The conservative right are pissing their pants they're so happy, which scares the Dems. Planned Parenthood was protesting him 30 seconds after he was announced, which delights the Religious Right.

I find very little extremism evident in his decisions. I fail to see how his dissent in Casey over husband notification indicates he will be the Roe overturner that makes him the Religious Right wet dream/liberal nightmare.

---

_______________________________________________

Has Planned Parenthood EVER supported a single Supreme Court nominee?

Alito doesn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade. There is no way that the RNC wants a judge that would, in a single stroke, get rid of their biggest money maker. How would they rally the troops without the abortion issue? My bet is that Alito just LOOKS good enough to placate the far right who want a litmus test appointee.

You guys continue to crack me up. I say again, this is exactly what most of us on the far, radical, religious, extreme right want, and have wanted for a long time:

"Alito does not have an agenda, contrary to what the Republican right is saying about him being a 'home run.' He is not result-oriented. He is an honest conservative judge who believes in judicial restraint and judicial deference."

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I don't have any clue whether he or Roberts will vote to overturn Roe. I do know that if we have all or most of the SC justices that think the way Roberts and Alito think, it will fall eventually.

The key is the homerun Vitus referred to. Conservatives are process oriented, not results oriented, at least on a good day. If the judges read the laws, interpret them without injection personal policy preferences, the country will be well served.

Conservatives are process oriented, not results oriented, at least on a good day. If the judges read the laws, interpret them without injection personal policy preferences, the country will be well served.


Gimme a break - they are just as results oriented as anyone else. If the results are what they want, they'll say the decision was made without injection of personal policy preferences. If not, they cry judicial activism.

---

_______________________________________________

Single issue people will react the way you describe, of course, but they are boring. On a good day real conservatives don't react that way. So, for example, I had a real problem with the SC letting the feds stop the Oregon medical marijuana laws, despite my opposition to those laws.

I admit that every day is not a good day.

Exactly. Liberals keep wanting to attribute some sort of litmus test to conservatives, when one does not really exist. The closest we came to that was with the Miers nomination, and the attempt to sell her as a reliable vote on Roe. An attempt that was almost universally derided by conservatives.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That's because conservative does not necessarily mean Republican and the religious right, something many people fail to understand.

That's because conservative does not necessarily mean Republican and the religious right

Fair enough. Where are the statements from the religious right demanding a litmus test, as opposed to a sound judge?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Good point. I didn't like the Miers nomination, even though I suspected she would vote the way I wanted consistently, probably better than Alito will.

We need justices that will not only get the right answer, but provide intellectually educational arguments to the public for the answer they give.

I was actually agreeing with your previous post and adding that I think that many people look at someone who considers themselves to be a conservative to automatically be in lock step with the Republican party, when in fact that is not necessarily true.

I consider myself a conservative (particularly fiscally) but consider at the current Republican admin as being extremely socially conservative while almost being fiscally liberal.

I was actually agreeing with your previous post

Oh. Well, in that case. . .

;)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You're crappen' me right vitus? No litmus test for the religious right? Why do you think Karl Rove had an in office conference with James Dobson? To talk about the weather? You say you just want a qualified person but I suspect that if the nominee has been a brilliant jurist but a staunch liberal that you would not want them on the supreme court.

Well, Dobson has come out in support of Alito. Alito has had four abortion related decisions and came down on the prochoice side three of the four times.

Apparently you are certain Alito will vote against Roe. How do you know?

Just to be a devil's advocate Art, how many of his "pro choice" rulings were because he was bound by SC precedent?

---

_______________________________________________

All four of his rulings were because that was how he interpreted the SC rulings. That is how it should be.

Shouldn't he be bound by those same precedents even if he is on the SC? That's why they call it precedent isn't it?

All four of his rulings were because that was how he interpreted the SC rulings. That is how it should be

My point Art, is simply that a SC Justice is not bound by SC precedent as is an appeals judge (though there is the concpet of stare decisis). Just because Alito had 3 "pro choice" rulings doesn't mean he'll have any on the SC.

---

_______________________________________________

No, which is how rulings get overturned.

---

_______________________________________________

He can still rule in a manner that is inconsistent with the SC precedents. It will just get overturned along with being deemed judicial activism. What prohibits him from ruling contrary to established precedent?

No, I don't think he will overturn Roe, but I think that he is being sold to the religious right as someone who might.

I am aware that they have the power to overturn previous rulings, but on the whole they tend to look at established rulings as setting a precendent in that area and usually rule accordingly.

I'm saying there's a difference between respecting a precedent, and the fact that a fed appeals judge has to rule in accordance with past SC rulings, there is no leeway for directly contradicting a SC ruling. When Alito overturned the law banning late-term abortions, he did so because the SC has previously ruled that an exception had to be made for the mother's life. He didn't really have an slack there, but as a SC he could overturn that ruling.

---

_______________________________________________

Courts rule in direct contradiction to SC rulings all the time. The Ninth Circus judges make a living out of it. The recent banning of the death penalty for minors came from OH where the judges there looked at a very clear case from just a few years earlier in which the SC ruled that execution of minors was constitutional. The judges ruled it unconstitutional anyway.

That forced a SC review where the exact same judges upheld the lower court and reversed their own opinion from a few years earlier. Thank you Justice Souter.

The Ohio court was an activist court in that they gave the finger to the SC and made up something in the Constitution that wasn't there, but the judges wanted to be there. The SC went along for the ride. Go figure.

As Art said, this:

fed appeals judge has to rule

is simply not true. The judges can rule however they want. There is no has to involved.

OK, I stand corrected.

I'd actually like to read the appeals court opinion in Roper v Simmons (minor death penalty case) to see how they rationalized ruling against SC precedent.

---

_______________________________________________

single issue folks might be boring, but they'll get you into office.

bush knows damned well he's got to pay the piper

So I looked up that case if anyone cares (sound of browsers' back buttons being hit aand people yawning) - this sums it up

"The case worked its way up the court system, with the courts continuing to uphold the death sentence. However, in light of a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), that overturned the death penalty for the mentally retarded, the Missouri Supreme Court reconsidered Simmons' case and concluded that "a national consensus has developed against the execution of juvenile offenders" and sentenced Simmons to life imprisonment without parole."

...from goold ol wikipedia.

I'd still have to guess that the instances of lower courts going against the SC is pretty rare, and that a judge's rulings as an appeals court judge may not reflect what he/she might do on the SC.

---

_______________________________________________

I'm still waiting for that up or down vote we owe Miers....or, err, are we not doing that up or down vote thingy anymore?

Is it just me, or is the phrase "up or down vote" one of the stupidist phrases to come out of Washington these days. Isn't it redundant? It's like a phrase you'd use to explain how the vote works to a third grader. Just say "vote"...sheesh

---

_______________________________________________

Since I previously weighed-in on Roberts and Miers, here's my 2 cents on Alito: he's qualified. It sounds like there will be some objections to his "ideology", but frankly, from an attorney's perspective, you want a judge who is consistent. In spite of the religious right's excitement, this doesn't appear to me to be a nominee who is being sent to carry out marching orders from the administration to torpedo abortion rights. There was a blurb in my local paper this morning about some of Alito's writings from his undergraduate days at Princeton, and the guy is clearly bright and an independent thinker. Would he vote to overturn roe under the right set of facts? Perhaps, but his outstanding record and credentials - independent of whatever his personal views are regarding abortion - should earn Bush the right to have his pick confirmed. Is it gonna happen without a fight? I think we all know the answer to that question, and that's too bad.

There was a blurb in my local paper this morning about some of Alito's writings from his undergraduate days at Princeton



Heh heh...if you read some of my papers form Princeton you'd think I'd definitely overturn Roe v Wade

---

_______________________________________________

What do you think of his opinion that an employee can't sue a company for discrimination if the discrimination was not intentional, even if the discrimination was not in dispute? This opinion would have made proving discrimination much more difficult.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

This opinion would have made proving discrimination much more difficult.

Are you asking if the decision was legally correct, or good policy?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I believe he maintained the employee was treated unfairly but didn't necessarily mean he was discriminated against.

What do you think of his opinion that an employee can't sue a company for discrimination if the discrimination was not intentional, even if the discrimination was not in dispute?

How can it be discrimination if it's not intentional?

---

_______________________________________________

Which part of my post was a question, and which wasn't?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Give me a break, already. You asked what we thought about his ruling in the case, and I want to know if you're asking us if we think it was legally sound, or if it was wise from a policy point of view. Don't be so difficult.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The argument was that the defendant (Marriott) might not have known that their decision was influenced by racial bias.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I'm having a hard time following.The argument was that the defendant (Marriott) might not have known that their decision was influenced by racial bias.

Either the defendant used race unfairly or didn't. You can't accidentally discriminate.

---

_______________________________________________

Actually, the court decision says that you can, if I understand the legalese sufficiently. If your processes are set up in such a way that they in fact discriminate, but you are, because of (unconscious) racial bias, unaware of that bias, you have done so.

Then again, I'm obviously not a lawyer.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I dont think so Ken.

From Alito's dissent:

"To me, the evidence in this case shows two things -- (1) that the qualifications of Bray and Riehle for the Director of Services position they were seeking were roughly equal and (2) that Marriott may have treated Bray unfairly by not following its own internal procedures as to giving her proper notice that she had been rejected and failing to give her a proper explanation for her rejection."

What I take from my cursory reading of his opinion is that Alito is saying the two candidate's were roughly equally qualified. The law requires demonstration (at minumum) that the clearly qualified candidate be passed over before a determination of racial discrimination can be made.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer either, and I'd be grateful if one would chime in here.

---

_______________________________________________

More from Alito's dissent in Bray: (http://vls.law.vill.edu/...Apr1997/97a1559p.txt)

Moving back to the case at hand, Bray's burden under prong
one was to show either that there were so many inconsistencies in
the criteria and procedures that Marriott used in its selection
process that a reasonable factfinder could infer that the process
was a sham and was not aimed at finding the best qualified
candidate, or that Bray herself was so much better qualified than
Riehle for the job in question that a reasonable factfinder could
conclude that Marriott did not, in fact, honestly believe that
Riehle was better qualified than Bray. I dissent because the
majority has not come close to holding Bray to her burden under
prong one and has thereby impermissibly diluted Fuentes' prong
one requirements for crossing summary judgment.

I think Ken has somewhat misrepresented the issue, though not, of course, deliberately.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."