Samuel Alito...someone fill me in

[The Real Rick Springfield]

Legal experts consider Alito so ideologically similar to Justice Antonin Scalia that he has earned the nickname "Scalito." http://www.cnn.com/

what's he like?

john

[PETA]

BTW - wtf was wrong with Luttig, Brown or Owen? Would either be to obviously a reward to the conservatives who elected that fucker...... twice!!



I'll withhold judgment for now - maybe Alito is ok - but for christ sake - their were three obvious choices to his hardest core advocates and he didn't pick any of them -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alito

Originally Posted by wiki

See Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination for details on the nomination process.

Judge Samuel AlitoSamuel 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."

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 Miers's nomination was withdrawn on October 27, 2005 following opposition from conservative Republicans and some Democrats.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.

Early life

Alito was born in Trenton, New Jersey on April 1, 1950. He graduated from Princeton University with an B.A. 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 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 would be the fifth Roman Catholic to serve on the current Supreme Court.


Case history

Alito wrote the majority opinion [1] 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)

A majority opinion in Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S., 381 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2004)

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).

my preference for Scalia and Thomas' views of constitutional interpretation makes me less concerned given the direct comparisons.

His age is a very important factor here imo - he's 55 - he could be on the court 30+ years.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

BTW - wtf was wrong with Luttig, Brown or Owen? Would either be to obviously a reward to the conservatives who elected that fucker...... twice!!



I'll withhold judgment for now - maybe Alito is ok - but for christ sake - their were three obvious choices to his hardest core advocates and he didn't pick any of them -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alito

Hey, Dubya's a uniter not a divider.

[bfp]

xian - calm down, guy. He was on the short list of 'conservative' originalists.

Alito = wonderful choice.

He was on the list with Lutig, JR Brown, McConnell, etc.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Hey, Dubya's a uniter not a divider.

short bit of reading has me far less steamed for the reason I gave above.

He's an originalist - that said I can relax (which should get the dander up for everyione who prefers and activist court and a living constitution)

[bfp]

Originally Posted by xian

short bit of reading has me far less steamed for the reason I gave above.

He's an originalist - that said I can relax (which should get the dander up for everyione who prefers and activist court and a living constitution)

When you have Kennedy, Schumer, et al. bitching and moaning about Alito, you know you're doing the right thing.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by bfp

When you have Kennedy, Schumer, et al. bitching and moaning about Alito, you know you're doing the right thing.

Without doubt

[Ryan]

This whole thing just goes to show that what the right-wing base wants is a right-wing judicial activist nut on the bench. Put up a devout Christian who is pro-life and the right-wing fringe will devour her if she doesn't fit the radical mold. Now, we can finally have what the fringes of both sides want - an even nastier division of America and the two parties, and a focus on a single issue.

[Adam D]

It just goes to show, Republicans love their litmus tests as much as Democrats.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Ryan

This whole thing just goes to show that what the right-wing base wants is a right-wing judicial activist nut on the bench. Put up a devout Christian who is pro-life and the right-wing fringe will devour her if she doesn't fit the radical mold. Now, we can finally have what the fringes of both sides want - an even nastier division of America and the two parties, and a focus on a single issue.

You should be pleased at the distinction Ryan. The conservative right didn't want some one just because she was a strict Christian - they wanted some one with a strong background in originalist tradition. Given the choice between Miers and Alito should should have opposed her more.

I also think you miss a crucial point, the fight is a good thing. It is good for Americans to engange in debate, to discuss issues and come to a consensus. You seem to be advocating quiet acceptance of the status quo at best.

What would you have preferred? Another Ruth Bader Ginsberg advocating the taking of private property for the benefit of other private parties?

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by xian

The conservative right didn't want some one just because she was a strict Christian - they wanted some one with a strong background in originalist tradition.

Most of the complaints I heard from conservatives was that she didn't oppose abortion enough.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Adam D

Most of the complaints I heard from conservatives was that she didn't oppose abortion enough.

Most of the complaints I heard had nothing to do with that - though I know it became a common complaint argued in the media.

Most of the complaints I heard assailed her as incompetant for the job. Her failures in front of the murder boards and the fact that they were kept as closed room sessions was highly indicative of that fact.

Frankly, her specific personal view on that issue is to me entirely irrelevent - what does matter to me is her (or Alito's) background in issues of constitutional law - and that of course means I want an originalist - not so sure Miers was one even if I may agree with her on issues... agreement on issues is not what I want - I want agreement on method of analysis - not outcome

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by xian

You should be pleased at the distinction Ryan. The conservative right didn't want some one just because she was a strict Christian - they wanted some one with a strong background in originalist tradition. Given the choice between Miers and Alito should should have opposed her more.

Translation: "We want judicial activism, we just don't call it that because we coined that phrase for the purpose of liberal-bashing." The conservative right wants someone who will push their agenda through the courts, period.

I also think you miss a crucial point, the fight is a good thing. It is good for Americans to engange in debate, to discuss issues and come to a consensus. You seem to be advocating quiet acceptance of the status quo at best.

Engaging in debate is one thing, making half the country feel ignored is something completely different. There is nothing positive coming from the debate between the far-right nuts and the rest of the country. These people will not be happy until abortion doctors are in prison, gays are completely in the closet, and children are forced to talk to the invisible man in the sky before school every day.

What would you have preferred? Another Ruth Bader Ginsberg advocating the taking of private property for the benefit of other private parties?

I would prefer someone who represents mainstream America, not someone who is an advocate for the fringe lunies on either side.

[bfp]

Originally Posted by Ryan

This whole thing just goes to show that what the right-wing base wants is a right-wing judicial activist nut on the bench. Put up a devout Christian who is pro-life and the right-wing fringe will devour her if she doesn't fit the radical mold. Now, we can finally have what the fringes of both sides want - an even nastier division of America and the two parties, and a focus on a single issue.

Can you explain to me what a 'right wing judicial activist' is?

What the right is looking for is a judge who is well experienced in judicial law, and is willing to express legal restraint.

That's why the left hates the Federalist Society.

Most of the complaints I heard from conservatives was that she didn't oppose abortion enough.

And who were you listening to? I never even heard those comments.

She spent her whole legal career opposing abortion.

What more would we need, if we were looking for someone to overturn Roe?

[bfp]

I would prefer someone who represents mainstream America,

That's the very explanation of a judicial activist. Someone who 'represents' mainstream America.

Politicians do that. Not judges.