6 rulings that make Alito unfit for the supreme court.

[MissCatholic]

When you read each decision, how would you rule?

Samuel Alito’s America
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/...alitos-america

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.

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 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.”

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.”

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 essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law.

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.

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.”

[MODU]

Already posted by someone else.

[Richard]

When you read each decision, how would you rule?

Samuel Alito’s America
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/...alitos-america

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.

Excellent

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excellent.  I get my right to choose and associate with whom I want to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ditto.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excellent.  I don't see it in the enumerated statements of the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His home includes his family.  Can't be bothered with this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know enough about this, but hostility towards immigrants is a good thing.

[opebo]

I'm sure you are aware, Miss Catholic, that this is precisely the purpose for which such people are nominated by the fascists - to further the cause of subjugating women, blacks, homosexuals (like Richious here), and most importantly, the working class.

[John Dibble]

Don't really care about the first - Roe v Wade wasn't a constitutionally sound judgement in my opinion, but there are more pressing issues.

The second and third I agree with - I don't see where exactly in the constitution that Congress is allowed to force employers and businesses to deal with people they don't wish to.

The fourth I philisophically agree with - I don't see why an employer should be forced to keep a worker who isn't coming in for 3 months, though it's not so bad seeing as it is unpaid leave.

The fifth I would need to know more information about concerning the situation.

The sixth I would also need more information about. (though I find Richius's hostility towards immigrants a little ironic, considering he is one, though he probably means illegal immigrants, who we do need to be a bit less lenient on).

[AuH2O]

Nomo is soo old...

[Emsworth]

The first four positions are, quite clearly, constitutionally correct. The fifth is not correct, and I would need more information about the sixth.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The first four positions are, quite clearly, constitutionally correct. The fifth is not correct, and I would need more information about the sixth.

You being a Democrat is clearly unconstitutional.

[MAS117]

The first four positions are, quite clearly, constitutionally correct. The fifth is not correct, and I would need more information about the sixth.

You being a Democrat is clearly unconstitutional.

I'm starting to get that feeling too.

[Keystone Phil]

The first four positions are, quite clearly, constitutionally correct. The fifth is not correct, and I would need more information about the sixth.

You being a Democrat is clearly unconstitutional.

I'm starting to get that feeling too.

Yeah because you can't back up a single thing you say.

[Ebowed]

I agree with the first three, disagree with the last two, and am undecided on the fourth.

[A18]

Excellent! And I thought he was great before!

[Sam Spade]

The first four positions are, quite clearly, constitutionally correct. The fifth is not correct, and I would need more information about the sixth.

I essentially agree with this position.

On the first issue, if you would read his dissent there is no intent in overturning Roe v. Wade (something which would be out-of-line for a Circuit Court judge); he is merely interpreting the precedent of Roe before Stenberg and Casey, and making his judgment on a largely procedural basis.

The title of the claim is therefore spurious.

[Sam Spade]

The first four positions are, quite clearly, constitutionally correct. The fifth is not correct, and I would need more information about the sixth.

I essentially agree with this position.

On the first issue, if you would read his dissent there is no intent in overturning Roe v. Wade (something which would be out-of-line for a Circuit Court judge); he is merely interpreting the precedent of Roe before Stenberg and Casey, and making his judgment on a largely procedural basis.

The title of the claim is therefore spurious.

I might add:

If Alito is confirmed, I suspect the Stenberg precedent is not long for this world.  Kennedy sided with the dissenters in that opinion and I doubt he's changed his mind on that since 2000.

[J. J.]

In one case, he opposed a "blanket rule" for tossing discrimination cases; his opinion made it easier for the case to get to the jury.

[opebo]

This thread reveals that emsworth, Ebowed, and SamSpade are Republicans.

[minionofmidas]

The first four positions are, quite clearly, constitutionally correct. The fifth is not correct, and I would need more information about the sixth.

I essentially agree with this position.

On the first issue, if you would read his dissent there is no intent in overturning Roe v. Wade (something which would be out-of-line for a Circuit Court judge); he is merely interpreting the precedent of Roe before Stenberg and Casey, and making his judgment on a largely procedural basis.

The title of the claim is therefore spurious.

Roe vs Wade is effectively overturned anyways.

Jfern, MAS, there is nothing in the constitution about avatar colour so I don't get what you're saying.

[Sam Spade]

The first four positions are, quite clearly, constitutionally correct. The fifth is not correct, and I would need more information about the sixth.

I essentially agree with this position.

On the first issue, if you would read his dissent there is no intent in overturning Roe v. Wade (something which would be out-of-line for a Circuit Court judge); he is merely interpreting the precedent of Roe before Stenberg and Casey, and making his judgment on a largely procedural basis.

The title of the claim is therefore spurious.

Roe vs Wade is effectively overturned anyways.

I'm sort of confused by what you are saying here.

The main precedents that deal with abortion cases now are Casey and Stenberg.  So in a sense, Roe does not have the effect it did before, because these precedents are clarifications and extrapolations on the Roe decision.

If you're saying that the addition of Roberts and Alito would overturn Roe, I would sincerely doubt that.  Stenberg, yes.  Casey, no, unless Kennedy has a change of mind. 

However, I suspect Kennedy is open to whittling down universal abortion rights in a number of instances, including parental notification laws.  How far that is could depend with him on the persuasion of any number of factors.

[??????????]

If people only knew of the abuses that go on under "FMLA" then they would surely agree with me that the amount of time it gives needs to be decreased and major reforms are needed. Right now I can take FMLA for a simple headache or almost ANY minor ailment as long as I can get a doctors now, which BTW is NOT hard to do.

[MissCatholic]

Everyone is attacking Emsworth for his defence of some republican policies but he is a democrat.

The great thing about the democratic party is that we have a varied perspective on how politicians should governor, how best they should represent us.

I am sure their is one issue that makes emsworth a democrat what that is i dont know...maybe healthcare for all or education for all but he is a democrat.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

When you read each decision, how would you rule?

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.

I think you're overhyping it, but Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that took what should have been an issue for state legislatures to decide and turned it into one handled by the federal judiciary.  Returning abortion to an issue decided by State legislatures instead of Federal judges would be a good thing.  Abortion is a contentious issue that depends upon the answer to a subjective question "What constitutes a human life?" to resolve.  Subjective questions are for legislatures and not judges to decide, and furthermore under our federal system, are issues to be resolved at the State and not the national level.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Call me an idealistic libertarian, but I fail to see why the government should involve itself in private discrimination.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since it selectively penalizes employers who have employees that would use such leave, it's a bad policy to have mandated by government in my opinion, but I think the FMLA is constutional, but only because the commerce clause as been interpreted so broadly that reversing such interpretation would be activist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marginal here, I think that Alito here relied more on the intent of those who wrote the warrant meant than what the warrant said.  Since the case was over whether the defendants could be sued for the search, I'd agree with Alito here, tho if the case had been over whether to allow evidence gathered by such a search (which was what this case was not about) then I would rule to exclude the evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the actual text of either case, so I can't render an opinion on Alito's position here.

Net score: 4 cases I agree with Alito.  1 that I disagree and two others that I can't find sufficient information to make a decision.  If this is the best ammunition that Alito's opponents can come up with, the Dems will be fools to force the Republicans into using the nuclear option, and I don't think enough Dems will be fools.

Prediction, absent some as of yet undisclosed bombshell:  Alito is confirmed in January, with slightly over 40 Senators opposed, including a few Republicans and moderate Democrats who while voting against Alito, explicitly oppose a filibuster.

[John Dibble]

I am sure their is one issue that makes emsworth a democrat what that is i dont know...maybe healthcare for all or education for all but he is a democrat.

Probably not those issues - definitely not actually. I believe he has said he's a Democrat because of social issues.

[Emsworth]

The first four positions are, quite clearly, constitutionally correct. The fifth is not correct, and I would need more information about the sixth.

You being a Democrat is clearly unconstitutional.

I'm starting to get that feeling too.

What an absurd idea. Perhaps you would care to demonstrate how the FMLA is authorized by the Constitution.

In any event, Alito's ruling was not that the FMLA was unconstitutional. His ruling was that, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, the plaintiff could not sue a state government for failing to adhere to this act. Since his ruling is based on binding Supreme Court precedents, I don't see how anyone can blame him.

[The Vorlon]

As usual, folks for and agaist a position cherry pick rulings that defy common sense, and hence declare a Judge to be fit or unfit.

There is an old saying the "Tough cases make bad law" - which is unfortunately true, which is why we need Judges to be Judges who rule on the LAW on not on how they think the legislature should have legislated.

When Governments do silly, but constitutional, things there are two alternatives, both bad, but one better than the other.

The Courts can let the silly law stand, and hope that the attention drawn to it makes the elected officials reconsider the law (or in the alternative cause the people to reconsider their representatives)

The other alternative is to pass the responsibility to unelected judges who can then use the precedent of striking down a silly law to then strike down laws they simply disagree with.

To toss a little fuel on the fire, Roe Vs Wade is a classic example.

I happen to be pro-choice, but the "logic" in Roe is just utterly wrong.  Sorry, but the Warren court just made sh*t up to get the ruling they wanted. - and so we had the snowball rolling - Judges have been making sh*t up for 30 years not to strike down "silly" laws they don't like.

We desegragated the schools "officially" in the 50s with Brown vs Board of Education - but it really didn't "happen" in the hearts of the Nation till the 1964 Civil Rights act, because that is when the elected representatives of the people passed it, rather than unelected judges imposing it.

Judges acting by fiat simply freezes the debate and moves the conflict to a war of Juducial appointments instead of letting the people's representatives do the people's work.

[MarkDel]

Vorlon is correct. The Warren Court started a judicial trend of "outcome based" judicial scrutiny. In simple words, they would look at a case, decide what was the "right" side and then construct some kind of rationale to justify their feeling regardless of judicial precedent or logical interpretation of the Constitution. The Griswold case is probably the best example with the emergence of the so-called "penumbra" of rights, which essentially amounted to a blank check for doing whatever the f***ck you wanted in future decisions regardless of established law.