Alito outlines possible conservative agenda for U.S. high court

[Aim1]

This could be good if Trump's pro-2nd Amendment nominee is confirmed and on the court.




https://www.yahoo.com/news/alito-outlines-possible-conservative-agenda-u-high-court-185021438.html

Alito outlines possible conservative agenda for U.S. high court

By Lawrence Hurley

ReutersNovember 17, 2016

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday laid out a possible agenda for the U.S. Supreme Court if it regains its conservative majority as expected after Donald Trump takes office, citing gun rights and religious freedom as among key issues it will tackle in the coming years.

In reference to gun rights, Alito mentioned Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court found an individual right to bear arms for self defense. Breyer's dissent, in which he argued that the Constitution's Second Amendment protects militia-related and not self-defense-related gun rights and it does not absolutely bar government action on guns, gave a "roadmap" to those who would seek to undermine the ruling, Alito said.

 

[AlexanderA]

It somehow doesn't seem proper for a sitting Supreme Court Justice to lay out an ideological agenda prior to hearing the actual cases to come before him. It calls into question his impartiality. He needs to tread very carefully.

 

[guyfromohio]

It somehow doesn't seem proper for a sitting Supreme Court Justice to lay out an ideological agenda prior to hearing the actual cases to come before him. It calls into question his impartiality. He needs to tread very carefully.

Was thinking the same thing. Probably bogus report.

 

[danez71]

Was thinking the same thing. Probably bogus report.

Its not a bogus report. Here's the original source. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-alito-idUSKBN13C2E7


I tend to agree with the above posts, but on the flip side, aren't we all wanting more conservative judges on SCOTUS? If they lean right, then they aren't 100% impartial with-out any bias at all.



Lets evaluate the article though....

If you read the article, you'll see that it contains very very little actual quoting of Alito - only 3 partial quotes containing a grand total of 7 words from Alito.

With only 7 words quoted, what the article amounts to is the authors interpretation of what Alito said (should be classified as an opinion piece)

 

[Cannibul]

I'm really hoping that President Trump gets to seat three justices on the SC. It would warm the cockles of my heart to have a 7-2 court for years to come.

 

[yokel]

It’s not clear that simply replacing Scalia with another originalist will lead to a conservative renaissance on the Supreme Court. It’s a return to the status quo ante that produced the blessing of ObamaCare — twice.

The key isn’t the upcoming appointment, at least now that the election has been decided. It’s the next appointment after that, especially if one of the liberal seats on the bench open up for Trump to fill. Anthony Kennedy and to some extent John Roberts will still determine the swing on the court. A second appointment, assuming that scenario, will be the one that pushes the court to the right significantly enough to make originalism more dominant in the outcomes.

 

[barnbwt]

It somehow doesn't seem proper for a sitting Supreme Court Justice to lay out an ideological agenda prior to hearing the actual cases to come before him. It calls into question his impartiality. He needs to tread very carefully.

It isn't proper. Which is why Alito is likely not doing so. Probably not 'bogus report' so much as 'creative headline' though.

Let's face it; everyone is fully aware the Court has been actively avoiding a number of issues because both sides were afraid of them being settled "once and for all" without knowing what the final tally was in advance. Gun rights are a particularly obvious example, where Heller has been actively ignored or contradicted by lower courts consistently since its inception, while the Court has sat 'idly' by and not even decided to hear cases (meanwhile people like Breyer use strong language to say how wrong-headed it was and how it needs to be replaced, and people like Thomas use some of the strongest language they've ever used to defend it outside of court proceedings as well as decry colleagues' refusal to hear follow-up cases that would cement the precedent). Clearly the issue is highly controversial, clearly it is not being addressed by the Court, so clearly there is a lot of pressure building up that needs to be relieved.

It is on that last note that I've always thought that it's a good thing the Court was about to arrive at a solidly conservative or liberal stance after a decade or so of Kennedy-led vagueness; at last we'll see some of these issues settled by the Court, and we can each decide whether we wish to abide by the outcome for ourselves. For good or bad, the Court is there to resolve these brooding contradictions, and they've been failing in that important role for too long when it comes to gun rights. That gun owners seem more likely to come out on top of this one is just icing on the cake. (Heck, if Hillary had won and tried to pass bad laws or ram through bad precedent, it may have been the catalyst for a proper Article V convention of the states, and we'd have ended up with Heller being the law of the land, regardless)

TCB

 

[Squire Western]

It isn't proper. Which is why Alito is likely not doing so. Probably not 'bogus report' so much as 'creative headline' though.

Let's face it; everyone is fully aware the Court has been actively avoiding a number of issues because both sides were afraid of them being settled "once and for all" without knowing what the final tally was in advance. Gun rights are a particularly obvious example, where Heller has been actively ignored or contradicted by lower courts consistently since its inception, while the Court has sat 'idly' by and not even decided to hear cases (meanwhile people like Breyer use strong language to say how wrong-headed it was and how it needs to be replaced, and people like Thomas use some of the strongest language they've ever used to defend it outside of court proceedings as well as decry colleagues' refusal to hear follow-up cases that would cement the precedent). Clearly the issue is highly controversial, clearly it is not being addressed by the Court, so clearly there is a lot of pressure building up that needs to be relieved.

It is on that last note that I've always thought that it's a good thing the Court was about to arrive at a solidly conservative or liberal stance after a decade or so of Kennedy-led vagueness; at last we'll see some of these issues settled by the Court, and we can each decide whether we wish to abide by the outcome for ourselves. For good or bad, the Court is there to resolve these brooding contradictions, and they've been failing in that important role for too long when it comes to gun rights. That gun owners seem more likely to come out on top of this one is just icing on the cake. (Heck, if Hillary had won and tried to pass bad laws or ram through bad precedent, it may have been the catalyst for a proper Article V convention of the states, and we'd have ended up with Heller being the law of the land, regardless)

TCB

The last paragraph is a good summation. Finally some real resolutions can possibly be made in the Supreme Court on the foreseeable future of gun rights.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

I was there for Alito's speech. It is a creative headline. Alito's speech was about Scalia's legacy, as was the rest of the conference. The speech was not some conspiratorial "agenda."

 

[JohnKSa]

It calls into question his impartiality.

Not in the least.

Judges are supposed to be impartial with respect to the people who stand before them to be judged.

A judge stating what he believes the law/constitution says and how cases should be decided based on that interpretation isn't providing evidence of impartiality.

A judge who thinks that they must be "impartial" in the sense of believing that any interpretation of the law is acceptable is totally useless.

 

[lilguy]

So Ginsberg railing against Trump and Sotomayer offering how her Latina life experiance will help her on the court is acceptable? I like the idea of a SCOTUS member being up front with me. Left or right it helps to know who's with ya.

 

[JohnKSa]

Impartial means that they will render a fair/impartial verdict based on what they honestly believe the law says rather than on how they feel about the persons involved in the case.

It doesn't mean that they don't have strong views about what the law says/means or that they believe any interpretation of the law is acceptable.

As far as someone saying that their life experience makes them a better judge, that would be acceptable to the extent that it means their life experience gives them a better idea about what the law says/means. It wouldn't be acceptable if it means they intend to rule based on how they feel, or on how they think a certain group/demographic would like them to rule, or on their personal feelings instead of based on what the law says/means.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It somehow doesn't seem proper for a sitting Supreme Court Justice to lay out an ideological agenda prior to hearing the actual cases to come before him. It calls into question his impartiality. He needs to tread very carefully.

Judges can't help what is written about them and what is speculated about their motives. He knows the lines when he is giving talks on the state of the law. They all give this kind of talks and they all tend to stay inside the lines right or left (except for Ginsberg on occasion).

Mike