Alito
You know, I never used to get these emails until I started coming here. *mutters* Damn people have corrupted me and shattered my little protective bubble of ignorance...
Emphasis Mine Quote:
|
Quote:
From declassified Russian documents, it does not appear that this was their intention. They were involved in Afghanistan because they thought that we wanted to dominate the entire region and install bases. This was never our stated intent. If both sides are to be believed, the entire Afghanistan conflict resulted from each side getting interested because the other side appeared to be showing too much interest. Alito really is an enigma. On the surface he does appear to take a 'by the book' constitutional approach which maybe originalism or may even be the even more narrow 'strict construcionalism'. His work as a lawyer in the Justice Department appears to point to conservative activism, but that may be misleading. As a lawyer, it was his job to do what he was asked, assuming the task was not illegal. So his theorizing about ways to introduce the conservative agenda were part of his job, and he may not be attached to them enough to be influenced as a justice. In the end, social conservatives believe that they are owed something by the adminstration and are assuming that Alito is their payoff. There is no definitive proof of this. In the end, the conservatives and liberals are fighting over Alito because of the interest of the opposing side. If anything, Alito might be a gift to Bush's business donors. In any case, expect the e-mails, TV ads, and web postings to heat up in the next few weeks. I do think Alito is his own person, and not some fawning idiot, so I think that GWB will be disappointed if he looks for approval on renditions, torture, and other 'war' issues. The Bill of Rights were written after a war in which our founding fathers were the insurgents, so the 'enemy combatant' argument will have a limited amount of traction there when applied to US citizens. |
Gee, he sounds really scary when you only look at teeny weeny pieces of his career.
|
And he looks bleh when you look at the rest. So on average, somewhat scary.
|
Quote:
Your analogy is apt and insightful. Bonus points for the tie in to current events. Overall a pleasure to read. I also hope your analysis about being his own man is on target. I haven't enough evidence yet to make a decision with confidence. |
Quote:
Since, I realize your time is limited and you have many nuts to crack, I'll reprint their synopsis here: Alito’s intellectual qualifications are not in doubt. He has a stellar academic record and has held a succession of important government positions during his career. His opinions as a judge are thoughtful and, on the whole, cautious. Generally speaking, he operates within existing precedent rather than rails against it. This judicial style may be partially temperamental; in part, it undoubtedly reflects his role as a circuit court judge bound by Supreme Court caselaw. However, there is often considerable room to interpret Supreme Court decisions and congressional statutes, and Alito has regularly used that room as an opportunity to narrow and restrict civil rights and civil liberties protections. For example, Alito: 1) Wrote a dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey arguing that a state’s spousal notification requirement did not unduly burden a woman’s right to privacy, a position later rejected by the Supreme Court; 2) Joined a dissent arguing that a student-led prayer at a high school graduation ceremony did not violate the Establishment Clause; 3) Wrote several dissents arguing for tighter standards for plaintiffs seeking trial on their race, gender and disability discrimination claims; 4) Dissented from a decision ruling that the strip search of a suspect’s wife and ten-year-old daughter exceeded the scope of the search warrant and was therefore unconstitutional; 5) Rejected a death row inmate’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim where the trial counsel had failed to uncover substantial mitigating evidence – a decision later reversed by the Supreme Court; 6) Dissented from an en banc ruling in a death penalty case arguing that the prosecution had unconstitutionally used its peremptory challenges to exclude all the black prospective jurors; 7) Wrote a dissent arguing that a policy prohibiting all prisoners in long-term segregation from possessing newspapers, magazines or photographs unless they were religious or legal did not violate the First Amendment. It is, of course, impossible to summarize a fifteen-year judicial career in a few bullet points. But it is also fair to say that these highlighted decisions illustrate a broader pattern of judicial decision-making. By and large, Alito’s opinions make it more difficult for plaintiffs alleging discrimination to prevail, easier for the government to lend its support to religion, and harder to challenge questionable tactics by the police and prosecution. |
Quote:
The part that scares me is that he says stuff like he really means it, then when the chips are down, he forgets he said it. He admitted to saying stuff just to get a job. Hells bells! I admire his honesty in that statement, but at the same time it terrifies me that we'll have a person on the supreme court for life, and we don't really know what he stands for, because anything coming out of his mouth at the point, by his own admission, means nothing. |
Quote:
|
But he's not a lawyer, he WAS a lawyer, now he's a judge. :eyebrow:
|
Saying stuff to just get the job is unacceptable even in as sleezy a profession as the law. Maybe he said that he just said that to get the job to get THIS job. An individual who admits that he has acted with such a lack of integrity might be granted probation and a chance to do things right this time, but certainly should not be allowed anywhere near a position as a Supreme Court Justice in the United States. Surely, our nation has suffered enough at the hands of those out for merely their own gain and the country, along with their fellow countrymen, be damned. :mad:
|
Thank you for the analysis, Mari.
His decisions have been overturned. Not an unusual circumstance. Does anybody list a percentage for that? Of the 7 examples (out of how many hundreds of cases he's heard?) you state there are a few where I would have potentially been on the dissenting side, but I can't say that with authority without reading the actual decisions. I don't see how #7 is a First Amendment issue at all ... freedom of the press does not include a guarantee of freedom of access TO the press. I checked. |
Quote:
Also, knowledge of current events is necessary to stay informed and form opinions, which are a necessary component of speech. Deliberately keeping someone ignorant is depriving them of the right to have an opinion. |
Quote:
Where did you see a discussion of the difference between freedom of the press versus free access to the press? That sounds like Orwellian double-speak to me: "You may write anything you want but you can't show what you've written to anybody else." How is that freedom of the press? What if some of these prisoners had been wrongfully prosecuted by a corrupt DA or judge? The DA or judge is later on indicted and the case is duely reported in the local paper, Wouldn't it be important for the prisoners to know about this, so that they could request that their own cases be reviewed in light of this development? That's just one hypothetical of many that I could come up with. Bottom line, I'm with Onyx. Who cares about any of the rest of this stuff, though? The man admitted to lying about his stance on certain issues in order to "get the job." This is completely unacceptable. I'd grant him probation and a chance to do the right thing this time around, but I certainly wouldn't grant someone so lacking in integrity a place on the Supreme Court Bench. What? Have we all gone nuts? Are we so jaded that now politicians can openly admit that they are liars and all we do is thank them for their "honesty"? |
Quote:
Hell, you don't even need one to vote. :headshake |
I was watching the Alito hearings today. I have to say, he acquitted himself very well, although he really gave some disingenuous answers. One part of the questioning revolved around 'signing statements' which Alito pushed for during the Reagan adminstration.
In effect, a president can write a signing statment completely undermining his support of the law, which is what happened with the torture ban. Up until now, the courts have not given this much weight. Since Alito worked for the adminstration that came up with them and strongly recommended them, the big question is if he will be the first Supreme Court justice to do so. He really tap danced around the answer to that question by Kennedy. The next Senator in line basically did not ask Alito questions but instead chose to make a speech on his behalf. In effect, people had better start praying for a two party split between the executive and legislative branches because Alito seems to be a guy who is unwilling to put on any brakes when it comes to executive power. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:09 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.