Comments on: Alito Profiling & Presumptions http://donklephant.com/2005/10/31/alito-profiling-presumptions/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Andrew Case http://donklephant.com/2005/10/31/alito-profiling-presumptions/comment-page-1/#comment-3284 Andrew Case Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:27:54 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1226#comment-3284 Justin: No offense taken. You are right to point out that both of these cases are significant, and that both are far less troubling than they appear at first glance. The ACLU case bears a striking resemblence to the two "ten commandments" cases heard by the court this term, cases which were both decided by Breyer's swing vote. He ruled that a 10 commandments monument in place for 50 years, put up by a secular organization, was constitutional, while a recent plaque put up by a religious group was not. At issue was the actual and perceived intent of the people who put up the display. One thing you leave out of the Schundler case is that the display included a banner embracing diversity, and the "religious symbols" were not merely Christian (there was a menorah at least, and I believe some Kwanza-related materials). As I said before, Casey was a "notification" rather than a "permission" case, and when you strip everything away, could be pared down to one of the many instances when state legislatures must be allowed to make bad laws. All in all, I'm not as worried by this guy as I would have been by Luttig, Brown, Jones, etc. Sorry about the confusion; I enjoy your pieces and will post as myself in the future. ac Justin:

No offense taken.

You are right to point out that both of these cases are significant, and that both are far less troubling than they appear at first glance.

The ACLU case bears a striking resemblence to the two “ten commandments” cases heard by the court this term, cases which were both decided by Breyer’s swing vote. He ruled that a 10 commandments monument in place for 50 years, put up by a secular organization, was constitutional, while a recent plaque put up by a religious group was not. At issue was the actual and perceived intent of the people who put up the display.

One thing you leave out of the Schundler case is that the display included a banner embracing diversity, and the “religious symbols” were not merely Christian (there was a menorah at least, and I believe some Kwanza-related materials).

As I said before, Casey was a “notification” rather than a “permission” case, and when you strip everything away, could be pared down to one of the many instances when state legislatures must be allowed to make bad laws.

All in all, I’m not as worried by this guy as I would have been by Luttig, Brown, Jones, etc.

Sorry about the confusion; I enjoy your pieces and will post as myself in the future.

ac

]]> By: Greg http://donklephant.com/2005/10/31/alito-profiling-presumptions/comment-page-1/#comment-3281 Greg Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:59:06 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1226#comment-3281 Under Denise’s test he does get confirmed, and rightly so. The president has the authority and the duty to nominate justices. So long as those nominees are, to the best of the senate's ability to ascertain, on the side of the constitution, it's unconstitutional for the senate to keep them from the Supreme Court. It's not their place. If we disagree with a particular judicial philosophy, we should vote for a different presidential candidate or else amend the constitution to strip the president of his / her right to nominate them. (Frankly though, any lawyer willing to put up with a national campaign to get to the Supreme Court isn't someone I'd want there anyway). Agree with him or not, he makes sound legal arguments in his decisions and consistently applies the constitution to the cases before him. Under Denise’s test he does get confirmed, and rightly so. The president has the authority and the duty to nominate justices. So long as those nominees are, to the best of the senate’s ability to ascertain, on the side of the constitution, it’s unconstitutional for the senate to keep them from the Supreme Court. It’s not their place. If we disagree with a particular judicial philosophy, we should vote for a different presidential candidate or else amend the constitution to strip the president of his / her right to nominate them. (Frankly though, any lawyer willing to put up with a national campaign to get to the Supreme Court isn’t someone I’d want there anyway). Agree with him or not, he makes sound legal arguments in his decisions and consistently applies the constitution to the cases before him.

]]> By: Meredith http://donklephant.com/2005/10/31/alito-profiling-presumptions/comment-page-1/#comment-3276 Meredith Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:57:58 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1226#comment-3276 Fair enough Denise, but under your "test," he gets confirmed. Lots of people are qualified and have a great understanding of constitutional interpretation. It's just that some of us would prefer that our civil liberties not be taken away, and to that end, it's EXTREMELY important to review his past opinions and other documentation. Fair enough Denise, but under your “test,” he gets confirmed. Lots of people are qualified and have a great understanding of constitutional interpretation. It’s just that some of us would prefer that our civil liberties not be taken away, and to that end, it’s EXTREMELY important to review his past opinions and other documentation.

]]>