Samuel Alito to Scotus


PDA






Mongo the Mutterer
October 31, 2005, 07:24 AM
Lots of speculation -- a talking head on Fox News this morning (5:20AM) said his appointment would cause a "bloodbath" in the Senate.

Confirmed 5:23.

If you enjoyed reading about "Samuel Alito to Scotus" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mongo the Mutterer
October 31, 2005, 07:38 AM
More info from GOA ...

Judge Samuel Alito, Jr., in the Third Circuit, has argued that Congress has no right to regulate the private possession of machine guns

GOA (http://www.gunowners.org/a102805.htm)

Anyone have more information???

El Tejon
October 31, 2005, 08:01 AM
Scalito!

Well, it's not Luttig, but it could have been Luttig and Alito with Scalia as Chief Justice. *kicks rocks* Darn county club Republicans.

Leatherneck
October 31, 2005, 08:31 AM
Gird your loins, folks: here come the Libs.

TC

TexasRifleman
October 31, 2005, 08:40 AM
Gird your loins, folks: here come the Libs.

TC


Interesting. They have used their one "free gripe" against Meirs, now they will look like mindless complainers if they push back on this one. I would never give this administration credit for cooking up such a good plan, but it certainly appears one has fallen in their laps.

Waitone
October 31, 2005, 08:49 AM
I wonder if the dynamic this go'round will be difference since it wasn't Bush that picked the fight. Bush did everything he could to avoid nominating someone the democrats would object to. Seems to one one side of the political spectrum picked it.

Molon Labe
October 31, 2005, 09:14 AM
Judge Samuel Alito, Jr., in the Third Circuit, has argued that Congress has no right to regulate the private possession of machine gunsWell he certainly has my attention. :)

Dannyboy
October 31, 2005, 09:19 AM
It's being said that the Pres. expects at least 22 No votes. The thinking is that if the Dems didn't like Roberts then they won't like Alito. I think it's kinda cool that a conservative judge can come out of New Jersey.

Sistema1927
October 31, 2005, 09:35 AM
Who cares what the liberals think? Let them go on the record as being opposed to a good man, and hopefully America will remember come next election.

Republicans need to act like they are the majority, and push through a solid conservative agenda. Enough of pussy footing around the likes of Kennedy and Feinstein and Schumer, we ought to marginalize them and make them totally irrelevant.

Don't Tread On Me
October 31, 2005, 09:53 AM
Brown or Luttig would have been better, especially Brown.


I guess Brown's current appointment is more important. Unfortunately, these folks have the same philosophy as Bork (who was the man) and basically are strict constitutional scholars and abide by the constitution in exile type philosophy that the socialists hate. This means there will be a fight. Miers getting shot down weights against the Democrats in the eyes of the country because it makes them seem dissatisfied and picky towards anyone. It also makes the process trivial and undermines it. It is harder for them to reject now. Especially after shooting down a WOMAN who most likely would have been a moderate.


Alito is about AS GOOD AS IT GETS. Anyone that argues that the Fed's have no right to regulate machine guns must be sympathetic to the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.



If we're lucky and Bush gets to make a 3rd appointment by 2008...the court might be pro-2nd enough to where they might be able to hear a 2nd Amendment case and not set a devistating precedent against us that will thrust the gun-grabbers into a nirvana like state of bliss.

Mongo the Mutterer
October 31, 2005, 09:55 AM
Enough of pussy footing around the likes of Kennedy and Feinstein and Schumer, we ought to marginalize them and make them totally irrelevant. Yep, someone aught to tell them they LOST THE ELECTION.

I want to see the spittle on Kennedy's chin when he goes ballistic on this one... :evil:

Augustwest
October 31, 2005, 09:55 AM
Interesting.

Would much rather have a nominee who was being likened to Thomas than Scalia, but interesting all the same...

WT
October 31, 2005, 09:57 AM
I would like to see a cite regarding Alito's writeup on machineguns. I have searched but without success.

I know where Alito lives, I know where his grandfather came from in Italy, the date of his arrival at Ellis Island and aboard what ship, but I can't find the machine gun cite.

Don't Tread On Me
October 31, 2005, 10:01 AM
Well, it's not easy to nominate judges to the abortion court...oops err I mean Supreme Court.


Seems the only thing you ever hear about is Roe v. Wade. Now, this is an important issue, but is it really necessary to be THE litmus test of most politicians. Is this what America has dwindled down to? I guess that abortion is all that matters in the world of constitutional interpretation.


I am just so sick of it. Make it an issue - no problem. But the relentless fixation on this single matter is just shameful. Like a broken record it is all we hear about. These people put abortion as an issue before ALL other important constitutional issues that (in my opinion) are far more crucial to our Rights.

Dannyboy
October 31, 2005, 10:06 AM
Well, it's not easy to nominate judges to the abortion court...oops err I mean Supreme Court.


Seems the only thing you ever hear about is Roe v. Wade. Now, this is an important issue, but is it really necessary to be THE litmus test of most politicians. Is this what America has dwindled down to? I guess that abortion is all that matters in the world of constitutional interpretation.


I am just so sick of it. Make it an issue - no problem. But the relentless fixation on this single matter is just shameful. Like a broken record it is all we hear about. These people put abortion as an issue before ALL other important constitutional issues that (in my opinion) are far more crucial to our Rights.

Dude, you just took the words right out of my mouth. All the problems we have and abortion is the only issue these people can think about.

WT, the case you're looking for is US v. Rybar.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_rybar.txt

Don't Tread On Me
October 31, 2005, 10:10 AM
Here is the case that Alito judged on about the machine guns.....


http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_rybar.txt










.

Kharn
October 31, 2005, 10:17 AM
Don't Treat On Me:
Unfortunately, these folks have the same philosophy as Bork (who was the man) and basically are strict constitutional scholars and abide by the constitution in exile type philosophy that the socialists hate. Bork has said he believes in a collective 2A. :scrutiny:

Kharn

BowStreetRunner
October 31, 2005, 10:25 AM
Kharn is right.
BSR

riverdog
October 31, 2005, 10:26 AM
I don't see why you think the Dems won't attack Alito. It was the Republican Conservatives that shot down Meirs. Liberals like Kennedy, Schumer and Feinstein et al are free to go high order on Alito. At this point it only matters what the gang of 14 says.

Waitone
October 31, 2005, 10:26 AM
There's an old story which may or may not be true but it is descriptive. How do you catch a monkey. Take dried gourd, cut a small hole in the top, and drop in a few small rocks. Then suspend it from a tree where it makes a rattling noise. The noise will attract a monkey who will insert his hand to extract the rocks, but the hole is big enough insert his hand but too small to pull it out with the fist clenched holding onto the rocks. Since the monkey will not let go of what attracted him, he can easily be captured.

Don't know if it true but it surely describes the left end of the spectrum and its fascination with abortion.

Fletchette
October 31, 2005, 10:28 AM
I am just so sick of it. Make it an issue - no problem. But the relentless fixation on this single matter is just shameful. Like a broken record it is all we hear about. These people put abortion as an issue before ALL other important constitutional issues that (in my opinion) are far more crucial to our Rights.

I think the abortion issue is so important to the Libs because many of them entered politics over the issue in the 60's. They see it as their foundation.

The problem with abortion (outside of all the ethical debate - that's for a different forum) is that it is clearly suppossed to be reserved for the States via the Tenth Amendment. It's whole arguement for being a Federal issue is based on "interpreting" the Constitution. Therefore, those that are "pro-choice" tend to be in favor of stretching the Constitution to make it mean what they want it to mean. This means that they tend to be anti-choice on the issue of firerms ownership.

WT
October 31, 2005, 10:29 AM
Danny - Thanks!

Very interesting writeup. Went thru it once and I will have to read it again to let it soak in. I like the way Alito writes.

WT

rick_reno
October 31, 2005, 10:40 AM
Here are the cases he's argued before the court. Looks like a good choice.

Judge Samuel Alito’s pedigree includes 12 appearances before the United States Supreme Court. Below is a list of the cases, in reverse chronological order, Judge Alito argued before the Supreme Court, all on behalf of the government as assistant Solicitor General.

National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 470 U.S. 421
The Court agreed with the government holding that the “federal statute requiring private railroads to reimburse Amtrak for rail travel privileges that Amtrak provides to railroads' past and present employees, and their dependents, held constitutional.”

Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115
The Court agreed with the government holding that the “notice advising food stamp recipients of a general change in the law affecting their benefits, without explaining its precise effect on individual recipients, held not to violate notice requirements of federal law or regulations or of due process clause.”

Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 470 U.S. 116
The Court agreed with the government holding that the “EPA's issuance of "fundamentally different factor" variances from toxic pollutant effluent limitations held permissible under 301(l) of Clean Water Act (33 USCS 1311(l)).”

F.C.C. v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U.S. 364
The Court disagreed with the government holding that the “statute banning editorializing by federally funded public broadcasting stations held unconstitutional.”

U.S. v. Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 U.S. 792,
The Court agreed with the Government holding that “Confidential statements obtained during an Air Force safety investigation of an air crash held protected from disclosure by Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 USCS 552(b)(5)).”

U.S. v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605
The Court agreed with the Government in part holding that the “Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination held applicable to act of producing business records but not to content of such records.”

Russello v. U.S., 464 U.S. 16
The Court agreed with the Government holding that “RICO held to require forfeiture of insurance proceeds received by arson ring member.”

U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579
The Court agreed with the Government holding that a “Customs' boarding vessel for document check, without suspicion of wrongdoing, held not to violate Fourth Amendment.”

Belknap, Inc. v. Hale, 463 U.S. 491
The Court disagreed with the Government holding that the “Strike replacements' state court suit against employer for discharge after strike held not preempted by federal labor laws.”

Beren
October 31, 2005, 10:43 AM
It's official now. AP is reporting:

"President Bush, stung by the rejection of his first choice, nominated conservative judge Samuel Alito on Monday to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a bid to reshape the Supreme Court and mollify his political base."

boofus
October 31, 2005, 11:03 AM
:)

Jeeper
October 31, 2005, 11:04 AM
Don't everyone get too excited about the machine gun case. He objected on commerce clause grounds not 2nd amendment. He even stated that:

"This would not preclude adequate regulation of the private
possession of machine guns. Needless to say, the Commerce Clause
does not prevent the states from regulating machine gun
possession, as all of the jurisdictions within our circuit have
done."

He dissented in this case. The majority discussed the 2nd amend. but he did not dispute it in the dissent. I don't know if I am as excited as everyone else. Of course if he believes in limiting the Commerce Clause then there is a good chance he is pro-2nd.

Waitone
October 31, 2005, 11:05 AM
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/31/75831.shtml

<snip> "I am disappointed in this choice for several reasons. First, unlike previous nominations, this one was not the product of consultation with Senate Democrats. Last Friday, Senator Leahy and I wrote to President Bush urging him to work with us to find a consensus nominee. The President has rejected that approach.

"Second, this appointment ignores the value of diverse backgrounds and perspectives on the Supreme Court. The President has chosen a man to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, one of only two women on the Court. For the third time, he has declined to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the Court. And he has chosen yet another federal appellate judge to join a court that already has eight justices with that narrow background. President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club.

"Justice O’Connor has been the deciding vote in key cases protecting individual rights and freedoms on a narrowly divided Court. The stakes in selecting her replacement are high.

"I look forward to meeting Judge Alito and learning why those who want to pack the Court with judicial activists are so much more enthusiastic about him than they were about Harriet Miers.” Thank you, President Bush. I feel much more comfortable now. I get really concerned when your opposition supports your court decisions. Perhaps you've learned a lesson also.

Don't Tread On Me
October 31, 2005, 11:12 AM
I'm just saying this guy is very conservative, and very much a contructionist. There will be a huge fight with him, so getting anyone better would have been just about impossible, and if anything, this guy isn't a sure thing to get in either.


Like I said, this is as good as it gets. Janice Rogers Brown was/is better - but she got her current appointment with 56 votes (IIRC) - according to GOA, she "used language from an amicus curiae brief that was submitted by Gun Owners of California to argue against Los Angeles' ban on gun shows". Like Ginsberg who's essentially an ACLU agent on the court, Brown would be the pro-gun equivalent. Too bad the Republicans play ball for rabidly leftist socialists like Ginsberg, but Democrats don't return the favor.

That is no accident - just like Souter was NO accident. Educated elites like these do not make such errors, nor do they forfeit their position and lay down for the other side for no apparent reason. Most Republicans are closet-Liberals. The like big government, they are pro-choice, they are anti-gun. It has nothing to do their label, and more to do with their backgrounds. On social and personal issues, Republican politicians, who are rich elitists who have nothing in common with the average American, and no understanding of what real American life is like, do not see things like the average American that puts them in office.

Lone_Gunman
October 31, 2005, 11:17 AM
Well, it looks like the jack-slapping the conservatives put on Bush might have actually taken, for a little while at least.

Mongo the Mutterer
October 31, 2005, 11:20 AM
Republican politicians, who are rich elitists who have nothing in common with the average American, and no understanding of what real American life is like, do not see things like the average American that puts them in office. And Kennedy and Kerry and the rest of the libtards who would strip you of your 2A rights are NOT rich elitists.... :barf:

GunGoBoom
October 31, 2005, 11:32 AM
Would much rather have a nominee who was being likened to Thomas than Scalia

+1.

Still, 10 times better than Miers, and 100 times better than what Kerry would have nominated. I said long ago that Shrub should throw up a sacrificial lamb - Miers was the wrong choice for that, and they didn't plan it that way, but it may have some of that effect (taking some of the wind out of Schumer et al's sails, having made hay against the first one).

Don't Tread On Me
October 31, 2005, 11:41 AM
And Kennedy and Kerry and the rest of the libtards who would strip you of your 2A rights are NOT rich elitists.... :barf:


Watch where that barf goes! :)


Sure they are. But that isn't the argument is it? I often vote Republican because it does serve our 2nd Amendment movement.


I voted for Martinez here in FL. Turned out to be a GOOD choice. He voted in favor of the gun industry bill
So please, don't mistake me for some extremist who rejects the Republicans has a vehicle for our pro-RKBA movement. Reminds me of the people who reject the NRA because they aren't so absolutist in their methods.

Mongo the Mutterer
October 31, 2005, 11:48 AM
Point taken, barf retracted (yuk!)

TrybalRage
October 31, 2005, 11:54 AM
"Second, this appointment ignores the value of diverse backgrounds and perspectives on the Supreme Court. The President has chosen a man to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, one of only two women on the Court. For the third time, he has declined to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the Court. And he has chosen yet another federal appellate judge to join a court that already has eight justices with that narrow background. President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club."

This statement bugs the crap out of me. Since when is sex or ethnic background an important basis on your worthiness to serve on the SC? Bah, who cares what they actually BELIEVE in and just put them in because its the PC thing to do.

:barf:

boofus
October 31, 2005, 12:14 PM
Sex and ethnic background are important for this SCOTUS pick? Fine. Give us Janice Rogers Brown. :D

rick_reno
October 31, 2005, 12:27 PM
"Second, this appointment ignores the value of diverse backgrounds and perspectives on the Supreme Court. The President has chosen a man to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, one of only two women on the Court.

I have to take issue with this - is there DNA evidence that Ginsberg is a woman? More importantly, is there proof she is human? :)

bjbarron
October 31, 2005, 12:36 PM
I think it's kinda cool that a conservative judge can come out of New Jersey.

Dannyboy - I think that you, me, and him are the only conservatives in south Joisey...and we just lost him to Washington.

In United States v. Rybar, (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_rybar.txt) Judge Alito wrote a blistering dissent from the majority opinion which held that, notwithstanding United States v. Lopez, Congress had the power to use the Interstate Commerce power to prohibit the mere possession of machine guns manufactured after May 1986, even though Congress had made no findings about the effect of such machine guns on interstate commerce. Judge Alito's dissent did not address the majority's assertion that Rybar had no Second Amendment rights because Rybar was not a member of the militia.

At this point it only matters what the gang of 14 says.

He had already been vetted to the 3rd circuit. That means there can be no "extrodinary circumstances". Also he is not quite as sharp as Roberts, but has much more constitutional experience. He also is a very consistant conservative without being pedantic.

Stevens is getting long in the tooth, with Ginsberg (colon cancer) making noises about health problems. Another of the liberals has heart problems. Bush could get another choice in the next three years.

WT
October 31, 2005, 12:54 PM
bjb - Alito lives in West Caldwell and works in Newark. That is hardly 'south Jersey.'

Hawkmoon
October 31, 2005, 12:59 PM
The Dems don't quite seem to know where they stand:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said he was disappointed with the pick and that the Senate, which must confirm the pick, will now have to determine whether Alito is "too radical for the American people."

"I look forward to meeting Judge Alito and learning why those who want to pack the court with judicial activists are so much more enthusiastic about him than they were about Harriet Miers," Reid said.
I confess that I have apparently been sorely in error for many years. All this time I was under the impression that it was the Democraps who were trying to pack the courts with judicial activists.

How could I have been so blind?

Molon Labe
October 31, 2005, 01:00 PM
I have to take issue with this - is there DNA evidence that Ginsberg is a woman? More importantly, is there proof she is human? :)Yes, but she passed away about 5 years ago. The ACLU has kept her ‘alive’ using a complex robotic mechanism of levers, tubes, and electrical actuators. She will be on the court for another 800 years.

Henry Bowman
October 31, 2005, 01:04 PM
"I look forward to meeting Judge Alito and learning why those who want to pack the court with judicial activists are so much more enthusiastic about him than they were about Harriet Miers," Reid said. Trust me, you won't like him. Just go ahead and vote "no" and dispense with the theatrics. We don't need your vote, Harry.

bjbarron
October 31, 2005, 01:04 PM
bjb - Alito lives in West Caldwell and works in Newark. That is hardly 'south Jersey.'

You're right, but his years in Trenton were what was in my head. My Bad.

Mongo the Mutterer
October 31, 2005, 01:09 PM
Yes, but she passed away about 5 years ago. The ACLU has kept her ‘alive’ using a complex robotic mechanism of levers, tubes, and electrical actuators. She will be on the court for another 800 years.

Priceless.

I thought I saw a bolt in her neck once...

longeyes
October 31, 2005, 01:16 PM
Okay, personally I abhor racial and ethnic politics, but it's a reality, folks: If Teddy Kennedy slams Alito too nastily he can figure that a lot of his support in the Italian-American community in Massachusetts is going to evaporate. He could be on his way out. Finally.

I wanted Janice Rogers Brown but Alito, from what we know right now, looks promising.

RealGun
October 31, 2005, 01:16 PM
It doesn't matter what a nominee thinks about guns, if the Court will not grant cert to a gun case. I see no evidence that anyone who matters cares about what we think...Jeff Sessions, maybe.

John Roberts has the most to say about what cases are accepted and how many. The clerks do most of the filtering using guidelines given to them. Roberts said that their primary cases are where two lower courts have disagreed. In other words, if a District Court upholds a verdict or denies a hearing, end of story. The chances of a gun case making it through the gauntlet are nil, especially when it is no ones favored legal challenge, or if case time is being conserved for favored topics (about 85 cases per year).

tulsamal
October 31, 2005, 01:17 PM
This statement bugs the crap out of me. Since when is sex or ethnic background an important basis on your worthiness to serve on the SC?

This is where the slipperly slope of affirmative action can get you. I think the goals of such policies are admirable. But they turn out to be difficult to defend in practice.

For instance, I think you pick the best person for the job. So you look and look and you come up with ten choices. You come up with some numerical way of scoring them. You discover that you have two candidates who both score 92%. One is a white male. One is a black woman. I have NO problem at all at that point deciding that the black woman should be the nominee. I think it IS desirable to have more woman on the Court. I think it IS desireable to have a minority representation that is at least something like what we have within the country. (So a Hispanic nominee would be good, all other things being equal.)

But that isn't what has been happening. What if you rate your ten candidates and the top eight are all white men, then a white woman, then a Hispanic woman? If they are separated by 2%, then maybe you still pick the "diverse" candidate. But how big are you willing to see that number get? If the first woman on the list is 10% below the top man, do you still pick her? The country has been wrestling with these practical problems of affirmative actions for years now and we still don't have a solution everybody is happy with.

re: Brown herself. I heard some talking head the other day trying to sort through the field of possible women nominees. He said that "insiders" had told him that we got Miers in the first place because several potential woman candidates had turned down the President. Brown's name stopped coming up in the most of the press in the last few days. I wonder if she told the President she didn't want the job, at least not right now?

Gregg

Desertdog
October 31, 2005, 01:20 PM
Sistema1927
Who cares what the liberals think? Let them go on the record as being opposed to a good man, and hopefully America will remember come next election.
The Dems have a problem because there is an election in less than 1 year after the hearings.

Do the Dems really tear him apart showing their true colors, knowing that an election is so near? This could turn the average citizen against them.

Do they just let him slide through, turning their base against them?

Oh, what do the Dems do? Oh, what to do?:neener:

BigG
October 31, 2005, 01:25 PM
Yes, but she passed away about 5 years ago. The ACLU has kept her ‘alive’ using a complex robotic mechanism of levers, tubes, and electrical actuators. She will be on the court for another 800 years.

This reminded me of THE SIXTH DAY, where they were cloning important individuals and replacing them when they wore out/were snuffed. :eek:

No_Brakes23
October 31, 2005, 01:36 PM
I wanted Janice Rogers Brown but Alito, from what we know right now, looks promising. +1 More cautious optimism from here.

Bruce H
October 31, 2005, 01:44 PM
The real problem here are the worthless RINO'S like the two from Ohio. Can we pick up enough Dems to counter these clowns.

yucaipa
October 31, 2005, 01:45 PM
A little bio info.



Samuel Alito


Age: 55
Graduated from: Yale Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Leonard Garth.
He used to be: deputy assistant attorney general under Reagan, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (appointed 1990).

His confirmation battle: Alito has the Scalia-esque nickname "Little Nino" and the Italian background to match it. As the author of a widely noted dissent urging his court to uphold restrictions on abortion that the Supreme Court then struck down, in a decision that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, Alito could be especially filibuster-prone. Like Scalia, he frequently makes his mark in dissent.

Separation of Church and State
For a unanimous panel, upheld a lower-court order requiring a school district to allow a Bible-study group to set up an information table at an elementary-school back-to-school night. Reasoned that by preventing the group from displaying its literature, the district was discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. (Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Township School District, 2004)

For a unanimous panel, denied standing to a group seeking to take down a municipal holiday display that included a menorah and a crèche. Alito said that the group couldn't challenge the display as taxpayers because the items were donated rather than bought by the town. (ACLU-NJ v. Township of Wall, 2001)

Dissented from a ruling by the 3rd Circuit as a whole that an elementary school did not violate the First Amendment rights of a kindergartener by taking down (and then putting back up) a Thanksgiving poster he'd made that said the thing he was most thankful for was Jesus. The majority decided to throw out the case on a technicality; Alito protested that the child's claim should go forward. (C.H. v. Oliva, 2000)

Criminal Law
Allowed a federal probation office in Delaware to condition the release of a man who had pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography on his willingness to submit to random polygraph tests about whether he'd had impermissible contact with children. (United States v. Warren, 2003)

Dissented from a refusal to grant police officers immunity from a civil suit brought by a mother and her 10-year-old daughter who'd each been strip-searched because they lived in the home of a suspected drug dealer. Alito felt the police had behaved reasonably because the warrant led them to conclude that there was probable cause to search everyone in the house for drugs. (Doe v. Groody, 2004)

Habeas Corpus
Granted the habeas 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)

Abortion
Dissented from a decision holding that Pennsylvania could not require women to inform their husbands before getting abortions. Alito argued that because the law only required the husbands to have notice and did not give them a veto over their wives' decisions, it did not pose an "undue burden" for women. This approach was rejected by the Supreme Court. (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1991)

Agreed that an immigration judge was within his discretion to find not credible an application for asylum based on China's forced-abortion policy. (Xue-Jie Chen v. Ashcroft, 2004)

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 31, 2005, 02:01 PM
He sounds pretty good so far.

Anybody see any reason to dislike him?

pcf
October 31, 2005, 02:02 PM
Simple question to ask anyone who thinks that Alito is too conservative:

What constitutes public use?

Public use is exactly why we don't need more conservatives on the court.:rolleyes:

dpesec
October 31, 2005, 02:14 PM
Well I have to agree he's the best yet. I'm still not as rah-rah on the 2nd as everybody here appears. I don't hink he's convinced that the 2nd overrides al lthe People's Republic's limitations.
He blieves that States can refulate firearms, which is directly opposed to the univeralsity of the 2nd.

That said, I still think he's the best yet.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 31, 2005, 02:30 PM
Roberts said that their primary cases are where two lower courts have disagreed. In other words, if a District Court upholds a verdict or denies a hearing, end of story.

This has always been the Supreme Court policy, though it doesn't matter whether two district courts disagree. It only matters where to Circuit Court of Appeals disagree AND the disagreement has a practical effect. Right now, the 9th circuit ruling is that the Second is a collective right. In the 5th Circuit, it is an individual right; but the decision is dicta and the right is still subject to restrictions, so as of yet, there are no practical conflicts between the two circuits.

The chances of a gun case making it through the gauntlet are nil, especially when it is no ones favored legal challenge, or if case time is being conserved for favored topics (about 85 cases per year).

I disagree. I think that we will see a case go to SCOTUS on Second Amendment grounds in the next 20 years. Eventually there will be an open conflict between the 5th and 9th circuits that SCOTUS will have to step in and resolve. Recent cases coming out of the Louisiana confiscations could speed this up even further (except that the state and municipal government there will probably recognize the hornet's nest they are kicking and back off those cases before there is anything to appeal).

carebear
October 31, 2005, 05:35 PM
dpesec,

I don't have that big of a problem with a ruling that says the Fed has no right to regulate/infringe firearms but doesn't affect the States.

It's a heck of a lot easier to influence State politics than Federal, the money and vote numbers are smaller. And I don't want to seem too self-centered but MY state already has a constitutional right to Keep and Bear and only regulates MG's to Federal standards.

Take out the Fed regs and it's a free-fire zone. Also, worst come to worse, I can change States, I'm not really aware of an alternative Nation to move to.

If the Fed went strict interp and left most everything out of the 10th and Commerce clause debacle we'd still be better off on the whole.

Cosmoline
October 31, 2005, 06:02 PM
Don't everyone get too excited about the machine gun case. He objected on commerce clause grounds not 2nd amendment. He even stated that:

"This would not preclude adequate regulation of the private
possession of machine guns. Needless to say, the Commerce Clause
does not prevent the states from regulating machine gun
possession, as all of the jurisdictions within our circuit have
done."

He dissented in this case. The majority discussed the 2nd amend. but he did not dispute it in the dissent. I don't know if I am as excited as everyone else. Of course if he believes in limiting the Commerce Clause then there is a good chance he is pro-2nd.

Of course, nobody would suggest the COMMERCE CLAUSE restricts a STATE'S ability to do anything. It's one of the enumerated powers of the FEDERAL government.

jsalcedo
October 31, 2005, 06:02 PM
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/10/alito_and_guns.php

Cosmoline
October 31, 2005, 06:06 PM
Frankly I don't think you'll find very many jurists at Alito's level willing to openly support the Second. They avoid the issue whenever possible. There's really no way of telling how he will approach it from his existing opinions.

Jeeper
October 31, 2005, 06:47 PM
Of course, nobody would suggest the COMMERCE CLAUSE restricts a STATE'S ability to do anything. It's one of the enumerated powers of the FEDERAL government.

I am not following you. He said it wasn't under the commerce clause and therefore the state could regulate whatever they wanted to but the fed couldn't. The majority said it was under the commerce clause.

rock jock
November 1, 2005, 10:21 AM
I'm going to start saving up for a DIAS today.

Molon Labe
November 1, 2005, 01:03 PM
I don't have that big of a problem with a ruling that says the Fed has no right to regulate/infringe firearms but doesn't affect the States.Would you have a big problem with a ruling that says the Fed has no right to regulate/infringe free speech, but doesn't affect the States?

Fletchette
November 1, 2005, 01:27 PM
Keep in mind that Alito's arguement against the Fed banning machineguns based on the lack of an interstate commerce issue does NOT mean that he is anti-2A. The Fed's machinegun ban is based on the commerce clause, so that is where it has to be attacked.

If a case came to the Federal courts on the issue of a state banning machinguns, then it would be a 2A issue as all the atates must abide by the Constitution.

Everything that I have heard/read so far is that Alito is a strict-Constitutionalist. This is good.

WT
November 1, 2005, 06:45 PM
Alito is also a Phillies fanatic, coaches Little League baseball, served 8 years in the US Army Reserve and calls his mother every day.

Boss Spearman
November 1, 2005, 09:05 PM
GOA likes Alito, so that's good enough for me.

Flyboy
November 1, 2005, 10:52 PM
Would you have a big problem with a ruling that says the Fed has no right to regulate/infringe free speech, but doesn't affect the States?
Interpreted strictly, that would have been entirely correct, pre-14th-Amendment. The 14th Amendment applied the rights enumerated in the Constitution to the states (though the courts have incorporated them selectively), but it still doesn't give fed.gov the power to regulate state matters. While I understand where you're going, it's not a fair analogy.

Additionally, every State constitution I've read (admittedly only a handful) had free speech provisions nearly mirroring the US Constitution's First Amendment. RKBA provisions, on the other hand, vary widely among the states.

carebear
November 1, 2005, 11:04 PM
Thank you Flyboy. You caught my meaning and expressed it probably better than I would have.

Molon,

I probably wouldn't, because that's why we have State legislatures and State constitutions. As long as you're free to vote at whatever political level, even to the point, in extremis, of voting with your feet, you are ultimately covered as far as freedom goes.

In the crapshoot of life you are fortunate to be born an American vice Sri Lankan. Why should that not extend to be blessed with being born say, a Texan (you know they'd go there anyway ;) ) versus a ________________?

(insert your own state of least regard above)

mountainclmbr
November 1, 2005, 11:32 PM
Schmuckky Schumer and Barbara Boxer hate him. That is good news to me!!!:neener:

Ben Shepherd
November 1, 2005, 11:38 PM
I've tried to glance at a variety of major newspapers articles to get a rough idea of what he's about. One thing comes up in almost every article I've glanced through: Most democratic senators are concerned with his stance on firearms.

So based on that and the enemies he seems to have in the senate, he looks pretty good to me so far.

beerslurpy
November 1, 2005, 11:59 PM
Honestly his controversial opinions are about .5 percent of the overall number of opinions he has written, and the .5 percent (mostly Casey, Rybar and maaaybe the religion ones) that could be considered controversial were all well written. The only reason Rybar wasnt overturned in light of Casey is because machine guns are too much of a political hot topic. His logic in Rybar was flawless and completely in line with SC precedent.

Even in Casey they ended up partially affirming his dissent by adopoting the undue burden test instead of the trimesters test.

I think most Democrats will swallow the conservatism to get what is overall a very good pick for everyone. If the Republicans can confirm Ginsburg, I dont think an Alito confirmation is asking too much.

If you enjoyed reading about "Samuel Alito to Scotus" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!