Alito - Page 8

scaeagles · 11-02-2005, 10:04 AM

Just as a follow up on the abortion/Alito issue, I found this to be very interesting. Alito has had the opportunity to rule on four abortion cases, and ruled with the pro-choice side on three of them.

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

Now, it was widely publicized how Alito's mom said in an interview that "of course he opposes abortion." So even though he opposes it personally, it appears as if he puts those feelings aside and rules on the law and constitutional issues.

This is a far cry from the spin (which I posted on earlier to show that what was being publicized was certainly not the truth) that he is a pro-life extremist who voted to require women to get permission from their husbands to get an abortion.

This is exactly what judges are supposed to do - put personal feelings aside and rule on the law and the constitutionality thereof. While I am pro-life, I am encouraged by these rulings because it shows what type of justice he will be.

wendybeth · 11-02-2005, 10:17 AM

That is encouraging- I think the whole abortion issue has become a political red herring, but it seems that he has a good record (from what I've read so far) on adjudicating. Kudos to you for quoting from a good journalistic source there, Scaeagles!

scaeagles · 11-02-2005, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Kudos to you for quoting from a good journalistic source there, Scaeagles!

Would this be an implication that I typically get information from sources that you do not consider reliable? I am shocked, WB! Shocked, I say!

wendybeth · 11-02-2005, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Would this be an implication that I typically get information from sources that you do not consider reliable? I am shocked, WB! Shocked, I say!

Not half as shocked as I was to see the source of your story.

Alex · 11-02-2005, 11:10 AM

Well, I don't think it was quite that telling.

The 2000 case, if you read his decision does not really take a position on the law it simply says "The Supreme Court just ruled on an essentially identical case so our opinion is irrelevant." This happened to be on the pro-choice side. There was an opinion issued that actually ruled in favor of the pro-choice side for legal reasons and Alito refused to sign that, instead issuing his non-opinion opinion.

The 1995 case was not really a ruling on abortion but rather a victim's rights case (can criminal victims be required to report the fact) that just happened into involve abortion. To say that a rape victim can not be forced to identify the rapist is not a pro-abortion stance.

So he has two more clear-cut abortion decisions and came down on opposite sides.

scaeagles · 11-02-2005, 11:14 AM

Alex, while I can agree with you on the 1995 case, the 2000 case shows respect for precedent regardless of personal beliefs that abortion is wrong. It would have been possible and even completely within his judicial boundaries to rule differently in hopes the case would go the SC and they would rule differently.

jdramj · 11-02-2005, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I thought this was funny:

The family of Judge Samuel Alito, daughter Laura (L),
son Philip (C) and wife Martha (R), stand underneath a
portrait of former president Bill Clinton as they watch
President Bush nominate Alito to the Supreme Court in
the White House, October 31, 2005. (Reuters)

I was wondering what Clinton was doing to Alito's son to make him make that face

just kidding (I know it is just a portrait)! hehehehe

jdramj · 11-02-2005, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Alex, while I can agree with you on the 1995 case, the 2000 case shows respect for precedent regardless of personal beliefs that abortion is wrong. It would have been possible and even completely within his judicial boundaries to rule differently in hopes the case would go the SC and they would rule differently.

I am in complete agreement here with scaeagles here (shocking I know). I think he has shown great restraint in setting aside his personal beliefs. I would much rather have a candidate with this type of track record than no record at all or one that totally supports his or her own personal cause to the point that the law is theirs for the changing, which ever way their political view point swings.

Prudence · 11-02-2005, 11:46 AM

A side note unrelated to any individual nominee or current justice: someone pointed out to me that all the current justices and the current nominee (and the two who have just left) were educated in the Ivy League schools of the northeast. Now, I haven't independently verified this claim against individual CVs, so it's merely an allegation. Assuming it's true, the contention was that this shows a lack of educational diversity. I could understand a focus on elite schools, but heck, no Stanford? There are other top law schools outside the Ivy League. Wouldn't a range of educational backgrounds or environments better represent a diverse nation?

Just a thought. It was getting way too lovey-dovey in here, all this agreeing and crap.

scaeagles · 11-02-2005, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdramj

I am in complete agreement here with scaeagles here (shocking I know).

Why is it that whenever anyone agrees with me they need to include a disclaimer about how it is so unusual to do so??????

11-02-2005, 10:04 AM	#71
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Just as a follow up on the abortion/Alito issue, I found this to be very interesting. Alito has had the opportunity to rule on four abortion cases, and ruled with the pro-choice side on three of them. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1102/p01s04-usju.html Now, it was widely publicized how Alito's mom said in an interview that "of course he opposes abortion." So even though he opposes it personally, it appears as if he puts those feelings aside and rules on the law and constitutional issues. This is a far cry from the spin (which I posted on earlier to show that what was being publicized was certainly not the truth) that he is a pro-life extremist who voted to require women to get permission from their husbands to get an abortion. This is exactly what judges are supposed to do - put personal feelings aside and rule on the law and the constitutionality thereof. While I am pro-life, I am encouraged by these rulings because it shows what type of justice he will be.
	Submit to Quotes

11-02-2005, 10:17 AM	#72
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	That is encouraging- I think the whole abortion issue has become a political red herring, but it seems that he has a good record (from what I've read so far) on adjudicating. Kudos to you for quoting from a good journalistic source there, Scaeagles! __________________
	Submit to Quotes

11-02-2005, 11:10 AM	#75
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Well, I don't think it was quite that telling. The 2000 case, if you read his decision does not really take a position on the law it simply says "The Supreme Court just ruled on an essentially identical case so our opinion is irrelevant." This happened to be on the pro-choice side. There was an opinion issued that actually ruled in favor of the pro-choice side for legal reasons and Alito refused to sign that, instead issuing his non-opinion opinion. The 1995 case was not really a ruling on abortion but rather a victim's rights case (can criminal victims be required to report the fact) that just happened into involve abortion. To say that a rape victim can not be forced to identify the rapist is not a pro-abortion stance. So he has two more clear-cut abortion decisions and came down on opposite sides.
	Submit to Quotes

11-02-2005, 11:14 AM	#76
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Alex, while I can agree with you on the 1995 case, the 2000 case shows respect for precedent regardless of personal beliefs that abortion is wrong. It would have been possible and even completely within his judicial boundaries to rule differently in hopes the case would go the SC and they would rule differently.
	Submit to Quotes

11-02-2005, 11:46 AM	#79
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	A side note unrelated to any individual nominee or current justice: someone pointed out to me that all the current justices and the current nominee (and the two who have just left) were educated in the Ivy League schools of the northeast. Now, I haven't independently verified this claim against individual CVs, so it's merely an allegation. Assuming it's true, the contention was that this shows a lack of educational diversity. I could understand a focus on elite schools, but heck, no Stanford? There are other top law schools outside the Ivy League. Wouldn't a range of educational backgrounds or environments better represent a diverse nation? Just a thought. It was getting way too lovey-dovey in here, all this agreeing and crap. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes