Alito?

[plutherus]

OK, so I haven't analyzed his record yet. But, what's wrong with Alito? I've been listening to him testify before the senate on my way to and from work, and I was frankly surprised at what he's been saying.

He's answering questions with full sentences and explanations of his reasoning.

He seems somewhat moderate - not a fundamentalist nutjob, and he actually has experience at Constitutional law. How come Bush nominated him?

Every other Bush appointee that I've seen has been an incompetent crony with no real experience in the field they're working in. How did Alito get by his screeners? Has he signed a loyalty oath yet, or is that only if you want to go to the conventions?

From what he's said about his decisions on various cases (and I've only heard about two hours total from his testimony, so it's quite possible I missed something) he seems to know what he's talking about and making good decisions.

He's quite a bit more conservative than I am, but not nearly the neo-con I would expect from a Bush nominee. So - what's up? I mean, Bush nominated him, so it's hard to believe he's not an evil fuckwad, but, really, is he?

Comments

[rhonan.livejournal.com]

Alito is a very intelligent and highly skilled lawyer. He is also an experienced jurist. He would be, however, one of the most conservative members on the court, and his record has always been consistently conservative. Not the best choice to replace a moderately conservative swing voter. His record on the bench shows a very strong bias in favor of big business at the expense of consumers, workers, and the environment.

I could tolerate his pro-life stance and history, except that his legal expression of that has been a complete rejection of any idea of an implied right to privacy in the Bill of rights. This is the main reason I see him as a danger. He would happily shred many of the legal protections we enjoy today in pursuit of over-turning Roe v. Wade.

[reynard52.livejournal.com]

He has fillibustered his own hearing by saying a WHOLE LOT of absolutely nothing about a whole bunch of things. How is he an asshat, well off the top of my head there's naming CAP (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=20029) on a job application for a job during the Reagan years, then "not recalling" his activities with that org for one, refusing to give any solid answers on Roe v Wade (he said he'd keep an "open mind") even though he wrote a paper in the 80s stating that there was no Constitutional support that supports a woman's right to choose AND supporting a woman having to have her husband's permission to get an abortion (yeah, abuse and rape NEVER happen in marriages). Then there's his love affair with big business which he ruled in favor of in 98% of all his John Doe VS Corporation rulings despite MASSIVE amounts of evidence in several cases that the plaintiffs were in the right to accuse companies of wrong doing and negligence. Oh and just to add some spice to this ass-hat's pile, there's OKing and justifying of the strip search of 10 year old girls for another...without a warrent to boot. There's a GREAT audio clip of him defending the traumatizing of the child by saying that if one couldn't strip search children, then drug dealers could always hide their drugs on them. There's more. WAAY more. Harriet Meyers was a front to garner greater support for this ass. No, I don't care that he's conservative, I care that he's a twisted neo-con AND that he'll say and do anything to get what he wants. Bleh.

[thiebes.livejournal.com]

He clearly does not think that Roe v. Wade is settled law, which means that he does not think that a woman's right to choose is guaranteed, which means that he is likely to overturn RvW.

Also, he is clearly into the idea of unitary power in the executive, which is a major issue right now given the NSA wiretapping issue.

I really wish that our senators would hone in on these important issues.

furthermore ...

[whpingboy.livejournal.com]

He has pr oven that he is willing to lie to the judicial committee, in that during his confirmation hearings for the 3rd circuit appeals court, he stated that he would recuse himself from any case involving Vanguard, Smith Barney or any other financial entity that he had dealings or interest with. Then twelve years later he presided over a hearing involving Vanguard, and he did not recuse himself, and he found for Vanguard in that decision. The Chief Justice of the 3rd Curcuit Reviewed and over turned his decision stating that he should have recused himself due to his financial holdings with Vanguard. Not to mention that this Judicial committee has found that he never included any of the companies that he listed to the judicial committee on his conflict of interest registry at the court clerks office.( in his testimony he tried to say that him presiding over the Vanguard case must have happened due to a glitch or computer error at the clerks office,then he said he may have removed them or he may not have added them in the first place "I don't recall". BTW he has over $400,000 invested with Vanguard)

He stated that he firmly believes in Stare Decisis, (in regard to RvW) yet every other judge on the 3rd Curcuit has stated that he had a total disregard if not disdain for Stare Decisis.

There has also been an extraordinary number of cases that he has found for government and/or Corporations as the sole dissenter on the panel, where the other judges stated that the case was blatantly and clearly a violation against the individual.

This guy would create the most extreme neo-con right wing court this country has ever seen. He has also stated that he believes in "the supreme power of the executive branch" and I don't care if it was 15 years ago, he could not have changed his point of view that much considering that he still keeps the same affiliations and company.