These are just so good. The amount of research you do to pull these together - on judges, on bookclub deep dives, on TSATM characters, on daily news updates, on podcasts - is utterly incomprehensible to us mere mortals, let alone the work that goes into weaving research into a digestible story. In case you haven't been told in the past few minutes, *thank you* for doing what you do.
Danielle -- I often get wrapped up in my desire to express my own views when commenting, that I forget to thank Sharon for this forum, and the seemingly unsurmountable effort she puts into it. So...THANK YOU Sharon! And...Thank you Danielle (and others) for sharing your gratitude. If I may--I will ride your coattails.
Alito was/is too strategic to not remember whether he was a member of CAP or not..noted, was on his resume. Closeted bigot? Not exactly.
“If I’m confirmed, I will be myself” & he is, which is not a bipartisan Supreme Court judge..in my opinion.
Thank you for all the research/work hours you commit to, Sharon. Both intriguing & disheartening to learn about the makeup of our Supreme Court. Not encouraged @ this time😉
I agree. It was completely dishonest of Alito to claim he didn’t remember membership while claiming it in his resume. He was either lying on his resume or lying about his memory. Either way, Alito is a Liar.
He also lied about not legislating from the bench because what else is “protecting traditional values,” than imposing your version of values on others?
No wonder Bush couldn’t find any other qualified conservative women to nominate, because all of the qualified women rejected Alito’s version of traditional values as not protecting women’s constitutional rights.
And don’t even get me started on how he has sold his seat to the highest bidder. How convenient his views match those who are willing to pay for his favorable decisions.
Well, if the originalist idea they were hoping to uphold was that only white, landed, wealthy men would have rights in this country, I think they’re getting pretty close to that.
How convenient that they never see the constitution as the living breathing document that the founders actually intended.
Regardless, I would love to live in a country that doesn’t look to enslavers from a bygone era about how to handle issues affecting 300 million plus people. And when I hear “this issue will be handled by the states”, I just hear “some people in some states should have rights and other people in other states shouldn’t”
When I see the term, "traditional values," I can't help but think of the Broadway play, "Fiddler on the Roof." Why do we do things this way? "Tradition!" That's it. Tradition. Doing something (or valuing something) for the sole purpose of honoring the past is often inappropriate for the present and future. Of course, Alito has never really adhered to the traditional implications of the Constitution--which includes the founders' intent regarding religion--explicitly outlined in the First Amendment (Separation clause.) Also, on the issue of abortion--Alito is correct that the Constitution does not uphold abortion as an *explicit* right. But "Roe" technically argued that citizens have "an implied right of privacy" under the Ninth Amendment. This included medical records. Essentially, if a prosecutor (the government) did not have access to medical records--an abortion could not be 'proven' for lack of evidence. The overturning of "Roe" now makes it possible, with relative ease, for the government to obtain anyone's medical records under the guise of "reasonable cause." In my opinion, Alito (and Thomas) should be brought up on impeachment charges based on their "sworn" statements of impartiality during their confirmation hearings. They have proven many times that they are sitting on the bench with a specific agenda to promote politically conservative "values."
Interesting how all the players fit together. And also amusing are the references to Ted Kennedy and Lindsey Graham. How deeply rooted, entwined and entrenched they are in deciding the fate of our country. No surprise that we are in the current mess of economic disparity and inequality and division.
Insofar as strict adherence to the constitution and its wording and Alito’s interpretation and judgement that the “ constitution does not protect the right to an abortion “ , I’d like to know where the constitution says anything at all about abortion or specifically women in general?
The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution outlines the *Implied* rights of citizens. All those rights that are not explicit, and previously mentioned. Think of it this way: Do you have a constitutional right to name your dog Blinky? Do you have a constitutional right to shave your head? Yes! Like abortion, and "freedom of expression", these are not *explicit* rights outlined in the Constitution. The founders included the Ninth Amendment in order to allow for the many 'reasonable' rights too numerous to mention. Then, leave it to the Supreme Court to interpret the expansion or contraction of those rights with present day cultural norms. Incidentally, the implied right that was supported/upheld in "Roe" was not abortion, per se. "Roe" is the landmark decision that provided a citizen's "right to privacy."
The fact that the Federalist Society is not only legal, but regularly successful is so deeply concerning to me. WHY are we allowing billionaires to control the narrative of our country?? When do we start openly admitting we’re a plutocracy?
I found the photo of his wife particularly interesting and to learn about that part of his confirmation. Well, I at least like that Bush mentioned he had Meiers to thank too lol.
So interesting that he knew what he wanted to accomplish at such a young age: “The trip also seemed to solidify Alito’s goals. The next year, his senior yearbook entry at Princeton reads, “Sam intends to go to law school and eventually to warm a seat on the Supreme Court.”
Question. The Supreme Court has always been a mix of conservative and liberal or originalists/textualists and "living changing document" but something has shifted in the last 10 years. Is it because of the strong conservative majority right now? A growing comfort with addressing issues through the Courts and not legislation? The rise of the billionaire backer? Or simply polarization where distrust brews on whatever side does not agree with a Court's (including District and Circuit Courts) decisions. And how do you have a completely unbiased Court when the lens through which cased are decided varies from Judge/Justice to Judge/Justice? (We all have biases) Is there a way to make things "more fair" other than the passage of time? Biden's proposed Court reforms? Would love your thoughts. Understanding who the Justices are is a good start.
These are just so good. The amount of research you do to pull these together - on judges, on bookclub deep dives, on TSATM characters, on daily news updates, on podcasts - is utterly incomprehensible to us mere mortals, let alone the work that goes into weaving research into a digestible story. In case you haven't been told in the past few minutes, *thank you* for doing what you do.
Danielle -- I often get wrapped up in my desire to express my own views when commenting, that I forget to thank Sharon for this forum, and the seemingly unsurmountable effort she puts into it. So...THANK YOU Sharon! And...Thank you Danielle (and others) for sharing your gratitude. If I may--I will ride your coattails.
I agree! I am truly impressed with the amount of quality content Sharon puts out. It is so appreciated!!
Alito was/is too strategic to not remember whether he was a member of CAP or not..noted, was on his resume. Closeted bigot? Not exactly.
“If I’m confirmed, I will be myself” & he is, which is not a bipartisan Supreme Court judge..in my opinion.
Thank you for all the research/work hours you commit to, Sharon. Both intriguing & disheartening to learn about the makeup of our Supreme Court. Not encouraged @ this time😉
I agree. It was completely dishonest of Alito to claim he didn’t remember membership while claiming it in his resume. He was either lying on his resume or lying about his memory. Either way, Alito is a Liar.
He also lied about not legislating from the bench because what else is “protecting traditional values,” than imposing your version of values on others?
No wonder Bush couldn’t find any other qualified conservative women to nominate, because all of the qualified women rejected Alito’s version of traditional values as not protecting women’s constitutional rights.
And don’t even get me started on how he has sold his seat to the highest bidder. How convenient his views match those who are willing to pay for his favorable decisions.
No Recusal, No Justice!
Well, if the originalist idea they were hoping to uphold was that only white, landed, wealthy men would have rights in this country, I think they’re getting pretty close to that.
How convenient that they never see the constitution as the living breathing document that the founders actually intended.
Regardless, I would love to live in a country that doesn’t look to enslavers from a bygone era about how to handle issues affecting 300 million plus people. And when I hear “this issue will be handled by the states”, I just hear “some people in some states should have rights and other people in other states shouldn’t”
When I see the term, "traditional values," I can't help but think of the Broadway play, "Fiddler on the Roof." Why do we do things this way? "Tradition!" That's it. Tradition. Doing something (or valuing something) for the sole purpose of honoring the past is often inappropriate for the present and future. Of course, Alito has never really adhered to the traditional implications of the Constitution--which includes the founders' intent regarding religion--explicitly outlined in the First Amendment (Separation clause.) Also, on the issue of abortion--Alito is correct that the Constitution does not uphold abortion as an *explicit* right. But "Roe" technically argued that citizens have "an implied right of privacy" under the Ninth Amendment. This included medical records. Essentially, if a prosecutor (the government) did not have access to medical records--an abortion could not be 'proven' for lack of evidence. The overturning of "Roe" now makes it possible, with relative ease, for the government to obtain anyone's medical records under the guise of "reasonable cause." In my opinion, Alito (and Thomas) should be brought up on impeachment charges based on their "sworn" statements of impartiality during their confirmation hearings. They have proven many times that they are sitting on the bench with a specific agenda to promote politically conservative "values."
Interesting how all the players fit together. And also amusing are the references to Ted Kennedy and Lindsey Graham. How deeply rooted, entwined and entrenched they are in deciding the fate of our country. No surprise that we are in the current mess of economic disparity and inequality and division.
Insofar as strict adherence to the constitution and its wording and Alito’s interpretation and judgement that the “ constitution does not protect the right to an abortion “ , I’d like to know where the constitution says anything at all about abortion or specifically women in general?
The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution outlines the *Implied* rights of citizens. All those rights that are not explicit, and previously mentioned. Think of it this way: Do you have a constitutional right to name your dog Blinky? Do you have a constitutional right to shave your head? Yes! Like abortion, and "freedom of expression", these are not *explicit* rights outlined in the Constitution. The founders included the Ninth Amendment in order to allow for the many 'reasonable' rights too numerous to mention. Then, leave it to the Supreme Court to interpret the expansion or contraction of those rights with present day cultural norms. Incidentally, the implied right that was supported/upheld in "Roe" was not abortion, per se. "Roe" is the landmark decision that provided a citizen's "right to privacy."
I can’t believe there isn’t an enforceable ethics code for the Supreme Court.
The fact that the Federalist Society is not only legal, but regularly successful is so deeply concerning to me. WHY are we allowing billionaires to control the narrative of our country?? When do we start openly admitting we’re a plutocracy?
Thank you for this informative piece on Alito, but also a look back into the Bush years and one of the many "poor decisions."
I found the photo of his wife particularly interesting and to learn about that part of his confirmation. Well, I at least like that Bush mentioned he had Meiers to thank too lol.
So interesting that he knew what he wanted to accomplish at such a young age: “The trip also seemed to solidify Alito’s goals. The next year, his senior yearbook entry at Princeton reads, “Sam intends to go to law school and eventually to warm a seat on the Supreme Court.”
Question. The Supreme Court has always been a mix of conservative and liberal or originalists/textualists and "living changing document" but something has shifted in the last 10 years. Is it because of the strong conservative majority right now? A growing comfort with addressing issues through the Courts and not legislation? The rise of the billionaire backer? Or simply polarization where distrust brews on whatever side does not agree with a Court's (including District and Circuit Courts) decisions. And how do you have a completely unbiased Court when the lens through which cased are decided varies from Judge/Justice to Judge/Justice? (We all have biases) Is there a way to make things "more fair" other than the passage of time? Biden's proposed Court reforms? Would love your thoughts. Understanding who the Justices are is a good start.