Don't cry for me, Mrs. Alito...

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Winston
BTW, your claim that you were just mocking the mainstram media in the OP doesn't seem very believable from the looks of.. the OP.

BTW, the media took the bait. They played it up. I called it what it is: A sham.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


If you're at all worried about the US's rightward shift in politics, you might want to grab some popcorn and pay attention. How often to you get the chance to watch a train wreck happen live and in slow motion?

Ahum, I was aiming at your apparent assumption we all know about an ordinary event that seems to have been displayed on domestic US TV channels. It may surprise you, but the minutiae of the hearings in general and the crying incident in particular haven't exactly been prime-time news in Belgium.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
He supports a woman's right to accept a man's judgement that she shouldn't have any control over her own body,

I don't recall that being said. Is there some sort of code I'm not aware of?

he supports the workers' right to get shafted by any and all businesses, ..., he supports a minorities right to be discriminated against with little recourse.

Judge Alito repeatedly has ruled for plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases when the law calls for such outcomes.

* In Zubi v. AT&T Corp., 219 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000), Judge Alito dissented from the majority's holding that a man who claimed he was fired because of his race could not sue in federal court. According to Judge Alito, the plaintiff was entitled to sue because a longer statute of limitations applied. The Supreme Court later vindicated Judge Alito's dissent. See Jones v. Donnelly & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004).

* In Goosby v. Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc., 228 F.3d 313 (3d Cir. 2000), a race and sex discrimination case, Judge Alito reversed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendant employer. The Third Circuit ruled that the plaintiff, a black woman, had introduced enough evidence to call into doubt the employer's explanation for why she was given lower-quality assignments.

* In Smith v. Davis, 248 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2001), an African-American probation officer brought a claim of race and disability discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Judge Alito joined a unanimous decision to reverse the lower court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant employer.

* Judge Alito's dissent in Sheridan v. DuPont, 100 F.3d 1061 (3d Cir. 1996) (en banc), is a principled balancing of the interests of employees and employers, and the Supreme Court later vindicated it.

* Judge Alito interpreted the Supreme Court's holding in a previous case as requiring that a Title VII plaintiff who produces certain evidence i.e., that the employer's stated reason for the employment decision was false should "usually" but not necessarily "always" be permitted to go to trial.

* The Supreme Court agreed with Judge Alito's Sheridan dissent in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000). Reeves was a unanimous opinion signed by Justice O'Connor whose seat Judge Alito is poised to take.

* In Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 110 F.3d 986 (3d Cir. 1997), Judge Alito would have affirmed the trial court's ruling for the employer because the plaintiff, an African-American woman, had failed to meet her burden of proof under relevant Supreme Court precedent.

* Marriott explained that it promoted a white female instead of the plaintiff because the white female had a higher objective employee rating, had superior experience, and had participated in more seminars and training sessions.

* Judge Alito argued that discrimination claims of require evidence of actual discrimination, not just evidence that an employer failed to comply with its own internal procedures.

* Judge Alito has held that prosecutors' efforts to exclude African-Americans from juries is unconstitutional discrimination.

* In Jones v. Ryan, 987 F.2d 960 (3d Cir. 1993), an African-American defendant was convicted in Pennsylvania court of robbery and criminal conspiracy; at trial, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude three African-Americans from the jury. Judge Alito joined a unanimous opinion holding that the prosecutor had discriminated against the potential jurors on the basis of race, and granting the defendant habeas relief.

* In Brinson v. Vaughn, 398 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2005), an African-American defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in Pennsylvania court and sentenced to life in prison. The prosecutor had used 13 out of 14 peremptory challenges against African-American potential jurors, and Judge Alito held that this pattern raised an inference of discrimination.

http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/alito/religiousliberties.shtml

he honorably recuses himself from cases that directly involve his interests and then presides over cases directly involving his interests and rules favorably to those interests because he holds assets in them

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2006/01/10/VI2006011000699.html

There seems to have been no ethical problem. The case appears to have been reheard before a new panel that ruled the sameway.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Winston
However a previous poster's claim that he is or used to be an anti-feminist puts my mind somewhat at ease.

Specifically, he belonged to a group in college that wanted to limit the number of women that got into college. Damn those feminists, wanting an equal education and all.

[Winston]

Um, that's not exactly what is normally inferred by calling someone anti-feminist.

Besides, will this allegation be raised during the hearings, giving the candidate a chance for explanation, or is it just another rumour being flinged about by his detractors?

[Ramo]

It was brought up. His excuse was that he doesn't remember anything about CAP. Despite the fact that he put his membership in CAP (which wanted to limit the number of women and minorities in Princeton, a group that the current Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist condemned at the time) on his application to Reagan's Justice Department 20 years after the fact.

[Winston]

"His excuse".. for what? Not mentioning it to the Senate himself?

What did he have to say on the substance of the criticism?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Ramo
It was brought up. His excuse was that he doesn't remember anything about CAP. Despite the fact that he put his membership in CAP (which wanted to limit the number of women and minorities in Princeton, a group that the current Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist condemned at the time) on his application to Reagan's Justice Department 20 years after the fact.

Well, ****, Ramo, that's called "padding your resume."

When you get a few years in the real world you'll be quite familiar with it.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
I don't care about him, it's his record I don't like. Again, he's hard right and that isn't good for the nation anymore than a hard left justice.

What you forget is that Winston would prefer if the SCOTUS was packed with Christian Reconstructionists.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Throng of Useless Senators - Burn him Burn Him!

Senator Kennedy- He's a nazi, I tell you.

Sen Biden Well uuhhh we did the part ummm about aaah and another thing ummm minority discrimination, But burn Him!!! Burn him!!!

Sen Spectre - How do you know if he's a nazi?

Sen Kennedy - You know hes a nazi if he burns. Burn him! Burn him!

Sen Spectre - What else burns?

Sen Kennedy - My Liver

Sen Schumer - bits of stone

Sen Leahy - Property rights?

Sen Schumer - Oil?


Senator Spectre - Right Yes yes!!

Sen Kennedy - So if he is made of oil then he burns then he is .......

Sen Biden - Uhhh ahhhh uhhhh ahhhhh uhhhh ahhhh uhhhh aahhh uhhh aaaahhh annd ummm uhhh ahhh and....

Sen Schumer - A nazi

Sen Spectre - And......

Sen Biden - ummm aahh we ahhh and uhhh get uuuhhh to burn Princeton???

[Winston]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

What you forget is that Winston would prefer if the SCOTUS was packed with Christian Reconstructionists.

What you forget is you should learn not to put words in people's mouth.

Like I told you before, debate me or mind your own business altogether. I mean it, Last Conformist.

[rah]

He'll be affirmed. The votes are there.

And Ted Kennedy talking about morals always makes me laugh.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Winston


What you forget is you should learn not to put words in people's mouth.

Like I told you before, debate me or mind your own business altogether. I mean it, Last Conformist.

If you have problem with my behaviour, report me to the moderators. Telling me what to do is not going to get you anywhere.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by rah

And Ted Kennedy talking about morals always makes me laugh.

You mean the ones where he chastises Alito for belonging to an all male organization at Princeton, kinda like OWL at Harvard.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
If you have problem with my behaviour, report me to the moderators. Telling me what to do is not going to get you anywhere.

No, you're the one who's obviously having a problem with me. You even said so yourself the other day. You have never ever taken me on in any debate, yet you keep taking little jabs at me like it's what you do for a living.

Stop stalking me, get over it. Or you will be reported, I can assure you of that.