T1B

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980's. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito's view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: 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, 1997]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito's dissent was so restrictive that "few if any...cases would survive summary judgment." [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one." The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito's disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito's dissent "guts the statutory standard" and "ignores our precedent." In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito's opinion contradicted "well-recognized rules of statutory construction." [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]

Discuss amongst yourselves...

Ah, yet another slur. They make you look so smart.

First of all, post your source for that. I've seen that same listing from the NOW and PFAW groups, who, of course, call every single one of Bush's judicial nominees a threat to women's rights, minority rights, etc.

Secondly, don't so blindly accept an obviously partisan group's take on the cases this guy has had a part in.

Example:

Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion.

True, however, quite exaggerated. Alito disagreed with the majority on this one of several "burdens" that were being considered. He simply argued that notifying the spouse did not constitute an "undue" burden on the pregnant woman.

Now, care to explain how this suggests that he would overturn Roe?

Of course, it doesn't...but you're the one blindly accepting their interpretation of his opinion in Casey.

Another example: ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION

That's interesting given that Alito has written opinions upholding the rights of religious minorities and opposing racial profiling.

No judge believes that it is lawful to fail to promote a black employee because of her race; the law is crystal clear on that point. But the law is also crystal clear that if the reason the employer decided to promote someone else had nothing to do with race, then the employer should not be held liable. The challenge is to come up with a legal framework that will sift the meritorious cases from the nonmeritorious ones. Judges ought to be able to go about this difficult task in good faith without being accused of being “on the wrong side of civil rights."

You see, B, I can't believe that you simply accept the spin of whomever put this together. I mean, you just accepted it as gospel.

Why?

BSmack wrote:ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion.

You don't think a spouse has a right to know if his OL his having an abortion? The kid is half his, regardless of it's location. Until a woman can make a kid on her own, that remains unchanged.

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: It's hard to provide an opinion on this without knowing the context of the case. If it's as black and white as it seems, I wouldn't agree with it. However, the legality or non-legality of race-based discrimination in hiring hardly matters, as it goes on all the time in America. When I was managing a department a few years ago, I tended to stay away from black women and white men, as both had a horrible track record in my department and tended to display common characteristics. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't hire them purely based on race, but it was in the back of my mind. Spare me the "you're a racist" comments too, because I had the most diverse department in the company.

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: The disabled population in this country wield far too much power and require employers and businesses to make far to many concessions as it is. There's really no substance to the comments provided here, so I can't speak to specifics, but I'm tired of all the lawsuits won by some guy with one arm who says he can drive a forklift just fine and was denied emloyment. ...and I"m a disabled vet.


ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: FMLA should be struck down. Ninety percent of the time it's used by people who just want an extended vacation from work and does nothing but punish the employer by requiring them to keep a job open for someone who doesn't want to be there in the first place.

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: Zero context provided here. Did this by any chance come over on an e-mail with a subject line reading "FW:FW:FW:FW:...."? That's what I thought.

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: Context some? Facts needed a bit? Saying he ruled against some korean dude doesn't make him "hostile to immigrants" in and of itself.

Another example: ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT

Alito's opinion in Chittister was joined by a Clinton appointee and a Carter appointee and six other US Appeals Courts had reached the same conslusion as Alito had in that case. The problem here is that once this issue made it to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court surprised everyone by overruling these seven appeals courts, that including the 9th.

I can only conclude then that these groups believe that all the judges that reached the same conclusion as Alito, including the entire 9th similarly would strike down the FMLA?

As well, Chittister was not even about whether the FMLA was consitutional but a very narrow question of whether Congress validly abrogated the states's Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted the Family and Medical Leave Act.

So, again, why do you blindly accept the spin of these people?

What do you think the mainstream of America would think of the narrow issue in Chrittister?

Yeah, looks like we'll be discussing this amongst ourselves until PFAW and NOW release their new talking points addressing the criticisms already leveld at their erroneous conclusions re: Alito.

Personally, I know there will be plenty not to like with any judge appointed by any President. All I really want is someone wise with a lot of experience to draw on. It seems like Alito fits that bill.

He does, and that is why Alito was confirmed unanimously both times he faced confirmation. And that's why people like B are going to look foolish trying to argue that all of a sudden this guy is unqualified for the position.

They already tried to argue that this seat was reserved for a woman, and Bush bought into that. Fortunately, that first nomination bombed. Now they are going to argue that that seat requires a "moderate," of course, a "moderate" being a justice that agrees with their policy preferences.

And that's the distinction you have between conservatives and liberals re: the Court. While conservatives only insist that justices interpret the law according to the US Constitution, liberals will be left arguing that precedent is supreme only until overturning precedent leads to their preferred policy outcome.

DrDetroit wrote:He does, and that is why Alito was confirmed unanimously both times he faced confirmation. And that's why people like B are going to look foolish trying to argue that all of a sudden this guy is unqualified for the position.

Nobody is going to argue that he is not "qualified". This battle will be whether he is going to act out on the GOP's agenda for the rest of his lifetime appointment. Funny that the hearings for Alito are not scheduled until after January 1st.

Think the Senate might be looking for a little breathing room before all hell breaks loose?

Shut your mouth, B.

Just post the PFAW and NOW talking points as you get them through email, alright?

You don't know fucking jack from jill, asshat.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wishes I would get out of his dome.

Just shut your mouth until you're done posting verbatim the talking points of extreme left-wing groups.

DrDetroit wrote:Just shut your mouth until you're done posting verbatim the talking points of extreme left-wing groups.

Well that will sure change my mind.



So tell me. Why the delay? Bush wanted this done in December and his own party told him to step off. What gives?

^^^RACK!!!

This is what is going to cost Republicans congressional seats. Republicans voters turning their backs on weak-kneed cunts like these.

First off, let's look at the basis of Roe v. Wade. The ruling was based on the right to privacy ensured by the fourth amendment to the constitution.

Everything above and beyond that is up for grabs by the folks that want to sway it both ways. Some want more privacy...as in minors having the right to abortions without parental consent....some want less privacy, as in parental and spousal notification before an abortion.

Roe v. Wade is law, but the limits are up for grabs. It is the way of our country to debate these things and to test the law and to test the citizenry and the folks we put in office.

I would like for more folks to really look at the issues and debate them instead of blindly aligning along party lines. We have enough sheep in this country.

this so-called right to privacy was established by the Roe decision...you know, the prenumbras and everything?

Diogenes wrote:Alito- 3 out of 4 rulings pro-abortion.

No, they were rule of law based on precedence.

His decisions were not personal, but none of those cases dealt with roe V wade directly. Three dealt with restrictions placed on mothers tied to external circumstances, (notifying the father, using medicaid funds without reporting a rape or incest to law enforcement, wrongful death of fetus lawsuits, and the 4th, partial birth abortions)

The first one - I don't like his vote. Fathers should be notified. #2 I understand. There is a legal separation between incest/rape perpetrators and pregnant mothers. No matter how it occurred care should not be withheld pending a criminal investigation of the father.

# 3 is a pro rights dealio and he followed established precedent, but he had no choice other than to do so. Same for # 4, I agree partial birth abortions are wrong, and that has also been decided by the SC.

So he sides with the rule of established law for the most part, at least in these cases. Lets see what unfolds and how he holds up under scrutiny.

Diogenes wrote:Try Griswold.

Yeah, I fucked that up.

Mister Bushice wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Alito- 3 out of 4 rulings pro-abortion.

No, they were rule of law based on precedence.

His decisions were not personal, but none of those cases dealt with roe V wade directly. Three dealt with restrictions placed on mothers tied to external circumstances, (notifying the father, using medicaid funds without reporting a rape or incest to law enforcement, wrongful death of fetus lawsuits, and the 4th, partial birth abortions).

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

By Pro-abortion I was refering to the effect of said (legaly sound) decisions in contrast to B_Suck's idiotic unattributed 'thinkprogress' diatribe.


No need to debunk the rest of that crap since they are demonstrably full of shit.

As far as Griswold and Roe...

I wouldn't hold my breath on Roe being overturned anytime soon, even if Justice Alito turns out to favor it.

When it is eventually shitcanned, it will be at least a 6-3/7-2 decision.



And Griswold is pretty much written in stone.