Red-flags...
Via DailyKos and Think Progress, here are just a few of the early snippets we discover about what one Samuel Alito would do:
- Overturn Roe v. Wade. About 2/3rds of Americans would oppose overturning Roe.
- Allow race-based discrimination and discrimination based on disabilities.
- Opposes the Family and Medical Leave Act. In fact, he doesn't just oppose it, he struck down the law in 2000. The Supreme Court reversed his decision. For Alito, workers shouldn't be able to take 12 weeks of unpaid leave to take care of newborns or loved ones.
- Has no problem with unauthorized strip searches.
In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home.
That awkward sound you here is America's sociological evolvement grinding to a halt.
posted by Kevin @ 4:14 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Got anything else besides rehashed Kos? Where are the links to original material that back up these claims/charges/whatever? How exactly were these bullet points "discovered"?
and I read about the first 30 comments on the Think Progress site. Next time you quote some right wing idiot from a blog, read those 30 comments and puff out your chest with pride.
The facts are in his rulings. All of which are public record. If you don't believe the bullets, check out your local legal library.
As for the comments on Think Progress...there are as many left-wing wackos as there are right-wing wackos. I've seen the exact same comments on conservative sites about splitting the country as well.
I don't think these people are taken seriously anyway. I mean how many times have you seen myself (not that I'm a masterful blogger), Doug, Ann, TBOGG, Kos, Atrios, etc., ever discuss this option (comments aside)? Not even the popular conservative blogs talk about it (that I can recall).
Which case did he vote to overturn Roe vs Wade?
His past rulings indicate that he would. Some examples at the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101555.html?nav=rss_print/asection
Well all I got out of that is everyone can look at his record and see what they want. It's all opinion.
I disagree. The past rulings set a precedent for his future rulings. While I can't state it as "fact", I CAN state it as a strong possibility.
Take for instance, "Provided the two choices of vanilla and strawberry, Jim has never selected vanilla in five years."
If I said it was my opinion that Jim doesn't like vanilla...you would look at me and say, "I'm pretty damn certain Jim doesn't like vanilla".
Would you then also say it's a matter of opinion whether or not Jon Stewart likes George Bush?
Post a Comment
<< Home