Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at [email protected] and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

the official "Scalito" thread

Discussion in 'News' started by angelofdeath, Oct 31, 2005.

  1. angelofdeath

    angelofdeath Elite Member

    Joined: Sep 15, 2002 Messages: 4,375 Likes Received: 79
    i have a good feeling Alito is a good constitutionist.
     
  2. KING BLING

    KING BLING Guest

    The following article, with little bias explains where he got his nickname - a tendancy to be an "activist judge" despite precedent and a willingness to plow ahead through conflict of interest...note the last paragraph shows he recused himself only after he upheld the ruling and not before...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5102700813.html



    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.

    Educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School, Alito was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in 1990. He had worked for the Justice Department in the Reagan administration and served as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.

    In 1991, he was the lone dissenter in a 3rd Circuit decision striking down a Pennsylvania law's requirement that women tell their husbands before having an abortion. Alito also wrote a 1997 ruling that Jersey City officials did not violate the Constitution with a holiday display that included a creche, a menorah and secular symbols of the Christmas season.

    Three years ago Alito drew conflict-of-interest accusations after he upheld a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit against the Vanguard Group. Alito had hundreds of thousands of dollars invested with the mutual fund company at the time. He denied doing anything improper but recused himself from further involvement in the case.
     
  3. KING BLING

    KING BLING Guest

    Given the web site name, I'm sure there is some defence against some of these claims - but the pattern seems sweeping enough...

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


    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. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

    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.� [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

    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.� [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

    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 [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

    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. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

    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.� [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]
     
  4. angelofdeath

    angelofdeath Elite Member

    Joined: Sep 15, 2002 Messages: 4,375 Likes Received: 79
    like i said, this guy is awesome.
     
  5. !@#$%

    [email protected]#$% Moderator Crew

    Joined: Oct 1, 2002 Messages: 18,517 Likes Received: 621
    awesome at getting big government into our personal lives that is.
     
  6. angelofdeath

    angelofdeath Elite Member

    Joined: Sep 15, 2002 Messages: 4,375 Likes Received: 79
  7. !@#$%

    [email protected]#$% Moderator Crew

    Joined: Oct 1, 2002 Messages: 18,517 Likes Received: 621
    hmm, deciding whether or not women can have an abortion, allowing unautorized strip searches, and striking down family medical leave?

    does it get any more personal than a government inside a uterus?
     
  8. !@#$%

    [email protected]#$% Moderator Crew

    Joined: Oct 1, 2002 Messages: 18,517 Likes Received: 621
    not to mention that it is yet ANOTHER white guy
    making decisions for a country full of a very diverse group of people

    my father was right

    white men are going to cling and claw onto every last bit of power they have left
    even if it means destoying everyone else in the process.
     
  9. KING BLING

    KING BLING Guest

    These two cases in particular reflect to me the idea that a husband owns or has an asumed position of control over his family. Would a man have to ask his wife before getting a vecectamy <spelling>? If a criminal is at a legal party should everyone be searched even if he is the focus and sole intent of whatever warrants apply? Were his family members arrested or otherwise detained or were they suspect simply by there relationship?

    The descisions at a glance do not appear to carry a universal application and thus go against the intent of equal protection...I don't think I like the guy - Angel, talk to us about what good these cases have done...
     
  10. Krakatau

    Krakatau Member

    Joined: May 5, 2005 Messages: 549 Likes Received: 0
    These two cases in particular reflect to me the idea that a husband owns or has an asumed position of control over his family. Would a man have to ask his wife before getting a vecectamy <spelling>? If a criminal is at a legal party should everyone be searched even if he is the focus and sole intent of whatever warrants apply? Were his family members arrested or otherwise detained or were they suspect simply by there relationship?

    The descisions at a glance do not appear to carry a universal application and thus go against the intent of equal protection...I don't think I like the guy - Angel, talk to us about what good these cases have done...
    [post=4155147]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]

    I guess you either just had a bit of a lapse when you said that the two cases reflect that idea, or I need you to explain the one about strip searches.

    I don't like the guy. Bush nominating Meiyers and then going Scalia.... it just feels like Meiyers was almost a buffer nomination (with no shot of making it) thrown out in order to grease the shoot. You'll drink stagnant water a lot easier if you have a sip of gasoline first, ya know?
     
  11. angelofdeath

    angelofdeath Elite Member

    Joined: Sep 15, 2002 Messages: 4,375 Likes Received: 79
    "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. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

    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.� [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

    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.� [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]"

    the other 2 seem fucked up, however the source is probably michael moronized.

    abortion is like this:
    if roe is overturned, it doesnt guarantee nationwide abortion ban. it sends the issue back to the states. there is no constitutional authority, to regulate a social issue. the half assed argument of privacy can easily be argued in the same manner for the "right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to all people, since the fetus is living, it should be guaranteed life.
    why is roe a bad decision? because it usurps the 10th amendment and takes away the power of hte states to decide the issue. if it is a privacy issue, why dont i have the right to kill my kid any time until age of 18? its my privacy right? but yet if if a guy breaks into my house, rapes my wife, slices up my daughter and hangs my dog, and i shoot the guy with his back to me and he is fleeing, i go to jail. hypocrisy anyone?

    racial preferences:
    what is a free country if they cant decide who they want to hire? the civil rights act equalized everyone. the acts following created affirmative action, quoatas, and set asides to certain people. how is this right? how about EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL, SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR NONE. what is fair about the centralized federal judicial dictatorship forcing people to hire a certain number of a certain kind of people with no reguard to qualifications, or education?

    immigration:

    there is no such thing as "settled law" in terms of courts. decisions are constantly being overturned and reversed. what has the liberal establishment been doing since FDR? overturning and reversing previous rulings and laws.
    illegal immigration is a national issue, not a state issue, as set out by the constitution. the states should assist and work with the feds. all illegals should be rounded up and sent home, amnesty should be trashed and our borders secured.


    the funny thing is, constitutional constructionists like Scalia, and Thomas are immediately labeled racist, because they believe in the constitution. you guys think the federal government is the answer to everything and all that is needed is more.

    when our government was first created there were 3 federal crimes. treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. look at us now.
    centralization is the easiest way to promote tyranny.
     
  12. KING BLING

    KING BLING Guest

    I guess you either just had a bit of a lapse when you said that the two cases reflect that idea, or I need you to explain the one about strip searches.

    I don't like the guy. Bush nominating Meiyers and then going Scalia.... it just feels like Meiyers was almost a buffer nomination (with no shot of making it) thrown out in order to grease the shoot. You'll drink stagnant water a lot easier if you have a sip of gasoline first, ya know?
    [post=4155210]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]


    I write most of my stuff here from work so sometimes as I write inbetween work my ideas get jumbled. By appearance the family was searched under the guise that in some way the accused relationship to them makes them assesories - IE: if the father is guilty, his family should be subjected to the same scrutiny. That was my impression and I offered the other possible scenarios to reflect how the family was guilty by association not neccesarily because they were suspected of anything.

    did that clarify?

    I like that this guy doesn't agree the FMLA - because families with kids in the hospital or in otherwise life threatening situations should also worry about losing a job...
     
  13. Krakatau

    Krakatau Member

    Joined: May 5, 2005 Messages: 549 Likes Received: 0

    I write most of my stuff here from work so sometimes as I write inbetween work my ideas get jumbled. By appearance the family was searched under the guise that in some way the accused relationship to them makes them assesories - IE: if the father is guilty, his family should be subjected to the same scrutiny. That was my impression and I offered the other possible scenarios to reflect how the family was guilty by association not neccesarily because they were suspected of anything.

    did that clarify?

    I like that this guy doesn't agree the FMLA - because families with kids in the hospital or in otherwise life threatening situations should also worry about losing a job...
    [post=4155261]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]
    Yes it did, thanks. When I saw that case I assumed it to be more of a 'if you are with him, you could conceal something for him (regardless of relationship)'. Throwing out that he supports cops in strip searching a ten year old girl without the consent of her mother (I am assuming) is a good tactic though. Hmm. I hadn't really considered that angle. Now I don't like him even more.


    What's wrong with not supporting the FMLA? I used to work with a guy that used to get days off all the time with that.... shit used to piss me off so damn much. Asshole's six year old gets a terminal case of leukimia and all of a sudden it's 'four days off this week' Jones... What a dick.

    Really though, that is a fucked up stance to have, and I'd love to hear his reasoning behind it. Couple of logical loophoops he must be jumping through to get there.
     
  14. KING BLING

    KING BLING Guest

    http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/

    Compaines can require proof from doctors of a condition at any time...

    I used to be a supervisor and would see some people really need this stuff, and some who would abuse it. At the end of the day, those people who would abuse it were on my "you will be shatted upon as soon as your child/spouse gets into better shape" list.

    Keep in mind, FMLA does not mean the person using it gets paid for that time - so if that person is not using sick days, he isn't getting paid.
     
  15. !@#$%

    [email protected]#$% Moderator Crew

    Joined: Oct 1, 2002 Messages: 18,517 Likes Received: 621
    i see your point angel

    but i think that these judges have an agenda
    shit won't be put to the states, until the federal law changes and it becomes a question of states defying the law (such as in medicinal marijuana, where clearly, states are making their own decisions on legality, and the feds are not respectiing those decisions)

    a privacy issue is what goes on inside a woman's own body
    once the kid is no longer inside of her body, you can't really argue about it being private
    in addition to the fact that people deal with all kinds of extenuating issues relating to pregnancy

    did you know that, THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH AMONG PREGNANT WOMEN IS MURDER

    meaning sometimes, these women have a lot of shit to think about when they decide about the future of their baby, and THEIR BODY

    **since when did i say that the federal government is the answer?
    i wish theyu would spend LESS TIME, LESS MONEY
    worrying about what people do in their bedrooms and what decisions people make about pregnancy
    the federal government is attempting to start micromanaging people's lives (especially when you factor in all the patriot act rules)

    we need a federal government to regulate CORPORATE BEHAVIOR
    not personal morality
    we could use a federal government answer to health care, in my opinion
    but i don't see the feds as a very good answer to very many problems (see new orleans)
    i hate their fucking foreign policy and every damn pork project they support
     
Top