http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Alito,_Jr. At 3:30 this was there. Now it's added in to the case history and some deleted. Like strip searching the 10 year old. The whitewash is on. (if I posted too much, sorry, but it pisses me off to no end how they get out and try to erase the facts!!!)
Controversial views
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." <13>
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." Summary judgment allows a case to be dismissed before it goes to trial.
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 the United States Congress exceeded its power in passing the law.
In Doe v. Groody, Alito argued 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.<14>
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."
more> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Alito,_Jr.#Controversial_views