions and dissents tend to be dryly analytical rather than slashing.

In addition, his appeals court record is not uniformly conservative on the sorts of issues that arise in Supreme Court confirmation battles.

In 2004, he ruled in favor of a complaint brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by a boy badly bullied by his classmates who was seeking legal relief but had been rebuffed by a U.S. District Court.

He also authored a majority opinion granting federal court review to an African American who could not get state courts to hear his claim of racial bias on the part of a juror in his trial. The case involved a juror who used racial epithets outside the confines of the jury room.

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.

The widely discussed exchange in the Sheridan case illustrated both Alito's willingness to take on a potentially losing battle in the law and his approach to such battles, which, in that case, was calm, analytical and devoid of flamboyant rhetoric.

In the area of church and state, Alito has been consistently supportive of the conservative view that the courts should be more accommodating when considering state entanglement with religion. He wrote a majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler , holding that a city's holiday display that included a creche and menorah did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it included secular symbols as well, such as Frosty the Snowman.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company

© MBM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

For all we know Miers was a decoy, because Alito is another radical rightwing lunatic:
    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, link to 1997 case]
This is a generalization, but in my experience in New Jersey, whenever you see an ethnic white person (i.e., non-Anglo, 3rd or so generation immigrant), who grew up in a city in NJ that has since become ghettoized and majority black or Latino, if they become "conservative," their conservatism is usually race-driven more than anything else. That's because they view us in light of what "we did" to "their" city or neighborhood, and compare our experience to their families' experience of anti-immigrant bias back in the day.

Interestingly, while he's touted as this ultra-conservative, his abortion stance is not 100% against Roe, from what I've read of him. So guess what areas are earning him those ultra-rightwing stripes?

As Isome continues to hit us with the facts (love your posts, by the way), they will continue to confirm my fear that this guy, reppin' for Trenton, NJ, will fight to roll back rights gains like nobody we've seen. And if Kennedy doesn't take over O'Connor's role as the swing vote in those cases, Alito will have a majority in the SCt to do it with.

It'll go without saying that it's a wrap for reparations (as if it wasn't already), because 100 years from now, future black generations will be fighting for reparations for what we'll have suffered during the Alito era.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
This is a generalization, but in my experience in New Jersey, whenever you see an ethnic white person (i.e., non-Anglo, 3rd or so generation immigrant), who grew up in a city in NJ that has since become ghettoized and majority black or Latino, if they become "conservative," their conservatism is usually race-driven more than anything else. That's because they view us in light of what "we did" to "their" city or neighborhood, and compare our experience to their families' experience of anti-immigrant bias back in the day.


YOU KNOW, I'VE NOTICED THAT TOO!! Eek

I've noticed that alot of immigrants and non-WASP White people become hardcore Conservatives when they "make it" in this country. Probably because they are trying to compensate for their non-WASPiness by aligning with an ideology that will protect the interests of WASPs the hardest.

I notice the same thing about Cuban immigrants and some West African immigrants. They become hardcore Neocons to fit in with their White neighbors and not "rock the boat" to fit in at the country club. They are trying to assimilate.

quote:
Interestingly, while he's touted as this ultra-conservative, his abortion stance is not 100% against Roe, from what I've read of him. So guess what areas are earning him those ultra-rightwing stripes?

As Isome continues to hit us with the facts (love your posts, by the way), they will continue to confirm my fear that this guy, reppin' for Trenton, NJ, will fight to roll back rights gains like nobody we've seen. And if Kennedy doesn't take over O'Connor's role as the swing vote in those cases, Alito will have a majority in the SCt to do it with.


I some is awesome, isn't she? tfro

quote:
It'll go without saying that it's a wrap for reparations (as if it wasn't already), because 100 years from now, future black generations will be fighting for reparations for what we'll have suffered during the Alito era.


This is either going to be another roadblock for moderate Conservatives, Centrists, moderate Liberals and stong Lefists, or it's going to be another nail in the coffin for the Neocon movement. The Bush Admin. is already killing the Neocon movement that began in the 1970's.
quote:
This is either going to be another roadblock for moderate Conservatives, Centrists, moderate Liberals and stong Lefists, or it's going to be another nail in the coffin for the Neocon movement. The Bush Admin. is already killing the Neocon movement that began in the 1970's.


Good catch, Vox. I've also noticed the tendency. And for that reason Alito scares me.

But Empty Purnata, I don't see how you say that the Bush administration is killing the neo-con movement, when it seems that everyone of the movements policy objectives is becoming a reality, from the war in iraq to the roll-back of domestic civil rights (e.g., the patriot acts), to the blurring of the constitutional separation of powers lines between the legislative and executive branches.

From the little bit I've read, Alito's appointment would farther empower the executive branch. Which is scary because we currently have a congress without a spine.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:

You know, although Alito is a staunch dyed in the wool conservative judicial activist, in the vein of Scalia, he never-the-less is head and shoulder above Meier pick. Only because we know where he is coming from and he will play by the well established rules.


Legal precedent, legal proceedings... all can be taught, learned. Compassion, humanity, mercy? Never!

From Friday's Washington Post;

"Their anger sprang from a feeling that the White House never introduced the Harriet Miers they know to the Senate or the country. That Miers is an accomplished lawyer with a deeply personal sense of justice that she acts out on a daily basis, they said. Selling her to the Republican right primarily as a Christian conservative simply didn't do her justice, they said.

For example, no senators ever heard about Caroline Ware. The single mother of nine came to Miers in the 1970s as a pro bono client who needed help with a name change. Miers did the paperwork, but what Ware, now 62, most remembers was what came afterward.

When Ware, a nurse's aide, was wrongfully arrested on a charge of forging an elderly client's name on a check, Miers came to the Dallas jail in the middle of the night, bailed her out and got the charge dropped. When Ware and her children were threatened with eviction, Miers put down $700 of her own money to keep them off the streets. When Ware was hospitalized for a nervous breakdown, Miers hired a registered nurse to care for her children. And then there was Christmas, when Miers would arrive with clothes and coats for each of Ware's children "” "and they were new!" Ware said.

˜She brought me back'

"I was just lost, really losing my mind, and she brought me back," Ware said from the living room of her small brick house in working-class west Dallas.

"Miers's close friends, partners and relatives said in interviews that she never told them about Ware or other pro bono clients, although they said they were not surprised by the story. Ware's name came to light in one of Miers's responses to a Judiciary Committee questionnaire."

Bush-Cheney never intended for Miers to be confirmed. You can read the full Washington Post article here.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

It'll go without saying that it's a wrap for reparations (as if it wasn't already), because 100 years from now, future black generations will be fighting for reparations for what we'll have suffered during the Alito era.


For what it's worth, I see reparations flowing from the political process not judicial.

BTW - I can also see a growing liberal/progressive tide welling in America to counter this hardcore conservative one that's being jammed down our throats now. This move today could knock over the first domino that leads to a generation of liberal government - starting in 2008.
quote:
BTW - I can also see a growing liberal/progressive tide welling in America to counter this hardcore conservative one that's being jammed down our throats now. This move today could knock over the first domino that leads to a generation of liberal government - starting in 2008.

BTW - I can also see a growing liberal/progressive tide welling in America to counter this hardcore conservative one that's being jammed down our throats now. This move today could knock over the first domino that leads to a generation of liberal government - starting in 2008.


I have to say I admire your optimistic outlook. They are "taking back" the country. And we won't get it back...not politically .
MidLifeMan has a point.

Throughout American history (and world history in general really) everytime a hyper-conservative revolution takes over a nation, it eventually implodes and it is succeeded by a liberal/progressive revolution. That's what happened in the 1960's after the ultra-conservative 1950's. That's what also happened in the 1910's after the ultra-conservative 1890's, and in the 1940's after the economically conservative 1920's.


This is the human history of progress. Change beings to happen, then conservatives oppose it and put brakes on the change. They ultimately prevent change from happening too fast, and they wear themselves out. By the time the conservatives wear out, the progressive movement is well-refined and moves human progress forward.

Liberals and conservatives are complimentary forces. As a Liberal, I view conservatism as a "necessary evil".
quote:
Alito helped author a Justice Department policy that "said that discrimination based on insufficient medical knowledge was not prohibited by federal laws protecting the handicapped. Employers, it said, may legally fire AIDS victims because of a 'fear of contagion whether reasonable or not.'" The Justice Department's position was rejected by many states, including some that reacted by barring discrimination against people with AIDS. Alito, whose work helped foster some of the hysteria about AIDS during the Reagan era, said, "We certainly did not want to encourage irrational discrimination," ."


Irrational discrimination??? Please give me an example of rational discrimination.

quote:
but the reaction to it "hasn't shaken our belief in the rightness of our opinion."


Is that Alito's way of saying, "So what if our opinion shocks the conscience of thinking people, this is our ruling and we're sticking with it."

After researching the topic of Alito, I respectfully withdraw my original post.

If ever there was a nominee to get Borked, Alito is surely the man.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

It'll go without saying that it's a wrap for reparations (as if it wasn't already), because 100 years from now, future black generations will be fighting for reparations for what we'll have suffered during the Alito era.


For what it's worth, I see reparations flowing from the political process not judicial.


Obviously. But of course, it would be subject to review by the courts.

quote:


BTW - I can also see a growing liberal/progressive tide welling in America to counter this hardcore conservative one that's being jammed down our throats now. This move today could knock over the first domino that leads to a generation of liberal government - starting in 2008.


Hopefully starting in 2006, with the congressional elections. But the neo-cons don't seem to be all that restricted by the normal political process. I don't care what anybody says, these people are fascists who have the media machine and the electronic voting machines firmly under their control, not to mention the fear machine, as we will see in the next year with what'll happen in Iran and Syria. Unless something huge happens real soon, we will be living under the grip of the United States of PNAC before 2008.
quote:
Hopefully starting in 2006, with the congressional elections. But the neo-cons don't seem to be all that restricted by the normal political process. I don't care what anybody says, these people are fascists who have the media machine and the electronic voting machines firmly under their control, not to mention the fear machine, as we will see in the next year with what'll happen in Iran and Syria. Unless something huge happens real soon, we will be living under the grip of the United States of PNAC before 2008.


Good analysis, VOX. But it does seem that you've joined me in the C[onspiracy] T[heory] zone. nono
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
Hopefully starting in 2006, with the congressional elections. But the neo-cons don't seem to be all that restricted by the normal political process. I don't care what anybody says, these people are fascists who have the media machine and the electronic voting machines firmly under their control, not to mention the fear machine, as we will see in the next year with what'll happen in Iran and Syria. Unless something huge happens real soon, we will be living under the grip of the United States of PNAC before 2008.


Good analysis, VOX. But it does seem that you've joined me in the C[onspiracy] T[heory] zone. nono


lol

Now what did you call it when the DEmocrates ruled for over fifty years and Black folks were being keepted out of the loop?
There were no fox tv, Rush, Hanity or any one else.
And Fascists is total control over the people. Oh! Wait, WE do have Fascists in our lives. Only we now call it Liberal "PC'.

lol
EVil REpublicans'
Evil voting machines
Evil COnservative media'
EVil Conservative churches'
Evil Corparations'
Evil Private schools'
Evil Black COnsrvatives'

That DAng! evil is everywhere? lol lol
Don't laugh at the cracked egg, Kevin. It is motivated purely by its most base emotions of fear and resentment. Fear of its own inferiority to Black folks, and resentment that Black folks are repelled by it putrid presence.




But let's leave the discussion of the cracked egg's scrambled state of mind to go back to inarguable facts:


Alito cast the deciding vote and wrote the majority (2-1) opinion in a felony murder case, in which our people had been illegally struck from the jury pool during voir dire.

In another split ruling, the full Third Circuit reversed Alito, and then pointedly chastized him "for having compared statistical evidence about the prosecution's exclusion of blacks from juries in capital cases to an explanation of why a disproportionate number of recent U.S. Presidents have been left-handed."

In their decision the majority wrote: "...to suggest any comparability to the striking of jurors based on their race is to minimize the history of discrimination against prospective black jurors and black defendants . . ."
I notice the same thing about Cuban immigrants and some West African immigrants. They become hardcore Neocons to fit in with their White neighbors and not "rock the boat" to fit in at the country club. They are trying to assimilate.---I can't find who said it.

Though off topic, it is notable on the character of the 'opposition from within'.

Yesterday morning it was quite chilly here. It was 'heavy sweater' cool. A mother I had become acquainted with had insisted being barefooted, and wearing sandals even in such cool weather. She told me she 'always wore sandals even as a child in Puerto Rico'. Other mothers, European and Haitian, were doing the same. I always saw it as 'a little insistent'.

Yesterday the mother came into the courtyard with sneakers and a down vest. She announced to the gathers, 'It's FREEZING'. I said, 'It's not cold yet.' She replied, 'I'M freezing', as she hugged herself shuddering.

Her down vest stood open as she demonstrated her discomfort.

The other mothers chuckled and agreed, also hugging themselves.

The need for acceptance causes stupid acts.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
In another split ruling, the full Third Circuit reversed Alito, and then pointedly chastized him "for having compared statistical evidence about the prosecution's exclusion of blacks from juries in capital cases to an explanation of why a disproportionate number of recent U.S. Presidents have been left-handed."

In their decision the majority wrote: "...to suggest any comparability to the striking of jurors based on their race is to minimize the history of discrimination against prospective black jurors and black defendants . . ."


Eek

Isome ... You can't post that without the/a link. I'm going to need it later.
Judge Sam Alito's History on Discrimination Cases
Compiled by the DiversityInc staff

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2005 DiversityInc.com

November 01, 2005

President Bush's second pick for Sandra Day O'Connor's Supreme Court seat raises many questions about why he was chosen over a qualified woman or person of color and what the court's dwindling diversity among its judges could mean for the United States.



"The [Harriet] Miers pick represented the elevation of gender over quality; instead of adding to the sense that it is normal and appropriate to have women on the high court, the choice made it look as if presidents have to make sacrifices to scrounge up female nominees. Like almost every woman I know, of every ideological stripe, I was relieved when she withdrew," says Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus. "But I also find it disturbing that the drive for diversity has been so quickly, so blithely abandoned: Been there, tried that, now we can pick who we REALLY want. Diversity at the expense of quality is no virtue, but quality without diversity is nonetheless a vice."


Judge Samuel Alito is a white Roman Catholic judge who went to college at Princeton and law school at Yale. So far, his judiciary record shows that he is a conservative who has supported placing more restrictions on abortion, including a decision in Pennsylvania, which later was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.



During an interview with National Public Radio, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was critical of the president's selection on the basis that he could divide the country. "It is sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us," he says. "This controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people."


From what we know of Alito, he often has sided with positions backed by business (subscription required) leaders and shown himself as a strict interpreter of contracts in cases ranging from employment discrimination and commercial speech to shareholder lawsuits, The Wall Street Journal reports. It is likely his extensive track record on business and regulatory issues at the Philadelphia-based court that will play a large role in his nomination process.



One example is a 1997 case in which Alito argued against a racial-discrimination claim made by a black woman"”a housekeeping manager"”who was denied promotion to a job at a Marriott International hotel. The position, at a hotel in Park Ridge, N.J., went to a white woman instead. While the court ruled the black woman could take the case to a jury, Alito argued that although she might be able to claim she had been treated unfairly, that wasn't enough to let her sue.



"What we end up doing then is...allowing disgruntled employees to impose the cost of trial on employers who, although they have not acted with the intent to discriminate, may have treated their employees unfairly," he later wrote. "This represents an unwarranted extension of the anti-discrimination laws."



Another case that some critics feel sends a red flag stems from a 2001 opinion joined by Alito that set aside Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) orders (subscription required) to clean up ammonia from a fertilizer plant that polluted drinking-water wells in Lansing, Mich. In that case, the majority found the agency lacked a "rational basis" for the remediation it required of W.R. Grace & Co., the fertilizer-plant operator.



Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the liberal publication The Nation, and Richard Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review, both agree that this nomination is a victory for conservatives. Vanden Heuvel, however, says she believes if Alito's nomination is confirmed, the court will threaten fundamental rights, NPR reports.



"I think this is certainly a victory for the right... I think this nomination is a defeat for the nation, for the country for Americans who are out of step with the extremist agenda of a Samuel Alito or the Bush administration. I think people have to fix on what is at stake in this appointment. Alito would allow race-based discrimination. This is coming from the decisions, the paper trail that senators need to scrutinize," says Vanden Heuvel. "He would allow disability-based discrimination. He would overturn Roe V. Wade. He supported unauthorized strip searches. These are important substantive issues that affect millions of Americans in their daily lives."



Lowry, on the other hand, says Alito would bring the Supreme Court closer to the conservative ideal of a court that strictly interprets the Constitution as it was written. He says it is going to be hard to demonize him because of his experience and his appeal to many conservatives and liberals.



"He is widely respected among many Democrats and Republicans," says Lowry. "I think he will likely be more conservative than Sandra Day O'Connor. Conservatives, as we view it, what we want is a Supreme Court that reoccupies its proper place in the Constitutional order, which is to interpret the Constitution as it was originally intended and written and get out of the way of democratic decisions made by elected bodies. And I don't think Alito will make that shift happen."
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:

Lowry, on the other hand, says Alito would bring the Supreme Court closer to the conservative ideal of a court that strictly interprets the Constitution as it was written. He says it is going to be hard to demonize him because of his experience and his appeal to many conservatives and liberals.


That is a scary thought. The conservative ideal of a court is one that facilitates the metamorphasis of the general public into a desperate source of cheap labor with the full right to be fired, discriminated against, downsized, stolen from (pensions), bamboozled and run amok!

I think any assertions about liberals being satisfied with Alito are a psychological ploy. As too many white, paternalistic liberals are wont to do, they will bend over backward to appear reasonable and be tricked right out of their own underpants.
Last edited {1}
quote:
That is a scary thought. The conservative ideal of a court is one that facilitates the metamorphasis of the general public into a desperate source of cheap labor with the full right to be fired, discriminated against, downsized, stolen from (pensions), bamboozled and run amok!

I think any assertions to liberals being satisfied with Alito are a psychological ploy. As too many white, paternalistic liberals are wont to do, they will bend over backward to appear reasonable and be tricked right out of their own underpants.



A return to the 50's is what this country desires and pandering negroes just don't get it..in terms of white liberals..i really do think when it is time for them to go tobat for black people, they just wimp out and say so what, at least we are white....very few of them fight tooth and nail to the end..look at what a weasel Daschle turned out to be....too bad carville was not a senator..........
quote:
Originally posted by Isome:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Eek

Isome ... You can't post that without the/a link. I'm going to need it later.


link

How's that? Wink


Isome, you my friend!!! kiss

quote:
I think any assertions about liberals being satisfied with Alito are a psychological ploy. As too many white, paternalistic liberals are wont to do, they will bend over backward to appear reasonable and be tricked right out of their own underpants.


That's my problem with democrats in general. They try so hard to be above the fray, to reason with the unreasonable, to look dignified in the face of indignity. These Republicans are not hampered by such pretensions. They, like Machiavelli, understand that it is better to be feared than loved by one's subjects. And, you can only have subjects if you are willing to do what is necessary to rule.

I'm not saying that Progressives have to get gutter with it, but we do have to stop appearing to be the party of cowering in the corner, let's sing Kumbya and all get along, wimps. And we do this by stating clearly, and unapologetically, our belief system [which BTW, Kansas (middle America) really does connect with] and delineating how we differ from the Republicans.

Now is the time!
That's why I ceased being a Liberal and became a Leftist. Leftism is a form of Liberalism, but is stronger and less concerned about trying pass off as being Centrist or trying to gain the love and affection of Neocon goons.

The Left needs to make an equally strong opposition to the Right. IMHO, the Democratic party is losing because they are filled with pandering Centrists and Moderates trying to pass themselves off as "Liberals". IMHO, Leftism is really the true essence of Liberalism: liberty, equality, brotherhood and freedom. I think people are too scared to become Leftists because they are too concerned about what Rightists will think about them, or they are at least partially brainwashed into believing that all Leftists are Stalinists.


There is really no party in America that represents my views. I guess the closest American party that represents my views would be New Deal Democrats. I'm a Center-Left winger just like FDR was. I'd probably be a Social Democrat in Europe (except I believe in socializing the market rather than federalizing it).


What the Democratic party needs is a strong leftist, one like FDR was during the 1930's. Someone who is strong and willing to stand up for the Liberalism he believes in rather than trying to be a Moderate and make everyone feel happy. Who cares what people who still believe that the earth was created in 6 days think of you? Who cares what idiots who believe that a free, de-regulated market is miracle cure to all social and economic ills think of you?

I believe that Socialism (Democratic Socialism, not Stalinism or Maoism) would probably benefit the Black community the best. Everyone should have the right to have equal votes in a direct democracy. That's the essence of democracy.

I'm not going to water myself down to please some semi-Fascists, and neither should anyone else.
The other side of the story?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20051102/ts_latimes/nomineehassomeunexpectedsupporters;_ylt=ArxbWRatvJYOxY3n2plUyQpuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Nominee Has Some Unexpected Supporters

WASHINGTON "” Samuel A. Alito Jr. was quickly branded a hard-core conservative after President Bush announced his nomination, but a surprising number of liberal-leaning judges and ex-clerks say they support his elevation to the Supreme Court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Those who have worked alongside him say he was neither an ideologue nor a judge with an agenda, conservative or otherwise. They caution against attaching a label to Alito.

Kate Pringle, a New York lawyer who worked last year on Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record)'s presidential campaign, describes herself as a left-leaning Democrat and a big fan of Alito's.

She worked for him as a law clerk in 1994, and said she was troubled by the initial reaction to his nomination. "He was not, in my personal experience, an ideologue. He pays attention to the facts of cases and applies the law in a careful way. He is conservative in that sense; his opinions don't demonstrate an ideological slant," she said.

Jeff Wasserstein, a Washington lawyer who clerked for Alito in 1998, echoes her view.

"I am a Democrat who always voted Democratic, except when I vote for a Green candidate "” but Judge Alito was not interested in the ideology of his clerks," he said. "He didn't decide cases based on ideology, and his record was not extremely conservative."

As an example, he cited a case in which police in Pennsylvania sent out a bulletin that called for the arrest of a black man in a black sports car. Police stopped such a vehicle and found a gun, but Alito voted to overturn the man's conviction, saying that that general identification did not amount to probable cause.

"This was a classic case of 'driving while black,' " Wasserstein said, referring to the complaint that black motorists are targeted by police. Though Alito "was a former prosecutor, he was very fair and open-minded in looking at cases and applying the law," Wasserstein said.


It is not unusual for former law clerks to have fond recollections of the judge they worked for. And it is common for judges to speak respectfully of their colleagues. But for a judge being portrayed by the right and left as a hard-right conservative, Alito's enthusiastic backing by liberal associates is striking.

Former federal Judge Timothy K. Lewis said that when he joined the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1992, he consulted his mentor, Judge A. Leon Higginbotham Jr. The late Higginbotham, a legendary liberal and a scholar of U.S. racial history, was the only other black judge on the Philadelphia-based court at the time.

"As he was going down the roster of colleagues, he got to Sam Alito. I expressed some concern about [him] being so conservative. He said, 'No, no. Sam Alito is my favorite judge to sit with on this court. He is a wonderful judge and a terrific human being. Sam Alito is my kind of conservative. He is intellectually honest. He doesn't have an agenda. He is not an ideologue,' " Higginbotham said, according to Lewis.


"I really was surprised to hear that, but my experience with him on the 3rd Circuit bore that out," added Lewis, who had a liberal record during his seven years on the bench. "Alito does not have an agenda, contrary to what the Republican right is saying about him being a 'home run.' He is not result-oriented. He is an honest conservative judge who believes in judicial restraint and judicial deference."

In January 1998, Alito, joined by Judge Lewis, ruled that a Pennsylvania police officer had no probable cause to stop a black man driving a sports car after a rash of robberies in which two black males allegedly fled in a different type of sports car. The driver, Jesse Kithcart, was indicted for being a felon in possession of a gun, which police discovered when they patted him down after his car was stopped. After a trial judge refused to suppress the search, Kithcart pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal.

"Armed with information that two black males driving a black sports car were believed to have committed three robberies in the area some relatively short time earlier," the police officer "could not justifiably arrest any African-American man who happened to drive by in any type of black sports car," Alito wrote. He said the trial judge had erred in concluding that the police had probable cause that extended to the weapons charge because Kithcart had not been involved in the robberies.

Alito and Lewis sent the case back to the trial judge for new hearings on whether the search was legal. The third judge in the case, Theodore A. McKee, said he would have gone even further.

"Just as this record fails to establish" that the officer "had probable cause to arrest any black male who happened to drive by in a black sports car, it also fails to establish reasonable suspicion to justify stopping any and all such cars that happened to contain a black male," wrote Judge McKee. He said he would have thrown out the search without further proceedings.

Judge Edward R. Becker, former chief judge of the 3rd Circuit, said he also was surprised to see Alito labeled as a reliable conservative.

"I found him to be a guy who approached every case with an open mind. I never found him to have an agenda," he said. "I suppose the best example of that is in the area of criminal procedure. He was a former U.S. attorney, but he never came to a case with a bias in favor of the prosecution. If there was an error in the trial, or a flawed search, he would vote to reverse," Becker said.

Some of his former clerks say they were drawn to Alito because of his reputation as a careful judge who closely followed the text of the law.

Clark Lombardi, now a law professor at the University of Washington, became a clerk for Alito in 1999.

"I grew up in New York City, and I'm a political independent. But I liked Judge Alito because he was a judicial conservative, someone who believed in judicial restraint and was committed to textualism," he said. "His approach leads to conservative results in some cases and progressive results in other cases. In my opinion, he is a fantastic jurist and a good guy."

Some of Alito's former Yale Law School classmates who describe themselves as Democrats say they expect they will not always agree with his rulings if he joins the Supreme Court. But they say he is the best they could have hoped for from among Bush's potential nominees.

"Sam is very smart, and he is unquestionably conservative," said Washington lawyer Mark I. Levy, who served in the Justice Department during the Carter and Clinton administrations. "But he is open-minded and fair. And he thinks about cases as a lawyer and a judge. He is really very different from [Justice Antonin] Scalia. If he is going to be like anyone on the court now, it will be John Roberts," the new chief justice.

Joel Friedman teaches labor and employment law at Tulane University Law School, but is temporarily at the University of Pittsburgh because of Tulane's shutdown following Hurricane Katrina.

"Ideology aside, I think he is a terrific guy, a terrific choice," said Friedman, a Yale classmate of Alito's. "He is not Harriet Miers; he has unimpeachable credentials. He may disagree with me on many legal issues "” I am a Democrat; I didn't vote for Bush. I would not prefer any of the people Bush has appointed up until now.

"The question is, is this guy [Alito] going to be motivated by the end and find a means to get to the end, or is he going to reach an end through thoughtful analysis of all relevant factors? In my judgment, Sam will be the latter."
We saw it coming...

quote:
As too many white, paternalistic liberals are wont to do, they will bend over backward to appear reasonable and be tricked
right out of their own underpants.


According to the article from yahoo, he stood firm against DWB, but as I previously posted he also dismissed the idea of people of African descent being illegally kept off of juries in a capital murder case in which the defendant was of African descent. I wonder who the victim was the DWB case.
I don't know ...

Who are ya gonna believe his former clerks or his lying opinions?

I've been doing a course course reading his majority opinions on cases touching civil rights and I've only come across one that I agree with. And I have not found one of his dissents that I can get with.

Note to Liberals/Progressives/Democrats: A person can be a NICE, HONEST and OPEN GUY and be destructive to civil rights.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
...

Who are ya gonna believe his former clerks or his lying opinions?

...Note to Liberals/Progressives/Democrats: A person can be a NICE, HONEST and OPEN GUY and be destructive to civil rights.


Some people will never learn.

Here's the machine gun case:
    The most troubling skeleton in Alito's judicial closet, according to Sierra Club senior attorney David Bookbinder, is the dissent he wrote in U.S. v. Rybar in 1996. Alito advocated striking down a federal law banning possession of machine guns on the grounds that, in some instances, it exceeds congressional power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. He argued that, as in-state machine-gun possession is not interstate economic activity, such authority should be conferred to state governments alone.
The more time elapses, the more the truth comes to light:
    Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of the Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more than $390,000 in Vanguard funds and later complained about an effort to remove him from the case, court records show -- despite an earlier promise to recuse himself from cases involving the company.

    The case involved a Massachusetts woman, Shantee Maharaj, who has spent nearly a decade fighting to win back the assets of her late husband's individual retirement accounts, which had been frozen by Vanguard after a court judgment in favor of a former business partner of her husband.

    Her lawyer, John G. S. Flym, a retired Northeastern law professor, said in an interview yesterday that Alito's ''lack of integrity is so flagrant" in the case that he should be disqualified as a Supreme Court nominee.

    Maharaj, 50, discovered Alito's ownership of Vanguard shares in 2002 when she requested his financial disclosure forms after he ruled against her appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

    ''I just started seeing Vanguard after Vanguard, and I almost fell to the floor," she said in an interview at the Jamaica Plain home she shares with a friend after losing her own home in the course of the prolonged litigation. ''I just couldn't believe that it could be so blatant."

    * Boston Globe *
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Darn you, Isome. You beat me again.

But this confirms my belief that Alito will fit right in with this [mis]administration's value system.


It also confirms:
    They try so hard to be above the fray, to reason with the unreasonable, to look dignified in the face of indignity. These Republicans are not hampered by such pretensions.


Who said that? Wink

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×