Talk:Samuel Alito/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

• Talk:Samuel Alito/Archive 01: 27 October 2005 – 13 January 2006

Opinion selection

Just a thought from a first-year law student -- it seems to me that the opinions selected to represent Alito's POV are intended to mitigate his reputation as a hard-core right-winger. If I didn't have to study for school I'd research it myself... Jessesamuel 17:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)jessesamuel

Regardless of what opinions are mentioned, they should be in the nominations article, not the Bio one. --Paul 16:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

How about this: Someone should go to a liberal blog, People for the American Way's website, etc. Get a half-dozen or so decisions that show Alito as the conservative he surely is. Then, because there shouldn't be this many discrete opinions in the bio article, delete all but a half-dozen conservative opinions. But them in two paragraphs, and structure them by doing something like: Alito is generally regarding as a conservative. For example: [List conservative cases]. However, he has displayed more liberal instincts in some cases. For example: [List liberal cases]. And if you want to put all the rest of the liberal opinions in the nomination article as a counter to Sen. Kennedy's remarks or something, go ahead. Just a thought.--zenohockey 17:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, is that political right-wing? Or judicial conservative? I feel they are two different things. Somehow I feel that the cases selected do not make him out to be politically conservative in all respects. Williams v. Price granted habeus - and don't those who are politically conservative tend to err on the side of keeping people in jail? And he struck down a law banning partial-birth abortions in NJ in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer. I've already heard the media talk about Fatin v. INS as an example of his "libertarian" views - a puzzling way to put it, but they're right that it's not what one usually associates with political conservatism. Or even judicial conservatism. Certainly, there are more examples of conservatism in that case history, but I question if there's enough to make him "hard-core" anything. I think this guy is more in the mold of Roberts than Scalia. --Trnpkroadwarrior 17:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this section has changed much since I wrote my comment above, but it looks pretty representative now. He seems textualist, deferential to agencies and law enforcement, etc. -- just what you'd expect from a Bush appointee, after all.

In Fatin, for what it's worth, he did point out that "persecution does not encompass all treatment that our society regards as unfair, unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional." 12 F.3d 1233, 1240. But based on my extraordinarily limited knowledge of immigration law, under the strict text of the law, one needs to show a legitimate fear of reprisal based on social or political group -- not gender. So maybe he's not a conservative ogre, eh? --zenohockey 20:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Other's Comments on Alito

• The quotes selected are extremely slanted and clearly intended to suggest that liberals who oppose Alito's appointment are hypocritical. Why are others' opinions even relevant? Elliotreed 17:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

They are extremely relevant as they are contemporary, notable figures commenting on the subject of this article; who will be very involved in the history of the subject of this article in the weeks and months to come.--Elliskev 17:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I find the quotes to be irrelevant and misleading. They came not only before his nomination to the Supreme Court but before he took his place on the Third Circuit. As such, they cannot reflect his record on that court. Someone who may have seemed a fair prosecutor may not have acted as a fair judge. The only purpose of including this particular selection of quotes is to paint potential Alito critics as hypocrites when in fact there is no contradiction between liking Alito as a prosecutor and disliking him as a judge.--RichardMathews 18:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the quotations have an agenda behind them. Perhaps they can go on the nomination page with other notable comments? Jokestress 18:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I also note that the Harriet Miers page didn't include any such comments when she was still the nominee. --Elliotreed 18:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the nomination page would make more sense, but I don't see that they are indicative any agenda by their inclusion. They are a reality and they are about the subject of the article.--Elliskev 18:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of having comments, but they are definitely slanted. I'm removing them for now if there are no objections. -- Scott e^iπ 18:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I think they should stay. I'm not really up for getting too worked up about it, but I think that they are relevant. My 2 cents...--Elliskev 18:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, someone beat me to it. In reply to Elliskev, the quotes may be a reality, but it is possible to push a POV by including some information while excluding others. Additionally, the quotes were somewhat out of context, since they were made almost 15 years ago, and a casual reader may not have caught that. -- Scott e^iπ 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly - one form of informational bias is the lack of information - I couldn't verify the validity of the quotes posted verbatim from the RNC press release to boot lordkazan 19:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll revisit this when a criticism section pops up - with quotes.--Elliskev 18:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel that the quotes are both accurate and revelevent, and they should be removed. It is clear to me that they were posted to make those quoted look hypocritical, which may need done. I would love those in politics to be held accountable for there words and actions. BUT, I also feel that the place to promote political accountability is not within the Samuel Alito article. I feel that comments supporting the character of Alito belong, but lets try to at least find one source to quote that would still publicly agree with what they said. I don't think any one would argue quotations from less politically charged sources. jphofmann 18:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This section is copied verbatim from a Republican National Committee press release [1]. This in itself should prove what POV was intended by their inclusion. I am removing them and I expect that they will not be readded in the absence of a good-faith effort to write a useful section for the article. Eliot 18:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• The fact that they have been quoted elsewhere does not make them less true. This article is not about the current nomination, it is a bout Alito's entire career. Quotes from 15 years ago can be relevant to an article about his entire career if they are used correctly. The most recent version of their incluion in the article made very clear when the quotes were made. Therefore, I think they should be included as part of the overall coverage of Alito's careeer. Johntex\^talk 19:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with them 'having been quoted elsewhere.' Obviously what happened is that somebody read the RNC press release and inserted it directly into Wikipedia (with the same formatting and all). That's not a good way to make an informative, POV-free section; it's about the worst one I can think of. What we need is for someone to start this section with an eye towards creating an accurate picture of opinion about Alito. If such a section were to exist, I don't imagine that these empty pleasantries, of which Congressional Record is totally full of, would make the cut. Eliot 19:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't be cutting and pasting from press releases. However, the more recent versions of these quotes have been reworded to explain when they were made, to have correct formatting, etc. These are relevant quotes when they are included properly. Johntex\^talk 19:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Still, they'd be better off if they were at wikiquote instead (with a link at the bottom). Only really relevant (famous?) quotes belong here. Broken S 19:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think they should stay, but perhaps some information could be added, such as the date/context of those quotes.--WAHooker 19:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly what more recent versions of the quotes have attempted to do. Please see User:Johntex/Alito-temp for an example of how we can put these quotes in the proper NPOV context. Improvements to that draft are welcome. Johntex\^talk 20:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Johntex they cannot be NPOV until there are democrats dissenting, republicans approving and dissenting. I'd add those myself but i cannot find any and I'm at work. -- Lordkazan 20:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason these quotes are such a hot topic is not because of there great value in defining the character of Alito, but because these comments would clearly not be made by those quoted now. Ultimately they are only being added into this topic to make the all democratic senators look hypocritical, which has no place in this peticular note. By all means start the hypocrasy node and cite these fine examples. -- jphofmann 21:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

..combined from similar section

There is no reason to remove these comments. They are verifyable comments made by notable persons at an importantt time in Alito's career.

• Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “You have obviously had a very distinguished record, and I certainly commend you for long service in the public interest. I think it is a very commendable career and I am sure you will have a successful one as a judge.”, speaking on Alito's nomination to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Sen. Ted Kennedy, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, April 5, 1990
• Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ): “I believe Mr. Alito has the experience and the skills to be the kind of judge the public deserves – one who is impartial, thoughtful, and fair. I urge the Senate to confirm his nomination.”, speaking on Alito's nomination to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Congressional Record, April 27, 1990, p. S5281
• Former Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ): “The confirmation of Sam Alito as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey is testimony to the commitment he has shown and the success of his efforts as a law enforcement official. I am confident that he will continue to do all he can to uphold the laws of this nation with the kind of determination and vigor that has been his trademark in the past.” Sen. Bill Bradley, Congressional Record, December 8, 1987 p. S17427)

I can't guess why they keep getting removed. It seems to be primarily being done by anonymous editors. Perhaps someone will explain their reasoning. Johntex\^talk 19:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Since you asked, these quotes of questionable relevance are cherry-picked for purposes of POV by a political party [2] and thus constitute clear POV pushing. This POV is particularly egregious in the absence of any other quotes from anybody. They should not be readded without a good-faith effort to make an accurate article, and niceties picked out of the Congressional Record ain't it. Eliot 19:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Since those quotes were originally added (I'm not sure by whom), I've been trying to revise them to ensure that they are taken in the proper context. Ie. prior to his work on the Circuit Court. They don't constitute POV pushing here if they are correctly explained. They are factual, verifyable quotes from notable sources. I'm against pulling them out since they are factual statements about how he was viewed at an important point in his career. We can certainly add new quotes about how these or other people view him today or at any other points. Johntex\^talk 19:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

In abscence of dissenting quotes from democrats, and quotes both supporting and dissenting from republicans it constitutes an informational bias and therefore is pushing POV. Miers didn't have such quotes - the intent of this section is shown clearly by that it was originally copy+pasted verbatim from RNC press release - they're manufactured talking points. Even with full information with supporting/dissenting quotes from democrats and republicans I still think it wouldn't belong on the page - but not for POV reasons - readding these without dissenting/supporting from Dems/Reps I will RV it all day long Lordkazan 19:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Miers is certainly a red-herring. She didn't have any such qoutes, because she'd never gone through a prior nomination process. Again, I'm happy to see us include additional quotes to give a fuller picture. Johntex\^talk 19:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The three Republican National Committee selected comments above can now go under Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination. Note the slightly different comment on that page made by Ted Kennedy in response to the nomination. Jokestress 19:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

They don't actually belong there since they pre-date any discussion of him for the Supreme Court. Treated correctly, they belong here as part of his entire life and career. Johntex\^talk 20:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The quotations are in response to the nomination, chosen and released today by RNC. You can add them on the nomination page with an intro like "The Republican National Committee put out a press release on 31 October noting comments about Alito by proiminent Democrats prior to the nomination: (then list the cherry-picked comments)." Jokestress 20:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason these quotes are such a hot topic is not because of there great value in defining the character of Alito, but because these comments would clearly not be made by those quoted now. Ultimately they are only being added into this topic to make the all democratic senators look hypocritical, which has no place in this peticular note. By all means start the hypocrasy node and cite these fine examples. -- jphofmann 21:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't remove them, as this is the first time I've visted Alito's page, but I would certainly agree with the removal. These quotes by Democratic senators were placed there to serve as a counterpoint to the presumed eventual Alito criticism by the same or similar Senators in the upcoming days. It's a rather disingenuous laying of groundwork for future "So-and-so is a hypocrite!" assertions. This is eaxctly the kind of thing that the wiki doesn't need, IMO. Tarc 19:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I would say that they should probably be summarized, but the information should be kept—it is argued by supporters of Alito that he had bipartisan support in the past, and therefore that he is well qualified. Whether or not it is true that he's well qualified, it's verifiable that: 1) Democrats in the past said nice things about him; and 2) Alito's supporters in 2005 are bringing up those past nice things as evidence. Presenting them as a list without commentary is probably not the best presentation though, and we also probably don't need the full quotes—an excerpt such as "supporters cite Ted Kennedy's [year] comment that Alito had a 'very distinguished record'", or some such. --Delirium 20:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

That may work -- Lordkazan 20:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

That's reasonable.--Elliskev 20:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Eliot 22:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, similar scrutiny should be applied to the "case history" section, where the opposite POV-pushing seems to be going on (opponents trying to find quotes from cases that make him look particularly bad). --Delirium 20:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference there - the case history is actually completely relevant and whether his court decisions make him look bad is completely subjective to you. A quote from a dissent or a majority opinion is a matter of record. If you think some quote is out of context expand on it, but the case quotes belong there as they are from the case - a copy+paste of a RNC talking points press release is not appropriate -- Lordkazan 20:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a line just summarzing this, just saying: "Some Democrats who praised Alito in 1990 when he was nominated to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals now oppose his nomination to the Supreme Court because they say that 15 years of judicial rulings and opinions have changed their view of him." --Rorschach

• This is a good thought and a good step towards compromise. Ideally, we need to improve upon the quote by removing the "Some Demecrats" and citing someone specific. Have Kennedy or Lautenburg actually voiced outright opposition? Bradley is not very active in politics now, so I doubt he will be providing a quote on this nomination. Also, who specifically has said that their views have changed? Johntex\^talk 16:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it reads a lot better in this format than it did in the ticky-tacky manner that it did yesterday. There are several factors regarding why they could have been for Alito in 1990, and possibly (no votes have been taken yet, remember) be against him in 2005, such as the rulings handed down in that span of time, or that they hold Supreme Court nominees to a higher standard than they do for lower court nominees. Tarc 17:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot of wholesale deleting going on all throughout this article. I can see deleting unsourced POV, but to delete sourced reality, links to factual statement (e.g. he was confirmed unanimously), quotes from Harry Reid and George Bush from today is just plain censorship. These are facts. If anyone has a problem with the facts, they should add other facts that provide perspective, not just go and delete all smug and whatnot--Elliskev 20:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree - those quotes from Bush and Reid from today are 100% relevant and should stay there -- Lordkazan 20:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Is the last factoid "Born on April Fools Day and nominated on Halloween" really needed? His date of birth and date nominated to the Supreme Court are already in the article. No Account 21:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's harmless, factual, and trivial. I think it's fine.--Elliskev 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Saxe v. State College Area School District

Saxe is currently listed under both First Amendment and Harassment and Discrimination. I realize it fits under both but it seems redundent to me. Which should we list it under? --Benna 02:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems redundant to me too. I'm not sure where it should go, though. I'd need to read the cases more carefully. Elliotreed 02:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Section "Reaction to the nomination"

We should strive to balance the number of quotes from those opposing Alito and those supporting Alito in this section.

I ran a quick wordcount on this section. I see 254 words in opposition of Alito, 126 in support of Alito, and 68 neutral (Sen. Feinstein's comment.)

In addition, this section:

In contrast, supporters of the president contend that what senator Kerry characterizes as the "far right wing" is a key segment of American society that deserves an equal voice and equal representation. They point out that President Bush promised those who would vote for him that he would appoint a justice to the Supreme Court that would be a so-called strict constructionist, and now he is fulfillling his campaign promise.

should either be given a source, or replaced. -Chardish 17:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Draft Lottery Info

Is there a source for this? --Elliskev 22:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed until we can get a source. It seems like way too specific information to remain unsourced. Things like "Alito is a judge" don't need sources, things like this do. - Chardish 03:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia: "A.B." vs. "B.A."

Anon 85.155.133.201 changed his degree from "A.B." to "B.A." I reverted it, because: 1) them Ivy Leaguish schools often do stuff like that, for reasons only known to themselves, and b) I found a couple of cites which lists his degree as an "A.B." See http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=MZZ22876 and http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=26, a .gov site which likely has some cred.--RattBoy 17:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

A.B. is an abbreviation for the Latin form of the degree 'Bachelor of Arts'; this form is or was used by colleges (including the one I graduated from) who issue(d) their diplomas in Latin. As more colleges issue their diplomas in English one will find less and less use of the form 'A.B.'.Alloco1 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Abortion issue count

In the article it says "supported limited abortion rights in 3 out of 4 rulings as described below.", but when you read the four points listed below, it appears only 1 of the 4 supports this stance. I did not research into the actual rulings, but it would seem that either the count is incorrect or the description of the rulings is inaccurate.

• First, he rules in favor of a restriction law (the one supporting limited rights)
• Second, he rules an abortion restriction unconsitutional
• Third, he strikes down a restriction requiring law enforcement notification
• Fourth, he rules against unborn protection by the government

This is my first discussion submission so go easy on me. RyanAlbarelli 06:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Alito Sr an immigrant?

According to his military service records, Samuel Alito Sr. was born in New Jersey in 1914, not Italy. [3] Rillian 01:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

USSC wins?

How many of the 12 Supreme Court cases that he argued, did he win? Merecat 07:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV problem

This secion is clearly not neutral:

"The memory loss is not credible when it is known in 1985 Alito bragged in his job application, as a credential, his memebership in CAP."

1) It's not clear how listing an organization qualifies as "bragging" 2) It's not any sort of established fact that his memory loss did or did not happen

ShaneB 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I noticed that too and didn't fix it. Alito found against Parastoo Fatin because she didn't lie. She had to have said she would disobey the Iranian dress code for women to avoid losing her appeal. If an individual wants something badly, there should be a willingness to lie to get it? If so, here applied to himself. Metarhyme 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Links & footnotes

With the mix of numbered URL links and footnotes, the numbers are not correct in the notes section. Recommend this be changed to one or the other. --Gadget850 18:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Settled issues

POV Tag

There's a neutrality dispute tag at the top of the article. Is it really necessary? Reading the talk page I don't see much that's disputed except a few items in the "Trivia" section, which doesn't sound to me like it merits a tag at the top of the page. Elliotreed 19:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

POV tag removed. No enumerated issues. 5 November 2005

I still haven't found any enumerated issues on this page aside from a dispute about the "trivia" section, nor an explanation of why the POV tag is there. I'm going to take it off. If someone thinks it should be there, please enumerate some issues here. Elliotreed 23:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

And if someone does do so, and the dispute is limited to the trivia section, it would be preferable to put the POV tag in that section instead of at the top of the article. --Delirium 03:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the dispute? If you can answer then reinsert the tag. Lotsofissues 10:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Link to SCOTUS nom up top?

I hate to be too blunt, but this man's article would be nothing more than a stub if it wasn't for his Supreme Court nomination. Does anyone else think it would be appropriate to have a message linking to Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination at the top of the page? -Greg Asche (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes; good idea. Executing. Septentrionalis 04:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Introductory statement

• Alito and wife, Martha, live in West Caldwell, New Jersey. He has two children: a son in college and a daughter in high school.
• The comment about his having been rated "well qualified" to be a Circuit Court judge fifteen years ago looks like unacceptable POV when put at the top of the article. --Elliotreed 20:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Early Life >> Personal Life

Or something simialr?--Elliskev 21:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

'Personal life'

should his kid's name's be de-linked. they aren't notable and won't have an article on them.Kiwidude 05:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct.

The Washington Post quote looks like unbalanced POV. Isn't whether he'll let his personal views color his judicial judgments one of the major points of contention in the nomination battle? --Elliotreed 15:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I added that the WP attributes those sentiments to his friends. It may have been somewhat misleading (it may have beenn assumed that the WP carried those sentiments), but I wouldn't call it POV. Not every statement about a person is POV, even if it's nice. It would be POV if the article says those nice things about him, butit doesn't it says that his friends say those nice things about him - which may be irrelevant, but, again, not POV.--Elliskev 16:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Religious Faith

• What is the religious faith of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.?

Roman Catholic. If Judge Alito is confirmed, five of the nine Supreme Court Justices would be Catholic. Is this representative of the American people? Can the Court give the Roe v. Wade issue an objective review in keeping with the wishes of America?

nomination

Why is there a separate article for the nomination? It seems redundant to me. The Monster 13:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The nomination is an event, the person is a person - and if all of what will end up in the 2 articles went into one, it would end up being too long anyway. See the separate John Roberts bio and confirmation articles for support of that premise. BD2412 T 14:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

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.

• Could we consider consolidating those two articles into something a little more substantial? They're stubs as it is. Perhaps "Religion of Supreme Court Justices?" Even that might be too short; maybe there should just be a new heading under the main Supreme Court article. I think to give each of these their own articles is making a mountain out of a molehill. --Trnpkroadwarrior 17:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

A broader Religion of United States Supreme Court Justices article would be interesting, if it encompassed more than simply the current makeup. --Delirium 06:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The new Religion/demographics site is good. The protestant reformation included many denominations opposed to Roman Catholic faith, and in the U.S., given the very dominant role Protestants have played in the country, it is useful to discuss the ebb of that faith on the court. - 1 November 2005.

POV paragraph

Would it not be more accurate and fair to say, "It is expected there will be a major fight OVER his confirmation." (rather than "FOR his confirmation")

Saying, "Late night talk shows will find ways to ridicule him" isn't needed or useful. Late night shows make jokes about many public figures in the news, be they right wing extremists/neocons or otherwise. But if that stands we could also say, "Televangelists and right wing news channels will glorify him, hoping in turn to redeem the president's very low approval ratings (and to distract public attention from administration indictments, high fuel prices, the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, illegal immigration, outsourcing of jobs, the swelling national deficit and the costly, never-ending war in Iraq)." Which way do you want to go?

Actually none of this paragraph is needed.

I had no Idea this infromation source was so liberal. To bad

Don't be disappointed. The "so liberal" copy was never posted in the article. Only the "so conservative" -- "shows will find ways to ridicule him" and "fight FOR his confirmation" -- were posted. So cheer up -- that info source was fair and balanced to the conservatives, and that's what fair and balanced (and good) means . . . to some. For God sakes don't take them rosy goggles off.

Scalito nickname

I looked up the "scalito" nickname in Lexis and this is not a "new" nickname. In The National Law Journal, December 7, 1992, the article says "It's a trait that has led some to nickname him "Scalito," after the acerbic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia".

Is "since the nomination" appropriate? It makes it sound as though this criticism is a new (and presumably cynical) invention. I heard this criticism months before the nomination.

Just for reference. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 14:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Added the criticism of the nickname, with source. Since it happened, it seems an appropriate addition to the article. ---Anon.

Sounds fair to me. ---Anon.

The language log gives a rundown of most of the relevant morphology of the nick [4] Smmurphy 02:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Italian American

Catholic, born in New Jersey and being nicknamed "Scalito": any Italian-American roots ?

Anyway, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., the A.:Adriano, Alphonso, Alberto, Antonino (like Scalia), Antonio, Agostino or Apollo ??? 15.00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• You know, it could be something mundane like "Arthur", or "Andrew" - after all, his first name is Samuel. BD2412 T 16:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

During the nomination speech, Bush talked about his father being an Italian immigrant, so yes, definitely. His mother, 91 years old, is named Rose, but that's about all I know about her. He is at least half-Italian. --Trnpkroadwarrior 16:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Article name

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), we use "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". I'm moving the article from "Samuel A. Alito, Jr." to simply "Samuel Alito" (that's what CNN is using). Coffee 17:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Changed

Reference requested

Can anyone provide a reference to prove that, "His two younger brothers also serve as judges in the Third Court of Appeals." I can't and the article about the thrid court of appeals wasn't helpful. ~Some fake info has been slipped into this article before. Broken S

No others with that last name listed on official site. [5] I'll remove it for now. Jokestress 19:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Why Caps?

Why are all the words in the statements by the Democratic senators capitalized? 68.77.59.61 18:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)See Easy

Because that's the formatting that Republican National Committee press releases use. That section was copied verbatim from an RNC press release [6]. Eliot 18:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Opinions(format)

There are a very large selection of Alito opinions. How are we going to make this information reasonable and consumable. Certainly we can't add all of them. Indeed, there are even too many "juicy" opinions. What do you guys think? mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 21:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I propose reorganizing the section with subheadings. I'm going to go ahead and do it, and people can reorganize it if they want to. Elliotreed 00:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversial != POV?

I'm new to this but doesn't listing Controversial Views imply a POV? A brief look at the entries for the sitting justices didn't turn up many (any?) sections like this. Should these rather be re-worded from a NPOV so that they can be included in the cases section? SamR 71.57.12.99 23:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Controversial" is the ultimate weasel word. I changed the topic name to "Other case decisions." -----Keetoowah 23:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should attempt to eliminate the category all togeather and rework non-duplicated content into the format of the preceeding Case History and eliminate duplicated content. We can keep the punditry off wikipedia. This statement coming from a person who runs a political website and dislikes Alito :D -- Lordkazan 00:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone could put links to actual opinions he's written, available here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/

Elliotreed's edits on case descriptions

I think Elliotreed's edits creates an informational bias in the article as many of them removed the majority opinions overruling him. I think this information belongs in as well as Elliot's revisions

• I disagree. Presenting both sides creates a point-counterpoint dynamic that makes it difficult to maintain NPOV - one side of the debate is likely to be less fairly represented than the other, and just presenting Alito's opinions makes it clear what is being presented and what is not. If you can present both sides and maintain NPOV I have no objection. However, I would note that the majority opinions are not technically "overruling." Elliotreed 02:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem with informational bias - sometimes leaving out important comments from the majority decision overruling him will falsely inflate the validity of his position. The lack of information can constitute POV-bias. -- Lordkazan 02:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. So far the additions I've seen look good. Elliotreed 02:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Vanguard Conflict of Interest Case

This looks suspicious. The way it's worded it sounds like it could be a really big deal, but you'd think something this big would be all over the news by now, and I haven't found secondary backup other than the Washington Post article anywhere. The case in question appears to be Monga v. Ottenberg, 43 Fed. Appx. 523 (3d. Cir. 2002), and the Vanguard Group is only one of at least eleven defendants. Elliotreed 02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

updated to any incorrect implications

Good reference for biography

Alito is Seen as a Methodical Jurist with a Clear Record, New York Times, November 1, 2005. The article contains a lot of details about his early life and career; not just political interpretation. Postdlf 15:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

ACLU v. Schundler

I am restoring the summary of ACLU v. Schundler. I think it is a fair summary of what was novel in the case as opposed to upholding past runings. . If people disagree after reading the case, please discuss it here or edit the summary. The existing article on the case is a stub that needs work. I added the intro from the decision --agr 17:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The two main problems are that: 1) The case held multiple things, striking down one display and upholding another one. Why does this summary only mention the upholding part?; and 2) The quote from the case actually has nothing at all to do with this, and is discussing the more technical issue of whether city officials acted in "good faith" or not, not whether the display should be actually permitted. --Delirium 22:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This change (eliminating my text) looks good to me. I seem to have skimmed the Lexis brief too quickly. Elliotreed 06:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Comedy Central in Media commentary section

• Steven Colbert of the Colbert Report, a news satire program on the Comedy Channel has raised hackles with his black humor about popery and papist plots on the Supreme Court (responding to the new proposed Roman Catholic majority on the court), charging that with the Alito nomination, there is finally a "pipeline to the Vatican" and the pope on the court [7] (Aired October 31, 2005, 11:30 P.M. EST).

Does this belong here? I know it was taken out earlier and now I see back in, so I thought I was start a discussion here on the talk page. Viper Daimao 20:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds like it's out of place. Keep it out. It's not real biographic information mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 20:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It should go.--Elliskev 21:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It should go. Jokes don't belong in biographical articles. - Chardish 22:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Mocking trash. Delete it. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Fatin problems

The Alito opinion in Fatin is being widely reported as allowing an Iranian woman's asylum claim. This is exactly the opposite of what the case did--it rejected her claim for suspension of deportation. Check out 12 F.3d 1233:

The "particular social group" that her testimony places her within is, instead, the presumably larger group consisting of Iranian women who find their country's gender-specific laws offensive and do not wish to comply with them. But if the petitioner's "particular social group" is defined in this way, she cannot prevail because the administrative record does not satisfy the third element [*1242] described above, i.e., it does not show that the consequences that would befall her as a member of that group would constitute "persecution." According to the petitioner, she would have two options if she returned to Iran: comply with the Iranian laws or suffer severe consequences. [**27] Thus, while we agree with the petitioner that the indicated consequences of noncompliance would constitute persecution, we must still inquire whether her other option -- compliance -- would also constitute persecution.

. . . .

Here, while we assume for the sake of argument that requiring some women to wear chadors may be so abhorrent to them that it would be tantamount to persecution, this requirement clearly does not constitute persecution for all women. Presumably, there are devout Shi'ite women in Iran who find this requirement entirely appropriate. Presumably, there are other women in Iran who find it either inconvenient, irritating, mildly objectionable, or highly offensive, but for whom it falls short of constituting persecution. As we have previously noted, the petitioner's testimony in this case simply does not show that for her the requirement [**29] of wearing the chador or complying with Iran's other gender-specific laws would be so profoundly abhorrent that it could aptly be called persecution. Accordingly, we cannot hold that she is entitled to withholding of deportation or asylum based on her membership in a "particular social group."

. . . .

In conclusion, we hold, in light of the administrative record before us, that the petitioner did not establish that she was entitled to withholding of deportation or that she was eligible for asylum. We also hold that the BIA did not commit any reversible procedural error in its rejection of her claim for suspension of deportation. We therefore deny the petition for review.

68.236.25.139 00:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Have a verifiable link please? Cant get one. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 01:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a link? Im going off of this:

A majority opinion in Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993), holding that an Iranian woman seeking asylum could establish that she had a well founded fear of persecution in Iran if she could show that compliance with that country's "gender specific laws and repressive social norms," such as the requirement that women wear a veil in public, would be deeply abhorrent to her. Judge Alito also held that she could establish eligibility for asylum by showing that she would be persecuted because of gender, belief in feminism, or membership in a feminist group.[8]

Viper Daimao 01:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's online except on LexisNexis or Westlaw if you are a lawyer or law student subscriber. I encourage someone else with a subscription to look it up and post here to back me up. It's available in any law library at 12 F.3d 1233. I read that on SCOTUSblog too, so I was surprised as the next guy when I read the actual decision. What he did is leave open the possibility that other women on different facts could establish an asylum claim, but he denied this woman's claim because she merely found the dress requirements "offensive" and wasn't willing to die for her beliefs. I'll keep poking around for a link and let you know. Sorry I wasn't logged on when I posted originally. TheGoodReverend 01:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not much, but here's one free source.[9] Search for "Fatin" in the text and you'll find a somewhat better (but still a little wrong) description of what the case held. TheGoodReverend 01:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I emailed Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog.com and he emailed me back with this:

We thought this decision would be of interest to SCOTUS-blog readers since it lays out Judge Alito's views on what a female plaintiff had to show to establish that she had a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of her gender.

In addition I was sent a pdf of the text of the decision which I've uploaded here I havent read it all yet. Viper Daimao 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Media commentary to Wikiquote?

I propose moving the comment by Judge Alito's mother to Wikiquote and removing the Media comments section altogether. Objections? Jokestress 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the quote belongs in this artice. Abortion is likely to be the central issue in the nomination fight and his mother's opinion is relevant. I have no problem with getting rid of the rest of the section. I'd also lose or trim the Halloween bit in trivia. The Catholic majority question deserves mention in the context of statements by some Church leaders that Catholics who do not uphold Church teachings on abortion in their official duties should be denied communion. --agr 13:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

How would the 'statements of some church leaders' be relevant to this article? Does that statement need to go into every article about a Catholic politician?--Elliskev 13:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Mother's quote and Catholic quote are not relevant. They exist only because partisian snipers in the media elicited them for purposes of injecting bias into the Alito debate. Must we include EVERY quote the media elicits from someone? Certainly not and certainly not these. Including them does nothing but inject POV and controversy into the article. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 14:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think a "Media comments" section should include statements by media. Alito's mother should go to Wikiquote. If it stays in the article, I think it should be in "Trivia". I think the Halloween/April Fools bit should stay. Johntex\^talk 15:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to remove the quotes just because wikimedia thinks it needs another project just for quotes. His mother's quote is certainly relevant, he has taken no hard line stance on abortion. His mother is certainly someone close to him, I think here opinions on his abortion views definitely deserve a presence in this article. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

NIAF

There's been recent edits to describe the NIAF as partisan to one side or the other. The latest edit describes them as non-partisan. I think this is fair, in that they have support Italian Americans whether they are Republicans and Democrats. In a USNews.com article, political commentator Michael Barone said this about a NIAF meeting,

For many years I have attended events sponsored by the National Italian American Foundation, an organization established in the 1970s in large part to dispel the Mafia stereotype. NIAF has been proud to seat the director of the FBI at the head table as its annual dinner. It was proud that in 1984 the four Democratic and Republican nominees for president and vice president (including Geraldine Ferraro, remember) attended its dinner—the only time in American history, I believe, that four nominees attended a single event.

...

The audience there is, to judge from responses at the dinners I've attended, about half Republican and half Democratic.[10]

Viper Daimao 15:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No, the man who issued the statement is a partisan hack, a man whose son clerked for Alito himself. Ciongoli is using the NIAF for political gamemanship. This made-up talking point is straight from Drudge Report.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.13.8 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think comments about the NIAF or about Ciongoli belong in articles about the NIAF or Ciongoli. Comments by the NIAF about Alito belong in an article about Alito.

Not when said comments are an attempt by one of Alito's blatant partisan associates to paint critics as racists, and not when said associate is misrepresenting Italian-Americans and the Italian language itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.13.8 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's not confuse Cionogli with the NIAF. The quote is in a PR put out by the entire orgainization. Stuff about Cionogli's contribution of less than $4,000 to Republican campaigns, or the employment of his son, are both marginal facts. Johntex\^talk 21:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The facts are very pertinent, especially his son's employment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.255.13.8 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)You should also cease placing text within quotation marks that is not part of a quote.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.255.13.8 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Can the anonymous writer who forgot to sign his/her post point out where I put text within quotation marks that was not part of a quote? If I did so, it was certainly inadvertant. Johntex\^talk 21:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not forgetting to sign at all. As for making up quotes: [11] "... and is offensive to Italian-Americans."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.255.13.8 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you're not forgetting, then you're violating Policy, which is to sign your posts on all Discussion pages. You are right about the quote though - that was a mistake on my part.Johntex\^talk 05:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Chris Matthews comment

I've found the text of the memo mathews is referring to. [12]. We should add the mathews comment back in and include this text or link with it. Viper Daimao 15:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is Matthew's opinion of this memo more significant than anyone else's? I don't see how this memo justifies his tirade, and if we're going to include one reporter's/blogger's opinion of this memo, we should include anyone's. Matthews goes on about mafia prosecution, trying to paint racism, but the memo also covers abortion, law enforcement, gender discrimination, first amendment rights, and immigration. -- (posted by 206.255.13.8 at 19:16, 3 November 2005)

Matthews' tirade is fantasy POV. (The memo doesn't mention Alito's ethnicity; it doesn't even hint at it. It seems that the RNC attacks critics of its choices as prejudiced, whether its appointees are Hispanic (Alberto Gonzalez), Black (several), female (several), or (shudder!) Catholic. It's not like Italians are an oppressed minority in the US&A these days.) His charge doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. Butt if Matthews' apologists insist on including this irrelevant fiction, I'll follow it up with text that puts it into context.--RattBoy 00:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, this edit war went a little crazy overnight. I'm attempting some changes to hopefully remove some POV. My changes are based on the following points:

• The use of the word, "Democrat," as an adjective, is in itself Republican POV. (The correct, neutral word is "Democratic.") In any case, Chris Matthews' past in Tip O'Neill's employ is hardly relevant here.
• There's no need to characterize websites critical of Matthews' spin as "extreme." That's POV on its face.
• The point, that the Democratic memo made no reference to Alito's ethnicity, was removed by an editor sympathetic to Matthews. I'm restoring it.
• Media Matters has a POV, but it's well sourced. I'm restoring the link to their critique of Matthews.--RattBoy 10:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact Chris Matthews comes from a liberal perspective as the once top aide to Tip O'Neill and a Jimmy Carter speechwriter is clearly relevant, given his criticism of the Democrats' ethnic crusade against Alitio/"Scalito." The fact Media Matters is a liberal blog of low esteem is also relevant. Their use pollutes Wikipedia as much as the use of NewsMax or RedState.Org would, but given your insistance on using them as a source I've relented. I only ask now they be identified as the liberal blog they are. Also agree with the comment below. The Democrats' tactic of filibustering judicial nominees (they are considering using the tactic yet again with Alito) is, in fact, anti-democratic. Calling them "Democratic" may be more than just POV, it may be inaccurate as well. --DKorn 17:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be relevant if he truly were a liberal. However, he voted for GW Bush in 2000 (and possibly in '04); few "Tip O'Neill liberals" would have voted that way. Thus, it's dishonest to pretend that this criticism came from a liberal. I'll add his current political views to give it some perspective. However, I wonder why so much coverage is given to one spin-meister's flimsily-based opinion. I'd rather that the entire paragraph were dropped as unencyclopedic;

An "ethnic crusade" is in the eye of the beholder. The Dem memo said nothing about his ethnicity. If you've read the article that you're editing, you know that. I ask you: if Marcia Clark were black, would it be suddenly racist to criticize her incompetent prosecution of OJ Simpson?

You may view Media Matters as a "liberal blog of low esteem;" I wonder if you hold any liberal blog in other than low esteem. I view Chris Matthews as a conservative hack of low esteem. Yet, his baseless opinion has gained play in Wikipedia. If Matthews' silliness persists here, including the Media Matters counterpoint is the only NPoV option.

Finally, while "democratic" may be in the eye of the beholder (one could argue that it's not "democratic" for Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski to have as much voting power as Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, who represent 30 times as many people—but such are the agreed rules in our republican form of government), "Democratic" certainly is not. See Democratic Party for its treatment of the sophomoric partisan slur, "Democrat Party."--RattBoy 00:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"Democratic" is hardly a neutral description of liberals. It implies that conservatives are opposed to democracy. It would be like saying that liberals care very little for the strength of the republic because they aren't "republicans." --(unsigned comment by anon user 129.79.205.108 on 15:41, 4 November 2005)

I'm afraid you misunderstand the terms used. When capitalized, "Democratic" is an adjective to refer to a member of the Democratic Party in the United States (not necessarily a liberal). Uncapitalized, "democratic" means "Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy."[13] Similarly, the capitalized "Republican" refers to the party; the lowercase version, "republican," refers to a set of principles or government.[14] A Republican may be a democrat, but s/he's not a Democrat.

Capitalization matters! A "packer" or a "steeler" is someone with a particular job, and a "dolphin" is an aquatic mammal. A "Packer," "Steeler," or "Dolphin" is a football player. --RattBoy 00:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)