Red Chicago

And then there was Alito

President Bush has just nominated Judge Samuel Alito. This is a awesome pick that he should have used the first time, I was really hoping for Owens or Brown, but Alito looks a little more palatable after you read some of his opinions. I have put some of the most important opinions below. Some of these are going to be controversial, but after hearing his nomination speech and the hearings, both the Conservatives and others are going to be in awe.

This nominee is going to be confirmed, so get to know him!

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.

posted by Red Chicago @ 7:12 AM