Bush Nominates Judge Samuel Alito

[FAR52]

QUOTE

President Bush today will nominate 3rd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court, sources tell CNN. Alito is a former U.S. Attorney who has been a judge for 15 years. Bush is expected to announce the nomination at 8 a.m. [/b][/quote]

http://www.cnn.com/

This ought to be fun. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]

[Schwahalala]

Sorry Far - you just beat me. Didn't see it.

[FAR52]

Not a problem.

Here's some background on Alito:

QUOTE

The Mild-Mannered Scalia
Samuel Alito Jr., 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Shannon P. Duffy
The Legal Intelligencer
03-03-2003


There's a nickname for federal appeals Judge Samuel Alito Jr. that captures two things at once -- his particular brand of legal conservatism and a recognition that his credentials are strong enough to put him on any Republican president's short-list for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some lawyers call the judge "Scalito."

Roughly translated, the nickname means "Little Scalia," suggesting that Alito, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has modeled himself after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

With Alito in President George W. Bush's sights as a possible high court nominee, the question is whether he can both overcome the nickname and somehow live up to it.

In some ways, the Scalito moniker hits the mark. In his 13 years on the 3rd Circuit, Alito has earned his stripes as a strong and intelligent voice on the growing conservative wing of a court once considered among the country's most liberal.

As with Scalia, lawyers say that Alito's vote is easy to predict in highly charged cases.

But where the nickname misses is temperament, or what some might call personality. Personality-wise, on the bench and in person, Alito is no Scalia.

Though he's a frequent dissenter and not at all afraid to disagree with his colleagues, Alito's opinions are usually devoid of passion. And his tone during oral arguments is probing but always polite.

For that reason, the 52-year-old Alito might be exactly what Bush is looking for to fill the first or, more likely, a second vacancy on the Supreme Court if the opportunity arises. Alito declined to comment for this article.

Alito's résumé reads like a recipe for high court consideration -- beginning with undergrad studies at Princeton, perhaps the Ivy League's most welcoming home for conservatives seeking elite educations, and a law degree from Yale, the Bush family's sentimental favorite.

After a clerkship with a 3rd Circuit judge, Alito worked as a front-line federal prosecutor in New Jersey for four years.

But soon after President Ronald Reagan was elected, Alito joined the Office of the Solicitor General, staying for four years and helping to decide what position the administration would take in cases up for review by the Supreme Court.

That was followed by a three-year stint at Main Justice as a deputy assistant attorney general.

In 1987, at the age of 37, Alito was appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, a post he held until he was tapped in 1990 by the first President Bush to join the 3rd Circuit.

On the hot-button issues, Alito has been consistently conservative.

In ACLU v. Schundler, Alito wrote the majority opinion holding that a city's holiday display that included a créche and a menorah did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it also included secular symbols such as Frosty the Snowman and a banner promoting racial diversity.

On abortion, Alito was the lone dissenter in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands.

Alito argued that the Pennsylvania law's restrictions should have been upheld.

"The Pennsylvania Legislature could have rationally believed," Alito wrote, "that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems -- such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition -- that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion."

The case went on to the Supreme Court, resulting in a 6-3 decision that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and struck down the spousal notification provision of the law. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in his dissent, quoted Alito's underlying dissent and said he agreed with his reasoning.

In fact, over the years, Alito has been a frequent dissenter. And, unlike in Casey, he has sometimes been vindicated, when the Supreme Court reversed his colleagues and made his view the law.

In Homar v. Gilbert, Alito dissented from a ruling that a state university had violated a campus police officer's due process rights by suspending him without pay immediately after he was arrested on drug charges. The Supreme Court later agreed with Alito's view that no hearing was required because the criminal charges showed that the suspension was not baseless.

Perhaps Alito's most memorable dissent came in 1996 in Sheridan v. Dupont, a sex discrimination suit that forced the 3rd Circuit to tackle fundamental questions about the plaintiff's burden of proof.

The issue in Sheridan was whether a plaintiff in a sex discrimination case can survive summary judgment simply by casting doubt on the employer's proffer of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse employment decision.

More specifically, the question was how the 3rd Circuit should interpret the 1993 Supreme Court decision in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, which held that once an employer offers legitimate reasons for its conduct, the presumption of discrimination is "rebutted" and "drops from the case."

After Hicks, the federal circuits split, with a few creating what came to be known as the "pretext-plus" standard, meaning plaintiffs must do more than merely cast doubt on an employer's explanation to have the case go forward.

In Sheridan, a 12-judge en banc panel rejected the pretext-plus theory, saying it was "within the province of the jury" to decide when discrimination had occurred.

Alito, the lone dissenter, argued that his colleagues were going too far by allowing plaintiffs to get their case to a jury whenever they managed to cast any doubt on the employer's version.

"If the majority had merely said that ... a defense motion for summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law must generally be denied, I would agree," Alito wrote.

But, he said, his colleagues had established a "blanket rule" against summary judgment that was legally "unsound."[/b][/quote]

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1046288236052

[FAR52]

Here's some more bio info and summaries of his notable opinions:

QUOTE

Brief biography
Judge Alito currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Prior to his nomination to the Third Circuit by President George H.W. Bush, he served as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey (1987-1990), Deputy Assistant Attorney General (1985-1987), and Assistant to the Solicitor General (1981-1985).

Judge Alito was born in 1950 in Trenton NJ. He attended Princeton University and Yale Law School. He clerked for Judge Leonard I. Garth on the Third Circuit.

Useful weblinks
Access a profile of Judge Alito at Law.com

Notable opinions:

A majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 1999), holding that the Establishment Clause was not violated by a city hall holiday display that contained a creche, a menorah, secular symbols of the season, and a banner proclaiming the city's dedication to diversity.

A majority opinion in Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993), holding that an Iranian woman seeking asylum could establish that she had a well founded fear of persecution in Iran if she could show that compliance with that country's "gender specific laws and repressive social norms," such as the requirement that women wear a veil in public, would be deeply abhorrent to her. Judge Alito also held that she could establish eligibility for asylum by showing that she would be persecuted because of gender, belief in feminism, or membership in a feminist group.

A majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001), striking down as contrary to the First Amendment a public school district anti-harassment policy that extended to nonvulgar, non-school-sponsored speech that posed no realistic threat of substantial disruption of school work.

A majority opinion in Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S., 381 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2004), holding that a school district did not provide a high school student with a free and appropriate public education, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when it failed to protect the student from bullying by fellow students who taunted the student based on his lack of athleticism and his perceived sexual orientation.

A majority opinion in Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003), granting a writ of habeas corpus to an African-American state prisoner after state courts had refused to consider the testimony of a witness who stated that a juror had uttered derogatory remarks about African Americans during an encounter in the courthouse after the conclusion of the trial.

A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld. As Judge Alito reasoned, "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems--such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition--that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent from the Supreme Court's 5-4 [corrected] decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito's dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito's reasoning.


A dissenting opinion in Homar v. Gilbert, 89 F.3d 1009 (3d Cir. 1996) arguing that that a state university did not violate the procedural due process rights of a campus policeman when it suspended him without pay and without a prior hearing upon learning that he had been arrested and charged with drug offenses. The Supreme Court, which reversed and remanded the case on other grounds, agreed with Judge Alito's reasoning that no hearing was required prior to the suspension because the drug charges showed that the suspension was not baseless.

A dissenting opinion in Sheridan v. Dupont, 74 F.3d 1439 (3d Cir. 1996) (en banc) arguing that a plaintiff in a sex discrimination case should not inevitably be able to survive summary judgment simply by casting doubt on the employer's proffer of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse employment decision.[/b][/quote]

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/arch...5/10/alito.html

[FAR52]

This should bode well for Alito:

QUOTE

Speaking on CNN's ''Late Edition," Reid warned against nominating federal appeals Judge Samuel Alito. ''That is not one of the names that I've suggested to the president," he said. ''In fact, I've done the opposite. I think it would create a lot of problems."[/b][/quote]

[lazydaze]

Why did he let video equipment in the OJ trial?

[dv6y]

Change the subject, stat!

[Moon Man]

So the Miers withdrawal was a big defeat huh? Bush is weakened, right? No way he can nominate someone MORE conservative the next time around? Anti-abortion, law and order, opposition to sex discrimination claims, etc.

Nominating a clone of Scalia doesn't exactly sound like a defeat to me. And with this guy's credentials, no way the Democrats can stop the nomination. He's got the intellect without the abrasiveness of Scalia.

Yeah, this guy is a real retreat for the Bush camp. Any way we can get Harriet to reconsider her withdrawal?

Moon

[FAR52]

QUOTE(Moon Man @ Oct 31 2005, 06:46 AM) Quoted post

And with this guy's credentials, no way the Democrats can stop the nomination. He's got the intellect without the abrasiveness of Scalia.
[/b][/quote]

Can you say "filibuster"? The libs are going to go nuts over his lone dissent in the Casey case -- an abortion decision related to spousal notification. But before our lib friends here go too far, here is the text of the Pennsylvania statute that he found to be constitutional:

(

QUOTE

a) SPOUSAL NOTICE REQUIRED. — In order to further the Commonwealth's interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship and to protect a spouse's interests in having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal life of that spouse's child, no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman, except as provided in subsections [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif[/img] and ©, unless he or she has received a signed statement, which need not be notarized, from the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed, that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion. The statement shall bear a notice that any false statement made therein is punishable by law.

[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif[/img] EXCEPTIONS. — The statement certifying that the notice required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished where the woman provides the physician a signed statement certifying at least one of the following:

(1) Her spouse is not the father of the child.

(2) Her spouse, after diligent effort, could not be located.

(3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction.

(4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual.

Such statements need not be notarized, but shall bear a notice that any false statements made therein are punishable by law.

© MEDICAL EMERGENCY. — The requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply in the case of a medical emergency.

. . .

(e) PENALTY; CIVIL ACTION. — Any physician who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of "unprofessional conduct," and his or her license for the practice of medicine and surgery shall be subject to suspension or revocation. . . . In addition, any physician who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall be civilly liable to the spouse who is the father of the aborted child for any damages caused thereby and for punitive damages in the amount of $ 5,000, and the court shall award a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney fee as part of costs.[/b][/quote]

"You can't handle my opinions." Moedrabowsky

Jeffro is a hell of a good man.

"A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." - Robert Frost

[FAR52]

QUOTE(dvyyyyyy @ Oct 31 2005, 06:23 AM) Quoted post

Change the subject, stat!
[/b][/quote]

There is that AND the fact that the last nominee withdrew -- leaving a vacancy on the Court. By the way, where are we on our bet?

[FAR52]

Here's the bio that the White House has sent out:

QUOTE

JUDGE SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR., BIOGRAPHY

Ø Samuel A. Alito, Jr., was born in April, 1950, in Trenton, New Jersey.

Ø Alito received his bachelor’s degree from Princeton University and attended Yale Law School, where he served as an editor on the Yale Law Journal.

Ø Alito clerked for Judge Leonard Garth of the Third Circuit, who is now his colleague on that court.

Ø From 1977-1980, Alito served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the appellate division, where he argued cases before the circuit court to which he was later appointed.

Ø From 1981-1985, Alito served as Assistant to the Solicitor General. He has argued 12 cases on behalf of the federal government in the U.S. Supreme Court and he has argued numerous others before the federal courts of appeals.

Ø From 1985-1987, Alito served in the Office of Legal Counsel as Deputy Assistant Attorney General where he provided constitutional advice for the Executive Branch.

Ø From 1987-1989, Alito served as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey where he is best known for prosecuting white collar and environmental crimes, drug trafficking, organized crime, and violations of civil rights.

Ø Alito was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

Ø In 1990, President George H. Bush nominated Judge Alito to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Ø Alito was unanimously confirmed by voice vote by the U.S. Senate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Ø Judge Alito has participated in thousands of appeals and authored hundreds of opinions.

Ø Judge Alito has argued 12 Supreme Court cases and argued at least two dozen court of appeals cases and handled at least 50 others.

Ø Alito has participated in various professional associations including the New Jersey Federal Bar Association (member of advisory board); the New Jersey State Bar Association; the American Bar Association; and the Federalist Society.

Ø In 1985, Alito married Martha-Ann Bomgardner, with whom he has two children.[/b][/quote]

[Mark]

This is just what this country needs, to go even further to the right... [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[dv6y]

QUOTE(FAR52 @ Oct 31 2005, 07:58 AM) Quoted post

QUOTE(dvyyyyyy @ Oct 31 2005, 06:23 AM) Quoted post

Change the subject, stat!
[/b][/quote]

There is that AND the fact that the last nominee withdrew -- leaving a vacancy on the Court. By the way, where are we on our bet?
[/b][/quote]


I guess we've got to wait on the decision on Rove, er, Official A.

Like I said, I think you are going to win on a technicality. Everywhere except Fox News is describing her as "covert" ... see the front page of the Washington Post on Saturday.

Dude. Can. Fly.

[nick2]

QUOTE(FAR52 @ Oct 31 2005, 07:01 AM) Quoted post

This should bode well for Alito:

QUOTE

Speaking on CNN's ''Late Edition," Reid warned against nominating federal appeals Judge Samuel Alito. ''That is not one of the names that I've suggested to the president," he said. ''In fact, I've done the opposite. I think it would create a lot of problems."[/b][/quote]
[/b][/quote]

Reid should resign, or at least shut-up. The Democrats are STUPID if they fight this confirmation-- especially so if they filibuster. They'll be playing into their opponents hands by fighting a social issue that will remain devided to eternity, and in doing so will turn off any many of the wavering swing voters.

Let it go. IMO that's the best political strategy.

Norman Chad, syndicated columnist: “Sports radio, reflecting our sinking culture, spends entire days advising managers and coaches, berating managers and coaches, firing managers and coaches and searching the countryside for better middle relievers. If they just redirected their energy toward, say, crosswalk-signal maintenance, America would be 2 percent more livable.”

"The best argument against democracy," someone (Churchill?) said, "is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

[FAR52]

QUOTE(dvyyyyyy @ Oct 31 2005, 07:42 AM) Quoted post

Like I said, I think you are going to win on a technicality. [/b][/quote]

Oh come on, that's just sour grapes. You were concerned about a technicality on the original bet, so then I changed the scope of the wager to address your concerns -- that is, if she was deemed covert by the grand jury, then you win.

So why are you still claiming a technicality? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]