gmginsfo
Nov 3 2005, 09:55 AM
I'm surprised - well, not really - that no one else claiming to be interested in a "careful and thorough review" of Judge Alito's background posted
this story, which details his work supervising a student publication in his undergrad days. As one of his generation, I'm even more assured of his fitness for SCOTUS after reading this; many of us undertook such work back then and there was - and remains - a community of interest among those who held such beliefs then and continue to do so now.
I pulled up the Shore Regional HS decision late yesterday and read and reread it, just to make sure I wouldn't run afoul of any young lawyers' snares. As I expected, I find no reason to change any of my prior posts - even those relatively ancient ones dealing with membership in MENSA* - in fact, I'll amplify what I first wrote here about Judge Alito. The opening section of Shore Regional HS, detailing the facts of PS' harassment, is itself even more indicative of Judge Alito's lack of any anti-gay animus. Many opinions treat the facts of such cases in a dismissive manner, belittling them to support the coming ruling against their proponent. Not this one, though; it tells the story in a careful, compassionate manner without either hyperbole or understatement. In short, it matters not just what a judge decides but how he presents his decision, and again, Judge Alito does not disappoint here.
_____
*Reach much, Neptune? What's next, a stalking? Being an optimist instead of a pessimist, I'm flattered instead of afraid. The relevancy of that post, in a thread in which you did not participate, was a matter of opinion best judged by the participants. But I'll agree with your own characterization of your posts: "snarky."
Neptune
Nov 3 2005, 11:08 AM
MIB: I'll stand by what I've said to you earlier--the majority of this population barely knows the text of the constitution, so I doubt that there will be a national debate about constitutional interpretation anytime soon. It's not like the national debate about abortion (which is what you're clearly hinting at) is predicated on differing legal philosophies held by average Americans. It's all about personal moral beliefs--shaped by religion and other social values. Do you think antiabortion lay people (or half of the senate, for that matter) even knows the legal underpinnings of Roe or Casey? Probably not.
I agree that the Dems don't have a leg to stand on regarding their premature fillibuster threats (however, the Republicans were almost as bad in the manner with which they torpedoed Meir's nomination--she should have at least had a chance to speak candidly in the hearings). Maybe they could argue that nominations to SCOTUS warrant a higher level of scutiny than nominations to lower federal courts (which would explain changes in the democratic voting for Alito from his circuit court nomination)--however, this argument suggests that the democrats were asleep at the wheel during earlier Alito's earlier judicial nomination. It's tough to be a minority when the stakes are so high, so ideological inconsistencies are to be expected (it's not so long ago that out of power Republicans were pushing term limits--but they're certainly not talking about them now).
gmginsfo: Did someone get on the bitter bus today? Regarding MENSA, I have better things to do than stalk you. I just have a good memory. Regarding Alito, let me first quote your earlier post:
"Alito sent a clear message that he would have zero tolerance for any school district that looked the other way while students vicious bullied one of their own, even if that hazing were conducted on the basis of homosexuality (real or imagined); gay kids have a right to education, too."
Alito's opinion, while well reasoned, clearly did not say this at all--it says nothing about Alito's thoughts on hazing or the rights of gay kids to education. I could blame FrontPage entirely for the dissemination of the this falsity (or at best hyperbole), but you're the one who forwarded it to Outsports. Now you're mealymouthing, saying that what you really meant is that Alito isn't a total homophobe.* Nice revisionary history. You also accused Lambda Legal of issuing "sky is falling" press releases prematurely critical of Alito, which the organization did not do. Whoops.
Secondly, I loathe the arrogance I've often seen when lawyers have discussions with laypeople on the board. Someone who has not gone to law school or has not handled numerous cases is just as equipped as you, or I, or MIB to comment and have perspicuous insights into legal issues; conversely, having many years of legal experience, a MENSA-level IQ, or training at a certain school in Cambridge should not render us immune from critique--even from laypeople--where it is warranted. I just wanted to remind people of that in the last paragraph of my initial response.
On a conciliatory note, the reason why I said I was disappointed in you, is because I honestly was--and not in any sanctimonious way. I spend all day and much of the night performing endless document review for my large NY firm as a first year associate/grunt trying to pay off student loans. I usually look forward to the legal and political comments I read during breaks, including the ones from posters I often don't agree with (such as MIB's or yours). This was the first time I was actually disappointed with the quality of one of your posts, since you were parroting back something you read on the website of a partisan hack, instead of using your own MENSA-rejecting brain.
_________________
* I hate pretentious and unnecessary footnotes, but one is appropriate here. I doubt that Scalia or Thomas personally harbor anti-gay animus either, but I certainly don't look forward to their rulings on gay rights issues. Furthermore, are you seriously putting your faith in Alito's participation in a gay friendly journal 35 years ago? I expect opinions to change or become modified over time (see, e.g., O'Connor's shift in Bowers v. Hardwick to Lawrence). Furthermore, there's a difference between personally believing that there should be a right to privacy, and ruling that such a right actually exists in the law beyond the confines of the 4th Amendment, as I'm sure MIB could tell you.
[ November 03, 2005, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Neptune ]
Darius
Nov 3 2005, 05:22 PM
That all sounded pretty sanctimonious to me. So as an average lay person without a law degree, I hope you don't mind my comment.
Darius
Nov 3 2005, 06:01 PM
Thanks Neptune...you're a good sport. Glad to see your not only intelligent but have a down to earth side as well. And a cat loving tennis player. I'm loving this.
thersis
Nov 4 2005, 03:44 AM
QUOTE
Neptune:
you, or I, or MIB
one of these things is not like the others....
Joe in Philly
Nov 4 2005, 11:57 AM
I haven't read anything in this thread and I don't intend to. I'm just going to share two things: one,
a column in today's Phila. Daily News. An excerpt:
QUOTE
THINK you know about Judge Samuel Alito? Think again.
After doing some homework, it seems that Sam Alito the man is a lot different from the myth being created by most observers.
Both the right and the left seem to be making the same assumptions about him, which will likely prove invalid. This isn't just my opinion, it's the opinion of a dozen people - mostly Democrats - who have worked closely with him over the years...
---
\"Will he overturn Roe?\" I asked a liberal Democrat who argued before Judge Alito.
\"In my opinion, no,\" he replied. He went on to explain that he believed Judge Alito would rule in a way that is \"mainstream.\"
What of the much-reported fact that his mother declared that he's pro-life?
\"He does not let personal views affect his decisions,\" another told me, who also believed Alito wouldn't overturn Roe.
Yet another offered a warning to both sides, \"Democrats will be disappointed in many decisions, and I think Republicans will be as well.\"
Such as what? Could you have counted him to, say, install George W. Bush as president in the case of Bush v. Gore?
\"No, you could not count on him,\" I was told by another Democratic lawyer who argued in front of Judge Alito. \"Not unless he felt the facts truly supported it. He is not a political judge or someone who rules from the bench like an ideologue.\"
The other item, from the Daily News earlier in the week: Alito is...a Phillies fan. eek! wink
Neptune
Nov 4 2005, 12:17 PM
In 15 years, will we be talking about Alito as the "stealth" candidate, like Souter? Hmm...
From what I've read, it seems like he's a sharp guy, and he definitely has the qualifications on paper. I still wish Bush looked outside of the federal courts for his pick (there are many brilliant and qualified state court judges). I suppose he couldn't afford to take any risks after the Miers debacle.
BTW, it's hard not to root for the Phillies, now that you have your nice new Citizen's Bank Park. It's one of the nicest sports arenas I've ever been to--clean, easy access, and great seats).
Damn that Shea Stadium... :mad:
fantomas
Nov 7 2005, 04:30 PM
The thing about GOP nuts like Tom Coburn is often they say crazy things like claiming there's "rampant lesbianism" in Oklahoma, or calling for the death of doctors who perform abortion, yet sometimes they also blurt out exactly what's on their mind without realizing it. As he did yesterday:
Coburn says Alito was \"legislating from the bench\" QUOTE
RUSSERT: Do you believe Congress has the right to restrict the sale and transfer of machine guns or do you think that Judge Alito is correct that Congress should not be interfering in that?
SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK): No, I think we probably have the right to do it. But I don’t think a judge has the right. That brings us back to the whole point. Those aren’t decisions judges should be making. Those are decisions legislatures should be making. That’s how we’ve gotten off on this track that we allowed judges to start deciding the law, new law, rather than interpret the law that the Congress — what should have napped this case is this is an area that’s up for debate and needs to go back to Congress. And if Congress decides that, then it should be there.
RUSSERT: So Judge Alito was wrong?
COBURN: Sure.
RUSSERT: And he was legislating?
COBURN: Sure.
MIB, Ung, you guys are closely plugged into the corridors of power--did he not get the memo? Or did he just not read it or choose to ignore it?
Also, despite the usual right-wing spin, the judges LEAST likely to overturn Congressional statutes are the Clinton appointees, the "liberals":
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
Now who is it that can't pass legislation so they decide they need to strike it down and "legislate"?
gmginsfo
Nov 7 2005, 05:00 PM
FT, mere %-ages alone won't win your argument on which justices are most likely to strike down legislation. You need to look at the TYPE of legislation that was challenged in SCOTUS and then who voted how. Consider the demise of the Violence Against Women Act in the Rehnquist court in the Brzonkala decision that involved a VA Tech footballer a few years ago.
fantomas
Nov 8 2005, 08:57 PM
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
FT, mere %-ages alone won't win your argument on which justices are most likely to strike down legislation. You need to look at the TYPE of legislation that was challenged in SCOTUS and then who voted how. Consider the demise of the Violence Against Women Act in the Rehnquist court in the Brzonkala decision that involved a VA Tech footballer a few years ago.
I'm sorry, but that's not the argument that your friends who run Justice Sunday I and II, Republicans Phyllis Schlafly, Tony Perkins, Tom DeLay, and the rest, are making. They're always braying about judges legislating, about judicial activism, and about how "liberal" and even conservative judges like Anthony Kennedy strike down legislation that the right-wingers want to pass, because it's the people's reps who have the final say, except when the people elect Democrats, then folks like Arnie Schwarzengroper want to the judges to decide...flipflop flipflop!
twin58
Nov 24 2005, 07:39 PM
Alito CAPs His Bid QUOTE
... [I]n 1985 Princeton graduate and conservative Republican Alito sought to impress his colleagues in the Reagan Administration, where he was applying to become deputy assistant attorney general, by touting his membership in an organization called Concerned Alumni of Princeton.
....
By the time Alito was readying his 1985 job application with the Reagan Administration, the admission of women and minorities was well established at Nassau Hall, but this did not stop CAP from lamenting the consequences. \"People nowadays just don't seem to know their place,\" fretted a 1983 Prospect essay titled \"In Defense of Elitism.\" \"Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children.\" By this point the editor of Prospect was Dinesh D'Souza, who brought to its pages a new level of coarseness aimed at those who did not know their place. \"Here at Princeton homosexuals are on the rampage,\" complained a 1984 news item in Prospect--this after a gay student group had dared to protest being denied permission to hold a dance at a campus club.
....
[ November 24, 2005, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]