Samuel Alito is the next new Supreme Court nomination

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

And he seems to be a real fuckwit.

― Super Cub (Debito), Monday, 31 October 2005 13:37 (twenty years ago)

Who the eff is Samuel Alito?

― giboyeux (skowly), Monday, 31 October 2005 13:43 (twenty years ago)

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/10/31/PH2005103100240.jpg

― Super Cub (Debito), Monday, 31 October 2005 13:46 (twenty years ago)

Samuel A. Alito Jr., 55, is a jurist in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia. Nicknamed "Scalito," or "little Scalia," by some lawyers, the federal appeals court judge is a frequent dissenter with a reputation for having one of the sharpest conservative minds in the country.

-Washington Post

― Super Cub (Debito), Monday, 31 October 2005 13:47 (twenty years ago)

Among his noteworthy opinions was his lone dissent in the 1991 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the Third Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.

-AP

― Super Cub (Debito), Monday, 31 October 2005 13:50 (twenty years ago)

'Scalito' bodes ill.

The planned parenthood decision bodes well.

The white house press release says "as United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey... he (wa)s best known for prosecuting white collar and environmental crimes, drug trafficking, organized crime, and violations of civil rights," which sounds like they're pandering to me, which always makes me suspicious coming from the Bushoids.

― Austin Still (Austin, Still), Monday, 31 October 2005 13:55 (twenty years ago)

//The planned parenthood decision bodes well.//

Note that he was the lone DISSENT in the court's decision to strike down the law.

― Super Cub (Debito), Monday, 31 October 2005 13:57 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, I was about to say! Read carefully there.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 31 October 2005 13:58 (twenty years ago)

...are there any Miers As Stalking Horse theories going around right now? This guy, whatever his politics are, seems WAAAAY more qualified than Miers. Like, why didn't he go with him in the first place?

Miers may have been set up for failure in order to grease the wheels for Alito's nomination.

Or not.

― giboyeux (skowly), Monday, 31 October 2005 14:06 (twenty years ago)

That idea's been floated for some time in various corners. I honestly don't think it would have been worth the last month for Bush in political terms.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 31 October 2005 14:08 (twenty years ago)

By the looks of him, I'd say we're all boned.

― Maxwell von Bismarck (maxwell von bismarck), Monday, 31 October 2005 14:09 (twenty years ago)

Like, why didn't he go with him in the first place?

1. White male
2. Not an oval office crony

― I do feel guilty for getting any perverse amusement out of it (Rock Hardy), Monday, 31 October 2005 14:11 (twenty years ago)

"Read carefully there."

Too early for that bullshit. Whoopsie!

― Austin Still (Austin, Still), Monday, 31 October 2005 14:18 (twenty years ago)

The implication is that Bush's "just reg'lar folks" demeanor led him to everywoman Miers, which I suppose is admirable in its miscalculation. He supposedly didn't want to pick a career judge, which is kinda wacky for, um, a Supreme Court nomination.

― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Monday, 31 October 2005 16:00 (twenty years ago)

She's got a good heart. That's all that counts.

― when something smacks of something (dave225.3), Monday, 31 October 2005 16:11 (twenty years ago)

Well, I don't think anyone - Bush included - would say that about Alito!

As unqualified as she clearly was, I'm beginning to think some rightwing columnists were right when they said her withdrawl would be ultimately regretted by the left for years to come.

― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Monday, 31 October 2005 16:19 (twenty years ago)

elderly msp says, "scarlito's way! great movie! you don't have any peanuts do you?"

em.

― msp (mspa), Monday, 31 October 2005 16:27 (twenty years ago)

man, it was really fun to watch the conservatives be in disarray for a few weeks. i suppose now it'll be back to "bush as the great unificater" again.

― msp (mspa), Monday, 31 October 2005 16:30 (twenty years ago)

Am I the only one who, upon hearing his name on the radio this morning, assumed he was Hispanic?

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 31 October 2005 16:37 (twenty years ago)

racist

― Jimmy Mod Is The Damnation (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Monday, 31 October 2005 16:51 (twenty years ago)

italian aint it?? another catholic

― _, Monday, 31 October 2005 16:52 (twenty years ago)

Clearly Bush is the Antichrist! Oh wait.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 31 October 2005 16:53 (twenty years ago)

concurring opinion in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, 220 F.3d 127 (3rd Cir. 2000) in which Judge Alito recognized that a New Jersey law banning "partial-birth abortions" was unconstititional in light of the recent Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000).

thats good!!!

― _, Monday, 31 October 2005 16:54 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, Italian. I just didn't think Bush would nominate another white male.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 31 October 2005 16:56 (twenty years ago)

A majority opinion in Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S., 381 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2004), holding that a school district did not provide a high school student with a free and appropriate public education, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when it failed to protect the student from bullying by fellow students who taunted the student based on his lack of athleticism and his perceived sexual orientation.

― _, Monday, 31 October 2005 16:57 (twenty years ago)

he really doesnt seem that bad! better than scalia, rehnquist or thomas

― _, Monday, 31 October 2005 16:58 (twenty years ago)

how will the gang of 14 treat this dude? cant imagine resistance from mccain, warner, or really any republicans but maybe graham or dewine?? on the dems side maybe umm byrd and inouye? he really is well qualified

― _, Monday, 31 October 2005 17:02 (twenty years ago)

i misheard at first and thought it was just "ito".

http://www.ukar.org/temp/ito01.jpg

― msp (mspa), Monday, 31 October 2005 17:03 (twenty years ago)

theres a suspiciously vague aclu case i cant really parse the wording of, apparently he didnt think a govt sponsered nativity was unconstitutional as long as non-religious figures like santa were present but then the aclu said they dealth with a case only regarding christian iconography?? i just skimmed it but its confusing

― _, Monday, 31 October 2005 17:07 (twenty years ago)

Does Santa deliver Kwanzaa presents now?

Also, this is pretty much what everyone was expecting and probably what Reid feared when he decided to back MIers to the hilt. Better a quasi-moderate fool than lil' Scalia.

― Are You Nomar? (miloaukerman), Monday, 31 October 2005 17:11 (twenty years ago)

is it really worth comprising the integrity of the supreme court to bargain on the chance that one of harriet miers kitties would meow the right number of times at the tea party to convince her not to overturn roe v wade? this guy is a dick for sure but hes not as batshit far right as half the court (even roberts, it seems) and he seems like a smart dude, im not shitting myself til they dig up a really scary previous decision and so far that planned parenthood ruling aint it (he also voted against a ban on partial birth abortion)

― _, Monday, 31 October 2005 17:16 (twenty years ago)

tho i do admit he kinda looks like a suspect from early 90s law & order

― _, Monday, 31 October 2005 17:18 (twenty years ago)

Thanks for the groundwork, Ethan -- after Miersmania I'm feeling a touch burned out.

probably what Reid feared when he decided to back MIers to the hilt

He most certainly did not do that beyond the initial commentary. He wasn't Hugh Hewitt for heaven's sake!

Was Alito on that list that Reid initially gave the White House?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 31 October 2005 17:22 (twenty years ago)

>I'm beginning to think some rightwing columnists were right when they said her withdrawl would be ultimately regretted by the left for years to come.<

If by "the left" you mean "Democrats" ... Jesus.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 31 October 2005 17:26 (twenty years ago)

From the Drudge Report, apparently claiming the "Scalito" nickname is ETHNICALLY OFFENSIVE.

One outraged Republican strategist claimed, â€œIf Alito were a liberal there would be no way Democrats and Washingtonâ€™s media elite would use such a ethnically insensitive nickname. Italian-Americans should not have to face these types of derogatory racial slurs in 21st century America.â€?

Can someone explain this to me? I don't get it.

― elmo (allocryptic), Monday, 31 October 2005 17:27 (twenty years ago)

reid opposed him but i remember his name on some top 4 lists preceding roberts' nom, you dont forget that creepy 'scalito' thing

― _, Monday, 31 October 2005 17:27 (twenty years ago)

haha xpost, dom passantino to thread

― _, Monday, 31 October 2005 17:28 (twenty years ago)

The 'slur' thing is pathetic GOP coldblooded fake outrage... or 'PC of the Right.'

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 31 October 2005 17:32 (twenty years ago)

I think they're saying Scalito is offensive the way calling a Jewish person "Bergstein" or a Chinese person "Lee Chang" would be offensive. But in this case, it's nothing like that. It's a stupid claim.

― when something smacks of something (dave225.3), Monday, 31 October 2005 17:33 (twenty years ago)

i dunno if i'd take too much solace from those relatively late decisions. even U.S. court of appeals judges are constrained in how much they can do even with laws that they may not like very much. if the law is relatively settled and depending on the facts, they really can't overturn such laws -- at best, they can nip away at the margins.

at this point, all i know about alito is largely anecdoctal -- (a) he's been on bushco's short-list from the get-go; (b) he was a favorite of my law school Federalist Society friends -- since he presides in the same fed. district where i went to school, a number of them wanted to clerk for him (so that's probably not a very good thing).

this guy probably sucks, but i reserve judgment on just how bad he's going to be.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Monday, 31 October 2005 17:33 (twenty years ago)

i reserve judgment on just how bad he's going to be.

Me too. At the moment I'm just happy we weren't presented with Janice Rogers Brown.

― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Monday, 31 October 2005 17:36 (twenty years ago)

Yes. I'll take a 20% chance that we get someone not to the far-right on every issue, 'integrity' be damned. Every indication is that Alito is even more of an ideologue and more predictable than Scalia - which doesn't bode well for the next fourty years.

xpost with Eisbar - you aren't going to find a smoking gun opinion from his appeals court.

― Are You Nomar? (miloaukerman), Monday, 31 October 2005 17:38 (twenty years ago)

all yall know i hate scalia as much as anybody but this is a perceptive, engaging review - compare to all known miers documents and i really start to consider lines not drawn along a spectrum of left vs right but competence vs lack of, and i would rather have a "scalito" than miers, just like if i was republican id rather have stephen reindhardt or lawrence karlton on the bench than rush limbaugh

― _, Monday, 31 October 2005 17:41 (twenty years ago)

Is there the possibility that the fake outrage over the "Scalito" nickname is a way of faking a "minority" status? That is, did Italian-Americans just become "ethnic" / "not white" again?

― elmo (allocryptic), Monday, 31 October 2005 17:42 (twenty years ago)

>doesn't bode well for the next fourty years.

Alito is 55.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 31 October 2005 17:43 (twenty years ago)

'integrity be damned' well done milo, i suggest bush nominate cindy sheehan for chief justice, its all means to an end right

― _, Monday, 31 October 2005 17:43 (twenty years ago)

im sorry, is there a legitimate sense in which italian-americans are not a minority ethnicity? most white folks are german-american

― _, Monday, 31 October 2005 17:44 (twenty years ago)

amazing but true facts: rush limbaugh's dad is a federal judge (in missouri). and his cousin is a judge on the missouri supreme court.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Monday, 31 October 2005 17:44 (twenty years ago)

GO PHILLY... just kidding.

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Monday, 31 October 2005 17:45 (twenty years ago)

i suggest bush nominate cindy sheehan for chief justice, its all means to an end right

I'd be entertained.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 31 October 2005 17:46 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 307 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

"and I'm up for reelection [probably for the very last time] and a nay vote wouldn't look good"

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:29 (twenty years ago)

don you really think reid's doing a worse job than daschle?

blount, I'm just following up on this link from this thread.

but to answer your question, no.

― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:36 (twenty years ago)

Talk now is that Kerry may initiate the filibuster and an announcement is forthcoming?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 27 January 2006 00:52 (twenty years ago)

Petition, if anyone wants to sign:

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/filibuster/

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 27 January 2006 00:57 (twenty years ago)

the article about Kerry in GQ this month is a nice elaboration on that post, Tim. Check it out.

― don weiner (don weiner), Friday, 27 January 2006 00:57 (twenty years ago)

uh, Kerry isn't even in the country at the moment. He'll obviously have to get back quick to start one...

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 27 January 2006 01:07 (twenty years ago)

Talk now is that Kerry may initiate the filibuster and an announcement is forthcoming?

yeah, he's going to try to, apparently, but it's not going to get very far - the dems don't have the votes to continue debate

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 27 January 2006 02:02 (twenty years ago)

Democrats pussy out once again - paving the way for the Supreme Court to validate whatever crazy mad-illegal shit Dubya pulls/has pulled under the pretense of "executive privelege".

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 27 January 2006 20:12 (twenty years ago)

"Don't worry, they're gonna stand up tall when it counts!"

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 January 2006 20:18 (twenty years ago)

as long as it doesn't make them "look weak"

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 27 January 2006 20:24 (twenty years ago)

May as well get ready to change the headline to
Samuel Alito is the next new Supreme Court Justice

If anyone is actually surprised by how this has turned out, I'd be surprised.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Friday, 27 January 2006 20:49 (twenty years ago)

And God damn Byrd for playing games when he's 150 years old.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 January 2006 22:06 (twenty years ago)

way to "project strength" guys: http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Supreme_Court

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 27 January 2006 23:34 (twenty years ago)

A coupla years of this fucktard and we'll get to be the new century's first new monarchy. Officially, I mean.

― Ian in Brooklyn, Saturday, 28 January 2006 00:02 (twenty years ago)

apparently a limited filibuster (up to the nuclear option line, or at least to make a point) may be in the offing. and who knows, maybe they can run the thing right into the SOTU. if you want to support, you can contact Senators via this page. more contact info here, which claims that Kennedy advises to call both Senators from each of New Jersey, Arkansas, Washington and Maine, among others. this page claims that Mikulski (Maryland) and Salazar (Colorado) are sticking points, so residents of those states should contact them.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 30 January 2006 16:47 (twenty years ago)

If anyone thinks that it's politically viable for the two Democrat Senators from Arkansas, who have already said they'd vote no on both Alito's nomination and the filibuster, should follow the advice of Ted Kennedy in an election year, you're mad.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Monday, 30 January 2006 18:01 (twenty years ago)

I don't really have a firm position on the politics of this - I see arguments on both sides. But while I'm all for maintaining a 40-plus majority, and counting our purple-state blessings, I care a lot more about whether Alito is on the court than whether Pryor is in the Congress.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 30 January 2006 18:06 (twenty years ago)

a limited filibuster (up to the nuclear option line, or at least to make a point)

And the point made would be that the Democrats were not just too weak to defeat the Republicans, but also too afraid of being beaten up to stand up for their rights.

― Aimless (Aimless), Monday, 30 January 2006 18:10 (twenty years ago)

Well, a few of them, perhaps. But I think the point being made is that you really don't think this guy has any business being on the court. Seems like a very traditional use of the filibuster to me: to allow more time for airing of grievances on the floor over this horrible nomination.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Monday, 30 January 2006 18:14 (twenty years ago)

I'd sorta like to believe that Byrd declared support for Alito so he could lead the defense when Frist invokes the nuclear option (the reverse in a sense of Chafee opposing Alito but voting for cloture), but I wouldn't bet on it.

Lieberman, who was supposedly on board or at least on the fence, is apparently going to vote for cloture now.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 30 January 2006 18:15 (twenty years ago)

at a certain point -- and i think this is that point -- the "keeping our powder dry" excuse looks more like "we don't actually have any powder."

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 30 January 2006 18:17 (twenty years ago)

I care a lot more about whether Alito is on the court than whether Pryor is in the Congress.

Thing is, I don't think that Senator Pryor feels this way.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Monday, 30 January 2006 18:36 (twenty years ago)

are you sure?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 30 January 2006 19:18 (twenty years ago)

not that I believe a second-hand report like that. but I found Pryor's purported strong opposition hard to square with earlier comments he had made.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 30 January 2006 19:19 (twenty years ago)

The Senate can only vote to change the rules on the first day of business in a session. The so-called "Nuclear Option" isn't even on the table.

― Hatch (Hatch), Monday, 30 January 2006 19:55 (twenty years ago)

Hooray for Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, the only Republican who will vote no. Chafee for top of GOP ticket in 2008, plz. And hooray for Jeffords, who voted for the filibuster.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 01:08 (twenty years ago)

19 defectors in cloture. The Reid Revolution marches onward!

― don weiner (don weiner), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 01:13 (twenty years ago)

Hooray for Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, the only Republican who will vote no. Chafee for top of GOP ticket in 2008, plz.

please. Rove wants Chafee to vote no.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 01:15 (twenty years ago)

Wait, why?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 01:24 (twenty years ago)

So it will look like the GOP has some diversity of opinion? Who cares what Rove thinks, as long as Chafee's opinion is genuine?

And the GOP choosing a non-maniac for its 2008 nomination would be sweet. Doesn't mean I'll vote for him/her, but at least we won't have a maniac in one way or the other.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 01:39 (twenty years ago)

aaaaaaand we're done.

Real impressive Democratic show of force there, guys.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:54 (twenty years ago)

fake democracy = pricey

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:58 (twenty years ago)

58-42

They didn't bring it when it counted.

― kingfish, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 17:22 (twenty years ago)

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?

― Aimless (Aimless), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 17:30 (twenty years ago)

a lot of it is electoral calculation, which i can't say i'm an expert on. but a lot of it is also the desire to save the filibuster for when Bush, or his successor, gets to appoint someone to take the place of Stevens or Ginsburg, or both. i think that's a risky gamble, though, even if this time we're "just" shifting the center from O'Connor to Kennedy. because if Bush appoints someone next time who's reasonably to the left of Alito, especially if it's a woman (or even an actual moderate who will nevertheless help shift the court further right on issues of choice, privacy, etc., like Mary Ann Glendon), the Dems will be stuck with this vote.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 17:31 (twenty years ago)

as much as i despise alito, the whining on this thread is almost worse. maybe.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 17:32 (twenty years ago)

They didn't bring it when it counted.

Was there any chance that Bush would've pulled the nomination with a majority of the senate ready to vote in favor? No.

Would a filibuster seemed to most Americans like Democrats were "obstructing the process" again? Probably.

Will Bush's next nominee make Alito look like Roberts? No doubt.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 18:04 (twenty years ago)

MoveOn.org: "Alito ended up with more 'no' votes than all but one confirmed Supreme Court justice in American history." So I can sleep now.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 21:29 (twenty years ago)

wow, so reassuring... welp, guess I better get as many abortions as I can now while they're still legal!

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 21:31 (twenty years ago)

Also, note to self: "marry box turtle"

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 31 January 2006 21:32 (twenty years ago)

and he had quite an interesting first day

― kingfish has gene rayburn's mic (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 3 February 2006 21:22 (twenty years ago)

sixteen years pass...

"Justice Samuel Alito said Tuesday that the leak of his draft opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade made his colleagues in the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court 'targets for assassination.' "

BY ANN E. MARIMOWTHE WASHINGTON POST

How is the leak what caused this and not the opinion/ruling itself

― | (Latham Green), Wednesday, 26 October 2022 15:26 (three years ago)

How is the leak what caused this and not the opinion/ruling itself

His reasoning on this is pure Alito, iow, badly flawed.

He said that by leaking his horrific opinion before it was ratified by a majority and issued from the bench, it provided a "rational" motive to kill some member of the court who would presumably join in that majority, thus forestalling it. Which presumes that potential assassins would shrug and accept the court's ruling because it was a done deal and there'd no longer be any point to an assassination, rather than someone becoming sufficiently enraged at the majority to kill one of them for their duly recorded crime against the nation.

― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Wednesday, 26 October 2022 16:54 (three years ago)

Was Alito expecting that his opinion would be leaked?
Is he aware that he is delegitimizing the court?

― youn, Wednesday, 26 October 2022 20:35 (three years ago)

He did not anticipate it being leaked. It came as a surprise to him.

Alito does not consider anything he does to have even the slightest trace of illegitimacy and anyone who disagrees with his jurisprudence is simply wrong.

― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Wednesday, 26 October 2022 21:56 (three years ago)

Again, the thought that a pro-lifer may have leaked the opinion is completely beyond their imagination.

― Lord Pickles (Boring, Maryland), Wednesday, 26 October 2022 22:32 (three years ago)

No one is above the law - except the Supreme Court

Can't believe Thomas hasn't stepped down considering his wife's crazy acts

― | (Latham Green), Thursday, 27 October 2022 19:43 (three years ago)

I can believe it.

― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Thursday, 27 October 2022 19:48 (three years ago)

No one is above the law - except the Supreme Court

SCOTUS justices are subject to impeachment and removal just like all those presidents we've impeached and removed from office.

― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Friday, 28 October 2022 01:25 (three years ago)

"The only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. The House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx#:~:text=The%20only%20Justice%20to%20be,Have%20there%20always%20been%20nine%3F

Another Samuel!

― | (Latham Green), Friday, 28 October 2022 13:40 (three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.