In the coming weeks there’s going to be a lot of confusing talk out there about the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. for the Supreme Court. There will be a lot of disinformation, misreadings, and obfuscation. The left will paint him as a loony, the right will paint him as the actual author of the Constitution, and the clamor will be almost deafening as the two machines gear up to convince the American people of their interpretation of Alito’s interpretation of the founders’ interpretation of the rights of man.
But fortunately for you, you’ve got me. I’m a legal scholar who won’t be limited by the boundries of political bickering or so-called “actual” “public record.” I don’t kow-tow to fashionable opinions about what you can and can’t print or bow down to so-called “journalistic standards” with their reactionary bias against “making stuff up.” I get at the truth, and sometimes the truth is neither pretty nor strictly “true.”
So let’s get to it. Here’s what you probably want to know.
—————————
Q: Is Judge Alito a mainstream conservative judge in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor?
A: Yes and no. The “yes” part covers “conservative” and “judge.” And possibly “mold.”
Q: I read his nickname is “Scalito.” What does this mean?
A: It’s nasty, partisan monicker that references some of Judge Alito’s dermatological challenges.
Q: Where does he stand on human rights?
A: Surprisingly, Alito often comes down on the side of the individual. For example, while on the Third Circuit, Alito helmed a groundbreaking decision in U.S. v. Mikey. He ruled that the government had participated in an unlawful search and seizure without properly Mirandizing the accused.
Q: So he leans to the left on issues of personal liberty?
A: Well, sort of. “Mikey” was actually a two week-old zygote. After Alito’s ruling, Mikey was “reinstated” to the womb he’d been evicted from, and his landlord was jailed.
Q: That sounds like a death knell for Roe v. Wade.
A: No, no, not at all. Just the “Roe” part.
Q: But how does this “individual liberty” square with what I read - that he vehemently argued that women should be required to notify their husbands before getting an abortion…
A: Good question. You have to understand that that case reflects his deep feelings about eminent domain.
Q: Eminent domain?
A: Yes, it’s completely mainstream, in line with the recent Supreme Court decision. Alito feels that private property may be acquired by the government when such an act is clearly for the public good.
Q: And in this case the property in question refers to a uterus?
A: No, no, of course not.
Q: Whew!
A: It refers to an entire reproductive system and “related biological support systems.”
Q: Okayyyyy. I read that he once dissented with the upholding of a law banning the personal possession of machine guns, saying that there was no direct evidence that the ownership of such weapons increased crime.
A: Yes, he did.
Q: Wouldn’t the same formula apply to the personal possession of nuclear weapons?
A: You know, we have an old saying that applies to silly leftist arguments like that.
Q: Does it end with “…only outlaws will have nukes?”
A: Uh… yeah. Pretty much.
Q: I’ve read that Alito is an “activist judge” who consistently “legislates from the bench.”
A: Nothing could be further from the truth.
Q: But doesn’t he have a history of overturning legislation and redefining the law to fit in with his own ideology?
A: Yes, of course.
Q: Isn’t that being an “activist judge” who “legislates from the bench?”
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: He’s a conservative. Being an “activist judge” and “legislating from the bench” is something only liberals can do.
Q: But isn’t that -
A: Look, the only times Alito has ruled in those ways was when he had to, usually because activist congressmen were seeking to legislate from the legislature.
Q: But isn’t that-
A: You hate Italian-Americans, don’t you?
Q: No, I-
A: This is nothing but a high-tech lynching.
Q: I just want to -
A: Won’t be satisfied until you bring down America, will you?
Q: Well… yeah.
A: Thought so. Nice try.
Q: Hee hee! Thanks.
A: Anything else?
Q: Naw… you caught me. Have a good one.
A: You too.





36 comments
dee
October 31, 2005 at 4:51 pm
1Q: I read his nickname is “Scalito.” What does this mean?
A: It’s nasty, partisan monicker that references some of Judge Alito’s dermatological challenges.
In its early stages it’s confined to the skin. If he’s confirmed, it metastasizes to the neuromuscular and digestive systems. Diagnosis is confirmed when Scalia’s hand is revealed to be deeply embedded up Alito’s ass.
Mary
October 31, 2005 at 5:08 pm
2Dee- ouch!!!
Alito sounds like a bit of an activist to me. Especially that bit about congress not having the right to legislate family leave. Ok, it isn’t guaranteed under the Constitution, but it isn’t unconstitutional either. So, how does that make it illegal? Just who IS supposed to legislate? (Has anyone asked Alito that one? Well?)
yllama
October 31, 2005 at 5:15 pm
3When will people learn that naming their daughters “Samuel” only makes them grow up to be bitter and vengeful…oh wait, she’s a he. Well at least he shares O’Connor’s penchant for lace panties.
ice weasel
October 31, 2005 at 7:12 pm
4Oh Dee, you’re good.
Nice one Adam.
Bob
October 31, 2005 at 7:40 pm
5Little-known facts about Judge Alito:
- Played Richie’s seldom-seen younger brother Prig on Happy Days.
- Never met a man he didn’t like. Women a different story.
- Shot a man in Reno due to his imperfect understanding of mandatory sentencing guidelines.
- Made the cut for nomination despite the White House vetting team rating him only “so-so” for his support of torture.
Zach
October 31, 2005 at 10:27 pm
6Here’s a profile of Alito based on talking to his college classmates:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/10/28/news/13656.shtml
It actually makes him seem more like a Kennedy or O’Connor than a Scalia.
But then again, Bush’s college classmates would make him seem more like Ozzy Osbourne. So I don’t know if that’s constructive. It does make me wonder if he’s as far right as people are guessing he is, though.
Forget not the Souter…
Sophie
November 1, 2005 at 12:59 am
7Poor Harriet Meiers. Her one great failing as a human being was liking the color turquoise a little more than good taste deemed tolerable.
I just hope Alito can match her venerable secretarial skills in copy-editing.
hedera
November 1, 2005 at 1:08 am
8Some of the opinions Judge Alito has written give me serious pause: in general I’m with Dee from the last set of posts, it should not be up to some third party whether a woman has a baby or not, and her ability to act on her choice shouldn’t depend on (a) her geographic location, or (b) her income…
But - the Princetonian article describes a pretty impressive candidate. Let me remind everyone also, that as I recall, when Sandra Day O’Connor was first nominated, the left was appalled because she was a conservative. I recall the gasps of horror, and some of her rulings have been pretty conservative (I still haven’t forgiven her for Kelo vs. New London); she’s really only “moderate” on gender issues.
Zach is right, though, you really can’t tell how a judge will rule when he gets into that seat. At least this guy has an impeccable record and stainless steel credentials. Let’s hope that’s all that’s stainless steel.
ice weasel
November 1, 2005 at 9:32 am
9This is what happens when you lose elections.
Sadly, the people who will pay the highest price, most of them at least, didn’t support this agenda anyway.
Deb
November 1, 2005 at 11:30 am
10There is hope!
http://debfrisch.com/archives/2005/10/lesbostrata.html
Harold
November 1, 2005 at 12:11 pm
11The worst things I’m hearing about Alito - the “spousal consent” opinion - came from very early in his judicial career. Has his more recent record indicated a tempering of his views?
Still, the whole “undue burden” thing (which was the crux of Alito’s support for spousal consent) riles me. Alito viewed this in tems of the burden on society as a whole, or at least the collective of all women seeking abortions as a whole, rather than on the individual cases where spousal consent would be an issue. I’ve run into other versions of this sort of argument from the Anti-Choice crowd before, who say that the number of abortions resulting from rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life are statistically insignificant and should not be considered in determining whether abortion should be legal. I wonder how a girl impregnated by a rapist, or her own father, feels when she’s told she’s statistically insignificant?
Judging by the Howling Wingnut Index, Alito is a nomine who very much pleases the Far Right, religious extremists, and the Anti-Choice crowd. And that is reason enough to get worried, and get moving.
Pete IVDL
November 1, 2005 at 4:40 pm
12Seems to me, as a backward nerdish Southerner, that in any society, the law only ever applies to those too poor to ignore it. I guess my argument is that if you’re rich, you can afford sex with anyone you like, a drug habit, or anything else “legally ambiguous”, followed by discreet abortion, rehabilitation, etc; while the great unwashed try and figure out how they’re going to afford this month’s Zocor.
So is old “Stainless” Alito going to change any of this for the better, and in doing so, bite the hand that appoints him? Surely not. Surely Bushrove wouldn’t tie a boulder like that to his ankle when he’s already teetering on the edge of political insolvency? Then again…
Murray
November 1, 2005 at 4:49 pm
13Deb, now you just hold on right there.
How does keeping, pro-choice guys like me (who were against W. the war, and any scotus pick he would have) from having sex help anything?
If anything we should get MORE sex for our efforts.
Ann
November 1, 2005 at 5:18 pm
14But Murray, if you get MORE sex you won’t be motivated to actively oppose these issues (war, SCOTUS pick, etc.). Quite the contrary–you’ll be motivated to maintain the status quo and thus limit the competition for female attention.
But nice try.
Deb
November 1, 2005 at 7:42 pm
15Murray,
You raise a good point. Why punish the good guys? But Ann’s got a good point too. I’ll fess up that I didn’t think through the ethical and pragmatic ramifications too much given how smitten I was with the title.
Deb
P.S. Given that we are looking at 8/9 Supreme Court Justices being male, shouldn’t the acronym be changed to SCROTUS?
Hot Tub Tommy
November 1, 2005 at 8:00 pm
16I happen to think that Judge Alito is an excellent choice and hardily endorse his nomination to the Supreme Court. We need a man of sterling conservative values in that high office. I don’t know what you libbers think you’ll accomplish by attacking this fine man. We’ve got shitloads of money hidden off shore and I assure you the deal is done; the fix is in; and you’re screwed. Give up!! HA HA HA!!!
Speaking of money, how’d you like that little slight of hand down in Austin today that sent that left leaning commie-pinko Judge Perkins to the showers before the first pitch was thrown. HA HA HA!!! God I love off-shore cash!!!!!
WHOOPIE!
And listen, if you girls want to sit on your gold, go right ahead. Who needs you anyway? We got money, so we can get Honeys - and they’re skinnier and prettier than you, too - and they don’t bitch and moan like you, either - and they don’t fart as much.
Rep. Tom Delay, (R, TX)
Auros
November 1, 2005 at 8:44 pm
17Robert Gordon writing at Slate, thinks Alito is worse than Scalia.
For yuks, you could read up on Chen v. Gonzales (Slip Copy 2005 WL 2652051, 3rd Cir., October 18, 2005). This case denied asylum to a Chinese woman who fled China because she had undergone a forced abortion and been ordered to report to a medical clinic for mandatory sterilization.
Fun stuff. Apparently he’s against abortion when it’s a woman’s choice, but not against it when it’s forced on her by an oppressive government, and she’s fleeing to America for protection. He does a great job standing up for state power against the little guy.
Murray
November 1, 2005 at 8:50 pm
18Ann,
If I am punished for my good deeds it will hardly be an incentive to continue on. Besides, it would be a hardship on my dear wife too, (at least she claims this). How’s this benefit anyone?
ice weasel
November 1, 2005 at 10:21 pm
19And how ’bout that Harry Reid?
SeattleDan
November 1, 2005 at 10:50 pm
20Are the Dems finally finding their spines? Lets hope so.
Ann
November 1, 2005 at 10:58 pm
21Murray,
Hey, this isn’t MY scheme. And whatever “incentives” your wife gives you are strictly between yourselves. But you’re the one who suggested that you should get MORE sex, so I thought maybe you expected it from MORE women (hence my reference to competition for female attention). Maybe the Lysistrata/barnyard rooster analogy has reached its limit.
But as Jake Johannsen, one of my favorite comedians, says, withholding sex from him isn’t an effective strategy for changing his behavior, since the number of women he’s already not having sex with is so large. (Loosely quoted, of course.)
dee
November 1, 2005 at 11:02 pm
22I ♥ Harry Reid.
cooper
November 1, 2005 at 11:16 pm
23Yeah, ice, and what ’bout Bill Frist nearly stroking out over Harry’s parliamentary procedure?
Mary
November 2, 2005 at 10:17 am
24Speaking of Frist and Delay, when did the Republicans become the “victims”? I thought they were aginst being victims.
Kim
November 2, 2005 at 11:20 am
25Yeah, and how come the Republicans are suddenly concerned with conflicts-of-interest? Someone who contributed to a Democrat’s campaign can’t be the judge in DeLay’s trial… but if the election supervisors in Ohio and Florida (Ken Blackwell and Katharine Harris) also happen to be the co-chairs of their states’ Bush/Cheney campaigns, no problem, right?
Funny how those two states had thousands more votes than voters, AND had thousands of people disenfranchised (Florida: purging voter rolls of anyone whose name is similar to a felon’s, Ohio: passing out provisional ballots to people still in line late at night and then not allowing those ballots to be cast the next day). Even Christopher Hitchens — no fan of John Kerry! — says the 2004 election looked mighty fishy, and we all know about 2000. Cheating to get into office… the only thing worse is lying to send your country into an unnecessary war.
But YOU guys already know this. I need to start writing letters to every newspaper I can think of, and phoning all the radio talk shows, because a hell of a lot of Americans don’t have a clue. Help write and call, everyone!
ice weasel
November 2, 2005 at 2:21 pm
26shorter bill frist
“ooo, that big mean harry reid pulled some shit that karl didn’t tell us about. right rickie?”
Landis
November 2, 2005 at 2:22 pm
27Deb and Ann,
I think it is necessary at this point to ask the question that all the guys here have been wondering but haven’t yet asked. From the definition of this Lesbistrata and quoting:
Can the ‘good guys’ at least watch?
Allison in Santa Cruz
November 2, 2005 at 3:43 pm
28SeattleDan — I certainly hope to Lobster that the Democrats are growing some backbone. It’s about damn time, too.
dee
November 2, 2005 at 3:49 pm
29Landis –
Thank you for having the courage to ask, since I know darn well the rest of you were thinking the same thing.
And, speaking as a woman who knows several “good guys,” this is my opinion of the lesbostrata proposal: Pffffffffffffffft.
And you may quote me.
Pete IVDL
November 2, 2005 at 4:37 pm
30Dee, I realise this is an open forum, but could you please moderate your language? Small children may be reading this, and it’s just not right that they see language such as “P***************t” in open conversation, Fuck a duck, they might get the wrong impression here…
Ann
November 2, 2005 at 7:38 pm
31Once again, THIS ISN’T MY SCHEME. I’m not withholding sex from ANYone. It’s just that no one is asking. But if someone were to ask, and if that someone supported the overturning of Roe v. Wade, I’d certainly withhold with all my might. That goes double for hunters.
A girl has to have SOME standards, you know.
Murray
November 2, 2005 at 7:59 pm
32Ann, send a photo.
Landis
November 2, 2005 at 9:25 pm
33:)
David
November 3, 2005 at 1:42 pm
34Much as I hate it, we might have to let Alito go, although I e-mailed my senators in opposition. But there are bigger fish to fry, and Graham’s request that it be a deliberate, non-explosive hearing process could be the right approach. The media is finally on to the lying sacks of shit who perpetrated the homicidal assault on Iraq with what amounts to a CIA covert assault on American democracy via egregious manipulation of the media, orchestrated by Dick Cheney’s office. Chris Matthews in particular has finally come to his journalistic senses - Keith Olberman was already there, and corporate MSNBC as a media entity apparently has also decided to catch this wave.
Still want my senators to vote against Alito, but I suspect we can’t stop him. Time to pick which ditch we want to die in, get as many votes as possible against him as a way to “send a message,” and then do the only things that ever change what happens in Washington: bring down the administration responsible for where we find ourselves as a nation, change the party in power, and then make the new party in power accountable.
Some incredible speeches in the Rosa Parks memorials. Jennifer Granholm is a hottie in far more than just the lovely gender sense. Let the Republicans change the Constitution to allow a naturalized citizen to run for President, then have the Republicans in the Congress practice saying President Granholm.
ice weasel
November 3, 2005 at 9:56 pm
35Murray you self scoundrel.
“Post” was the word, not “send”.
Share the love!
Murray
November 6, 2005 at 5:47 pm
36Ice, there are just some times it pays to be selfish.