I heard he was a 2nd Amendment supporter, so I immediately liked the guy; however, after following his confirmation hearings, or whatever they are called, I don't know what to think of this guy.  I haven't thoroughly researched the guy, but the overall picture I get about him is that he strongly supports the government and their action.  And his past rulings appear to support this notion.  For example, in one case the FBI put in a surveillance camera in a suspects house without substantiating the need to do so.  In a nutshell, Judge Alito supported the FBI's actions and stated that the agency could essentially police itself in order not to abuse the use of the camera by switching it on or off at appropriate times.  What happened to the 4th Amendment in this case? We have enough issues with abuse of police powers that we don't need a SC judge to encourage it.    Of course this is only ONE case and I have not researched this guy's past, but something just doesn't sit well with me regarding this potential SC justice.  

Any thoughts?

By the way, I believe that our Supreme Court justices need to strictly enforce the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not subvert them or modify it to their tastes.

Quoted: Any thoughts?

Yes.  If you don't like Alito, you won't like anyone.

I'm not trying to dislike the guy, it's just that in following these hearings some things have popped up that concern me.  But, like you said, it's either him (bad for our civil liberties) or some crazy LIBTARD that'll do other crazy shit.  I thinked we're screwed either way.  Are there any normal people left at the top that utlize common sense and see what our Constitution and Bill of Rights are all about?

Bibles in place of science books and paying taxes to raise unwanted babies,  or buckets of baby parts and fudgepacking, choose your poison.

Quoted: I'm not trying to dislike the guy, it's just that in following these hearings some things have popped up that concern me.  But, like you said, it's either him (bad for our civil liberties) or some crazy LIBTARD that'll do other crazy shit.  I thinked we're screwed either way.  Are there any normal people left at the top that utlize common sense and see what our Constitution and Bill of Rights are all about?

No such thing as common sense where the Constitution and Bill of Rights are involved. First there is nothing common about sense and second the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be interpreted as to the law and the intend of that law when it was formed not to what someone feels...

Alito seems as close to a person that will actually interpret the Constitution, Bill of Rights and law as intended and written as you will find.

Quoted: Bibles in place of science books and paying taxes to raise unwanted babies,  or buckets of baby parts and fudgepacking, choose your poison.

Those are not the choices.

Quoted: Any thoughts?

Yes.  

You are very gullible in that you have swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, the nonsense being spurted by the Democrats through their mouthpieces in the media.

This nonsense is based on the fact that judge alito (like almost every other APPEALS court judge) rules more often in favor of the "big guy" on appeal.

There is a reason for this:

First is a "selection filter" on the appeals process.   Not all cases are appealed.   Corporations and governmental entities most often win at trial, because a larger percentage of the "plaintiff's" cases are crap.   The "big guys" also VERY carefully study the trial results when they lose, to see if an appeal is actually worthwhile from a cost-benefit-odds perspective.  If they lose but have crap for appeal rights, then they don't appeal.  

Some cases are appealed no matter what.   Examples include "special interests" plaintiffs, like the ACLU, the enviro wackos, the gun lobby,  and other liberal "make law through judges" groups.   Even if they lose in the trial court, they keep their shit in the newspapers by going forward with an appeal, and they push even loser cases for ideological reasons.  

In terms of employement discrimination and similar cases, the Plaintiffs in these cases are most frequently represented by contingency fee lawyers.   These lawyers, if they've lost at trial, are out a lot of money.    They've bankrolled the considerable expense of getting to and having a trial, but they got zero'd.    These contingency attorneys have a strong incentive to help their clients appeal.   First, the cost of an appeal is considerably smaller than what they lost at trial, and thus, if they get a new trial, the settlement value of the case goes up and they can leverage that in discussions.   Second, their "cut" on the contingency goes up if there's an appeal.

In a related phenominon, most public defenders' offices are set up to appeal every single criminal conviction, almost without fail.   Some (i.e., capital cases or other high provile matters) actually result in multiple "up hill" appeals.   There is some merit to this approach, in that the vigorous process protects liberty by making every conviction subject to lots of extra scrutiny, but lets face it, if the guy was convicted by the jury, he's got a tough road to trod to get reversal.

When "soft" appeals are brought by ideologues, by stubborn plaintiffs, or by criminal defense offices whose charter documents require them to appeal every case, these causes are more likely to lose, as should not surprise you.


I should also mention something called the "standard of review."    Appeals judges don't hear new evidence, they just evaluate whether the legal decisions were proper.   Under the most common scenario, an appeals court cannot overturn a trial court without finding an abuse of discretion, or that there was not a "scintilla" of evidence to support the verdict.   For this reason, most appeals result in affirming the trial court judgment, and since the "big guys" win a lot more at trial, this creates another statistical bump.

For all of these reasons, it will undoubtedly be the case that appeals court judges, UNLESS they are complete and total tools of the liberal cause, will statistically rule against the "little guy" a higher percentage of the time.

Your post is on the edge of the fever swamp, because the stuff you've clearly been reading is based on the democrats' fatally flawed premises that the big guys and little guys should win about the same percentage of the time on appeal.  Were that ACTUALLY to occur, it would only be because liberal judges controlling the courts are giving bad beats to the "little guys" -- i.e., finding discrimination where none exists, reinstating lawsuits against gunmakers, and whatnot.  

don't buy into the hype.

Alito is a very sharp guy, and he's a good judge.   I've seen nothing to suggest he's going to rule to help Bush (or any other POTUS) to have carte blanc over our rights, and I'd actually suspect a SCOTUS majority with bush's last two picks to be just as scrutinizing of congressional enactments or presidential action as other courts.  The only difference is that Alito and Roberts will hold all presidents to the same standard, whereas a Ginsberg or any of the other "lefty" folks will selectively rule in favor of executive power only when there's a democrat in the oval office, which should scare all of us a whole lot more.    

Alito is good, m'kay? Relaxing MG laws is a good thing.

Alito WILL be replacing the Swing voting O'conner
Fook yes he's a good choice. Gadzooks!!!

Gonzo:  Thanks for your responsive and for educating me a bit about the legal process.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm not trying to dislike the guy, it's just that in following these hearings some things have popped up that concern me.  But, like you said, it's either him (bad for our civil liberties) or some crazy LIBTARD that'll do other crazy shit.  I thinked we're screwed either way.  Are there any normal people left at the top that utlize common sense and see what our Constitution and Bill of Rights are all about? No such thing as common sense where the Constitution and Bill of Rights are involved. First there is nothing common about sense and second the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be interpreted as to the law and the intend of that law when it was formed not to what someone feels... Alito seems as close to a person that will actually interpret the Constitution, Bill of Rights and law as intended and written as you will find.

Yes, I agree with you, but I guess my choice of words did not convey that.  

Quoted: Gonzo:  Thanks for your responsive and for educating me a bit about the legal process.

No problem.

As another Italian lawyer, I've got to stick up for my boy.   He's going to be a good justice.  Watch.

Alito is not a machine gun supporter which is a reason to suspect his 2nd Amendment support. He said in his opinion states could control machines guns. That is not 2nd support.

He also sad the feds had not laid out in the law why machine guns could be regulated by the feds but if they did, the feds could regulate machine guns.

Quoted: Quoted: Gonzo:  Thanks for your responsive and for educating me a bit about the legal process. No problem. As another Italian lawyer, I've got to stick up for my boy.   He's going to be a good justice.  Watch.

I really hope that your assertion turns out to be right.

1) his lisp accent on cspan sounded like he was a fag.

2)  he said that the government should have immunity from any wrong doing.  as in legislating and enforcing fascist rules the government had no power to create in the first place.

3)  i would not trust this guy to support the constitution.  he has an agenda,  and it isnt the constitution.


As much as i devoutly support the 2nd amendment and the integrity of the constitution,  and as much as I see you all supporting him as loyal to the 2nd amendment,  I dont think he will uphold your view of him.

He is just like all of the other snakes.

Quoted: I thinked we're screwed either way.

I think so also.  Could be worse than Alito for sure but the problem is that those who seek power are almost always the last ones who should have it and the least interested in the freedoms of the common man. They all have some axe to grind and historically, since the beginning of the Republic, there is a long list of infringements into all of our freedoms.  Rarely someone like Reagan comes along but it is all to rare an occurrence.

In the end there is only one thing that will put a stop to it all and it isn't the courts or the voting booth.

Quoted: 1) his lisp accent on cspan sounded like he was a fag. 2)  he said that the government should have immunity from any wrong doing.  as in legislating and enforcing fascist rules the government had no power to create in the first place. 3)  i would not trust this guy to support the constitution.  he has an agenda,  and it isnt the constitution. As much as i devoutly support the 2nd amendment and the integrity of the constitution,  and as much as I see you all supporting him as loyal to the 2nd amendment,  I dont think he will uphold your view of him. He is just like all of the other snakes.

JANUARY 2006

Welcome

You either bought into the spin our you're trying to foist it upon us.   But I wonder, what exactly or WHO would you suggest as an alternative.   I'd really like your "short list" of names for SCOTUS.

Don't have any?

Don't have the first fucking clue about it?

That's what I thought.

If Ted Kennedy hates him then he's probably a pretty good candidate!

Quoted: Quoted: Any thoughts? Yes.  If you don't like Alito, you won't like anyone.

+1.  There are no more Barry Goldwaters.  Alito's probably the next best thing.


ETA: Yeah, and what Gonzo said.

Didn't he rule that the "interstate commerce clause" was over-used by congress in a particular case? That's reason enough to like the guy.

Wait, didn't he in so many words state that congress could regulate machine guns by writing the law differently? Am I the only one that caught this during his confirmation hearings?

Quoted: Quoted: I'm not trying to dislike the guy, it's just that in following these hearings some things have popped up that concern me.  But, like you said, it's either him (bad for our civil liberties) or some crazy LIBTARD that'll do other crazy shit.  I thinked we're screwed either way.  Are there any normal people left at the top that utlize common sense and see what our Constitution and Bill of Rights are all about? No such thing as common sense where the Constitution and Bill of Rights are involved. First there is nothing common about sense and second the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be interpreted as to the law and the intend of that law when it was formed not to what someone feels... Alito seems as close to a person that will actually interpret the Constitution, Bill of Rights and law as intended and written as you will find.

NO, we need justices that will APPLY the Constitution and BoR as intended.  We need to stop this nonsense of interpreting the Contitution.  That is what the liberals want people to think was the purpose of it.  To interpret it taking into consideration todays values.  This is foolishness.  You need to APPLY the constitution, as intended and as demonstrated in the other writtings of the founder, to todays society.  

Interpretation of the Constitution is what lead way to this "living breathing document" crap.

Quoted: Bibles in place of science books and paying taxes to raise unwanted babies,  or buckets of baby parts and fudgepacking, choose your poison.

WOW, your not to biased are ya?

Quoted: Wait, didn't he in so many words state that congress could regulate machine guns by writing the law differently? Am I the only one that caught this during his confirmation hearings?

No, he said there would not have been a COMMERCE CLAUSE problem under Lopez if Congress wrote the law differently.

He's not written anything on 2nd amendment (and his dissent in Rybar doesn't address his views as he wrote only on commerce clause issues).

Besides, and more importantly, he refused to answer Feinswine in terms of whether congress could make supportable findings on M.G.'s to uphold the law, or if it did, whether the law would ultimately be constitutional:  

FEINSTEIN: So if I understand this, you essentially said that you wanted to follow precedent, newly established law in this area. And you left a little hedge that if Congress made findings in that law, then that might be a different situation. If Congress did make findings, would you have agreed that that statute would been constitutional? ALITO: What I said in the opinion and what I will reiterate this afternoon is that it would have been a very different case for me. I don't think I can express an opinion on how I would have decided a hypothetical case. FEINSTEIN: It's not hypothetical. I'm just asking you, if there were findings as you said, you might have sustained the law. ALITO: And I reiterate that... FEINSTEIN: And I'm just asking you would you have sustained the law... ALITO: I don't think that I can give you a definitive answer to the question because that involves a case that's different from the case that came before me.

That is a VERY encouraging response.  And the reason it is interesting to me is because of the interpretive framework judges use when disposing of a case on appeal.  Basically, the rule is that they don't "reach" issues that aren't necessary to resolve the facts before them.     Alito's dissent didn't get to 2nd Amendment Analysis because he found problems with the statute on a commerce clause basis.   Feinstein tried to trap him into revealing his 2nd Amendment position, by saying "well, if Congress made commerce clause findings, would you have sustained the law as CONSTITUTIONAL."   If Alito answers "yes" then he's admitting he doesn't see any OTHER constitutional problems with it.

Instead, he says he cannot say because it raises a completely different case for him.

I'd dare say he's hinting that he would then reach the 2nd Amendment issues.  

You gotta read this stuff closely.

(And by the way:   How fucking stupid is Feinstein in claiming her counter-fatual is not a "hypothetical" case.   Dumb bitch)

read this

the enemy of my enemy is my friend...

that is all.

Quoted: No, he said there would not have been a COMMERCE CLAUSE problem under Lopez if Congress wrote the law differently. He's not written anything on 2nd amendment (and his dissent in Rybar doesn't address his views as he wrote only on commerce clause issues).

Got it, and thanks for pointing out the subtle details. Very cool. So correct me if I'm wrong, but this is where we stand with Alito with regard to machine guns:

1. He can find current law unconstitutional, because of a commerce clause problem. No need to address the Second in this case.
2. He acknowledges that the law could be written differently, so as to not pose a Commerse Clause problem. This still leaves us with a 2nd Ammendment problem, however.
3. He may rule in favor of a strict 2A interpretation, or he may not. We don't really know, since he's never written anything on the 2nd Amendment, apparently.

Is he a strict Constitutionalist? If he's pretty consistent on everything else, we could presume that his views on the 2nd Amendment will be no different.

Quoted: Quoted: No, he said there would not have been a COMMERCE CLAUSE problem under Lopez if Congress wrote the law differently. He's not written anything on 2nd amendment (and his dissent in Rybar doesn't address his views as he wrote only on commerce clause issues). Got it, and thanks for pointing out the subtle details. Very cool. So correct me if I'm wrong, but this is where we stand with Alito with regard to machine guns: 1. He can find current law unconstitutional, because of a commerce clause problem. No need to address the Second in this case. 2. He acknowledges that the law could be written differently, so as to not pose a Commerse Clause problem. This still leaves us with a 2nd Ammendment problem, however. 3. He may rule in favor of a strict 2A interpretation, or he may not. We don't really know, since he's never written anything on the 2nd Amendment, apparently. Is he a strict Constitutionalist? If he's pretty consistent on everything else, we could presume that his views on the 2nd Amendment will be no different.

That is what we are hoping.

As I said before,  APPLY the constitution to present day, don't interpret it.

Once you start interpreting it, you let the likes of Feintein say, "Well, the founder didn't know, so they could not have intended for people to own machine guns."  This is interpretation.

Where the rational should be, "The founders intended the populace to own the same weapons as the government forces.  Therefore, APPLYING the constitution to today, the regular folks should be able to posses machine guns."

Quoted: Quoted: No, he said there would not have been a COMMERCE CLAUSE problem under Lopez if Congress wrote the law differently. He's not written anything on 2nd amendment (and his dissent in Rybar doesn't address his views as he wrote only on commerce clause issues). Got it, and thanks for pointing out the subtle details. Very cool. So correct me if I'm wrong, but this is where we stand with Alito with regard to machine guns: 1. He can find current law unconstitutional, because of a commerce clause problem. No need to address the Second in this case. 2. He acknowledges that the law could be written differently, so as to not pose a Commerse Clause problem. This still leaves us with a 2nd Ammendment problem, however. 3. He may rule in favor of a strict 2A interpretation, or he may not. We don't really know, since he's never written anything on the 2nd Amendment, apparently. Is he a strict Constitutionalist? If he's pretty consistent on everything else, we could presume that his views on the 2nd Amendment will be no different.

Yeah, well, don't forget that the SCOTUS cut the legs out of Lopez last year on the california Mary-Jane case.   So even the commerce clause issues might be analyized differently now.

Shoot, that's easy to answer.

All politicians, bureaucrats, and regulators are bad for civil rights.  All the exceptions died by the early 1800's.

Quoted: Yeah, well, don't forget that the SCOTUS cut the legs out of Lopez last year on the california Mary-Jane case.   So even the commerce clause issues might be analyized differently now.

Yup.  Randy Barnett came and talked to the TTU School of Law about the case right before he argued it before SCOTUS.  He talked a lot about Lopez, and the Commerce Clause.  I took copious notes, and was fairly hopeful.  

It would be nearly impossible for him to be worse, even in his worst moment, than the judge he is replacing, viz. Sandra Day Oconner. who was made famous by stating that anit-white racism was OK, if it only lasted 20 years, and much other nonsense.

Quoted: NO, we need justices that will APPLY the Constitution and BoR as intended.  We need to stop this nonsense of interpreting the Contitution.  That is what the liberals want people to think was the purpose of it.  To interpret it taking into consideration todays values.  This is foolishness.  You need to APPLY the constitution, as intended and as demonstrated in the other writtings of the founder, to todays society.   Interpretation of the Constitution is what lead way to this "living breathing document" crap.

I totally agree with your position.  And that is what I was basically trying to say in my initial post,  but I guess I failed miserably in attempting to do so.