quote:

---

WASHINGTON - President Bush, stung by the rejection of his first choice, will nominate conservative judge Samuel Alito to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a bid to reshape the Supreme Court and mollify his political base, officials said Monday.

The choice was likely to spark a political brawl. Unlike the nomination of Harriet Miers, which was derailed by Bush's conservative allies, Alito faces opposition from liberal Democrats.

Bush planned to announce the nomination at 8 a.m. EST. Wasting no time, the White House arranged for Alito to go to the Capitol after the announcement.

The schedule called for Senate Majority Leader Bill First to greet him and accompany the nominee to the Capitol Rotunda to go to the coffin of the late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.

So consistently conservative, Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. But while Scalia is outspoken and is known to badger lawyers, Alito is polite, reserved and even-tempered.

---

quote:

---

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]

---

quote:

---

Filthy:

Evidently, he's going to get raked over the coals by the Democrats in the Senate, or so they boldly say -- their track record on handing out judicial freebies is extensive and smacks of pussyism.

We shall see...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kil

quote:

---

Filthy:

Evidently, he's going to get raked over the coals by the Democrats in the Senate, or so they boldly say -- their track record on handing out judicial freebies is extensive and smacks of pussyism.

We shall see...

---

Well, most of the pundits said he would next choose someone who would appeal to the ultra RR conservatives. After all, they are the ones who derailed his last pick. It was also they who officially made Roe V. Wade a litmus test for the judgeship.

So the gloves can come off now. I can't see the democrats laying down for a change of court direction that would lead to the end of a woman's right to choose that most people favor. I think this will be war, leading to a possible filibuster or a Borking. Then Bush will have to choose a moderate. Bush will blame the democrats, but who cares…

This is the scenario I am hoping for anyhow. In the end, I still believe that Gonzales or someone like him will get the nod.

---

quote:

---

Filthy:

You must have read the same piece I did, a little while ago. It said to the effect that the whole thing was calculated to get Gonzie confirmed as the next pick: first the quasi-liberal, then the neo-fascist, then -- ta-da! -- the 'middle of the road' choice, pleasing everybody. I don't quite buy into that, but it certainly sounds good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kil

quote:

---

Filthy:

You must have read the same piece I did, a little while ago. It said to the effect that the whole thing was calculated to get Gonzie confirmed as the next pick: first the quasi-liberal, then the neo-fascist, then -- ta-da! -- the 'middle of the road' choice, pleasing everybody. I don't quite buy into that, but it certainly sounds good.

---

Oh hell, I'm with you on that. No way was this calculated. This was yet another example of Bush being an incompetent. The result was that he shot himself in the foot. I doubt that his foot was what he was aiming for.

---

quote:

---

Scalito on Workers Rights
Alito on the Supreme Court will be a consistent vote against workers rights. That is a clear message if you look over his history on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. What is striking about Alito is that he is so hostile even to the basic right of workers to have a day in court, much less interpreting the law in their favor.

The following cases are ones where Alito dissented from a majority decision of the Third Circuit, cases where his views were more conservative than the overall panel. They cover minimum wage, discrimination, retirement, public employee rights, and interpretations of union labor law.

There are other cases as well, where Alito wrote anti-worker majority decisions, as in his opinion to exempt public employers from the Family and Medical Leave Act (a principle that the Supreme Court subsequently overruled, putting him to the right of William Rehnquist)

---

quote:

---

Judge Participated in 2002 Vanguard Case Despite Promise to Recuse

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 1, 2005; Page A11

When Samuel A. Alito Jr. appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee 15 years ago as a nominee for the appellate bench, he promised in writing to disqualify himself from "any cases involving the Vanguard companies," a stock and mutual fund firm in which he had substantial personal investments.

That is why several Senate aides said they were wondering yesterday why Alito agreed to participate in 2002 with two other judges in an appellate case in which he ruled in Vanguard's favor, dismissing a complaint that the company had improperly seized some private accounts and blocked the owner's widow from obtaining the funds they contained.

Alito's ruling, issued on April 12, 2002, was withdrawn the following year by Anthony Joseph Scirica, the chief administrative judge for the 3rd Circuit where Alito worked. Scirica acted after the widow complained in a court motion that Alito's participation was "unlawful" under judicial ethics rules.

"It was improper for him to participate in the decision," said retired Northeastern University law professor John G.S. Flym, who helped prepare the court motion on behalf of Shantee Maharaj, then of Wayne, Pa. Her husband had established the accounts that Vanguard froze and then disbursed to others in settling a business dispute with her husband's former partner.

---