This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Just a thought from a first-year law student -- it seems to me that the opinions selected to represent Alito's POV are intended to mitigate his reputation as a hard-core right-winger. If I didn't have to study for school I'd research it myself... Jessesamuel 17:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)jessesamuel
Regardless of what opinions are mentioned, they should be in the nominations article, not the Bio one. -- Paul 16:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
This section is copied verbatim from a Republican National Committee press release [1]. This in itself should prove what POV was intended by their inclusion. I am removing them and I expect that they will not be readded in the absence of a good-faith effort to write a useful section for the article. Eliot 18:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
There is no reason to remove these comments. They are verifyable comments made by notable persons at an importantt time in Alito's career.
I can't guess why they keep getting removed. It seems to be primarily being done by anonymous editors. Perhaps someone will explain their reasoning. Johntex\ talk 19:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I would say that they should probably be summarized, but the information should be kept—it is argued by supporters of Alito that he had bipartisan support in the past, and therefore that he is well qualified. Whether or not it is true that he's well qualified, it's verifiable that: 1) Democrats in the past said nice things about him; and 2) Alito's supporters in 2005 are bringing up those past nice things as evidence. Presenting them as a list without commentary is probably not the best presentation though, and we also probably don't need the full quotes—an excerpt such as "supporters cite Ted Kennedy's [year] comment that Alito had a 'very distinguished record'", or some such. -- Delirium 20:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
There's a lot of wholesale deleting going on all throughout this article. I can see deleting unsourced POV, but to delete sourced reality, links to factual statement (e.g. he was confirmed unanimously), quotes from Harry Reid and George Bush from today is just plain censorship. These are facts. If anyone has a problem with the facts, they should add other facts that provide perspective, not just go and delete all smug and whatnot-- Elliskev 20:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Is the last factoid "Born on April Fools Day and nominated on Halloween" really needed? His date of birth and date nominated to the Supreme Court are already in the article. No Account 21:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Saxe is currently listed under both First Amendment and Harassment and Discrimination. I realize it fits under both but it seems redundent to me. Which should we list it under? -- Benna 02:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
It seems redundant to me too. I'm not sure where it should go, though. I'd need to read the cases more carefully. Elliotreed 02:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
We should strive to balance the number of quotes from those opposing Alito and those supporting Alito in this section.
I ran a quick wordcount on this section. I see 254 words in opposition of Alito, 126 in support of Alito, and 68 neutral (Sen. Feinstein's comment.)
In addition, this section:
should either be given a source, or replaced. - Chardish 17:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there a source for this? -- Elliskev 22:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Anon 85.155.133.201 changed his degree from "A.B." to "B.A." I reverted it, because: 1) them Ivy Leaguish schools often do stuff like that, for reasons only known to themselves, and b) I found a couple of cites which lists his degree as an "A.B." See http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=MZZ22876 and http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=26, a .gov site which likely has some cred.-- RattBoy 17:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
A.B. is an abbreviation for the Latin form of the degree 'Bachelor of Arts'; this form is or was used by colleges (including the one I graduated from) who issue(d) their diplomas in Latin. As more colleges issue their diplomas in English one will find less and less use of the form 'A.B.'. Alloco1 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
In the article it says "supported limited abortion rights in 3 out of 4 rulings as described below.", but when you read the four points listed below, it appears only 1 of the 4 supports this stance. I did not research into the actual rulings, but it would seem that either the count is incorrect or the description of the rulings is inaccurate.
This is my first discussion submission so go easy on me. RyanAlbarelli 06:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
According to his military service records, Samuel Alito Sr. was born in New Jersey in 1914, not Italy. [3] Rillian 01:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
How many of the 12 Supreme Court cases that he argued, did he win? Merecat 07:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
This secion is clearly not neutral:
"The memory loss is not credible when it is known in 1985 Alito bragged in his job application, as a credential, his memebership in CAP."
1) It's not clear how listing an organization qualifies as "bragging" 2) It's not any sort of established fact that his memory loss did or did not happen
ShaneB 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
With the mix of numbered URL links and footnotes, the numbers are not correct in the notes section. Recommend this be changed to one or the other. -- Gadget850 18:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this section be integrated into the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination entry? Especially since it's on the main page; the link there leads to nothing about the hearings themselves.
-- bbsrock
Agree Most of the material in this article related to the confirmation process and controversies should be moved to the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination article. A paragraph should remain here summarizing. -- Paul 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone confirm the part about Alito having put the business about "warming a seat on the Supreme Court" in his yearbook? Other sources are reporting that this was written by a friend, about Alito. -- Charlie (Colorado) 00:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Would someone like to follow-up on this please? Thanks!
Why are Swift Boaters -- the folks who smeared John Kerry's war record in the 2004 election -- now trying to promote Alito's nomination by capitalizing on yesterday's bizarre incident?
We're referring to this release sent out yesterday by Creative Response Concepts, an Alexandria, Va., based PR firm with deep blood lines on the far right:
The always-alert Creative Response Concepts, a conservative public relations firm, sent this bulletin: "Former Alito clerk Gary Rubman witnessed Mrs. Alito leaving her husband's confirmation in tears and is available for interviews, along with other former Alito clerks who know her personally and are very upset about this development."
In case that was too much trouble for the journalists, the firm also e-mailed out a statement from the Judicial Confirmation Network calling "for the abuse to stop."
This post this summer from the citizen-journalists at ePluribus Media notes that the Judicial Confirmation Network is essentially an arm of Campaign Solutions, "the public-relations firm for Bush-Cheney '04, the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee." And the JCN had hired Creative Response Concepts as a key part of its team to aid John Roberts, now the Chief Justice, and Alito in their Senate confirmation battles. (JCN's leader, Gary Marx, used to work for Century Strategies, the firm of Ralph Reed, best pal of Jack Abramoff...small world, isn't it?)
More: http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002645.html
Feel free to update my link to Alito's Casey opinion, if you can find a more NPOV/verifiable source. Jpers36 05:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a neutrality dispute tag at the top of the article. Is it really necessary? Reading the talk page I don't see much that's disputed except a few items in the "Trivia" section, which doesn't sound to me like it merits a tag at the top of the page. Elliotreed 19:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I still haven't found any enumerated issues on this page aside from a dispute about the "trivia" section, nor an explanation of why the POV tag is there. I'm going to take it off. If someone thinks it should be there, please enumerate some issues here. Elliotreed 23:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
What is the dispute? If you can answer then reinsert the tag. Lotsofissues 10:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I hate to be too blunt, but this man's article would be nothing more than a stub if it wasn't for his Supreme Court nomination. Does anyone else think it would be appropriate to have a message linking to Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination at the top of the page? - Greg Asche (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Or something simialr?-- Elliskev 21:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
should his kid's name's be de-linked. they aren't notable and won't have an article on them. Kiwidude 05:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The Washington Post quote looks like unbalanced POV. Isn't whether he'll let his personal views color his judicial judgments one of the major points of contention in the nomination battle? -- Elliotreed 15:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Why is there a separate article for the nomination? It seems redundant to me. The Monster 13:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
If confirmed by the Senate, Alito would be the fifth Roman Catholic to serve on the current Supreme Court, creating the First Majority Catholic Supreme Court, joining two Jews and two Protestants. Together, Catholics (24% of the U.S. population) and Jews (2% of the population) would constitute 77% of the Supreme Court membership, leaving Protestants (whose denominations constitute a majority of the American population) with the smallest minority on the court in its history ( First Minority Protestant Supreme Court). There is no religious test to be a Supreme Court justice in the U.S.
Would it not be more accurate and fair to say, "It is expected there will be a major fight OVER his confirmation." (rather than "FOR his confirmation")
Saying, "Late night talk shows will find ways to ridicule him" isn't needed or useful. Late night shows make jokes about many public figures in the news, be they right wing extremists/neocons or otherwise. But if that stands we could also say, "Televangelists and right wing news channels will glorify him, hoping in turn to redeem the president's very low approval ratings (and to distract public attention from administration indictments, high fuel prices, the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, illegal immigration, outsourcing of jobs, the swelling national deficit and the costly, never-ending war in Iraq)." Which way do you want to go?
I had no Idea this infromation source was so liberal. To bad
I looked up the "scalito" nickname in Lexis and this is not a "new" nickname. In The National Law Journal, December 7, 1992, the article says "It's a trait that has led some to nickname him "Scalito," after the acerbic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia".
Is "since the nomination" appropriate? It makes it sound as though this criticism is a new (and presumably cynical) invention. I heard this criticism months before the nomination.
Just for reference. mmmbeer T / C / ? 14:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Added the criticism of the nickname, with source. Since it happened, it seems an appropriate addition to the article. ---Anon.
Catholic, born in New Jersey and being nicknamed "Scalito": any Italian-American roots ?
Anyway, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., the A.:Adriano, Alphonso, Alberto, Antonino (like Scalia), Antonio, Agostino or Apollo ??? 15.00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
During the nomination speech, Bush talked about his father being an Italian immigrant, so yes, definitely. His mother, 91 years old, is named Rose, but that's about all I know about her. He is at least half-Italian. -- Trnpkroadwarrior 16:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), we use "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". I'm moving the article from "Samuel A. Alito, Jr." to simply "Samuel Alito" (that's what CNN is using). Coffee 17:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a reference to prove that, "His two younger brothers also serve as judges in the Third Court of Appeals." I can't and the article about the thrid court of appeals wasn't helpful. ~Some fake info has been slipped into this article before. Broken S
No others with that last name listed on official site. [5] I'll remove it for now. Jokestress 19:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Why are all the words in the statements by the Democratic senators capitalized? 68.77.59.61 18:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)See Easy
There are a very large selection of Alito opinions. How are we going to make this information reasonable and consumable. Certainly we can't add all of them. Indeed, there are even too many "juicy" opinions. What do you guys think? mmmbeer T / C / ? 21:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm new to this but doesn't listing Controversial Views imply a POV? A brief look at the entries for the sitting justices didn't turn up many (any?) sections like this. Should these rather be re-worded from a NPOV so that they can be included in the cases section? SamR 71.57.12.99 23:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I think Elliotreed's edits creates an informational bias in the article as many of them removed the majority opinions overruling him. I think this information belongs in as well as Elliot's revisions
This looks suspicious. The way it's worded it sounds like it could be a really big deal, but you'd think something this big would be all over the news by now, and I haven't found secondary backup other than the Washington Post article anywhere. The case in question appears to be Monga v. Ottenberg, 43 Fed. Appx. 523 (3d. Cir. 2002), and the Vanguard Group is only one of at least eleven defendants. Elliotreed 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Alito is Seen as a Methodical Jurist with a Clear Record, New York Times, November 1, 2005. The article contains a lot of details about his early life and career; not just political interpretation. Postdlf 15:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I am restoring the summary of ACLU v. Schundler. I think it is a fair summary of what was novel in the case as opposed to upholding past runings. . If people disagree after reading the case, please discuss it here or edit the summary. The existing article on the case is a stub that needs work. I added the intro from the decision -- agr 17:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Does this belong here? I know it was taken out earlier and now I see back in, so I thought I was start a discussion here on the talk page. Viper Daimao 20:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It should go.-- Elliskev 21:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Mocking trash. Delete it. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The Alito opinion in Fatin is being widely reported as allowing an Iranian woman's asylum claim. This is exactly the opposite of what the case did--it rejected her claim for suspension of deportation. Check out 12 F.3d 1233:
The "particular social group" that her testimony places her within is, instead, the presumably larger group consisting of Iranian women who find their country's gender-specific laws offensive and do not wish to comply with them. But if the petitioner's "particular social group" is defined in this way, she cannot prevail because the administrative record does not satisfy the third element [*1242] described above, i.e., it does not show that the consequences that would befall her as a member of that group would constitute "persecution." According to the petitioner, she would have two options if she returned to Iran: comply with the Iranian laws or suffer severe consequences. [**27] Thus, while we agree with the petitioner that the indicated consequences of noncompliance would constitute persecution, we must still inquire whether her other option -- compliance -- would also constitute persecution.
. . . .
Here, while we assume for the sake of argument that requiring some women to wear chadors may be so abhorrent to them that it would be tantamount to persecution, this requirement clearly does not constitute persecution for all women. Presumably, there are devout Shi'ite women in Iran who find this requirement entirely appropriate. Presumably, there are other women in Iran who find it either inconvenient, irritating, mildly objectionable, or highly offensive, but for whom it falls short of constituting persecution. As we have previously noted, the petitioner's testimony in this case simply does not show that for her the requirement [**29] of wearing the chador or complying with Iran's other gender-specific laws would be so profoundly abhorrent that it could aptly be called persecution. Accordingly, we cannot hold that she is entitled to withholding of deportation or asylum based on her membership in a "particular social group."
. . . .
In conclusion, we hold, in light of the administrative record before us, that the petitioner did not establish that she was entitled to withholding of deportation or that she was eligible for asylum. We also hold that the BIA did not commit any reversible procedural error in its rejection of her claim for suspension of deportation. We therefore deny the petition for review.
68.236.25.139 00:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Have a verifiable link please? Cant get one. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 01:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a link? Im going off of this:
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. [8]
Viper Daimao 01:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's online except on LexisNexis or Westlaw if you are a lawyer or law student subscriber. I encourage someone else with a subscription to look it up and post here to back me up. It's available in any law library at 12 F.3d 1233. I read that on SCOTUSblog too, so I was surprised as the next guy when I read the actual decision. What he did is leave open the possibility that other women on different facts could establish an asylum claim, but he denied this woman's claim because she merely found the dress requirements "offensive" and wasn't willing to die for her beliefs. I'll keep poking around for a link and let you know. Sorry I wasn't logged on when I posted originally. TheGoodReverend 01:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's not much, but here's one free source. [9] Search for "Fatin" in the text and you'll find a somewhat better (but still a little wrong) description of what the case held. TheGoodReverend 01:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
In addition I was sent a pdf of the text of the decision which I've uploaded here I havent read it all yet. Viper Daimao 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)We thought this decision would be of interest to SCOTUS-blog readers since it lays out Judge Alito's views on what a female plaintiff had to show to establish that she had a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of her gender.
I propose moving the comment by Judge Alito's mother to Wikiquote and removing the Media comments section altogether. Objections? Jokestress 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Mother's quote and Catholic quote are not relevant. They exist only because partisian snipers in the media elicited them for purposes of injecting bias into the Alito debate. Must we include EVERY quote the media elicits from someone? Certainly not and certainly not these. Including them does nothing but inject POV and controversy into the article. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 14:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why we have to remove the quotes just because wikimedia thinks it needs another project just for quotes. His mother's quote is certainly relevant, he has taken no hard line stance on abortion. His mother is certainly someone close to him, I think here opinions on his abortion views definitely deserve a presence in this article. - Greg Asche (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
There's been recent edits to describe the NIAF as partisan to one side or the other. The latest edit describes them as non-partisan. I think this is fair, in that they have support Italian Americans whether they are Republicans and Democrats. In a USNews.com article, political commentator Michael Barone said this about a NIAF meeting,
For many years I have attended events sponsored by the National Italian American Foundation, an organization established in the 1970s in large part to dispel the Mafia stereotype. NIAF has been proud to seat the director of the FBI at the head table as its annual dinner. It was proud that in 1984 the four Democratic and Republican nominees for president and vice president (including Geraldine Ferraro, remember) attended its dinner—the only time in American history, I believe, that four nominees attended a single event.
...
The audience there is, to judge from responses at the dinners I've attended, about half Republican and half Democratic. [10]
Viper Daimao 15:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I think comments about the NIAF or about Ciongoli belong in articles about the NIAF or Ciongoli. Comments by the NIAF about Alito belong in an article about Alito.
Let's not confuse Cionogli with the NIAF. The quote is in a PR put out by the entire orgainization. Stuff about Cionogli's contribution of less than $4,000 to Republican campaigns, or the employment of his son, are both marginal facts. Johntex\ talk 21:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I've found the text of the memo mathews is referring to. [12]. We should add the mathews comment back in and include this text or link with it. Viper Daimao 15:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The fact Chris Matthews comes from a liberal perspective as the once top aide to Tip O'Neill and a Jimmy Carter speechwriter is clearly relevant, given his criticism of the Democrats' ethnic crusade against Alitio/"Scalito." The fact Media Matters is a liberal blog of low esteem is also relevant. Their use pollutes Wikipedia as much as the use of NewsMax or RedState.Org would, but given your insistance on using them as a source I've relented. I only ask now they be identified as the liberal blog they are. Also agree with the comment below. The Democrats' tactic of filibustering judicial nominees (they are considering using the tactic yet again with Alito) is, in fact, anti-democratic. Calling them "Democratic" may be more than just POV, it may be inaccurate as well. -- DKorn 17:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Just a thought from a first-year law student -- it seems to me that the opinions selected to represent Alito's POV are intended to mitigate his reputation as a hard-core right-winger. If I didn't have to study for school I'd research it myself... Jessesamuel 17:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)jessesamuel
Regardless of what opinions are mentioned, they should be in the nominations article, not the Bio one. -- Paul 16:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
This section is copied verbatim from a Republican National Committee press release [1]. This in itself should prove what POV was intended by their inclusion. I am removing them and I expect that they will not be readded in the absence of a good-faith effort to write a useful section for the article. Eliot 18:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
There is no reason to remove these comments. They are verifyable comments made by notable persons at an importantt time in Alito's career.
I can't guess why they keep getting removed. It seems to be primarily being done by anonymous editors. Perhaps someone will explain their reasoning. Johntex\ talk 19:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I would say that they should probably be summarized, but the information should be kept—it is argued by supporters of Alito that he had bipartisan support in the past, and therefore that he is well qualified. Whether or not it is true that he's well qualified, it's verifiable that: 1) Democrats in the past said nice things about him; and 2) Alito's supporters in 2005 are bringing up those past nice things as evidence. Presenting them as a list without commentary is probably not the best presentation though, and we also probably don't need the full quotes—an excerpt such as "supporters cite Ted Kennedy's [year] comment that Alito had a 'very distinguished record'", or some such. -- Delirium 20:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
There's a lot of wholesale deleting going on all throughout this article. I can see deleting unsourced POV, but to delete sourced reality, links to factual statement (e.g. he was confirmed unanimously), quotes from Harry Reid and George Bush from today is just plain censorship. These are facts. If anyone has a problem with the facts, they should add other facts that provide perspective, not just go and delete all smug and whatnot-- Elliskev 20:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Is the last factoid "Born on April Fools Day and nominated on Halloween" really needed? His date of birth and date nominated to the Supreme Court are already in the article. No Account 21:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Saxe is currently listed under both First Amendment and Harassment and Discrimination. I realize it fits under both but it seems redundent to me. Which should we list it under? -- Benna 02:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
It seems redundant to me too. I'm not sure where it should go, though. I'd need to read the cases more carefully. Elliotreed 02:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
We should strive to balance the number of quotes from those opposing Alito and those supporting Alito in this section.
I ran a quick wordcount on this section. I see 254 words in opposition of Alito, 126 in support of Alito, and 68 neutral (Sen. Feinstein's comment.)
In addition, this section:
should either be given a source, or replaced. - Chardish 17:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there a source for this? -- Elliskev 22:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Anon 85.155.133.201 changed his degree from "A.B." to "B.A." I reverted it, because: 1) them Ivy Leaguish schools often do stuff like that, for reasons only known to themselves, and b) I found a couple of cites which lists his degree as an "A.B." See http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=MZZ22876 and http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=26, a .gov site which likely has some cred.-- RattBoy 17:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
A.B. is an abbreviation for the Latin form of the degree 'Bachelor of Arts'; this form is or was used by colleges (including the one I graduated from) who issue(d) their diplomas in Latin. As more colleges issue their diplomas in English one will find less and less use of the form 'A.B.'. Alloco1 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
In the article it says "supported limited abortion rights in 3 out of 4 rulings as described below.", but when you read the four points listed below, it appears only 1 of the 4 supports this stance. I did not research into the actual rulings, but it would seem that either the count is incorrect or the description of the rulings is inaccurate.
This is my first discussion submission so go easy on me. RyanAlbarelli 06:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
According to his military service records, Samuel Alito Sr. was born in New Jersey in 1914, not Italy. [3] Rillian 01:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
How many of the 12 Supreme Court cases that he argued, did he win? Merecat 07:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
This secion is clearly not neutral:
"The memory loss is not credible when it is known in 1985 Alito bragged in his job application, as a credential, his memebership in CAP."
1) It's not clear how listing an organization qualifies as "bragging" 2) It's not any sort of established fact that his memory loss did or did not happen
ShaneB 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
With the mix of numbered URL links and footnotes, the numbers are not correct in the notes section. Recommend this be changed to one or the other. -- Gadget850 18:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this section be integrated into the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination entry? Especially since it's on the main page; the link there leads to nothing about the hearings themselves.
-- bbsrock
Agree Most of the material in this article related to the confirmation process and controversies should be moved to the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination article. A paragraph should remain here summarizing. -- Paul 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone confirm the part about Alito having put the business about "warming a seat on the Supreme Court" in his yearbook? Other sources are reporting that this was written by a friend, about Alito. -- Charlie (Colorado) 00:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Would someone like to follow-up on this please? Thanks!
Why are Swift Boaters -- the folks who smeared John Kerry's war record in the 2004 election -- now trying to promote Alito's nomination by capitalizing on yesterday's bizarre incident?
We're referring to this release sent out yesterday by Creative Response Concepts, an Alexandria, Va., based PR firm with deep blood lines on the far right:
The always-alert Creative Response Concepts, a conservative public relations firm, sent this bulletin: "Former Alito clerk Gary Rubman witnessed Mrs. Alito leaving her husband's confirmation in tears and is available for interviews, along with other former Alito clerks who know her personally and are very upset about this development."
In case that was too much trouble for the journalists, the firm also e-mailed out a statement from the Judicial Confirmation Network calling "for the abuse to stop."
This post this summer from the citizen-journalists at ePluribus Media notes that the Judicial Confirmation Network is essentially an arm of Campaign Solutions, "the public-relations firm for Bush-Cheney '04, the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee." And the JCN had hired Creative Response Concepts as a key part of its team to aid John Roberts, now the Chief Justice, and Alito in their Senate confirmation battles. (JCN's leader, Gary Marx, used to work for Century Strategies, the firm of Ralph Reed, best pal of Jack Abramoff...small world, isn't it?)
More: http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002645.html
Feel free to update my link to Alito's Casey opinion, if you can find a more NPOV/verifiable source. Jpers36 05:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a neutrality dispute tag at the top of the article. Is it really necessary? Reading the talk page I don't see much that's disputed except a few items in the "Trivia" section, which doesn't sound to me like it merits a tag at the top of the page. Elliotreed 19:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I still haven't found any enumerated issues on this page aside from a dispute about the "trivia" section, nor an explanation of why the POV tag is there. I'm going to take it off. If someone thinks it should be there, please enumerate some issues here. Elliotreed 23:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
What is the dispute? If you can answer then reinsert the tag. Lotsofissues 10:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I hate to be too blunt, but this man's article would be nothing more than a stub if it wasn't for his Supreme Court nomination. Does anyone else think it would be appropriate to have a message linking to Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination at the top of the page? - Greg Asche (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Or something simialr?-- Elliskev 21:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
should his kid's name's be de-linked. they aren't notable and won't have an article on them. Kiwidude 05:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The Washington Post quote looks like unbalanced POV. Isn't whether he'll let his personal views color his judicial judgments one of the major points of contention in the nomination battle? -- Elliotreed 15:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Why is there a separate article for the nomination? It seems redundant to me. The Monster 13:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
If confirmed by the Senate, Alito would be the fifth Roman Catholic to serve on the current Supreme Court, creating the First Majority Catholic Supreme Court, joining two Jews and two Protestants. Together, Catholics (24% of the U.S. population) and Jews (2% of the population) would constitute 77% of the Supreme Court membership, leaving Protestants (whose denominations constitute a majority of the American population) with the smallest minority on the court in its history ( First Minority Protestant Supreme Court). There is no religious test to be a Supreme Court justice in the U.S.
Would it not be more accurate and fair to say, "It is expected there will be a major fight OVER his confirmation." (rather than "FOR his confirmation")
Saying, "Late night talk shows will find ways to ridicule him" isn't needed or useful. Late night shows make jokes about many public figures in the news, be they right wing extremists/neocons or otherwise. But if that stands we could also say, "Televangelists and right wing news channels will glorify him, hoping in turn to redeem the president's very low approval ratings (and to distract public attention from administration indictments, high fuel prices, the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, illegal immigration, outsourcing of jobs, the swelling national deficit and the costly, never-ending war in Iraq)." Which way do you want to go?
I had no Idea this infromation source was so liberal. To bad
I looked up the "scalito" nickname in Lexis and this is not a "new" nickname. In The National Law Journal, December 7, 1992, the article says "It's a trait that has led some to nickname him "Scalito," after the acerbic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia".
Is "since the nomination" appropriate? It makes it sound as though this criticism is a new (and presumably cynical) invention. I heard this criticism months before the nomination.
Just for reference. mmmbeer T / C / ? 14:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Added the criticism of the nickname, with source. Since it happened, it seems an appropriate addition to the article. ---Anon.
Catholic, born in New Jersey and being nicknamed "Scalito": any Italian-American roots ?
Anyway, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., the A.:Adriano, Alphonso, Alberto, Antonino (like Scalia), Antonio, Agostino or Apollo ??? 15.00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
During the nomination speech, Bush talked about his father being an Italian immigrant, so yes, definitely. His mother, 91 years old, is named Rose, but that's about all I know about her. He is at least half-Italian. -- Trnpkroadwarrior 16:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), we use "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". I'm moving the article from "Samuel A. Alito, Jr." to simply "Samuel Alito" (that's what CNN is using). Coffee 17:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a reference to prove that, "His two younger brothers also serve as judges in the Third Court of Appeals." I can't and the article about the thrid court of appeals wasn't helpful. ~Some fake info has been slipped into this article before. Broken S
No others with that last name listed on official site. [5] I'll remove it for now. Jokestress 19:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Why are all the words in the statements by the Democratic senators capitalized? 68.77.59.61 18:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)See Easy
There are a very large selection of Alito opinions. How are we going to make this information reasonable and consumable. Certainly we can't add all of them. Indeed, there are even too many "juicy" opinions. What do you guys think? mmmbeer T / C / ? 21:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm new to this but doesn't listing Controversial Views imply a POV? A brief look at the entries for the sitting justices didn't turn up many (any?) sections like this. Should these rather be re-worded from a NPOV so that they can be included in the cases section? SamR 71.57.12.99 23:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I think Elliotreed's edits creates an informational bias in the article as many of them removed the majority opinions overruling him. I think this information belongs in as well as Elliot's revisions
This looks suspicious. The way it's worded it sounds like it could be a really big deal, but you'd think something this big would be all over the news by now, and I haven't found secondary backup other than the Washington Post article anywhere. The case in question appears to be Monga v. Ottenberg, 43 Fed. Appx. 523 (3d. Cir. 2002), and the Vanguard Group is only one of at least eleven defendants. Elliotreed 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Alito is Seen as a Methodical Jurist with a Clear Record, New York Times, November 1, 2005. The article contains a lot of details about his early life and career; not just political interpretation. Postdlf 15:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I am restoring the summary of ACLU v. Schundler. I think it is a fair summary of what was novel in the case as opposed to upholding past runings. . If people disagree after reading the case, please discuss it here or edit the summary. The existing article on the case is a stub that needs work. I added the intro from the decision -- agr 17:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Does this belong here? I know it was taken out earlier and now I see back in, so I thought I was start a discussion here on the talk page. Viper Daimao 20:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It should go.-- Elliskev 21:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Mocking trash. Delete it. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The Alito opinion in Fatin is being widely reported as allowing an Iranian woman's asylum claim. This is exactly the opposite of what the case did--it rejected her claim for suspension of deportation. Check out 12 F.3d 1233:
The "particular social group" that her testimony places her within is, instead, the presumably larger group consisting of Iranian women who find their country's gender-specific laws offensive and do not wish to comply with them. But if the petitioner's "particular social group" is defined in this way, she cannot prevail because the administrative record does not satisfy the third element [*1242] described above, i.e., it does not show that the consequences that would befall her as a member of that group would constitute "persecution." According to the petitioner, she would have two options if she returned to Iran: comply with the Iranian laws or suffer severe consequences. [**27] Thus, while we agree with the petitioner that the indicated consequences of noncompliance would constitute persecution, we must still inquire whether her other option -- compliance -- would also constitute persecution.
. . . .
Here, while we assume for the sake of argument that requiring some women to wear chadors may be so abhorrent to them that it would be tantamount to persecution, this requirement clearly does not constitute persecution for all women. Presumably, there are devout Shi'ite women in Iran who find this requirement entirely appropriate. Presumably, there are other women in Iran who find it either inconvenient, irritating, mildly objectionable, or highly offensive, but for whom it falls short of constituting persecution. As we have previously noted, the petitioner's testimony in this case simply does not show that for her the requirement [**29] of wearing the chador or complying with Iran's other gender-specific laws would be so profoundly abhorrent that it could aptly be called persecution. Accordingly, we cannot hold that she is entitled to withholding of deportation or asylum based on her membership in a "particular social group."
. . . .
In conclusion, we hold, in light of the administrative record before us, that the petitioner did not establish that she was entitled to withholding of deportation or that she was eligible for asylum. We also hold that the BIA did not commit any reversible procedural error in its rejection of her claim for suspension of deportation. We therefore deny the petition for review.
68.236.25.139 00:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Have a verifiable link please? Cant get one. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 01:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a link? Im going off of this:
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. [8]
Viper Daimao 01:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's online except on LexisNexis or Westlaw if you are a lawyer or law student subscriber. I encourage someone else with a subscription to look it up and post here to back me up. It's available in any law library at 12 F.3d 1233. I read that on SCOTUSblog too, so I was surprised as the next guy when I read the actual decision. What he did is leave open the possibility that other women on different facts could establish an asylum claim, but he denied this woman's claim because she merely found the dress requirements "offensive" and wasn't willing to die for her beliefs. I'll keep poking around for a link and let you know. Sorry I wasn't logged on when I posted originally. TheGoodReverend 01:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's not much, but here's one free source. [9] Search for "Fatin" in the text and you'll find a somewhat better (but still a little wrong) description of what the case held. TheGoodReverend 01:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
In addition I was sent a pdf of the text of the decision which I've uploaded here I havent read it all yet. Viper Daimao 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)We thought this decision would be of interest to SCOTUS-blog readers since it lays out Judge Alito's views on what a female plaintiff had to show to establish that she had a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of her gender.
I propose moving the comment by Judge Alito's mother to Wikiquote and removing the Media comments section altogether. Objections? Jokestress 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Mother's quote and Catholic quote are not relevant. They exist only because partisian snipers in the media elicited them for purposes of injecting bias into the Alito debate. Must we include EVERY quote the media elicits from someone? Certainly not and certainly not these. Including them does nothing but inject POV and controversy into the article. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 14:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why we have to remove the quotes just because wikimedia thinks it needs another project just for quotes. His mother's quote is certainly relevant, he has taken no hard line stance on abortion. His mother is certainly someone close to him, I think here opinions on his abortion views definitely deserve a presence in this article. - Greg Asche (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
There's been recent edits to describe the NIAF as partisan to one side or the other. The latest edit describes them as non-partisan. I think this is fair, in that they have support Italian Americans whether they are Republicans and Democrats. In a USNews.com article, political commentator Michael Barone said this about a NIAF meeting,
For many years I have attended events sponsored by the National Italian American Foundation, an organization established in the 1970s in large part to dispel the Mafia stereotype. NIAF has been proud to seat the director of the FBI at the head table as its annual dinner. It was proud that in 1984 the four Democratic and Republican nominees for president and vice president (including Geraldine Ferraro, remember) attended its dinner—the only time in American history, I believe, that four nominees attended a single event.
...
The audience there is, to judge from responses at the dinners I've attended, about half Republican and half Democratic. [10]
Viper Daimao 15:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I think comments about the NIAF or about Ciongoli belong in articles about the NIAF or Ciongoli. Comments by the NIAF about Alito belong in an article about Alito.
Let's not confuse Cionogli with the NIAF. The quote is in a PR put out by the entire orgainization. Stuff about Cionogli's contribution of less than $4,000 to Republican campaigns, or the employment of his son, are both marginal facts. Johntex\ talk 21:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I've found the text of the memo mathews is referring to. [12]. We should add the mathews comment back in and include this text or link with it. Viper Daimao 15:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The fact Chris Matthews comes from a liberal perspective as the once top aide to Tip O'Neill and a Jimmy Carter speechwriter is clearly relevant, given his criticism of the Democrats' ethnic crusade against Alitio/"Scalito." The fact Media Matters is a liberal blog of low esteem is also relevant. Their use pollutes Wikipedia as much as the use of NewsMax or RedState.Org would, but given your insistance on using them as a source I've relented. I only ask now they be identified as the liberal blog they are. Also agree with the comment below. The Democrats' tactic of filibustering judicial nominees (they are considering using the tactic yet again with Alito) is, in fact, anti-democratic. Calling them "Democratic" may be more than just POV, it may be inaccurate as well. -- DKorn 17:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)