Talk:Samuel Alito/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reminder to sign posts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Opponents of the unitary executive theory 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ABA rating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confirmation hearing section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picky Detail: Alito's yearbook 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Casey link 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article really neutral? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  lock down 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Too much information in places 

message: 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)
thread_title:  current event? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Format 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Erm... 

message: While Yahoo! news  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)
thread_title:  Supreme Court career 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reminder to sign posts 

message: Shouldn't the confirmation vote record be on the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination page? Jpers36 16:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: False. Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a closer margin: 52-48. Jpers36 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *(After edit conflict) Actually, Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a smaller margin. Johntex\talk 23:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation votes 

message: I'm just saying we should start now, as well as complete the votes for the other eight standing justices, not all 110! WikieZach 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disussion about Votes

message: The article says that he is the 96th assoc. justice. That seems correct (110 justices - chief justices who weren't promoted), but we need a ref. Can anyone find one? BrokenSegue 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That ref says he's 110th, but doesn't say that he is the 96th associate justice. BrokenSegue 00:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  96th 

message: Regarding these recent changes:
Before:By joining the court mid-tern, Alito has not heard arguments for many cases which have yet to be decided. If there is a deadlock in pending cases, Alito may be asked to break the tie, and the cases would be reheard in the fall term. Alternatively, the tie could stand, and the decision of the court below would be affirmed, without creating precedent.
After:By joining the court mid-term, Alito has not heard arguments for many cases which have yet to be decided. If there is a deadlock in pending cases, Alito may be asked to break the tie, the court could rehear the cases in the fall term, or the tie could stand and the decision of the court below would be affirmed.
This does tighten things up, but it also changes the meaning.  I'm not sure that Alito can vote on a case which was argued while he was not a member of the court?  Although I haven't found a reference yet, my understanding is that he has to hear the arguments before he can vote on a case. Thus, if Alito is asked to break the tie, the case must be reheard. --Paul 20:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He can't break the tie, I'm not sure where that came from.  The court can vote without him, and if it is 4/4, then they can decide whether to leave it at that, in which case it's essentially the same effect as a cert. denied.  In the alternative, they can decide to rehear the case, which means they start all over from the beginning with Alito instead of O'Connor.  I do not know how many judges have to vote to rehear for a rehearing to take place.  Peyna 20:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wasn't Roe v. Wade reargued after a change in Court makeup and before issuing the decision?  Isn't it possible for the court to ask for additional arguments on a case it hasn't decided, specifying the question it wanted argued? --Paul 21:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right, it does appear the court can vote to have a rehearing without a motion by one of the parties.  I wonder if the rule of 4 is followed for that purpose? Peyna 21:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we won't know until (unless) it happens, which it most likly will. WikieZach 21:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tie breaking on cases already argued 

message: Can anyone find a better picture of Justice Alito than the one at the top of his biography page?  Maybe an offical portait as Chief Justice Roberts and the other assoc. justices have on their bio. pages?
*No official image of Alito has been taken. As soon as the official picture is published, it will be added to the article.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 12:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Picture 

message: i'm not going to POV tag the whole page at this point, but this does *NOT* feel like a balanced page.  it looks like it was intentionally written to hide the controversy over alito.  if you had no idea who he was, you would *NOT* get a clear idea of how controversial he is or how conservative he is.  there is no "controversy" section at all, as is usual for controversial topics, and in his section on his supreme court career, far more space is devoted to discussions of how he's "not like scalia", when an examination of his voting record would surely show for more votes with scalia than against him.  i POV tagged the section for this reason.  it also has questionable statements like "... hints at Alito's respectful attitude toward precedent", which sounds like press-release fodder.
nb the article contains an error; hamdan v. rumsfeld was voted 5-3, not 5-4, as roberts did not vote.
Benwing 20:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Benwing, do this discussion and recent modifications alleviate your concerns?  Might one remove the POV tag?--Chaucer1387 14:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Chaucer1387, sorry for not getting back sooner.  The section looks much better to me and I removed the tag.  As for the "controversial" issue, ultimately, what I think I really wanted was somewhere that obviously announced Alito's controversial nomination, so I added a sentence about this in the intro.  User:Coburnpharr04 is right that many or most justices are controversial; that's not surprising given the power invested in them, and I don't think a "controversy" section would be out of line in such cases, even if it applied to most of the justices.  In this case, the obvious controversy, however, was about his nomination; neither Breyer's nor Ginsburg's nominations were especially controversial, and the confirmation votes were not along party lines. (Nor for that matter was the vote on Roberts.) Benwing 10:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW Thank you for all the hard work put into this article!  Thanks also for managing to remain NPOV on an issue where staying neutral is hard to do. Benwing 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this page feels POV to me 

message: Speaking of the debate immediately above, I've taken a look at the nomination and confirmation sections of this article.  First, I've merged them into one section, because the "Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination" article covers both the nomination and the confirmation hearings.  I've also deleted the Wikinews item, since this is now 7 months old.  Second -- and I won't do anything about this without input from you guys -- I suggest that the section be shortened a bit: If someone is interested in the unsuccessful filibuster attempt, the 72-25 cloture vote, or the identity of the senators voting against him, can't they look up the longer nomination article? Chaucer1387 01:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, well, I guess one can't make everyone happy.  In my view, the Supreme Court career section should be the longest section, because he's actually a Supreme Court Justice now, and that's the really important thing that people should know about.  (I do agree, though, that the section shouldn't keep expanding; as he stays on the Court.  The section shouldn't be twice as long by the time his next half-Term is done; in fact, I think it should probably stay as long as it is now, with new important cases muscling out the old ones, or with cataloguing of cases making way for trends as they become apparent.)  On the other hand, I think the nomination and confirmation section should be of little interest in the near future.  To the extent it says anything about Alito, his voting record should substitute for it; and to the extent it says anything about party politics during the Bush presidency, that will be less interesting by the time we have a new president. Chaucer1387 13:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just checked out Blackmun and Brennan.  Blackmun's Supreme Court career section takes up about 2.5 screens for me, and Brennan's takes up about 1.75 screens for me.  O'Connor's is almost 3.  Scalia's is hard to say because there's no "Supreme Court career" section, but it's something more than 3.  Kennedy's is more than 2.5.  Breyer's is a bit over 1.5.  Not much for Ginsburg, but I think that's a failing of the Ginsburg article.  Alito's section clocks in at a bit over 2 screens, almost 2.5; I think that's appropriate, especially since people are more interested to know about Alito right now.  I don't know about the "four paragraphs" business, but his first abortion case should certainly take up a decent amount of space, and if I'm still active on this page by then I'll make sure to keep the total length of this section about the same. Chaucer1387 18:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks great.  I guess the parts that are mere opinion summary can be shortened or eliminated -- perhaps that whole Third Circuit summary section, once the Third Circuit opinions are up and running?  On the other hand, if an opinion is used to make a substantive point about Alito's philosophy (e.g. to make an argument about what sort of conservative Alito is), I suppose it should stay in -- though the presence of a summary elsewhere might allow us to shorten those, perhaps a lot.--Chaucer1387 01:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any specific suggestions about this article, but your general recommendations make sense to me.  Please drop me a note on my talk page if you start a new list for one of his Third Circuit years and I'll be happy to help with the formatting.  Postdlf 16:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorten nomination & confirmation section? 

message: There seems to be some that think that Mr. Alito is a Sephardi Jew, his family only converting to Catholicism recently.  I've added a "source needed" badge for info on his heritage.  Thank you.  --172.128.32.189 09:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish? 

message: I am new to this, but I agree with others that this article does not properly address the controversial nature of Alito. The appointment/confirmation part on the ABA makes it sound as if this was just another appointment. He is one of three Supreme Court nominations to be opposed by the ACLU in its entire history. He is the definition of controversial appointment/justice. While this is addressed more thoroughly in the article on his appointment this is also important to this article. All supporters and opponents should not be listed in this article, but his controversial nature should be made clear. For this reason I added something on the ACLU because the ACLU opposition underlines just how controversial his nomination was. 
The introduction of the article writes that “He is regarded as a generally conservative jurist.” This simply does not describe his controversial nature. Many democrats would characterize him as a radical ultraconservative along the lines of Robert Bork. This widely held opinion should be addressed in the article. --Wikipediatoperfection 2:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial Nature of Nomination, Confirmation and Alito in General 

message: I am going to change the line "He is regarded as a generally conservative jurist." to "He is a conservative jurist, who since becoming a member of the Supreme Court has consistently voted with the conservative members of the court." I think the original sentence should be changed as his conservative nature has never been in question because it is agreed upon by both supporters and opponents. As he has had a conservative record since joining the court I think this sentence is appropriate. Wikipediatoperfection 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "probably" seems to mean here "I'm too ignorant to know better". -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro: conservative nature 

message: I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent edit of this article -- not that I'm sure that the data are necessarily "wrong."  Rather, I'm persuaded that the strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is an unhelpful approach to this specific subject.  I note that articles about other sitting Justices have been similarly "enhanced;" and I also believe those changes are no improvement.  
In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, I would invite anyone to re-visit articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
:* A1. Benjamin Cardozo
:* A2. Learned Hand
::* B1. John Marshall Harlan
::* B2. John Marshall Harlan II
The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph?  I think not.
Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging?  I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point. 
Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.
At a minimum, I'm questioning this edit?  It deserves to be reconsidered. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-considering 1st paragraph edit? 

message: These are two different numbers.  One could reasonably infer that there are a whole lot of Catholics on the present court.  If I wanted to make a guess, and was in a forum that I could argue a position without the constraints on 'original research', it would be possible that the Catholicism of some or all of these appointees became material to the persons doing the appointments.  One might even deduce that this has some planetary connection to Roe v Wade and its progeny (no pun intended).  That Catholics are potentially overrepresented on the present court, at least compared to the numbers that were there historically, is a relevant and probative fact.  This issue is best illuminated by leaving in the 5 and the 11.  That's my opinion.  FWIW. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The number of Catholics on the court, past and present 

message: A subpage at Samuel A. Alito Jr./fjc was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot-created subpage 

message: I think the following material is okay in the article, but excessive for the lead: "the second Italian American and the 12th Catholic in the history of the Supreme Court, and the fifth Catholic on the current Court at the time he assumed office."  Putting it into the lead seems to be undue weight, and I'm not aware this is done for other justices.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right.  There's one editor who was very insistent about the Catholic thing, but I don't see the need for that level of emphasis.  Coemgenus 02:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Catholic stuff isn't necessary, but the current lead is too short.  And it should focus more on biography and less on ideological labelling (ugh) and justice agreement analysis (best left to the body of the article).  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening the lead 

message: There's a blind redirect to this page from "Supreme court nominee" but there is another Justice stepping down. The blind redirect needs to be removed but I don't know how to do that. Please remove the redirect. 24.145.157.81 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirects deleted. Unnecessary and prone to inaccuracy when there are no SCOTUS nominees. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New nominee (May 2009) 

message: nothing about his family background or childhood? john k (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was all chopped out of the article in this edit by an IP address seven months ago and never restored.  Until just now, when I did it.  It's pretty amazing that no one has an article about a sitting Supreme Court justice watchlisted.  Only in WP ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  family background