I'd still like to see this judge evaluated by the Senate committee & appropriate people instead of the media, altho I do think it's right for them to 'out' any and all of his decisions including the less stellar ones. At least this guy has an actual record to go by, instead of everyone having to put blind trust in Smirk's judgement, which to date hasn't been the best.

Since when "activist judge" become a relative negative definition of "a judge I don't agree with?"

Matt - I think that's the point regarding Conservative claims that they don't want activist judges in the court system.

I agree with you Nancy - I also want to see Alito evaluated by the Senate committee. Still, it's good that his prior decisions are getting some press. I hope that Senators point out that Alito has seen quite a few of his decisions overturned by higher courts. That shows that his interpretation of law is lacking.

>> Quite a few of his decisions [were] overturned by higher courts. That shows that his interpretation of law is lacking.

This line is correct assuming that the Supreme Court is infallible.

But I should think it would stand to reason that 9 people nitpicking something - especially if they have such top-quality law clerks - would do better at it than ...

...just thought of the Conn. land grab case.

Never mind.

Of course, if his rulings were consistently overturned from higher courts, that says something. However, what's the percentage of overturned decisions during his 15-year tenure?

What is the average number among federal appellate judges?

What's is the average number among appellate judges who went to the Supreme Court?

Will his Italian heritage be present in court cases involving pasta?

Alito apparently is so conservative that he often finds himself up against his conservative bretheren in the courts. For example, I believe it was in the Doe v. Groody case that Alito was the the one judge on a 13 jusge panel who dissented.

In other words, the other 12 agreed -- and there were conservatives in that mix -- that the warrantless strip search of a ten-year-old girl and her mother was a violation of their rights.

If you want to read the Acrobat file of Doe v. Groody, it's here:

Doe v. Groody/Acrobat

The text version is here:

Doe v. Groody/Text

There were three judges listed on the file. I have no knowledge of 13 judges being involved. If anyone else has information about that, please feel free to post it here.

Trish, I could be wrong on the specific case. I heard an interview on Fresh Air today in the car, and the interviewee did discuss a case in which it was a 12-1 split. If I have time, I'll double-check.

Thanks, bhw. I'll look for the case too. If I find it, I'll probably post it tomorrow because it's getting late. Alito did seem to be the dissenting opinion on quite a few cases as well as overturned by higher courts on others.

I am troubled by this type of analysis, precisely because it puts "headline-style" scare summaries above the actual facts of the judge's decisions.

To use just one example, the case re: the machine gun law. Your Chicken Little-esque link fails to note this paragraph in the dissent:

This would not preclude adequate regulation of the private possession of machine guns. Needless to say, the Commerce Clause does not prevent the states from regulating machine gun possession, as all of the jurisdictions within our circuit have done. (citations omitted) Moreover, the statute challenged here would satisfy the demands of the Commerce Clause if Congress simply added a jurisdictional element--a common feature of federal laws in this field and one that has not posed any noticeable problems for federal law enforcement. In addition, as I explain below, 18 U.S.C. section 922(o) might be sustainable in its current form if Congress made findings that the purely intrastate possession of machine guns has a substantial effect on interstate commerce or if Congress or the Executive assembled empirical evidence documenting such a link. If, as the government and the majority baldly insist, the purely intrastate possession of machine guns has such an effect, these steps are not too much to demand to protect our system of constitutional federalism.

The problem... THE problem... the PROBLEM is this: NO judge should be towing ANY socio-political line. What we have now is a circus on BOTH sides of the political aisle. An example:

Personally I am opposed to abortion. However it is the law of the land. The basis on which Roe v. Wade came about rests on the issue of "privacy" as a Natural Right. THIS is where, if there is to be any FURTHER discussion on abortion - AS IT PERTAINS TO THE SUPREME COURT - the matter should be addressed. Instead we have a gauntlet of seething, frothing-at-the-mouth fanatics ON BOTH SIDES, each insisting the judge pass THEIR litmus test.

NO! The next justice, indeed NO justice should be beholding to any socio-political "movement".

This is NOT what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

If we continue to allow this to happen we will see the furthering of the Balkanization of American Culture.

No matter where you stand on matters such as abortion - if you care about this country this should be of grave concern to you!

Alethinos

Alethinos, please expand on your Balkanization comment. The reason I ask is because I sense that you may have a first hand familiarity with what happened in the Balkans since WW II. You're right about fanatics on both sides of the abortion issue, and all sides should be concerned. Mamma always said to be careful what you wish for. An overly conservative SCOTUS could easily come down with decisions that will blow up in the faces of uber-rightists.

Alethinos, you make a very salient point about Senators having their own litmus test for judges. This, however, may be the wrong method to approach it. Remember, when elected judges run, they do not have a political party, although they are often backed by one or the other.

I can't see judges who go on power-trips in the lower circuits making it very far up the ladder, let alone to the federal appellate circuit. They "interpret" not necessarily based on their beliefs.

This line from Chief Justice Roberts was just swell, when Sen. Durbin asked him in the confirmation hearings if he'd be for the "little guy" when ruling:

"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts said. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."

The President isn't the only member of government who has to rely on a Cabinet or staff to discharge the duties of the Executive Branch. A Justice of the Supreme Court is only as good as the law clerks he/she has working. Many decisions are researched by these clerks before the final disposition of a case. The work product of a law clerk has a direct impact. This is one of the many intricasies of government. Senators and Representatives have staff that perform research and constituent services on their behalf. It may behoove Senators to look beyond a SCOTUS candidate to the clerks that have served in their respective offices. The same happens when we elect a legislator. We put our faith in their ability to assemble a staff that will serve the needs of the people.

Silas...Well, I'm old but not quite that old! I simply mean that we're living in a world increasingly defined by fanatical "camps". America has always managed to avoid that - mainly because we were too damn busy making $$$.

Perhaps it is because there is a shrinking middle class that we are beginning to see this Balkanization now. With the American Dream fading what is left for people to focus on? Paying the rent for another month? Watching commercials with snobbish upper class folk fretting over what financial adviser they should hire to handle their purchase of a small Caribbean island?

The point I've been trying to make all along on this particular issue is this: ANY group of fanatics is scary. Why I focus on the RIGHT at this time is that they are far more likely to have a dramatic effect on this country in the next five years or so than the LEFT. (Trust me-I have JUST as many issues with the Priest of PC as I do with Bible-thumping yahoos).

If we allow it, it seems a very real possibility that America will continue to slide INTO this Balkanization.

The RICH will continue to become richer, creating LAWS that insulate them further, that INSURE their continued "good fortune" at OUR expense...

The POORLY EDUCATED of the Red States will continue to be MANIPULATED by the Republican and Religious Right for their own ends. They will continue to swallow lies about the "liberal media" etc. (Tell me, how the HELL can you have a liberal media when 95% of all mass media is controlled by HALF A DOZEN MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS?)

The LIBERALS will continue to disintergrate with the (above) Priests of PC being the main cause of this.

Meanwhile a huge center, formally of the "middle class" won't be able to give a rats ass to all this because they will be working harder, making less, finding virtually all avenues UP blocked by those living in the BURB-CLAVES and GATED COMMUNITIES.

It is not a pretty scenario. It's been written about for the past 20 yrs. We're damn near there now.

We CAN stop this. If we recognize what's at stake, what we have in common and agree to discover what makes a healthy American nation.

Alethinos

(gotta go - 4:20AM comes well, its damn near here!)

Sussman... It seems we have more in common than I first thought...

Alethinos

Thanks for your insight, Alethinos. Now if we could only find a way of getting through to the uneducated, manipulated poor in the red states. After watching last night's Trading Spouses with that fanatical Christian woman from Louisiana, I worry that this group is far out of our reach. They've regressed to a hair above the intelligence of chimpanzees, and that, in and of itself, is an insult to the monkeys.

Slate Magazine had a great take on Alito. How he treats grown women exactlt the same as minors--as needing to ask permission for matters related to their own health.

The Erie, PA newspaper yesterday had an article (which, unfortunately I could not locate in the on-line newspaper) mentioning a woman lawyer who encountered Alito in court. He asked her to meet him in his chambers afterwards. The woman wondered if he had some point of law he objected to. Well, no, he chewed her out on the LENGTH OF HER SKIRT. Like he was some freaking middle school principal or something.

He really does regard women as the same as children.