Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DU Scalito Awareness Thread, edu DU so we can edu the public

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 09:09 AM
Original message
DU Scalito Awareness Thread, edu DU so we can edu the public
I would like to start by adding the arguement made by DU's Maddy McCall when noting that Scalito was the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and that, "As a former abused wife, I cannot imagine having to have my ex-husband's approval for ANY medical procedure."

What else do we know about him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. strip searching a ten year old is pretty bad, per matty n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fleshdancer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
2. Here's some info from Planned Parenthood:
I'm highlighting some good talking points to use but please read the whole thing in order to put it all into context:


Judge Alito was the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey when the case was before the Third Circuit, voting to uphold Pennsylvania's spousal notification requirement. In callous disregard of battered women who would be affected by the statute, Alito wrote separately from the majority to express his support for the law, which would have required Pennsylvania women to notify their husbands prior to obtaining an abortion. The Supreme Court later ruled the spousal notification provision unconstitutional, holding that a state cannot give a man control over his wife, stating, "Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry."

In Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, the Third Circuit was asked to rule on an abortion regulation that did not contain a valid health exception for the life of the woman. Alito grudgingly applied the Supreme Court precedents in both Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart to overturn the statute while refusing to endorse the reasoning of the Supreme Court in either case. (Personal Gloria note: HOLY SHIT!)

"Samuel Alito's record is deeply troubling to Americans, who overwhelmingly support a woman's right to choose," said Pearl. "His confirmation would radically transform the Supreme Court and create a direct threat to the health and safety of American women."

The Supreme Court's decision to hear Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood at the end of November spotlights the urgency of the threat to reproductive freedom. In this high-stakes case, the justices are expected to rule on whether a woman's health will remain the paramount concern in laws that restrict abortion access. The ruling may have an immediate impact on women's health across the nation and will determine whether a fundamental principle established in Roe v. Wade will remain the law of the land.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Here is Rehnquist quoting him in Casey:
As Judge Alito observed in his dissent below, "he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems--such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition--that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." 947 F. 2d, at 726 (Alito, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. O'Connor citing Domestic Violence in Casey:
Other studies fill in the rest of this troubling picture. Physical violence is only the most visible form of abuse. Psychological abuse, particularly forced social and economic isolation of women, is also common. L. Walker, The Battered Woman Syndrome 27-28 (1984). Many victims of domestic violence remain with their abusers, perhaps because they perceive no superior alternative. Herbert, Silver, & Ellard, Coping with an Abusive Relationship: I. How and Why do Women Stay?, 53 J. Marriage & the Family 311 (1991). Many abused women who find temporary refuge in shelters return to their husbands, in large part because they have no other source of income. Aguirre, Why Do They Return? Abused Wives in Shelters, 30 J. Nat. Assn. of Social Workers 350, 352 (1985). Returning to one's abuser can be dangerous. Recent Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics disclose that 8.8% of all homicide victims in the United States are killed by their spouse. Mercy & Saltzman, Fatal Violence Among Spouses in the United States, 1976-85, 79 Am. J. Public Health 595 (1989). Thirty percent of female homicide victims are killed by their male partners. Domestic Violence: Terrorism in the Home, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Children, Family, Drugs and Alcoholism of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1990).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. O'Connor continues her slap down of Scalito
This information and the District Court's findings reinforce what common sense would suggest. In well functioning marriages, spouses discuss important intimate decisions such as whether to bear a child. But there are millions of women in this country who are the victims of regular physical and psychological abuse at the hands of their husbands. Should these women become pregnant, they may have very good reasons for not wishing to inform their husbands of their decision to obtain an abortion. Many may have justifiable fears of physical abuse, but may be no less fearful of the consequences of reporting prior abuse to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Many may have a reasonable fear that notifying their husbands will provoke further instances of child abuse; these women are not exempt from § 3209's notification requirement. Many may fear devastating forms of psychological abuse from their husbands, including verbal harassment, threats of future violence, the destruction of possessions, physical confinement to the home, the withdrawal of financial support, or the disclosure of the abortion to family and friends. These methods of psychological abuse may act as even more of a deterrent to notification than the possibility of physical violence, but women who are the victims of the abuse are not exempt from § 3209's notification requirement. And many women who are pregnant as a result of sexual assaults by their husbands will be unable to avail themselves of the exception for spousal sexual assault, § 3209(b)(3), because the exception requires that the woman have notified law enforcement authorities within 90 days ofthe assault, and her husband will be notified of her report once an investigation begins. § 3128(c). If anything in this field is certain, it is that victims of spousal sexual assault are extremely reluctant to report the abuse to the government; hence, a great many spousal rape victims will not be exempt from the notification requirement imposed by § 3209.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Scalito disagreed, what a wacko!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
4. kicked and recommended
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fleshdancer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
5. And this is from ThinkProgress:
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.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES!!!
wtf?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Here is Scalito's view:
In sum, the District Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. I share the majority’s visceral dislike of the intrusive search of John Doe’s young daughter, but it is a sad fact that drug dealers sometimes use children to carry out their business and to
avoid prosecution. I know of no legal principle that bars an officer from searching a child (in a proper manner) if a warrant has been issued and the warrant is not illegal on its face.
http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/024532p.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. drop your pants and turn around 10 year old!
The officers decided to search Jane
and Mary Doe for contraband, and sent for
the meter patrol officer. When she
arrived, the female officer removed both
Jane and Mary Doe to an upstairs
bathroom. They were instructed to empty
their pockets and lift their shirts. The
female officer patted their pockets. She
then told Jane and Mary Doe to drop their
pants and turn around. No contraband
was found. With the search completed,
both Jane and Mary Doe were returned to
the ground floor to await the end of the
search.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. The majority says:
Searching Jane and Mary Doe for
evidence beyond the scope of the warrant
and without probable cause violated their
clearly established Fourth Amendment
rights. Accordingly, we will affirm the
decision of the District Court rejecting
qualified immunity for the searches, and
remand the case for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ignatzmouse Donating Member (327 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. That could be why his daughter...
looked so wary during his announcement ceremony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
14. Reading about his church and state views here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC