Posted on 11/19/2005 8:18:19 AM PST by Imnotalib
Not everything about the nomination of Samuel Alito Jr. to the high court inspires shivers and cold sweats..., but nearly so.
In one (case), Alito took the side of a Muslim police officer who wanted to wear a beard in conformance with his religion.
In another, Alito struck down a school district's antiharassment policy on First Amendment grounds. Alito wrote for the majority that even speech "that listeners may consider deeply offensive" is protected.
...attention has focused on Alito's willingness to let stand a Pennsylvania ...provision that directed women to notify their husbands before obtaining an abortion - far more problematic is the way Alito would rule on federalism.
In a highly activist way, the Rehnquist court (struck)down federal statutes like trees before Paul Bunyan's ax.
Indications are that Alito would be a solid proponent of this trend toward states' rights.
He also disputed Congress' authority to make state employers comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act.
...when a religious litigant pressed to inject faith into the public schools, Alito was happy to oblige. In 2004, Alito wrote the court's decision on behalf of the group Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey, whose purpose is to "evangelize boys and girls" as young as 5.
...Alito has apparently indicated that the Supreme Court has gone too far in separating church and state.
For these reasons, and Alito's mother's assurances that her son is "against abortion," the Christian Right has been gleeful... ...it has cause to be; and for those of us who think the nation's high court has a duty first and foremost to protect the Bill of Rights and stand for the little guy, the phrase "in your dreams" springs to mind.
(Excerpt) Read more at sptimes.com ...
"Living, breathing document" means 'meaningless' document.
If the St Pete Times hates him....ya gotta love him.
There you have it: the liberals' misunderstanding of the judiciary.
When you hear the words "troubling record" from Dems, of course abortion will soon be mentioned...They may talk about other cases and situations but ultimately that one issue is the ONLY ONE they really focus on for judicial appointments.
In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]
Maybe because there is nothing in the US Constitution that empowers Congress with the jurisdiction to make such a law?
he's got my vote...nuff said....i'm lovin this,can't wait for the hearings..alito will piss rings around the bidens kennedys and turbans....
What is your point?
A judge is not supposed to ignore the Constitution just because applying it results in an opinion you don't like.
...attention has focused on Alito's willingness to let stand a Pennsylvania ...provision that directed women to notify their husbands before obtaining an abortion - far more problematic is the way Alito would rule on federalism.
All he did was rule that a precident had been set already in the lower courts.
Liberals worship a dead baby idol.
Seems to me that Alito's dissent in this particular case was doing just that...ignoring the constitution...specifically the 4th amendment.
If the warrant specified that the man in question was the only one to be searched, that doesn't give police the right to search anyone else.
It's pretty straightforward, if you ask me.
Alito does not appear to support the constitution in this case.
I'm sure he may be good in other areas, but in this case, he was dead wrong.
I love this guy!! Confirm him ASAP!!!!
"those of us who think the nation's high court has a duty first and foremost to protect the Bill of Rights and stand for the little guy,"
I thought Justice Roberts had laid this stupidity to rest: the purpose of the Supreme Court is not to "stand for the little guy"; it's to interpret the Constitution. Whoever wins under the Constitution, wins, whether it's the little guy or the big guy. No one said this better than Justice Roberts. So "those of [them]" who think otherwise are just plain wrong.
From what I've read, the warrant described the man, but nevertheless specifically gave the police authority to search anyone on the premises.
Also, FWIW, a female officer conducted the searches on the 2 females.
Do I hear Constitutional Option? Oh please please please let it be so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.