Talk:Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] First Majority Catholic Supreme Court

If confirmed by the Senate, Alito would be the fifth Roman Catholic to serve on the current Supreme Court, creating the First Majority Catholic Supreme Court, joining two Jews and two Protestants. Together, Catholics (24% of the U.S. population) and Jews (2% of the population) would constitute 77% of the Supreme Court membership, leaving Protestants (whose denominations constitute a majority of the American population) with the smallest minority on the court in its history (First Minority Protestant Supreme Court). There is no religious test to be a Supreme Court justice in the U.S.

[edit] Emphasis on religion

Is Alito's religion really so important that it merits half of the article? "First Majority Catholic Supreme Court" and "Catholic Senators..." seem irrelevent and remeniscent of questions about whether President Kennedy would be taking orders from the Pope. Cmadler 17:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC).

On the other hand, given the prominence of the religious right in the selection of a Supreme Court justice, given that one's views about abortion have become a litmus test, and given the Catholic church's strong opposition to abortion, one could argue that the emphasis on the Catholic makeup of the Court is entirely appropriate. (unsigned contribution by 63.197.76.235 at 15:34, October 31, 2005)

Religion has become a very important quality (unfortunately) for the nominators and the groups supporting or fighting the nominees. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have succesfully nominated a protestant since Stevens (or Episcopalian Souter), thirty years ago. Protestant action groups no longer trust mainline (Northeastern) protestants, who are perceived as too liberal, and the left, establishment, and media do not trust evangelicals from the South or Midwest (Miers), especially those who have not been pulled into the Eastern seaboard establishment. The last two Democrat justices confirmed were jewish. There is a dynamic religious angle going on in judicial (read intellectual, cultural) nominations, and though the old anti-semitism and anti-catholicism is mostly gone, there is a major religious context to all judicial nominations for the past thirty years, how religions are affected by geography and education and how they affect each party. Furthermore, because of the goal of attracting swing Catholic senatorial confirmation votes and popular electoral votes, there has been a concerted effort by Republicans to nominate Catholics. Evangelical or Conservative protestants, though, have not been nominated as they do not occupy the same swing position in the country. - 1 November 2005
In responding to 63.197.76.235 (wished they'd log in); I don't recall the Democrats having a problem with John Kerry's position on abortion, although he claims to be Roman Catholic. I don't think anyone even questions Edward Kennedy's position on abortion although he claims to be a Roman Catholic. Shall I go on?Asacan 23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction to nomination

The reason I have taken out all the direct quotes and summed the pros and cons down to a paragraph each is that it really doesn't seem important. So far, reaction has been exactly what you would expect when a conservative Republican appoints a conservative Republican -- Republicans are for it, Democrats are against it. It looked to me as if supporters and opponents among the editors were getting involved in trying to outdo each other in finding colorful quotes that support their side, and I can't see the utility in that.

I think it is clear from the items included in the nomination issues section what the debate is about, but if someone who thinks more is needed in the "Reaction" section wants to write a brief summary of each side to include under Reactions, I'd be okay with that. But we don't need to turn this article into a modern-day version of Bartlett's Quotations, imho. Brandon39 21:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

--

This cannot simply be as you say "Republicans are for it, Democrats are against it." These quotes have substance and meaning. This is an article on the nomination process and you want to remove quotes from of Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, the body voting on this very nomination?
"exactly what you would expect," is a POV. It is not appropriate in this forum. {unsigned comment by 68.50.103.212 at 15:45, October 31, 2005)
But it is "exactly what you would expect". That's not point of view; it's fact. Singling out Leahy's opinion will be notable when he says something surprising, which so far he has not. I'm going to make another try at editing this section down to a reasonable length. Brandon39 04:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
No. It is exactly what YOU would expect, and YOU do not speak for all. Let the quotes be read. These are influential people, and their positions on the matter are just as important as any other issue involved in this nomination. Leahy's opinion will be notable as long as he is the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee not when you are surprised. (unsigned comment at 23:30, October 31, 2005)
First, if everyone would please remember to sign your comments, it will help is keeping track of who is saying what.
Second, I would ask for someone to explain what purpose is served in presenting an ever-lenghtening list of dueling soundbites in this article. I'd also be curious as to hear from anyone who is genuinely surprised to find that all of the proponents to date have been Republicans, and all of the opponents have been Democrats. Thanks. Brandon39 05:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I did not "eliminate an entire section"; I retained it, renamed it, and shortened it so that it would be (in my view) more useable. Brandon39 05:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion section

Somehow this was missed:

In 2000, for example, Alito was among the judges who ruled that a New Jersey law banning late-term abortions was unconstitutional, following high court precedent. He did not join the main court opinion, however, and wrote a careful decision that said his vote was compelled.

In 1995, he voted to invalidate Pennsylvania restrictions on publicly funded abortions for women who are victims of rape or incest. The state wanted the women to have to report the crime to police first, but Alito joined another judge in finding that the state rules were trumped by federal government policy.

From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051031/ap_on_go_su_co/alito_abortion;_ylt=AhFYCA605a9_t8Gu139dFFOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

I'm sure some conscientious editor will find the case citation. Homoneutralis 21:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too much overlap

In my opinion, this article contains too much information about Alito himself and not his nomination specifically, including quite a bit of redundant information between Samuel Alito and this article. There's nothing wrong with articles sharing information, but if this is absolutely necessary let's either make sure one is a brief summary of the other with an appropriate link or that a template is used to prevent forking. Deco 06:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In particular, his decisions are covered here and in the main article and the choice of cases and their descriptions differ. I think it would be better to cover his decisions once in one place. --agr 22:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The decisions discussed in this article should be in the context of his nomination.(preceeding unsigned comment by User:68.50.103.212 (Talk) )

[edit] Too much information

Why do people make these huge articles about political stuff (this is an encyclopedia not a news site) This should contain the basic info and links to news pages that have all the information and quotes etc... Manwe 08:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Political events are notable enough for their own encyclopedia articles. That's just the way the site works. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I am proposing this article be merged with Samuel Alito. There is no real separation between the person and his nomination to the Supreme Court. Already there is a lot of duplication. There was a similar situation with the CIA leak scandal. Originally there was an article about it at Valerie Plame, Then a parallel Plame affair article was started, other coverage was added to Karl Rove and the result was a big mess. This is one story and it should be covered in one article. --agr 13:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The nomination and the person being nominated are related but different subjects. There already is enough material just on the nomination to warrant having a separate article so that aspect of this person will not overwhelm an article on the man. The article on the man should only have a summary of the nomination info in it per Wikipedia:Summary style. Same for the other articles you mentioned (and yep, they need to be cleaned-up along those lines). --mav 20:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree there should be two articles, if there is too much overlap then we should fix that by removing from Samuel Alito some of the info pertaining to his nomination to the supreme court. Then more information can be added to Samuel Alito about the rest of his life and career. Johntex\talk 21:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics Contention

So far, there's nothing in this article about this http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002618794_webalito11.html

--Christofurio 19:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Alito knows better than to confess during interrogation. His Vanguard responses are all over the place, true. However simply admitting that he broke his word to the Senate would be an option only if his nomination had more votes. Metarhyme 03:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Executive power

With the recent NSA wiretap scandal, we may need to insert a sectio9n on Alito's views on the ideas of executive power into the article. Orville Eastland 14:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed quote

I removed a quote from the section on Alito's Pennsylvania spousal notification law. It quoted a "legal expert" who was in fact one of the ACLU's lawyers arguing the case and polemically suggested that it meant Roe was no longer law. It added nothing to that section of the article, seemed POV, and I removed it. Wally 19:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPR

Might it be of note that the hearings are currently being broadcast on NPR?

The hearings are being broadcast everywhere, including NPR C-SPAN and multiple other sources. It might be worthwhile to mention somewhere, but I wouldn't just include NPR. Sue Anne 22:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The importance of this nomination with regard to the future of the supreme court, contributions, and votes for future elections needs to be mentioned. This importance is REFLECTED in the media coverage. WAS 4.250 00:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judge and Senator

Someone added "Senator" all over the article. Fine. But use "Judge" just as often. WAS 4.250 00:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

We should have a see also section with links to other recent confirmation trials-roberts, myers. freestylefrappe 02:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Here's a link to Jack M. Balkin's take on the general situation (old - spring 2004 - but apt). Metarhyme 03:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10-8

"On January 24th, 2006, the Judiciary Committee voted on a straight partisan line 10-8 to send Alito's nomination to the full Senate."

I know the vote was along party-lines, but can someone please post the names of the senators and how they voted? thanks. Kingturtle 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the transcript. The senators' names and parties are listed at the top and how they voted is at the bottom. Carbonite | Talk 20:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


I made the 'judiciary committee' a link, so its easy to see whos who. Bo 20:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Neutral" section

Loath though I am to revert an addition by Kiwidude, especially in view of the concordance of our research interests and, most remarkably, of our academic histories, I removed his addition to the "neutral" section of the statement "Senators Susan Collins & Olympia Snowe (R-ME) have not announced a position on the Aliton nomination. They are a part of a handful of Republican senators who support abortion rights." Notwithstanding the syntactic imperfections of the sentence, and notwithstanding that indeed Senators Collins and Snowe are significant figures in the confirmation morass, inasmuch as they are two of five Republican senators whom we might typically call "pro-choice", the sentence does not seem to impart any substantive information; instead, it reflects the absence of information. Whilst such absence might be of some use to us, it is difficult to see what precisely qualifies it as "encyclopedic"; one imagines that there are a few other members of the Senate not yet having expressed a position whom we might list. I think, then, that, given that the information added was not an expression of neutrality from Senators Collins and Snowe, but, instead, an outside comment to the effect of their not yet having announced a position (which one might term "original research", given that it provides a conclusion based upon the absence of evidence), it is appropriate that it should be removed from the article. I will surely, of course, understand if the information is added back, but I might suggest that, given that most senators have expressed some public position relative to the confirmation of Judge Alito, we might best alter the "Reaction to the nomination" section to include comments in support and opposition (and neutral comments) from outside groups and personnages and then create a separate section in which to enumerate the members of the US Senate and then to add a relevant quote about the nomination where available. A chart might best be used, with columns "Senator", "Vote" (to be completed after the Senate vote), and "Comment" (to be filled in where available, with other quotes sure to follow in view of the forthcoming floor debate on the nomination). I won't proceed straightaway with the formulation of such chart sua sponte, but should others writing here seem to concur, I will gladly shoulder the responsibility of formulating such a chart and gathering the quotes, many of which are available on the homepages of each senator. Cordially, Joe 23:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Collins, Snowe and even Chafee (R-RI), are pro-choice Republican senators that have not made up their mind. They have neither announced any inentions nor casted a vote which makes them NEUTRAL. Not taking a position is the definition of neutral, look it up! There is something called a dictionary, big book with words. The information is not original research. Simply read any newspaper, listen to any political commentary and you will find the same information. If we need sources and evidence for EVERY single fact, the souce list would be twenty pages. oy vey! Kiwidude 23:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I hate to affect an angry tone, but I wonder what has happened to YLS since last I visited; they used to teach reasoning skills there. The point is that the section is for neutral comments made, not to enumerate senators who are neutral. If we wish to do that, then we ought to take up my chart idea, described supra. You will surely apprehend that the categories fall under "Reaction to the nomination". The Northeastern Republicans have NOT provided a neutral reaction, at least not one fairly approximated by your summary. The section--poorly-designed as it may be--was to include reactions that were neutral, such as those of Chuck G. and John Thune. I surely agree that your additions are of a greater benefit that those otherwise in the article, but they simply do not fit in the neutral section. I am certain that you will understand that not expressing a position is dramatically different from expressing neutrality (even as I belief that the offices of the Maine ladies have indeed issued neutral statements along the way, excerpts from which belong in the section). Joe 00:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The naming of this section is erroneous. If you're going to put only statements, then put "statements" or something to that effect in the headline. Leaving it just as "reaction" or "opposition" allows from comments like mine. I strongly believe that those Senator from Rhode Island and Maine should be put under "neutral". Did you look up the definition of neutral? It's what I said it would be. Not taking a position by not annoucning it is being neutral! My reasoning is absolutely logical; yes YLS does still teach reasoning and forever will, when did you visit? Anyhoo, Collins said she would support Alito. Chafee and Snowe have not announced any decision. They're NEUTRAL! Golly Gee Whiz... Have a lovely day. Kiwidude 05:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with you. I wasn't suggesting that the setup was correct as it was; instead, I was noting that your formulations did not fit with the rest of the section, inasmuch as not saying anything is not the same as making a neutral statement. I am going to work on bifurcating the "Reaction to the nomination" section such that one section contains initial comments in support and opposition of the nomination whilst the other contains the stated positions of each senator. By the way, because I take it that each of us enjoys semantics, I should say that your contention "Not taking a position by not announcing it is being neutral" is logically unsound. First, one might already have formulated a position and simply not announced it; the absence of a stated position is not neutrality--the presence of a stated position of neutrality is. Though not on all fours, the distinction between "disinterested" and "uninterested" is relevant, where, for example, Snowe and Chafee might be "disinterested"--having no stake (or, here, position)--or "uninterested"--not caring. In sum, though I agree with you that the formulation of the page is incorrect and will act to remedy the problem, your addition did not fit given the previous construction of the "neutral" section. Most notably, though, I must say again, the absence of an expression of an opinion is not the same as an expression of neutrality (for example, I have not publicly stated--until now--my preference for Jay Leno to/over David Letterman, but never was I neutral on the subject). In any case, we'll get the page looking better soon, I expect...Cordially, Joe 05:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Senator Collins has publicly stated that she will support the nomination. Giles22 17:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be unwise to assess certain positions to certain candidates as things are as of this moment very much in flux. Some people who have voted YES or NO on Alito may take different position on the vote for cloture.Sea level 00:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, that is evident in today's vote for cloture when only 25 senators voted against cloture while the rest supported it. Chafee is against Alito, so he's not neutral anymore.Kiwidude 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/m/Talk%7ESamuel_Alito_Supreme_Court_nomination_aea0.html"