Alito WAY to extreme to be confirmed...

Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...1/02/alito_writing_backed_privacy_gay_rights/

...it's gonna be ugly, folks. Just wait until the left gets ahold of some of the outrages in this guys past.

Example:

As a senior at Princeton University, Samuel A. Alito Jr. chaired an undergraduate task force that recommended the decriminalization of sodomy, accused the CIA and the FBI of invading the privacy of citizens, and said discrimination against gays in hiring ''should be forbidden."
Click to expand...

Anyone who can't just smell the hate spewing from this guy just doesn't get it.

It gets worse:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1102/p01s04-usju.html


See?

For example, of the four abortion cases in which he participated as an appeals court judge, he voted on the pro-choice side in all but one.
Click to expand...

In the fourth case, Judge Alito allegedly, well, it's just to horrible, I'm sure, for print. I mean just consider the other evidence herein, what we know of this monster.

I just don't know how we're gonna sneak through a guy this extreme.
 
T

Terps

New Member
I thought he was super conservative but after reading about his abortion stance i am a little confused on his stance. His wife says he is against it but he has voted 3 of 4 times pro-choice. I am curious to learn more about Alito and hope that Congress fully analyzes the situation before they approve him.
 
F

Fred Hoeck

New Member
Is he another Souter? Are we going to regret driving out Miers? Was this Bush's plan all along? Or is he just ruling on the lower court within bounds set for him by US Supreme Court? I don't know? But it is interesting. I, for one, will keep an eye on it and refrain from responding to pro-Alito petitions I get in EMAIL for awhile.
The whole problem is that people depend too much on courts to do what the legislature should be doing.
 
Railroad

Railroad

Routinely Derailed
Not disputing or agreeing with what you're saying about Mr. Alito, but I would just like to comment that regardless of whom the President nominates for the position, there will be a backlash.

Here's an idea, one which will never happen: Instead of hearings, have entrance examinations to test Supreme Court nominees on their knowledge of the Constitution and its amendments. Require all the supremes to sign 12-year contracts with the Government wherein personal bias is explicitly prohibited (and they'd get SES-type labor classifications and be employees of the Federal Government). Highest scoring nominees win the posts. At the end of 12 years, they recompete for their jobs or go home.
 
Pete

Pete

Repete
Good points but you have to realize where he was, on an Appeals court. In Roe v. Wade the legal precedent had been set year before by the Supreme Court. What is the man going to do, continually rule contrary to established case law only to be overridden on remand over and over again? I view his actions as judging cases based on what the “law” was at that particular time, and not trying to be defiant or make new law.

I would not think judges mind very complex cases in areas that have not been litigated. It would be a way to blaze a new trail but I do know that judges do not like their judgments overruled upon appeal. It is embarrassing and kinda like “strike outs” in baseball. Ruling against the precedent set in R v. W would be a sure overrule.

If he was of such strong conviction that he ruled against legal precedent continually just to make a point that he “didn’t like” the established precedent, he in my mind would be a judicial activist and he most certainly would not be nominated for the Supreme Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top