Talk:Samuel Alito/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Samuel Alito/Archive 2 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Talk:Samuel Alito/Archive 01: 27 October 2005 – 13 January 2006
Talk:Samuel Alito/Archive 02: 13 January 2006 – 3 February 2006

Reminder to sign posts

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)

New Issues

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)

Opponents of the unitary executive theory

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)

Read my edit comments, please. I am not denying that opponents are concerned about his view of the unitary executive. I am removing the clause stating that their concerns are "based upon his known interpretation of the unitary executive . . .", since it assumes without proof that the opponents' description of his position is correct. This assertion -- that their opinion is correct while his own description of his own view is false -- is POV. However, because of the 3RR, I will let the current version stand for the day. Jpers36 05:37, 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:

The sources do not support Alito and should therefore be deleted,
The reader should never be told both sides of the debate, it only confuses the reader into thinking he can decide for himself what to think of it,
However, the deletion of critical sources and the discussion on why Alito is controversial has to constitute a violation of WP:NPOV. I hate to say it but we should leave the criticism, otherwise an admin might disagree and think this is a case of POV pushing.--Nomen Nescio 20:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

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)

Incorrect, the sentence stands for what critics think the Unitary Executive might mean. If you were to read the sources you would find legal experts, and newspapers among them. To say they are blatantly POV misstates the facts. As if, having a different view on the law, makes the analyst POV. Furthermore, I inserted a myriad of sources just to show there is no POV but sincere criticism. To delete the criticism would make it POV! First read the sources, then we can discuss the matter.--Nomen Nescio 21:09, 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)

Nomen Nesico, we are being civil. At this point there have been three different people removing your edit. Please calm down and think about what that might mean. The reason your edit is being removed is because you have inserted a blatant, distorted and unsupported attack on Alito's view of the "Unitarty Executive" theory. Just because an opponent of Alito, like "People for the American Way" says that the Unitary Exectutive Theory means something, does not make it the truth. Wikipedia is not a place to document all attacks and claims made during a political fight, it is a place where a Neutral Point of View is supposed to previal and where facts are presented and opinons are minimized. Alito, whether you agree with him or not, is the best source for determining what he thinks the Unified Executive Theory means. It is not the mission of Wikipedia to document the substance of attacks on Alito, rather the mission is to describe the disagreements that people have. I urge you to limit edits to addition of substantive quotes and references. I would welcome an appropriate quote from an opposing Senator. I have once again reverted your edit (which, as one editor correctly pointed out belongs in the confirmation article instead of this one, if it belongs anywhere). --Paul 02:38, 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)

Instead of constantly screaming "censorship," you might want to familiarize yourself with the concept that you don't own wikipedia. Once you make a poorly written POV contribution, others are free to clean it up without regard to your personal political agenda. --Ajdz 16:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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:

Nevertheless, based upon his previous statements regarding the "unitary executive,"[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] opponents fear he will not uphold the separation of powers as intended by the Constitution.[12] But, in effect, --Paul 18:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)support the interpretation of the Bush administration that as Commander-in-Chief President Bush can not be restrained by any law, national or international.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] (Note: have removed "of his confirmation" to alleviate some concern, and added new sources)

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)

The sources cited are all editorials, Nescio, which means they are openly and intentionally POV. The POV is not a problem for an editorial -- it is in fact the intention of an editorial to put across one's point of view in an intelligent manner -- but it makes editorials nearly worthless as an encyclopedic source. The exception is when pointing out that some person or group of people have a concern about a situation, but the encyclopedia must note such concerns without incorporating the editorial's POV within the article. Your edits are incorporating the editorials' points of view, whereas the edits of others (including myself and Giles22) are attempting to remove such incorporation while still noting the concern. Jpers36 15:43, 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)

Comment: it is without question appropriate to report on the controversy about Alito and the Unitary Executive theory. It is also appropriate to note that Alito has publicly stated a different definition of the theory than that which his critics suspect him to privately hold. Whether his critics are correct, that he is prevaricating in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, or whether they are mistaken, and he really does hold an innocuous view on the subject, the fact that a controversy exists is highly relevant and should be reported in the article. --HK 07:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: HK has it right. My formulation is that the task of a Wikipedia editor is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. WP:NPOV says "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." It also warns to avoid giving undue weight to minority opinions. We should include all points of view (opinions) about Alito. At the same time, this article is about him and not his critics. WE should avoid writing anything that looks like "his critics say..." Opinions should always be attributed in some manner when they are given. Specifically, if a bunch of newspaper ediorials say "X", and we think it is relevant, then we should write, "Many newspapers editorials said 'X'" Likewise, we can report polls, "In March 2005, 30% of likely Connecticut voters favored X". We can even cite notable critics by name, "Senator Y called X, 'Hogwash'". We should cite any direct rebuttal he or his supporters have made, but not make up responses on our own. We need to keep everything in proportion. If Samuel Alito is confirmed he may serve for several decades, and if not he may still have a long and productive existence. Let's keep the minutiae down to a minimum so that this article remains readable. Discussions of legal or ideological topics are be best handled in articles on those topics, like unitary executive. And thanks to everybody for keeping a collegial editing atmosphere. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:24, 27 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)

Comment from Paul.h Nescio, I think you are assuming too much from what has been written here. No one disputes that it is appropriate to show both sides of a debate, but there is also considerable agreement that an article cannot push a POV. You have not changed your edit any based on this discussion, and it is still inappropriate for the following reasons:

1 Nevertheless, based upon Alito's previous statements -- this is an unsupported assertion. WHAT statements? There are no facts here. This could just as well say Nevertheless, based on the phase of the moon. The statements need to be referenced, or this needs to be restated in a non-implicative manner.

'2 ...opponents, through many editorials,^[22] have expressed their fear he will not uphold the separation of powers as intended by the Constitution.^[23] This is still inserting POV editorials without showing any clarity about what is being asserted. Without a connection between something Alito has said or done, this is just pushing a political argment POV.

3 ...They believe assert or maintain is a better, more neutral word; we can nott know what they believe.

4 ...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.^[24] 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. It is not appropriate to say that "critics claim that the President says he can not be restrained by law" without having a quote where that is spelleld out. Otherwise, you are inserting an unsupported POV into the article.

Without some direct, non-POV sources with real quotes to back up the assertions in your edit, this is my suggestion on how it should be rewritten to remain NPOV and conform to Wiki standards:

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:

Nevertheless, based upon his previous statements regarding the "unitary executive,"[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] opponents fear he will not uphold the separation of powers as intended by the Constitution.[37] But, in effect, --Paul 18:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)support the interpretation of the Bush administration that as Commander-in-Chief President Bush can not be restrained by any law, national or international.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] (Note: have removed "of his confirmation" to alleviate some concern, and added new sources)

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:

Thanks for responding, sincerely --Nomen Nescio 22:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

'2 ...opponents, through many editorials,^[47] have expressed their fear he will not uphold the separation of powers as intended by the Constitution.^[48] This is still inserting POV editorials without showing any clarity about what is being asserted. Without a connection between something Alito has said or done, this is just pushing a political argment POV.

3 ...They believe assert or maintain is a better, more neutral word; we can not know what they believe.

4 ...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.^[49] 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. It is not appropriate to say that "critics claim that the President says he can not be restrained by law" without having a quote where that is spelleld out. Otherwise, you are inserting an unsupported POV into the article.

Without some direct, non-POV sources with real quotes to back up the assertions in your edit, this is my suggestion on how it should be rewritten to remain NPOV and conform to Wiki standards:

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]

I look forward to your response. --Paul 18:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

These are all just POV editorializing, and it is not appropriate to regard them as a source, or to use them to back up POV assertions in the article. One by one...

Where does Alito's record reveal this? If I could find an editorial that says: "Alio's record reveals that he favors eating babies for breakfast." Would that be appropriate to put in the article?

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.[59]

This is just a distortion and an attack. Alito has explicity said what he means by the Unitary Executive Theory and it is quoted in the article. Where is the quote from a respected legal authority that supports these assertions? Plus it is loaded with POV things like "fringe" and "detain Americans"

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.[60]

More POV pushing ("extreme statements"). And it is also illogical. How does saying that you believe in the supremacy of the elected brances of government, translate to not putting a check on presential excesses? There are two elected branches of the U.S. government, and Alito's statement could just as resonably be read as saying that he thinks that courts should normally defer to the legislature and executive. It says nothing about what Alito thinks of the limits of Presidential or Congressional power. In the context of Alito's stated philosopy, it is a simple statement of what Chief Justice Roberts referred to as "Judicial modesty."

What is the connection between the Unitary Executive theory, and the "coordinate construction approach"? What does someone's opinion of what Bush thinks have to do with what Alito thinks?

“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.[62]

Another purely POV opinion unsupported by any argument or examples.

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.[63]

Yet Another purely POV opinion unsupported by any argument or examples.

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.[64]

And Yet Another purely POV opinion unsupported by any argument or examples. I could just as well use these quotes as a "reference" to insert the following statement into the article: As evidenced by the following quotes, Alito's opponents have clearly been driven insane by the prospect that he will replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, and have been inventing noxious interpretations of his jurisprudence unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

To reiterate, it is not appropriate to use references to POV material to insert POV material into a Wikipedia article. --Paul 19:44, 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)

Reply to Additional Comment Although I spent some time ridiculing these alarmist editorials and commentaries, my last edit retained the reference to the list of external links. What I objected to, and still object to, is the inclusion of these inflamatory and generally inaccurate charges in the article. The objectionable edit presents the POV arguments without putting them in quotes or making it clear that the Wikipedia editors do not endorse these charges, nor does it point out that there are as many people who think this is unsupported scaremongering as those who read these arguments and are concerned about the future of the country.

I agree with an earlier commentator, that this disagreement belongs in the main Samuel Alito Confirmation article, not here. I also continue to think that the disagreement can be much more succinctly stated without the generally imprecise and inaccurate statements in the current paragraph:

"based upon Alito's previous statements"—with no statements quoted
"separation of powers as intended by the Constitution."—this itself is a point of contention.
"They believe he will support the Bush administration in its interpretation of the Unitary Executive"—The Bush administration has made no claims based on the Unitary Executive theory.
"which they suggest is that as Commander-in-Chief the President can not be restrained by law, national or international"—sloppy not clear if "they" is the Bush administration or "opponents"

--Paul 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Paul: Your concerns are clear, but I do feel your reasoning is flawed.

1 You claim there are inflamatory and generally inaccurate charges in the article. Although I agree the arguments might result in emotional responses, this in itself is not sufficient to deny inclusion. We are here to present facts, not to protect people from getting annoyed. As to the inaccuracy, this is a biased and unsupported allegation. The law is, at times, ambiguous, therefore multiple interpretations are possible. The deny the fact that one could have a different opinion on what the law means is not only incorrect, it is also a violation of WP:NPOV.

2 Claiming it is not clear who is saying what, misrepresents the facts. As you are well aware, it is overtly stated that opponents have this view. Please, do not insert confusion where there is none.

3 The reference to Alito's previous statements can of course be expanded with quotations. However, as you yourself have said, this is not the place to elaborate on this topic. You will have to decide, either we try and keep the discussion as succinct as possible, or you insist on the quotes and this part of the article will get expanded beyond what is reasonable.

4"""separation of powers as intended by the Constitution."—this itself is a point of contention. Are you saying that the trias politica is NOT defined in the constitution?

5 The Bush administration has made no claims based on the Unitary Executive theory. Once again, a misrepresentation of history. Please review the arguments used to refute the Geneva Conventions, justify and redefine torture (by Yoo), to create enemy combatants (by Yoo yet again!), or even the way in which Bush -and not Congress- declared war to invade Iraq. There are numerous examples of this administration resorting to the Commander-in-Chief routine (based upon the Unitary Executive) as justification for violating the law. Or, as they (the adninistration and its supporters) say, suggesting the law can be interpreted in other ways.

6 Sadly you resort to deleberate obfuscating the arguments: not clear if "they" is the Bush administration or "opponents." First, as I understand it one would refer to an administration as it. Meaning, that if interpreatation is to be attributed to the Bush administration the sentence would be: "...which it suggests is that as Commander-in-Chief ..." Second, the entire discussion is about what opponents think the view is Alito and the Bush administration have. It is more than evident that they is supposed to be opponents. If, however you feel the need to, feel free to replace they with opponents.

7 While you object to "unsupported scaremongering," I would like to object to unsupported warmongering. As you well know the Bush administration in the pursuit of OBL made a wrong turn and ended up in Iraq. Mysteriously forgetting OBL ever existed. Then, the US opposed a non-military solution to the conflict with SH citing extremely acute dangers. Although numerous expert said they had grave doubts, the Bush administration insisted they had "evidence." It turns out that all the "evidence" is flawed. Move forward several years and what do we hear, Iran is a major imminent threat, and once again the drums are beating. In short: unsupported warmongering. This comment is to place your assertions in perspective. In addition, the war on terror is the ultimate "unsupported scaremongering." One look at the facts and we can see that the risk of terrorism is dwarfed by the risk of being killed by: a car accident, b heart attack, c murder, d hunger, e bombings or war in general (see Darfur, Iraq, et cetera) f malaria, g AIDS, h alcohol (cirrhosis, DUI), et cetera. If the actual victims were to be reflected by the media, terrorism would certainly not get the attention it does today. This discrepancy can only be the result of "unsupported scaremongering."

Back to Alito, I think either statement (from Paul or NN) is permissible. Both adaquately convey opponents' feelings about Alito, as long as they are clearly labeled as opinions I see no reason to exclude one or the other. NN's is apparantly written from the slant of a detractor, but does convey specific complaints; whereas Paul's is more ambiguous it does seem less inflamatory. I think that Paul's version would be the better, since it deals more generally with opinions which have little bearing on Alito himself (the subject of this page); the more specific complaints would be better off somewhere else, such as one concerning his nomination. 216.99.65.10 16:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A different point is, you have inserted a duplicate portion of the contributions above. Maybe, you want to look if some it can be deleted to shorten this page. Sincerely --

Nomen Nescio 07:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

ABA rating

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)

I think I fixed this, but I missed your comment here before I made the change. Is the new wording acceptable? Jpers36 14:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That looks fine. It makes the necessary distinction without passing any judgment on the validity of the test. Juansmith 10:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Current Tag

This article does not document a current event, but is updated quite frequently. Suggestions?

Chinese Court Cases

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.

Confirmation hearing section

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)

Picky Detail: Alito's yearbook

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)

Mrs. Alito and The Swiftboat Veterans

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

Casey link

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)

Prospect magazine article

"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)

He boasts his membership in the group from its founding, to the year before it was terminated. That's 13 years after his graduation. He knew what they were publishing. If he really didn't agree with what they were doing, don't you think he would leave it off his resume? Seems pretty biased that it's okay to include his participation in long lost student activities when they are in defense of homosexuals and addressing privacy issues, but anything that may show conservative tendencies makes red-flags go up? --Howrealisreal 12:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems a little unfair to ascribe to Alito opinions expressed in a magazine to which he subscribed. I subscribe to Scientific American and sometimes read The nation, but I don't subscribe to all views expressed in those magazines uniformly. -- Charlie (Colorado) 00:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between subscribing to a magazine and being a member of the group that produces a magazine. It is true, I subscribe to plenty of magazines and newspapers that I don't always agree with. In fact, I like to read a lot of periodicals that I specifically disagree with. But, on the other hand, I also do not work for— or am I a boasting member of— those publications and their related organizations. If you worked for Scientific American, of course you can not agree with everything they publish universally, but you are quite connected to the image of that magazine and the viewpoints they express. --Howrealisreal 23:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The then editor of the 1983 Prospect article "In Defense of Elitism" says that it was a satire, and chides Kennedy for reading snippets from it as if it were a serious opinion piece. Can anyone get the entire content of the article and link it so the reader can judge for themselves what it is saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.167.254.1 (talk • contribs)

The best sense of Alito's views is given by his application for employment by the Reagan Administration in which he says "I am and always have been a conservative and an adherent to the same political views that I believe are central to this administration. It is obviously very difficult to summarize a set of political views in a sentence but, in capsule form I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremecy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values. In the field of law I disagree strenuously with the ursurpation by the judiciary of decision making authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate...When I first became interested in government and politics during the 1960's the greatest influences on my views were the writings of William F. Buckley, Jr. The National Review, and Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign. In college I developed a deep interest in constitutional law motivated in large part by disagreement with warren Court decisions particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause and reapportionment. I discovered the writings of Alexander Bickell advocating judicial restraint and it was largely for this reason I decided to go to Yale Law School.

After graduation from law school, completion of my ROTC military commitment and a judicial clerkship I joined the US Attorney's office in New Jersey, principally because of my strong views regarding law enforcement...I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the constitution does not protect a right to an abortion....I am a member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy and a regular participant at its luncheon meetings and a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a conservative alumni group. During the past year I have submitted articles for publication in the national review and the American Spectator.Sea level 22:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Article really neutral?

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)

"typical liberal slant"??? The truth is a relation between a proposition and reality. Its the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. NPOV means no bias, no spin, no intentionaly misleading statements, no omissions, You may not like what a guy said in order to get a job in the Reagan Administration; his making that statement gives the impression that Samual Alito thought the Reagan administration would view those ideas positively and maybe that reflects on them as much on them aS on him, but they are his words and they belong in an article about him.Sea level 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The worst sort of the lie is the truth that you never tell. A man can verify that what you say is correct or incorrect to the satisfaction of his interest. But it's much more difficult to verify that you've told all he needs to make up his mind. I read the article and felt that it was even-handed, if maybe a little soft. When I say "soft" I mean only to relative to other articles about political figures, which alternate between excoriating them and apotheosizing them. This one actually feels like a respectable balance between the two. Take that with a grain of salt, however; I don't find Alito an especially loathesome choice for the Supreme Court, so if the article is biased in his favor, I'm unlikely to notice. Bjsiders 18:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The article would be more even handed and better history if it addressed in detail all the issues with Alito that Senators filibustered his confirmation over.Sea level 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

lock down

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)

Too much information in places

There is two paragraphs in reference to CAP in personal life, which seems a bit overkill since Alito is said to only have supported CAP in reference to ROTC. Maybe one or two sentences about the whole ROTC, CAP and issue made in the hearings?

Samuel Alito listed CAP on his application for employment with the Reagan administration for a reason and that reason wasn't ROTC. He made it clear on that application that his first interest in the law and the court was opposition to the Warren court rulings that helped preserve the rights of minorities and women. He maintained a close friendship with Andrew Napolitano the founder of CAP for eighteen years and at the same time maintained he didn't know what king of racist sexist organization CAP was? That's simply not a credible statement.69.164.66.203 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole "Issues raised in confirmation hearings" section can be removed as the information is contained in the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination main page.
Also, this Talk page needs archiving, it is 111kb. Alito has been confirmed and sworn in, I think its a good time. I would do it myself, but I have never done it before and want to leave it for someone more qualified.

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)

current event?

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

Is Alito A Good Choise?

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

Of course he's not a good choice. At least, he's not a good choice for the majority of America. But neither is Bush. Bush is an awful choice, so you can't be surprised when he chooses someone who is also an awful choice. But, if for some reason, you like Bush, and enjoy supporting the movement to force your opinion on abortion on others (though it's defintately not all about abortion, folks), then you'll probably think he's the best thing America could ever have. My personal opinion is that you shouldn't force your opinion or beliefs on others on a choice that is that personal. Debate is fine, but since it is such a personal choice, you shouldn't order someone to believe in what you think. I had an id, I simply forgot it, and I really don't care to create a new account simply for this comment

Why would this discussion take place here? A talk page isn't a shooting-the-breeze debate forum, it's for discussing the article itself, and whether or not Alito is a good choice isn't something that could be NPOV and so it wouldn't be included in the article no matter how this discussion pans out. —Cleared as filed. 03:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A sub debate could happen, sort of like the ones over the hurricane season.(would be in a seperate page though; a sort of wiki relief) 12.220.94.199 03:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I had an id, I agree with you all the way. Son Goku22

Son Goku22, I'm no user, but shouldn't this discussion be saved for your favorite blog? User 71.96.165.158 12:27 AM, 1 February 2006 (CST)

This is not appropriate because the topic was started for the sole purpose of bashing Alito (and Bush for that matter). If you are going to start a topic that isn't relevant to the article, at least make it open ended as opposed to, "Is Alito a good choice? I say, no." Haizum 07:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

Bush was selected by the Supreme Court even though the majority of people voted for Gore. Polling shows more people than not are calling for Bush to be impeached.

Bush defeated Gore through the only count that matters - that of the electoral college. He also defeated John Kerry, so he has twice been elected by the lawful process of his country. Please take your off-topic posts elsewhere. Johntex\^talk 02:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment is another issue that shows the disconnect between elected representatives and the people. According to a January 2006 poll by Zogby, by a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval. People who deny that are uninformed.

By your reasoning it would be odd if people both wanted Bush impeached and his selection of a judge confirmed.69.164.66.203 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog or discussion forum. Take discussions that are not about the article elsewhere. Thanks. Peyna 01:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Format

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)

Erm...

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)

Supreme Court career

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)

Categories: Talk archives