Think Progress: Samuel Alito's America - run down of his record.

[Pirate Smile]

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980's. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade.

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(ing) 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."

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america/

[efhmc]

1. The perfect choice for bush and company. What's new?

[SillyGoose]

2. I am so not surprised that Bush nominated someone like this after

the Miers fiasco.

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."

Hmmm...wouldn't that fit the definition of an activist judge?

[Pirate Smile]

4. They want an activist judge - one willing to go insert a feeding tube

back into Terri Schiavo.

They also don't REALLY want an "originalist" judge. Abortion was legal when the Constitution was written.

Catherine Crier said it was legal up until quickening during the time the Constitution was written and enacted.

[Naysayer]

5. Just because something was legal

when the Constitution was written does not make it a right that is protected by the federal constitution.

[SillyGoose]

6. The hypocrisy of RW nuts knows no bounds.

Religious conservatives say judicial activism is ruining America.

Are 'activist judges' ruining America? That's the fear of a newly formed coalition of religious conservatives who are urging Congress to push back.

Washington - "Activist judges" are out of control and waging a war on faith, religious conservatives are charging. That's why - even as the United States Senate prepares for a battle over the president's judicial nominations - a conservative coalition is working to broaden the fight to the federal judiciary as a whole. Its ultimate goal is to force Congress to rein in the judges.
...
"This is the shot over the bow," said Dr. Scarborough last Friday in Washington, as the group - which represents some 40 organizations - held the first of a series of conferences it plans to organize across the country to marshal grass-roots support. "We are trying to restore this country to its constitutional moorings so we are ruled by law and not by judges," he says.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/10317/printer

It would seem to me that Alito would fit their definition of an activist judge quite nicely since he rules against precedent and guts statutory standard. Oh, wait, those damn liberal laws like the FMLA don't really count as "real" laws, do they?

[malta blue]

3. very scary times indeed

:scared: :scared: