![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Samuel Alito/Archive 2 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Hello, this is a reminder that it is Wikipedia policy to sign your post on discussion page. Please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, Johntex\ talk 17:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Recently the change was made from "LexisNexis reports that Alito has written more than 700 opinions," to 400 opinions. Do we know which is correct? 68.50.103.212 04:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Some feel the need to deny opponents of Alito fear his view of the Unitary Executive theory. Clearly they deny that critics base their interpretation of his view on his documented statements on the matter. Please, explain how this is incorrect before deleting that explanation. Of course I will supply extra sources if that is the problem. Second I would like to remind editors of the 3RR rule.-- Nomen Nescio 05:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not say their view represents his view. It merely states that it is based upon what Alito has said in the past and what they fear it might mean. Whether their interpretation is correct, in asserting what it does, is an entirely different matter, as you well know. However, to claim opponents are telling the truth would have to be substantiated with evidence, as you rightly stated, therefore you have not seen me doing that.-- Nomen Nescio 05:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Have added more sources, hope this will convince you they are concerned based upon his record. Nevertheless, will change known to perceived, and this to previous (later edit).-- Nomen Nescio 06:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Some editors feel the need to withhold an explanation on the criticism from the casual reader. This of course must be warranted since:
These sources are all strongly POV (PFAW, blog postings, editorials) and shed no light the meaning of the Unitary Executive theory or the current controversy. An encyclopedia is not a vehicle for collecting any unqualifed opinion that may make a rhetorical point. Nor is an encyclopedia a place for making rhetorical points. Nor does piling on more blog postings make them any better of a "source." In addition to all of the bogus "sources", this sentence
But, in effect, support the interpretation of the Bush administration that as Commander-in-Chief President Bush can not be restrained by any law, national or international.
is strongly POV and misrepresents both the position of the Bush administration and the position of serious advocates of the Unitary Executive theory. It is neither a serious argument, nor a serious conclusion. It is akin to arguing that supporters of Roe v. Wade are "baby killers." This paragraph needs to be modified to concisely state the controvery over the Unitary Executive theory using real experts and not overheated rhetoric. Perhaps there are quotes from the Senate debate that could be used to state the opposing view? -- Paul 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Please, be civil and discuss. Should that not be possible, and this wanton censorship continues, without even an attempt of finding compromise I will ask for an admin to intervene.-- Nomen Nescio 01:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for discussing the matter. You must have noted my contribution is not an unsupported POV attack. If you read the sources (The Guardian, Chicago Tribune, legal experts, et cetera) it must be evident this is an analysis based upon his statements. You might disagree, but how is inserting such an analysis by legal scholars and newspapers POV. I stress, my addition nowhere states these are his views. It merely says opponents fear this is his view! Please explain why discussing criticism on his perceivede view of the unitary executive is not allowed. Since it is well sourced, and not attack but analysis I will insist on this unless you can explain how that is POV.
BTW, had you read the sources you would have found they advance exactly what you are asking: "I would welcome an appropriate quote from an opposing Senator."
I have asked for a third opinion to decide whether this censorship is warranted. Clearly reverting is easier than addressing the views based upon what legal experts say. None of the reverting editors have explained why newspapers can not be used, or why legal analysts can not be used. Since this is a violation of NPOV I will ask an admin to interven.-- Nomen Nescio 02:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Since a well sourced addition explaining criticism is denied, and no serious debate is possible, I have asked for comment by others.
The problem seems to be the following edit:
The following objections have been raised: 1 The sources are claimed to be POV, although it is not explained why, or even what sources are allowed ( FOX News?) and who gets to decide, 2 This analysis of Alito's possible views is called POV, although it is not explained why discussing criticism is not allowed.
Sincerely-- Nomen Nescio 03:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously I understand what you are saying, so repeating the previous explanation still does not answer these little inconsistencies:
1 How can criticism be NPOV? It is a contradictio in terminis, or oxymoron if you like. The raison d'etre of criticism is another POV. So, to demand criticism to be NPOV is an impossible and ludicrous request.
2 As I understand it the article must remain NPOV, but within different controversial topics POV's can be and should be discussed. They should be identified as such and that is exactly what I have done.
3 When discussing criticism it seems odd to dismiss legal analysis on the subject merely because it contradicts your personal believes. Having read the sources you must have noticed several professors of law, and dismissing their contribution as POV is not only POV in itself, it is proof of ignorance. Leagal analysis is legal analysis, and as such can not be disallowed on the grounds of you disagreeing with its conclusion. Or, can such analysis only be used when the professor explains it in a seminar at university?
4 When claiming sources are POV you are misstating wikipedia policy and also misrepresenting the facts. As it is, several newspaper articles presenting the facts, are dismissed also. This can only mean that disallowing the sources is based upon refusing dissenting views. As to the editorials, I was not aware they can not be used as source. Please show me where wikipedia policiy forbids the use of editorials.
Thanks for responding, sincerely -- Nomen Nescio 22:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to all for their contribution to the debate. It is clear to me that the following can be concluded:
1 Discussion of criticism is allowed, as long as it is identified as such, 2
editorials
can be used as source to substantiate such an evaluation of Alito's ideas. Based on the suggestions by other Wikipedians we can savely say that all of the objections have been addressed, and none are in accordance with
WP:NPOV. Now it has been established my edit does not violate
wikipedia policy I will again insert the original comment. I will slightly alter it to make sure there can be no doubt it is not Alito's view. Sincerely --
Nomen Nescio
00:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless opponents of Alito have expressed their fear he will not uphold the separation of powers as intended by the Constitution. [25] They believe he will support the Bush administration in its interpretation of the Unitary Executive, which they claim is that as Commander-in-Chief the President can not be restrained by law, national or international.==Requests for comment==
Since a well sourced addition explaining criticism is denied, and no serious debate is possible, I have asked for comment by others.
The problem seems to be the following edit:
The following objections have been raised: 1 The sources are claimed to be POV, although it is not explained why, or even what sources are allowed ( FOX News?) and who gets to decide, 2 This analysis of Alito's possible views is called POV, although it is not explained why discussing criticism is not allowed.
Sincerely-- Nomen Nescio 03:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously I understand what you are saying, so repeating the previous explanation still does not answer these little inconsistencies:
1 How can criticism be NPOV? It is a contradictio in terminis, or oxymoron if you like. The raison d'etre of criticism is another POV. So, to demand criticism to be NPOV is an impossible and ludicrous request.
2 As I understand it the article must remain NPOV, but within different controversial topics POV's can be and should be discussed. They should be identified as such and that is exactly what I have done.
3 When discussing criticism it seems odd to dismiss legal analysis on the subject merely because it contradicts your personal believes. Having read the sources you must have noticed several professors of law, and dismissing their contribution as POV is not only POV in itself, it is proof of ignorance. Leagal analysis is legal analysis, and as such can not be disallowed on the grounds of you disagreeing with its conclusion. Or, can such analysis only be used when the professor explains it in a seminar at university?
4 When claiming sources are POV you are misstating wikipedia policy and also misrepresenting the facts. As it is, several newspaper articles presenting the facts, are dismissed also. This can only mean that disallowing the sources is based upon refusing dissenting views. As to the editorials, I was not aware they can not be used as source. Please show me where wikipedia policiy forbids the use of editorials.
Thanks for responding, sincerely -- Nomen Nescio 22:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to all for their contribution to the debate. It is clear to me that the following can be concluded:
1 Discussion of criticism is allowed, as long as it is identified as such, 2
editorials
can be used as source to substantiate such an evaluation of Alito's ideas. Based on the suggestions by other Wikipedians we can savely say that all of the objections have been addressed, and none are in accordance with
WP:NPOV. Now it has been established my edit does not violate
wikipedia policy I will again insert the original comment. I will slightly alter it to make sure there can be no doubt it is not Alito's view. Sincerely --
Nomen Nescio
00:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to your response. -- Paul 18:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)However, opponents of the Alito nomination remain concerned that Alito believes in extensive Presidental powers and would defer to Presidential authority in separation of powers disputes. [50]
Some quotes:
On his record:
Alito's record reveals that he "has been extraordinarily deferential to the exercise of government power, especially executive branch power, except in cases involving alleged infringements on religious expression," according to the AFJ. His "judicial record strongly suggests that he will ... interpret the Constitution as giving the president greater authority to evade Congressional statutes and constitutional limitations whenever deemed essential to national security." [51] He has supported the fringe "unitary executive" theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution. [52] Judge Alito backed away from one of his most extreme statements in this area - his assertion, in a 1985 job application, that he believed "very strongly" in "the supremacy of the elected branches of government." But he left a disturbing impression that as a justice, he would undermine the Supreme Court's critical role in putting a check on presidential excesses. [53]
Stance towards Presidential powers:
However, Bush's recent actions make it clear that he interprets the coordinate construction approach extremely aggressively. In his view, and the view of his Administration, that doctrine gives him license to overrule and bypass Congress or the courts, based on his own interpretations of the Constitution -- even where that violates long-established laws and treaties, counters recent legislation that he has himself signed, ........ [54] “I have carefully read the writings, the speeches and the decisions of Samuel Alito in [the area of executive power], and they all point in one direction: a very troubling pattern of great deference to executive authority,” Chemerinsky said in his testimony. [55] Alito apparently believes that a president may decide by executive fiat what law is or is not constitutional, and whether he is bound by the rule of law. Alito's willingness to elevate the president to an exalted status above the law is truly frightening to hear from a Supreme Court nominee. This view harkens back to the divine right of kings (the king is accountable to no one but God), which was forever rejected by our American Revolution. Alito is clearly signaling that if he serves on the Supreme Court, he will serve as a rubber stamp for the exercise of unchecked executive power. [56] Whatever else Alito may or may not have made clear about his views on such issues as abortion, federalism and religious freedom, he has certainly made clear that he has no interest in restraining the acts of this commander in chief. [57]
IMHO, this substantiates my version. Sincerely--
Nomen Nescio
18:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Additional comment: I think that the two of you might want to cool off a bit, because some of this verges on hair-splitting. I will make a couple of observations: the citing of editorials to illustrate the controversy over Alito is completely legitimate, provided there is no Wikipedian commentary about what the editorials imply. When in doubt, find a succinct quote which summarizes the point of view (by the same token, editors should be careful not to draw inferences about Alito's views either, and when in doubt, quote.) Paul, I don't think you have any basis for objecting to this. No matter how wrong an editorial may be, it is still a legitimate source when discussing the controversy that surrounds Alito. The only constraint would be that the article space allotted to the citations should be just enough to illustrate the point, and no more.
Also, Paul wrote the following: "This implies that the Bush administration claims that the President can not be restrained by law which is, to my knowledge, is not somethat that the administration has ever claimed. You need a reference to suppport this, or it must be removed." In this interview, conducted yesterday with Bob Schieffer of CBS, Bush seems to come very close to saying precisely that. I say "seems," because Bush is very inarticulate in the interview and there is a lot of ambiguity which I attribute to fuzzy thinking on his part. There probably is no quotable quote there, of the kind that you request, but stay tuned; if Bush keeps talking, one may emerge. -- HK 23:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
In the section about the nomination to the Supreme Court, the sentence following the ABA rating, beginning with " However", has a negative connotation regarding the appropriate application, if any, of the ABA rating. Juansmith 09:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This article does not document a current event, but is updated quite frequently. Suggestions?
Why is there no mention of the court cases for Chinese seeking ayslum. The ones im talking about are specifically Chen v. Ashcroft, Liu v. Ashcroft, and Zhang v. Gonzales.
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)
"The executive committee of CAP published a statement in December 1973 that affirmed unequivocally, "Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy." A 1983 essay in CAP's magazine Prospect, entitled "In Defense of Elitism", explained: "Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children." By 1985, thirteen years after his Princeton graduation, Altio continued to tout his membership in the conservative group while readying his job application for the Reagan Administration. [3]"
Anyone agree that article found in the magazine of a group he belonged to should be taken out? I think it is misleading, creates the impression that was his view, but he was many layers removed from the article. Lotsofissues 10:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
From this article, I get a biased view. For example, under abortion, it only shows places where he supported abortion rights. I read in the newspaper that he didn't support Roe vs. Wade when he applied for a position with Reagan's adminisration. Fireworld2406 00:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Its definitely both scrubbed and biased. You could take this article in its entirity from Republiican talking points. I attempted to add Alio's own statements from his Reagan admin application and got a message to the effect that there are POV policies. Sea level 00:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia knows it cannot get away with the typical liberal slant of most of its articles when lots of folks are likely to see the article (such am article about a topic implicated in current news events). Therefore this article is actually balanced. Thats why you find it so odd - you are just used to seeing ridiculously leftist editing that you encounter in most wiipedia articles. (unsigned)
I'd lock this page up 'cause a shit storm may be comming.
I agree the recent edits on this page have been very argument. I would suggest a revert to a Jan 28 version and block edits till a couple of weeks after confirmation. Wholmestu 05:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to seek commment before making any drastic changes due to the high profile-ness of this article. Assawyer 19:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the "Case history" section should be removed. A lot of what's in that section is already in the counterpart section of the article "Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination". What's not already in that section can simply be transferred there. Now concerning the section titled "Issues raised in confirmation hearings", I, for one, think that section should stay for now. User 71.96.165.158 12:21 AM, 1 February 2006 (CST)
well, he was just confirmed this afternoon. shouldn't this still be said as a current event? The pointer outer 23:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Assawyer, or whatever his name is, deleted my comment (the little dickins). Anyways, I think the article makes Alito (figurativly) like a saint. This is MY oppinion, so dont get your panties in a bunch. Son Goku22
I say no, and I have my reasons, but I would like to hear others opinions and their arguments to back them up. Son Goku22
Bush has been elected twice by the people to serve as President (and the people knew that the President select justices, and Bush repeatedly stated that he would select justices like Scalia and THomas. THe people have gotten what they asked for! And the polls showed that most people supported Alito's confirmation. People who deny this are barking moonbats.
There's some good stuff in this article. But it doesn't flow very well. For example, we have a long list of cases the man heard on the bench. Yes, this was much talked about in the confirmation hearings, but I wonder how relevant these cases are individually or in the aggregate. Another flow problem comes under the "Career" heading where we jump from prose to a resume format. This would look so much better as prose rather than a list. I salute those who have been working hard on this article (I have not) and just wanted to offer a few thoughts from someone who hadn't read this before. PedanticallySpeaking 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday the Main Page said he was the 110th AJ, today it says 96th, any explanation for this? Sherurcij ( talk) ( Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
While Yahoo! news [65] and various other news outlets have reported that Alito voted in favor of the stay, the Order listed on the Supreme Court website seems to contradict those reports. The order is on the second page of http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/020106pzr.pdf. The order states:
(ORDER LIST: 546 U.S.) 05-8919 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2006 CERTIORARI DENIED (O5A694) TAYLOR, MICHAEL A. V. CRAWFORD, DIR., MO DOC, ET AL. The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this application and this petition.
There could be more than one vote, but once they have denied the stay and cert. it would be over for Taylor.
If you keep scrolling down the order list, you'll see that there was indeed more than one vote. The first claim was about a racial issue (I think) which the court unanimously rejected. The 6-3 split came on a variation of the "is lethal injection by a particular method cruel and unusual punishment" question, on which the court recently took another case from Florida. That was the grounds on which the 8th circuit had originally granted the stay, which the Supreme Court sustained. Jlp858 08:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, this is a reminder that it is Wikipedia policy to sign your post on discussion page. Please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, Johntex\ talk 17:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't the confirmation vote record be on the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination page? Jpers36 16:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree none of the other SCOTUS Justice pages have this level of detail. -- Paul 16:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
None of the othe SCOTUS judges have been so strongly opposed by half the Senate. 69.164.66.203
Agree -- remove that info from this page - uneccesary duplication of info found at Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination Johntex\ talk 23:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Mild Dissagree - We should keep it on, and add the other votes to the other Justice's pages. Wiki eZach 21:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Mildly Disagree about Mild Dissagree Who is going to go back and research the voting for the other 110 Justices? (Hint, this can't be done using the Internet). And, what possible use would such information be? -- Paul 23:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying we should start now, as well as complete the votes for the other eight standing justices, not all 110! Wiki eZach 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The article says that he is the 96th assoc. justice. That seems correct (110 justices - chief justices who weren't promoted), but we need a ref. Can anyone find one? Broken Segue 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I can get one in about a minute (i work at cnn!) Wiki eZach 23:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Not that good but here: [66]
Regarding these recent changes:
Before:
By joining the court mid-tern, Alito has not heard arguments for many cases which have yet to be decided. If there is a deadlock in pending cases, Alito may be asked to break the tie, and the cases would be reheard in the fall term. Alternatively, the tie could stand, and the decision of the court below would be affirmed, without creating precedent.
After:
By joining the court mid-term, Alito has not heard arguments for many cases which have yet to be decided. If there is a deadlock in pending cases, Alito may be asked to break the tie, the court could rehear the cases in the fall term, or the tie could stand and the decision of the court below would be affirmed.
This does tighten things up, but it also changes the meaning. I'm not sure that Alito can vote on a case which was argued while he was not a member of the court? Although I haven't found a reference yet, my understanding is that he has to hear the arguments before he can vote on a case. Thus, if Alito is asked to break the tie, the case must be reheard. -- Paul 20:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I still think it is slightly inaccurate. For one, I don't believe the court can force a rehearing on its own motion. What would have to happen is that the court announces their decision of a tie, which means the lower court's decision is affirmed. Then the losing party would move for a rehearing, which the court could grant and then Alito would be able to be involved in that hearing and the decision of the court. An even-split court's decision is not all that much of a rarity, it happens more often in the case where one justice will recuse themselves from the case, and the same rules apply. Of course, all of these "rules" are set by the court itself and could be changed by the court unless that change really upset Congress, but Congress usually lets the court handle its internal workings. Peyna 20:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone find a better picture of Justice Alito than the one at the top of his biography page? Maybe an offical portait as Chief Justice Roberts and the other assoc. justices have on their bio. pages?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060303/ids_photos_ts/r1145697098.jpg this is as close to a official scotus picture as possible thus far, should post it.
I added the official Alito photo that came out today. It has a nice "old school" feel to it. Compare to the one from the
Harry Blackmun article. Nice.
<<Coburn_Pharr>>
06:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
i'm not going to POV tag the whole page at this point, but this does *NOT* feel like a balanced page. it looks like it was intentionally written to hide the controversy over alito. if you had no idea who he was, you would *NOT* get a clear idea of how controversial he is or how conservative he is. there is no "controversy" section at all, as is usual for controversial topics, and in his section on his supreme court career, far more space is devoted to discussions of how he's "not like scalia", when an examination of his voting record would surely show for more votes with scalia than against him. i POV tagged the section for this reason. it also has questionable statements like "... hints at Alito's respectful attitude toward precedent", which sounds like press-release fodder.
nb the article contains an error; hamdan v. rumsfeld was voted 5-3, not 5-4, as roberts did not vote.
Benwing 20:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The Alito nomination page has a lot about the controversy. Actually, I think the nomination page, or the nomination and confirmation hearing sections of this page, are appropriate places to discuss the controversy. So far, Alito hasn't been on the Court long enough to generate significant Supreme Court-related controversy.
The Supreme Court section talks about how he votes fairly conservatively, with notes on how he created a 5-4 conservative majority in the three reargued cases, as well as his votes with the conservatives in Hamdan and Rapanos. That's five of the major cases, in the mere half Term he's been on the Court. That can probably be beefed up, but since so many of the cases are either unanimous (or nearly so) or split along not-quite-left-right lines, it couldn't be beefed up that much using only cases from the last half-Term. There's only one example of how he's voted non-conservatively. And the non-Scalia/Thomas examples are in there because of, e.g., the "Scalito" nickname; that section isn't even trying to show Alito's non-conservatism, as those examples are cases where Alito (despite disagreeing with Scalia/Thomas) nonetheless voted conservatively.
As for his attitude toward precedent, perhaps "respectful" isn't an ideal word, but one does talk in legal circles about "respecting" precedent. Not everyone agrees that one ought to respect precedent, so saying that someone "respects" precedent isn't even an inherently complimentary statement. But how Alito feels about precedent is an important issue, and his Randall v. Sorrell concurrence is an important indicator about that.
The Hamdan vote has been corrected. Chaucer1387 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Alito is controversial in the least. It was the Alito nomination and the Senate hearings that were controverisal. User:Chaucer1387 has it right, that controversy is adequately covered in the Alito nomination article. Inserting that controvery here, it seems to me, would be inserting a POV into what is now a pretty good article. -- Paul 19:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You "don't think Alito is controversial in the least"??? Really?
The fact that a justice's nomination was highly controversial makes the justice's presence controversial, simple as that.
Chaucer1387, here's what I'd like to see:
Benwing 05:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
On your first point: The ABA bit is in the "nomination" section, where it belongs. As for the controversy of the nomination, maybe that's adequately covered in the "nomination" section, maybe not. I didn't even read the nomination section until just now, to find where the ABA fact was. I still haven't read the main article on "Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination," nor have I read the portion of this article about the confirmation hearings, as those sections hold little interest for me. That controversy stuff belongs there.
While Alito remains "controversial" in a sense, that's merely because he's a conservative and votes conservatively. The proper way to cover this is to show, using opinions and other available sources, (1) that he's a conservative, (2) to what extent he's a conservative, (3) and what kind of conservative he is. That's the theory behind the three subsections of the "U.S. Supreme Court career" section. First, show several cases where he voted conservatively. I've listed five (and I've just added a couple). Second, show where he hasn't voted with the conservatives. I've listed one that I'm aware of. Third -- and this goes to your third point -- show how he's differed from other conservatives. To that end, I've listed three cases where he's differed with Scalia or Thomas. This third part involves fewer cases than the first part, but it does take up more space on the page because these are harder-to-explain distinctions. (With the addition of cases in the first section, this third section should seem smaller by comparison. Also, I've further clarified that in one of those not-Scalia cases, it was Alito who was more conservative and Scalia who was voting with the liberals.)
Incidentally, the Harvard Law Review publishes a statistical analysis of the Supreme Court Term in their November issue each year. That's the standard source for numbers of the form "how often one Justice voted together with another." I look forward to reading it in November, and incorporating the relevant statistics then.
On your third point: Obviously, everyone cares what Alito thinks about precedent, because the elephant in the room is Roe v. Wade, and these days, debates about Roe are carried on by debating whether Roe is a firmly established precedent and whether such precedents should be respected purely for their precedential value. (The term "respected" here is a neutral term. It shouldn't be read as anything positive; I myself think respecting a precedent that you believe to be wrong is highly overrated. In any case, following a precedent is just called "respecting" it.) So far, he hasn't faced an abortion-like case, so there's nothing to say about that. The one hint he's given about his attitude toward precedent is that separate opinion in Randall v. Sorrell. So this is very important!
While of course it's better to have statistics, it's too early in his career to know this, and I think the word "hints" adequately hedges. But since I think it's the word "respectful" that mainly bugs you, I'll change "hints at Alito's respectful attitude toward precedent" to "may give some hint as to Alito's attitude toward folllowing precedent." It's the same thing. Chaucer1387 01:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
User Benwing states that "Alito's presence in the court is controversial for democrats." IMHO, that's a Catch-22, because Breyer's and Ginsburg's presence in the court is equally controversial for Republicans. So by that argument, every Supreme Court Justice page will have to have some sort of "controversy" section. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 13:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of the debate immediately above, I've taken a look at the nomination and confirmation sections of this article. First, I've merged them into one section, because the "Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination" article covers both the nomination and the confirmation hearings. I've also deleted the Wikinews item, since this is now 7 months old. Second -- and I won't do anything about this without input from you guys -- I suggest that the section be shortened a bit: If someone is interested in the unsuccessful filibuster attempt, the 72-25 cloture vote, or the identity of the senators voting against him, can't they look up the longer nomination article? Chaucer1387 01:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I think we should also shorten his supreme court career section. I don't find it too convinient to have an analysis of so many cases. He is the junior jsutice and yet his supreme court career section is the longest of any justice, except scalia. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 13:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I started 2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Samuel Alito (and similar lists for all other present justices) so there is another place to go into a more detailed summary (aside from individual case articles) of his opinions, rather than trying to cram too much info in his biographical article. Please note the template I added at the bottom of this article has links to the as-yet unwritten lists for each year of his Third Circuit career as well, so those decisions can be documented too. Postdlf 00:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some that think that Mr. Alito is a Sephardi Jew, his family only converting to Catholicism recently. I've added a "source needed" badge for info on his heritage. Thank you. -- 172.128.32.189 09:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I am new to this, but I agree with others that this article does not properly address the controversial nature of Alito. The appointment/confirmation part on the ABA makes it sound as if this was just another appointment. He is one of three Supreme Court nominations to be opposed by the ACLU in its entire history. He is the definition of controversial appointment/justice. While this is addressed more thoroughly in the article on his appointment this is also important to this article. All supporters and opponents should not be listed in this article, but his controversial nature should be made clear. For this reason I added something on the ACLU because the ACLU opposition underlines just how controversial his nomination was. The introduction of the article writes that “He is regarded as a generally conservative jurist.” This simply does not describe his controversial nature. Many democrats would characterize him as a radical ultraconservative along the lines of Robert Bork. This widely held opinion should be addressed in the article. -- Wikipediatoperfection 2:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
An example of his wily use of logic: The death penalty is constitutional, it follows that there exists a constitutional means of carrying out the death penalty. And again: the AMA affirms that participation of medical personnel in administering the death penalty is unethical, therefore it is unfeasible to find a better method than the present 3-dose protocol (since the doctors will not cooperate), therefore the present method is constitutional. (See what he did there?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 ( talk) 12:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed in the first paragraph Justice Alito is labled as an Italian American Which is incorrect in two ways. Firstly His Honor was born in New Jersey so he is an American not an Italian Immigrant. Secondly the only persons who truly hold the title of Italian-Americans are those who hold dual citizenship, all others are either Americans or Italians. I believe this also applies to any such title, Afriacn-American for example.
“A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group has yet to become an American, and the man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is not worthy to live under the Stars and Stripes.”
Woodrow Wilson May 1915
DarinBlack 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I am going to change the line "He is regarded as a generally conservative jurist." to "He is a conservative jurist, who since becoming a member of the Supreme Court has consistently voted with the conservative members of the court." I think the original sentence should be changed as his conservative nature has never been in question because it is agreed upon by both supporters and opponents. As he has had a conservative record since joining the court I think this sentence is appropriate. Wikipediatoperfection 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any justification for the assertion in the lead that he has a "libertarian streak"-- the word libertarian only is mentioned twice in the article, and being a member of a society that some libertarians are members of doesn't mean you have a "libertarian streak." Especially with being in the intro, this is going to need a cite. The ACLU opposed his nomination on grounds that he would give the government too much power; that's not really a libertarian point of view or the way a libertarian judge would rule.-- 76.182.88.254 07:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The Cato Institute says that he has a libertarian streak so I suppose I'll put that information back in. The ACLU probably just opposed him because he is considered to be conservative.-- Gloriamarie ( talk) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent edit of this article -- not that I'm sure that the data are necessarily "wrong." Rather, I'm persuaded that the strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is an unhelpful approach to this specific subject. I note that articles about other sitting Justices have been similarly "enhanced;" and I also believe those changes are no improvement.
In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, I would invite anyone to re-visit articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.
Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.
Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.
At a minimum, I'm questioning this edit? It deserves to be reconsidered. -- Ooperhoofd ( talk) 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
These are two different numbers. One could reasonably infer that there are a whole lot of Catholics on the present court. If I wanted to make a guess, and was in a forum that I could argue a position without the constraints on 'original research', it would be possible that the Catholicism of some or all of these appointees became material to the persons doing the appointments. One might even deduce that this has some planetary connection to Roe v Wade and its progeny (no pun intended). That Catholics are potentially overrepresented on the present court, at least compared to the numbers that were there historically, is a relevant and probative fact. This issue is best illuminated by leaving in the 5 and the 11. That's my opinion. FWIW. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 02:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Stan
A subpage at Samuel A. Alito Jr./fjc was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot ( talk) 12:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the following material is okay in the article, but excessive for the lead: "the second Italian American and the 12th Catholic in the history of the Supreme Court, and the fifth Catholic on the current Court at the time he assumed office." Putting it into the lead seems to be undue weight, and I'm not aware this is done for other justices. Ferrylodge ( talk) 17:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a blind redirect to this page from "Supreme court nominee" but there is another Justice stepping down. The blind redirect needs to be removed but I don't know how to do that. Please remove the redirect. 24.145.157.81 ( talk) 20:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
nothing about his family background or childhood? john k ( talk) 20:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The article also had some other structural problems. I've redone the sectioning, trying to make it more prosified and more chronological and to highlight his time as federal appellate judge without overwhelming the table of contents. I haven't added or subtracted any material, just rearranged it. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The inclusion of his head-shake and unknown comment at the address tonight is the most ridiculous use of Wikipedia space I've ever seen. I shook my head at George Bush, will someone please note that? Bottom line, the head-shake was not an Earth-shattering moment and for that I am prepared to delete the line. Thoughts? GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 07:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Stan Weller's comment is a striking reminder that people have not learned history's lessons, that we've reached a point in today's debate where there are some in this country who cannot discern the difference between the apocalypse and typical dissent. Further, his line "For some reason apparent dissent is very popular with this president, much more so than any president before" sounds like a typical line of invented news courtesy of Fox News or a Freedom Works blog. It is the most false statement I've heard all month--there is absolutely no way to measure that, but if there was Stan and others must have been sleeping for 8 years during Bush's reign of terror when every one of his moves was countered with nationwide protests (real protests with people and correctly spelled signs), or maybe they were sleeping during every other Presidency ever.
I deleted the lines because they are simply irrelevant to the Justice's career and personal life. Clearly because there are some on Wikipedia who eagerly want to raise their hand up first in class, the comment is still here even though the world will forget about this in a month. Baffling how we're including information of Wikipedia on what a human being may or may not have said or because he may or may not have had a reaction while there were cameras on him.
So, congratulations editors. I expect the usual Trekkie-like persistence to include tabloid quality information on Wikipedia. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 19:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Mr.98.108.220.157 should take a minute to humble himself by at least listening to and appreciating the advice of a Wikipedia old-timer like LedRush. LedRush is doing his best to promote civility and 98.108.220.157 is snapping back in this irrational, childish way. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Ithizar has removed the material that has been edited and refined by people of various opinions as to its notability, saying " Please gain consensus before re-adding this." -- in opposition to Wikipedia policy; consensus is not required to add factual material. I won't be doing any more editing on this, but I hope others will do the right thing. -- 98.108.220.157 ( talk) 21:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If any political views weaseled their way into my opinion on the matter I apologize for it and will also clarify. (But I will point out that I called on people to at least wait until today to see what sort of a story this would become.) I'd like to direct everyone towards Jeffrey Toobin's short piece at the New Yorker today. Toobin points out that it isn't good or bad what Alito did, but is simply a revelation for people who are often at a distance from the Court. For views to be expressed by a Justice in such a public forum as a State of the Union is unusual, saving certain appearances in the media where such acts of honesty might be expected. That Toobin and others felt the story was worthy enough of this attention shows that there is something notable about the gesture/gesticulation/bobble. But looking over the responses since last night I will agree with others who say that it is not a landmark moment; it's not like he kicked his shoes off and started wrestling Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Stan weller ( talk) 21:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Samuel Alito/Archive 2 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Hello, this is a reminder that it is Wikipedia policy to sign your post on discussion page. Please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, Johntex\ talk 17:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Recently the change was made from "LexisNexis reports that Alito has written more than 700 opinions," to 400 opinions. Do we know which is correct? 68.50.103.212 04:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Some feel the need to deny opponents of Alito fear his view of the Unitary Executive theory. Clearly they deny that critics base their interpretation of his view on his documented statements on the matter. Please, explain how this is incorrect before deleting that explanation. Of course I will supply extra sources if that is the problem. Second I would like to remind editors of the 3RR rule.-- Nomen Nescio 05:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not say their view represents his view. It merely states that it is based upon what Alito has said in the past and what they fear it might mean. Whether their interpretation is correct, in asserting what it does, is an entirely different matter, as you well know. However, to claim opponents are telling the truth would have to be substantiated with evidence, as you rightly stated, therefore you have not seen me doing that.-- Nomen Nescio 05:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Have added more sources, hope this will convince you they are concerned based upon his record. Nevertheless, will change known to perceived, and this to previous (later edit).-- Nomen Nescio 06:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Some editors feel the need to withhold an explanation on the criticism from the casual reader. This of course must be warranted since:
These sources are all strongly POV (PFAW, blog postings, editorials) and shed no light the meaning of the Unitary Executive theory or the current controversy. An encyclopedia is not a vehicle for collecting any unqualifed opinion that may make a rhetorical point. Nor is an encyclopedia a place for making rhetorical points. Nor does piling on more blog postings make them any better of a "source." In addition to all of the bogus "sources", this sentence
But, in effect, support the interpretation of the Bush administration that as Commander-in-Chief President Bush can not be restrained by any law, national or international.
is strongly POV and misrepresents both the position of the Bush administration and the position of serious advocates of the Unitary Executive theory. It is neither a serious argument, nor a serious conclusion. It is akin to arguing that supporters of Roe v. Wade are "baby killers." This paragraph needs to be modified to concisely state the controvery over the Unitary Executive theory using real experts and not overheated rhetoric. Perhaps there are quotes from the Senate debate that could be used to state the opposing view? -- Paul 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Please, be civil and discuss. Should that not be possible, and this wanton censorship continues, without even an attempt of finding compromise I will ask for an admin to intervene.-- Nomen Nescio 01:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for discussing the matter. You must have noted my contribution is not an unsupported POV attack. If you read the sources (The Guardian, Chicago Tribune, legal experts, et cetera) it must be evident this is an analysis based upon his statements. You might disagree, but how is inserting such an analysis by legal scholars and newspapers POV. I stress, my addition nowhere states these are his views. It merely says opponents fear this is his view! Please explain why discussing criticism on his perceivede view of the unitary executive is not allowed. Since it is well sourced, and not attack but analysis I will insist on this unless you can explain how that is POV.
BTW, had you read the sources you would have found they advance exactly what you are asking: "I would welcome an appropriate quote from an opposing Senator."
I have asked for a third opinion to decide whether this censorship is warranted. Clearly reverting is easier than addressing the views based upon what legal experts say. None of the reverting editors have explained why newspapers can not be used, or why legal analysts can not be used. Since this is a violation of NPOV I will ask an admin to interven.-- Nomen Nescio 02:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Since a well sourced addition explaining criticism is denied, and no serious debate is possible, I have asked for comment by others.
The problem seems to be the following edit:
The following objections have been raised: 1 The sources are claimed to be POV, although it is not explained why, or even what sources are allowed ( FOX News?) and who gets to decide, 2 This analysis of Alito's possible views is called POV, although it is not explained why discussing criticism is not allowed.
Sincerely-- Nomen Nescio 03:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously I understand what you are saying, so repeating the previous explanation still does not answer these little inconsistencies:
1 How can criticism be NPOV? It is a contradictio in terminis, or oxymoron if you like. The raison d'etre of criticism is another POV. So, to demand criticism to be NPOV is an impossible and ludicrous request.
2 As I understand it the article must remain NPOV, but within different controversial topics POV's can be and should be discussed. They should be identified as such and that is exactly what I have done.
3 When discussing criticism it seems odd to dismiss legal analysis on the subject merely because it contradicts your personal believes. Having read the sources you must have noticed several professors of law, and dismissing their contribution as POV is not only POV in itself, it is proof of ignorance. Leagal analysis is legal analysis, and as such can not be disallowed on the grounds of you disagreeing with its conclusion. Or, can such analysis only be used when the professor explains it in a seminar at university?
4 When claiming sources are POV you are misstating wikipedia policy and also misrepresenting the facts. As it is, several newspaper articles presenting the facts, are dismissed also. This can only mean that disallowing the sources is based upon refusing dissenting views. As to the editorials, I was not aware they can not be used as source. Please show me where wikipedia policiy forbids the use of editorials.
Thanks for responding, sincerely -- Nomen Nescio 22:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to all for their contribution to the debate. It is clear to me that the following can be concluded:
1 Discussion of criticism is allowed, as long as it is identified as such, 2
editorials
can be used as source to substantiate such an evaluation of Alito's ideas. Based on the suggestions by other Wikipedians we can savely say that all of the objections have been addressed, and none are in accordance with
WP:NPOV. Now it has been established my edit does not violate
wikipedia policy I will again insert the original comment. I will slightly alter it to make sure there can be no doubt it is not Alito's view. Sincerely --
Nomen Nescio
00:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless opponents of Alito have expressed their fear he will not uphold the separation of powers as intended by the Constitution. [25] They believe he will support the Bush administration in its interpretation of the Unitary Executive, which they claim is that as Commander-in-Chief the President can not be restrained by law, national or international.==Requests for comment==
Since a well sourced addition explaining criticism is denied, and no serious debate is possible, I have asked for comment by others.
The problem seems to be the following edit:
The following objections have been raised: 1 The sources are claimed to be POV, although it is not explained why, or even what sources are allowed ( FOX News?) and who gets to decide, 2 This analysis of Alito's possible views is called POV, although it is not explained why discussing criticism is not allowed.
Sincerely-- Nomen Nescio 03:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously I understand what you are saying, so repeating the previous explanation still does not answer these little inconsistencies:
1 How can criticism be NPOV? It is a contradictio in terminis, or oxymoron if you like. The raison d'etre of criticism is another POV. So, to demand criticism to be NPOV is an impossible and ludicrous request.
2 As I understand it the article must remain NPOV, but within different controversial topics POV's can be and should be discussed. They should be identified as such and that is exactly what I have done.
3 When discussing criticism it seems odd to dismiss legal analysis on the subject merely because it contradicts your personal believes. Having read the sources you must have noticed several professors of law, and dismissing their contribution as POV is not only POV in itself, it is proof of ignorance. Leagal analysis is legal analysis, and as such can not be disallowed on the grounds of you disagreeing with its conclusion. Or, can such analysis only be used when the professor explains it in a seminar at university?
4 When claiming sources are POV you are misstating wikipedia policy and also misrepresenting the facts. As it is, several newspaper articles presenting the facts, are dismissed also. This can only mean that disallowing the sources is based upon refusing dissenting views. As to the editorials, I was not aware they can not be used as source. Please show me where wikipedia policiy forbids the use of editorials.
Thanks for responding, sincerely -- Nomen Nescio 22:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to all for their contribution to the debate. It is clear to me that the following can be concluded:
1 Discussion of criticism is allowed, as long as it is identified as such, 2
editorials
can be used as source to substantiate such an evaluation of Alito's ideas. Based on the suggestions by other Wikipedians we can savely say that all of the objections have been addressed, and none are in accordance with
WP:NPOV. Now it has been established my edit does not violate
wikipedia policy I will again insert the original comment. I will slightly alter it to make sure there can be no doubt it is not Alito's view. Sincerely --
Nomen Nescio
00:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to your response. -- Paul 18:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)However, opponents of the Alito nomination remain concerned that Alito believes in extensive Presidental powers and would defer to Presidential authority in separation of powers disputes. [50]
Some quotes:
On his record:
Alito's record reveals that he "has been extraordinarily deferential to the exercise of government power, especially executive branch power, except in cases involving alleged infringements on religious expression," according to the AFJ. His "judicial record strongly suggests that he will ... interpret the Constitution as giving the president greater authority to evade Congressional statutes and constitutional limitations whenever deemed essential to national security." [51] He has supported the fringe "unitary executive" theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution. [52] Judge Alito backed away from one of his most extreme statements in this area - his assertion, in a 1985 job application, that he believed "very strongly" in "the supremacy of the elected branches of government." But he left a disturbing impression that as a justice, he would undermine the Supreme Court's critical role in putting a check on presidential excesses. [53]
Stance towards Presidential powers:
However, Bush's recent actions make it clear that he interprets the coordinate construction approach extremely aggressively. In his view, and the view of his Administration, that doctrine gives him license to overrule and bypass Congress or the courts, based on his own interpretations of the Constitution -- even where that violates long-established laws and treaties, counters recent legislation that he has himself signed, ........ [54] “I have carefully read the writings, the speeches and the decisions of Samuel Alito in [the area of executive power], and they all point in one direction: a very troubling pattern of great deference to executive authority,” Chemerinsky said in his testimony. [55] Alito apparently believes that a president may decide by executive fiat what law is or is not constitutional, and whether he is bound by the rule of law. Alito's willingness to elevate the president to an exalted status above the law is truly frightening to hear from a Supreme Court nominee. This view harkens back to the divine right of kings (the king is accountable to no one but God), which was forever rejected by our American Revolution. Alito is clearly signaling that if he serves on the Supreme Court, he will serve as a rubber stamp for the exercise of unchecked executive power. [56] Whatever else Alito may or may not have made clear about his views on such issues as abortion, federalism and religious freedom, he has certainly made clear that he has no interest in restraining the acts of this commander in chief. [57]
IMHO, this substantiates my version. Sincerely--
Nomen Nescio
18:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Additional comment: I think that the two of you might want to cool off a bit, because some of this verges on hair-splitting. I will make a couple of observations: the citing of editorials to illustrate the controversy over Alito is completely legitimate, provided there is no Wikipedian commentary about what the editorials imply. When in doubt, find a succinct quote which summarizes the point of view (by the same token, editors should be careful not to draw inferences about Alito's views either, and when in doubt, quote.) Paul, I don't think you have any basis for objecting to this. No matter how wrong an editorial may be, it is still a legitimate source when discussing the controversy that surrounds Alito. The only constraint would be that the article space allotted to the citations should be just enough to illustrate the point, and no more.
Also, Paul wrote the following: "This implies that the Bush administration claims that the President can not be restrained by law which is, to my knowledge, is not somethat that the administration has ever claimed. You need a reference to suppport this, or it must be removed." In this interview, conducted yesterday with Bob Schieffer of CBS, Bush seems to come very close to saying precisely that. I say "seems," because Bush is very inarticulate in the interview and there is a lot of ambiguity which I attribute to fuzzy thinking on his part. There probably is no quotable quote there, of the kind that you request, but stay tuned; if Bush keeps talking, one may emerge. -- HK 23:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
In the section about the nomination to the Supreme Court, the sentence following the ABA rating, beginning with " However", has a negative connotation regarding the appropriate application, if any, of the ABA rating. Juansmith 09:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This article does not document a current event, but is updated quite frequently. Suggestions?
Why is there no mention of the court cases for Chinese seeking ayslum. The ones im talking about are specifically Chen v. Ashcroft, Liu v. Ashcroft, and Zhang v. Gonzales.
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)
"The executive committee of CAP published a statement in December 1973 that affirmed unequivocally, "Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy." A 1983 essay in CAP's magazine Prospect, entitled "In Defense of Elitism", explained: "Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children." By 1985, thirteen years after his Princeton graduation, Altio continued to tout his membership in the conservative group while readying his job application for the Reagan Administration. [3]"
Anyone agree that article found in the magazine of a group he belonged to should be taken out? I think it is misleading, creates the impression that was his view, but he was many layers removed from the article. Lotsofissues 10:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
From this article, I get a biased view. For example, under abortion, it only shows places where he supported abortion rights. I read in the newspaper that he didn't support Roe vs. Wade when he applied for a position with Reagan's adminisration. Fireworld2406 00:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Its definitely both scrubbed and biased. You could take this article in its entirity from Republiican talking points. I attempted to add Alio's own statements from his Reagan admin application and got a message to the effect that there are POV policies. Sea level 00:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia knows it cannot get away with the typical liberal slant of most of its articles when lots of folks are likely to see the article (such am article about a topic implicated in current news events). Therefore this article is actually balanced. Thats why you find it so odd - you are just used to seeing ridiculously leftist editing that you encounter in most wiipedia articles. (unsigned)
I'd lock this page up 'cause a shit storm may be comming.
I agree the recent edits on this page have been very argument. I would suggest a revert to a Jan 28 version and block edits till a couple of weeks after confirmation. Wholmestu 05:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to seek commment before making any drastic changes due to the high profile-ness of this article. Assawyer 19:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the "Case history" section should be removed. A lot of what's in that section is already in the counterpart section of the article "Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination". What's not already in that section can simply be transferred there. Now concerning the section titled "Issues raised in confirmation hearings", I, for one, think that section should stay for now. User 71.96.165.158 12:21 AM, 1 February 2006 (CST)
well, he was just confirmed this afternoon. shouldn't this still be said as a current event? The pointer outer 23:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Assawyer, or whatever his name is, deleted my comment (the little dickins). Anyways, I think the article makes Alito (figurativly) like a saint. This is MY oppinion, so dont get your panties in a bunch. Son Goku22
I say no, and I have my reasons, but I would like to hear others opinions and their arguments to back them up. Son Goku22
Bush has been elected twice by the people to serve as President (and the people knew that the President select justices, and Bush repeatedly stated that he would select justices like Scalia and THomas. THe people have gotten what they asked for! And the polls showed that most people supported Alito's confirmation. People who deny this are barking moonbats.
There's some good stuff in this article. But it doesn't flow very well. For example, we have a long list of cases the man heard on the bench. Yes, this was much talked about in the confirmation hearings, but I wonder how relevant these cases are individually or in the aggregate. Another flow problem comes under the "Career" heading where we jump from prose to a resume format. This would look so much better as prose rather than a list. I salute those who have been working hard on this article (I have not) and just wanted to offer a few thoughts from someone who hadn't read this before. PedanticallySpeaking 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday the Main Page said he was the 110th AJ, today it says 96th, any explanation for this? Sherurcij ( talk) ( Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
While Yahoo! news [65] and various other news outlets have reported that Alito voted in favor of the stay, the Order listed on the Supreme Court website seems to contradict those reports. The order is on the second page of http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/020106pzr.pdf. The order states:
(ORDER LIST: 546 U.S.) 05-8919 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2006 CERTIORARI DENIED (O5A694) TAYLOR, MICHAEL A. V. CRAWFORD, DIR., MO DOC, ET AL. The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this application and this petition.
There could be more than one vote, but once they have denied the stay and cert. it would be over for Taylor.
If you keep scrolling down the order list, you'll see that there was indeed more than one vote. The first claim was about a racial issue (I think) which the court unanimously rejected. The 6-3 split came on a variation of the "is lethal injection by a particular method cruel and unusual punishment" question, on which the court recently took another case from Florida. That was the grounds on which the 8th circuit had originally granted the stay, which the Supreme Court sustained. Jlp858 08:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, this is a reminder that it is Wikipedia policy to sign your post on discussion page. Please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, Johntex\ talk 17:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't the confirmation vote record be on the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination page? Jpers36 16:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree none of the other SCOTUS Justice pages have this level of detail. -- Paul 16:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
None of the othe SCOTUS judges have been so strongly opposed by half the Senate. 69.164.66.203
Agree -- remove that info from this page - uneccesary duplication of info found at Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination Johntex\ talk 23:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Mild Dissagree - We should keep it on, and add the other votes to the other Justice's pages. Wiki eZach 21:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Mildly Disagree about Mild Dissagree Who is going to go back and research the voting for the other 110 Justices? (Hint, this can't be done using the Internet). And, what possible use would such information be? -- Paul 23:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying we should start now, as well as complete the votes for the other eight standing justices, not all 110! Wiki eZach 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The article says that he is the 96th assoc. justice. That seems correct (110 justices - chief justices who weren't promoted), but we need a ref. Can anyone find one? Broken Segue 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I can get one in about a minute (i work at cnn!) Wiki eZach 23:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Not that good but here: [66]
Regarding these recent changes:
Before:
By joining the court mid-tern, Alito has not heard arguments for many cases which have yet to be decided. If there is a deadlock in pending cases, Alito may be asked to break the tie, and the cases would be reheard in the fall term. Alternatively, the tie could stand, and the decision of the court below would be affirmed, without creating precedent.
After:
By joining the court mid-term, Alito has not heard arguments for many cases which have yet to be decided. If there is a deadlock in pending cases, Alito may be asked to break the tie, the court could rehear the cases in the fall term, or the tie could stand and the decision of the court below would be affirmed.
This does tighten things up, but it also changes the meaning. I'm not sure that Alito can vote on a case which was argued while he was not a member of the court? Although I haven't found a reference yet, my understanding is that he has to hear the arguments before he can vote on a case. Thus, if Alito is asked to break the tie, the case must be reheard. -- Paul 20:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I still think it is slightly inaccurate. For one, I don't believe the court can force a rehearing on its own motion. What would have to happen is that the court announces their decision of a tie, which means the lower court's decision is affirmed. Then the losing party would move for a rehearing, which the court could grant and then Alito would be able to be involved in that hearing and the decision of the court. An even-split court's decision is not all that much of a rarity, it happens more often in the case where one justice will recuse themselves from the case, and the same rules apply. Of course, all of these "rules" are set by the court itself and could be changed by the court unless that change really upset Congress, but Congress usually lets the court handle its internal workings. Peyna 20:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone find a better picture of Justice Alito than the one at the top of his biography page? Maybe an offical portait as Chief Justice Roberts and the other assoc. justices have on their bio. pages?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060303/ids_photos_ts/r1145697098.jpg this is as close to a official scotus picture as possible thus far, should post it.
I added the official Alito photo that came out today. It has a nice "old school" feel to it. Compare to the one from the
Harry Blackmun article. Nice.
<<Coburn_Pharr>>
06:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
i'm not going to POV tag the whole page at this point, but this does *NOT* feel like a balanced page. it looks like it was intentionally written to hide the controversy over alito. if you had no idea who he was, you would *NOT* get a clear idea of how controversial he is or how conservative he is. there is no "controversy" section at all, as is usual for controversial topics, and in his section on his supreme court career, far more space is devoted to discussions of how he's "not like scalia", when an examination of his voting record would surely show for more votes with scalia than against him. i POV tagged the section for this reason. it also has questionable statements like "... hints at Alito's respectful attitude toward precedent", which sounds like press-release fodder.
nb the article contains an error; hamdan v. rumsfeld was voted 5-3, not 5-4, as roberts did not vote.
Benwing 20:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The Alito nomination page has a lot about the controversy. Actually, I think the nomination page, or the nomination and confirmation hearing sections of this page, are appropriate places to discuss the controversy. So far, Alito hasn't been on the Court long enough to generate significant Supreme Court-related controversy.
The Supreme Court section talks about how he votes fairly conservatively, with notes on how he created a 5-4 conservative majority in the three reargued cases, as well as his votes with the conservatives in Hamdan and Rapanos. That's five of the major cases, in the mere half Term he's been on the Court. That can probably be beefed up, but since so many of the cases are either unanimous (or nearly so) or split along not-quite-left-right lines, it couldn't be beefed up that much using only cases from the last half-Term. There's only one example of how he's voted non-conservatively. And the non-Scalia/Thomas examples are in there because of, e.g., the "Scalito" nickname; that section isn't even trying to show Alito's non-conservatism, as those examples are cases where Alito (despite disagreeing with Scalia/Thomas) nonetheless voted conservatively.
As for his attitude toward precedent, perhaps "respectful" isn't an ideal word, but one does talk in legal circles about "respecting" precedent. Not everyone agrees that one ought to respect precedent, so saying that someone "respects" precedent isn't even an inherently complimentary statement. But how Alito feels about precedent is an important issue, and his Randall v. Sorrell concurrence is an important indicator about that.
The Hamdan vote has been corrected. Chaucer1387 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Alito is controversial in the least. It was the Alito nomination and the Senate hearings that were controverisal. User:Chaucer1387 has it right, that controversy is adequately covered in the Alito nomination article. Inserting that controvery here, it seems to me, would be inserting a POV into what is now a pretty good article. -- Paul 19:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You "don't think Alito is controversial in the least"??? Really?
The fact that a justice's nomination was highly controversial makes the justice's presence controversial, simple as that.
Chaucer1387, here's what I'd like to see:
Benwing 05:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
On your first point: The ABA bit is in the "nomination" section, where it belongs. As for the controversy of the nomination, maybe that's adequately covered in the "nomination" section, maybe not. I didn't even read the nomination section until just now, to find where the ABA fact was. I still haven't read the main article on "Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination," nor have I read the portion of this article about the confirmation hearings, as those sections hold little interest for me. That controversy stuff belongs there.
While Alito remains "controversial" in a sense, that's merely because he's a conservative and votes conservatively. The proper way to cover this is to show, using opinions and other available sources, (1) that he's a conservative, (2) to what extent he's a conservative, (3) and what kind of conservative he is. That's the theory behind the three subsections of the "U.S. Supreme Court career" section. First, show several cases where he voted conservatively. I've listed five (and I've just added a couple). Second, show where he hasn't voted with the conservatives. I've listed one that I'm aware of. Third -- and this goes to your third point -- show how he's differed from other conservatives. To that end, I've listed three cases where he's differed with Scalia or Thomas. This third part involves fewer cases than the first part, but it does take up more space on the page because these are harder-to-explain distinctions. (With the addition of cases in the first section, this third section should seem smaller by comparison. Also, I've further clarified that in one of those not-Scalia cases, it was Alito who was more conservative and Scalia who was voting with the liberals.)
Incidentally, the Harvard Law Review publishes a statistical analysis of the Supreme Court Term in their November issue each year. That's the standard source for numbers of the form "how often one Justice voted together with another." I look forward to reading it in November, and incorporating the relevant statistics then.
On your third point: Obviously, everyone cares what Alito thinks about precedent, because the elephant in the room is Roe v. Wade, and these days, debates about Roe are carried on by debating whether Roe is a firmly established precedent and whether such precedents should be respected purely for their precedential value. (The term "respected" here is a neutral term. It shouldn't be read as anything positive; I myself think respecting a precedent that you believe to be wrong is highly overrated. In any case, following a precedent is just called "respecting" it.) So far, he hasn't faced an abortion-like case, so there's nothing to say about that. The one hint he's given about his attitude toward precedent is that separate opinion in Randall v. Sorrell. So this is very important!
While of course it's better to have statistics, it's too early in his career to know this, and I think the word "hints" adequately hedges. But since I think it's the word "respectful" that mainly bugs you, I'll change "hints at Alito's respectful attitude toward precedent" to "may give some hint as to Alito's attitude toward folllowing precedent." It's the same thing. Chaucer1387 01:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
User Benwing states that "Alito's presence in the court is controversial for democrats." IMHO, that's a Catch-22, because Breyer's and Ginsburg's presence in the court is equally controversial for Republicans. So by that argument, every Supreme Court Justice page will have to have some sort of "controversy" section. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 13:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of the debate immediately above, I've taken a look at the nomination and confirmation sections of this article. First, I've merged them into one section, because the "Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination" article covers both the nomination and the confirmation hearings. I've also deleted the Wikinews item, since this is now 7 months old. Second -- and I won't do anything about this without input from you guys -- I suggest that the section be shortened a bit: If someone is interested in the unsuccessful filibuster attempt, the 72-25 cloture vote, or the identity of the senators voting against him, can't they look up the longer nomination article? Chaucer1387 01:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I think we should also shorten his supreme court career section. I don't find it too convinient to have an analysis of so many cases. He is the junior jsutice and yet his supreme court career section is the longest of any justice, except scalia. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 13:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I started 2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Samuel Alito (and similar lists for all other present justices) so there is another place to go into a more detailed summary (aside from individual case articles) of his opinions, rather than trying to cram too much info in his biographical article. Please note the template I added at the bottom of this article has links to the as-yet unwritten lists for each year of his Third Circuit career as well, so those decisions can be documented too. Postdlf 00:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some that think that Mr. Alito is a Sephardi Jew, his family only converting to Catholicism recently. I've added a "source needed" badge for info on his heritage. Thank you. -- 172.128.32.189 09:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I am new to this, but I agree with others that this article does not properly address the controversial nature of Alito. The appointment/confirmation part on the ABA makes it sound as if this was just another appointment. He is one of three Supreme Court nominations to be opposed by the ACLU in its entire history. He is the definition of controversial appointment/justice. While this is addressed more thoroughly in the article on his appointment this is also important to this article. All supporters and opponents should not be listed in this article, but his controversial nature should be made clear. For this reason I added something on the ACLU because the ACLU opposition underlines just how controversial his nomination was. The introduction of the article writes that “He is regarded as a generally conservative jurist.” This simply does not describe his controversial nature. Many democrats would characterize him as a radical ultraconservative along the lines of Robert Bork. This widely held opinion should be addressed in the article. -- Wikipediatoperfection 2:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
An example of his wily use of logic: The death penalty is constitutional, it follows that there exists a constitutional means of carrying out the death penalty. And again: the AMA affirms that participation of medical personnel in administering the death penalty is unethical, therefore it is unfeasible to find a better method than the present 3-dose protocol (since the doctors will not cooperate), therefore the present method is constitutional. (See what he did there?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 ( talk) 12:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed in the first paragraph Justice Alito is labled as an Italian American Which is incorrect in two ways. Firstly His Honor was born in New Jersey so he is an American not an Italian Immigrant. Secondly the only persons who truly hold the title of Italian-Americans are those who hold dual citizenship, all others are either Americans or Italians. I believe this also applies to any such title, Afriacn-American for example.
“A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group has yet to become an American, and the man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is not worthy to live under the Stars and Stripes.”
Woodrow Wilson May 1915
DarinBlack 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I am going to change the line "He is regarded as a generally conservative jurist." to "He is a conservative jurist, who since becoming a member of the Supreme Court has consistently voted with the conservative members of the court." I think the original sentence should be changed as his conservative nature has never been in question because it is agreed upon by both supporters and opponents. As he has had a conservative record since joining the court I think this sentence is appropriate. Wikipediatoperfection 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any justification for the assertion in the lead that he has a "libertarian streak"-- the word libertarian only is mentioned twice in the article, and being a member of a society that some libertarians are members of doesn't mean you have a "libertarian streak." Especially with being in the intro, this is going to need a cite. The ACLU opposed his nomination on grounds that he would give the government too much power; that's not really a libertarian point of view or the way a libertarian judge would rule.-- 76.182.88.254 07:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The Cato Institute says that he has a libertarian streak so I suppose I'll put that information back in. The ACLU probably just opposed him because he is considered to be conservative.-- Gloriamarie ( talk) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent edit of this article -- not that I'm sure that the data are necessarily "wrong." Rather, I'm persuaded that the strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is an unhelpful approach to this specific subject. I note that articles about other sitting Justices have been similarly "enhanced;" and I also believe those changes are no improvement.
In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, I would invite anyone to re-visit articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.
Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.
Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.
At a minimum, I'm questioning this edit? It deserves to be reconsidered. -- Ooperhoofd ( talk) 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
These are two different numbers. One could reasonably infer that there are a whole lot of Catholics on the present court. If I wanted to make a guess, and was in a forum that I could argue a position without the constraints on 'original research', it would be possible that the Catholicism of some or all of these appointees became material to the persons doing the appointments. One might even deduce that this has some planetary connection to Roe v Wade and its progeny (no pun intended). That Catholics are potentially overrepresented on the present court, at least compared to the numbers that were there historically, is a relevant and probative fact. This issue is best illuminated by leaving in the 5 and the 11. That's my opinion. FWIW. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 02:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Stan
A subpage at Samuel A. Alito Jr./fjc was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot ( talk) 12:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the following material is okay in the article, but excessive for the lead: "the second Italian American and the 12th Catholic in the history of the Supreme Court, and the fifth Catholic on the current Court at the time he assumed office." Putting it into the lead seems to be undue weight, and I'm not aware this is done for other justices. Ferrylodge ( talk) 17:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a blind redirect to this page from "Supreme court nominee" but there is another Justice stepping down. The blind redirect needs to be removed but I don't know how to do that. Please remove the redirect. 24.145.157.81 ( talk) 20:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
nothing about his family background or childhood? john k ( talk) 20:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The article also had some other structural problems. I've redone the sectioning, trying to make it more prosified and more chronological and to highlight his time as federal appellate judge without overwhelming the table of contents. I haven't added or subtracted any material, just rearranged it. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The inclusion of his head-shake and unknown comment at the address tonight is the most ridiculous use of Wikipedia space I've ever seen. I shook my head at George Bush, will someone please note that? Bottom line, the head-shake was not an Earth-shattering moment and for that I am prepared to delete the line. Thoughts? GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 07:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Stan Weller's comment is a striking reminder that people have not learned history's lessons, that we've reached a point in today's debate where there are some in this country who cannot discern the difference between the apocalypse and typical dissent. Further, his line "For some reason apparent dissent is very popular with this president, much more so than any president before" sounds like a typical line of invented news courtesy of Fox News or a Freedom Works blog. It is the most false statement I've heard all month--there is absolutely no way to measure that, but if there was Stan and others must have been sleeping for 8 years during Bush's reign of terror when every one of his moves was countered with nationwide protests (real protests with people and correctly spelled signs), or maybe they were sleeping during every other Presidency ever.
I deleted the lines because they are simply irrelevant to the Justice's career and personal life. Clearly because there are some on Wikipedia who eagerly want to raise their hand up first in class, the comment is still here even though the world will forget about this in a month. Baffling how we're including information of Wikipedia on what a human being may or may not have said or because he may or may not have had a reaction while there were cameras on him.
So, congratulations editors. I expect the usual Trekkie-like persistence to include tabloid quality information on Wikipedia. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 19:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Mr.98.108.220.157 should take a minute to humble himself by at least listening to and appreciating the advice of a Wikipedia old-timer like LedRush. LedRush is doing his best to promote civility and 98.108.220.157 is snapping back in this irrational, childish way. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Ithizar has removed the material that has been edited and refined by people of various opinions as to its notability, saying " Please gain consensus before re-adding this." -- in opposition to Wikipedia policy; consensus is not required to add factual material. I won't be doing any more editing on this, but I hope others will do the right thing. -- 98.108.220.157 ( talk) 21:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If any political views weaseled their way into my opinion on the matter I apologize for it and will also clarify. (But I will point out that I called on people to at least wait until today to see what sort of a story this would become.) I'd like to direct everyone towards Jeffrey Toobin's short piece at the New Yorker today. Toobin points out that it isn't good or bad what Alito did, but is simply a revelation for people who are often at a distance from the Court. For views to be expressed by a Justice in such a public forum as a State of the Union is unusual, saving certain appearances in the media where such acts of honesty might be expected. That Toobin and others felt the story was worthy enough of this attention shows that there is something notable about the gesture/gesticulation/bobble. But looking over the responses since last night I will agree with others who say that it is not a landmark moment; it's not like he kicked his shoes off and started wrestling Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Stan weller ( talk) 21:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)