SCAT "SCALITO"

GRAPHIC: Conservative Christians will refuse to look under the outer layer of garments to see that underneath we have yet another wolf in sheep's clothing. Once again Lucy will pull the football away from Charlie Brown, all the while promising "This time for sure!"

Sam Alito is a typical pro-abortion, pro-sodomite FAKE conservative, but the Christian right will again fawn over him like teenaged girls at a Beatles concert. Of course any Christian with the discernment of a jack-o-lantern should know by now that GW Bush would never nominate a legitimate conservative to an important position.

SUPPORTS SPECIAL PRIVILEGES

http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/015956.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103100180.htmlnt/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103100180.html

{{ In 2004, he ruled in favor of a complaint brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by a boy badly bullied by his classmates who was seeking legal relief but had been rebuffed by a U.S. District Court. }}

A typical case of giving certain classes of people special privileges. Usually it's children, women, or blacks and is done to create sympathy for the victim so unjust special privileges can be passed on their behalf - which are thus DISCRIMINATORY. This one uses the handicapped to tug on our heartstrings. While it's appalling that kids would bully someone who was apparently disabled (and a lot of things are used to claim disability that weren't in the past, so maybe he wasn't even truly disabled after all), they should be dealt with the same way as anyone else. This kind of logic is what leads to protection of sodomites as a privileged class.

{{ He also authored a majority opinion granting federal court review to an African American who could not get state courts to hear his claim of racial bias on the part of a juror in his trial. The case involved a juror who used racial epithets outside the confines of the jury room. }}

I wonder if a white person could ever get a review because of racial bias against him? Oliver North was tried by a jury that was nearly all black. Think any of them ever spoke disparagingly of a white person outside the courtroom?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1124387,00.html

Bush's New Nominee: Not Always on the Same Page as Scalia

{{ Alito argued passionately with other members of the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court that a disabled woman, Pauline Thomas, should be granted benefits because she had been laid off from her job as an elevator operator and could not find a new job since the position of "elevator operator" had virtually disappeared from the economy. }}

Once again Alito supported creating a special privileged class out of disabled people. This puts someone who supports EQUAL and JUST treatment in the position of looking like they are cold-hearted and against the handicapped (or children, or women, or blacks, or sodomites, or whoever is used).

A couple of years ago my department at work was shut down because the material had become obsolete. I had to take a pay cut and a lower position. Should disabled people be forced to pay me the difference? Why not? If I am supposed to pay them if their job disappears, why shouldn't they pay me when mine disappears?

BTW, he was opposed in this opinion by none other than Antonin Scalia.

NO BURDEN on WOMEN'S ACCESS to ABORTION

{{ Citing previous opinions of O'Connor, Alito wrote that an abortion regulation is unconstitutional only if it imposes an undue burden on a woman's access to the procedure. }}

WHAT? Isn't this guy supposed to be a pro-life hero like Scalia? But he believes a law is unconstitutional if it imposes burden upon a woman's access to an abortion? Wouldn't a BAN on abortions impose a burden upon a woman's access to abortion? Wouldn't ANY restrictions on abortion do so? How about a ban on partial-birth abortions? Would that impose a burden upon a woman's access to abortion? Isn't the idea of being pro-life to try to stop abortion? Not with Alito - stopping abortion would impose an undue burden upon a woman's access to abortion.

Alito is not pro-life, he is not anti-abortion. He is certainly not in favor of preventing women from having abortions. He is being lauded for supporting spousal notification. Had it passed, it would have required wives tell their husbands before they killed the baby that also belonged to him. That doesn't mean he could do anything to prevent it, only that she had to tell him as she was walking out the door.

The Supreme Court (Justice O'Connor in particular) used Alito's opinion to CONFIRM the fact that spousal notification WOULD impose a burden on abortion because it might cause women to reconsider having one. Using this "undue burden" logic actually PREVENTS abortions from even being quelled, much less stopped. ANY action that lessens abortion would be considered as an "undue burden" by the fact that less women might have abortions.

Alito supports the "undue burden" concept, but he believed spousal notification did not present an undue burden. However spousal CONSENT would, as would parental consent, as would ANY restrictions that might cause women to reconsider killing her baby.

JESUS the SNOWMAN

{{ He wrote a majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler , holding that a city's holiday display that included a creche and menorah did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it included secular symbols as well, such as Frosty the Snowman. }}

So Frosty the Snowman is constitutional according to Alito, but Jesus Christ alone is not? Read mine and Reed Heustis' comments on this "Lemon Test" philosophy to secularize religion at http://robertsrules.blogspot.com/2005/08/was-roberts-right.html.

In short it determines that religious things are constitutional only if they can be made secular. To support such a thing is to support making God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, prayer, and church secular. That does not protect our constitutional religious liberty - that DILUTES our religious liberty.

BIRDS of a FEATHER?

{{ In 1987, he became the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, where he earned a powerful friend--Michael Chertoff, then his deputy and now the Director of Homeland Security. When Alito was nominated to the appeals court, he pressed for Chertoff to succeed him as U.S. Attorney, helping him to rise above other candidates for the job. }}

Read about Alito's good friend Chertoff at http://bushscoreboard2ndterm.blogspot.com/2005/02/11a-11b-and-11c-homeland-czar-can.html. Chertoff helped cover up the OKC bombing, the WTC basement bombing, the death of Vince Foster, and the 9-11 WTC bombing. He has defended interests of Osama bin-Laden and was the ONLY attorney Bill Clinton didn't fire when he took office (http://bushscorecard.blogspot.com/2005/01/61-bush-tabs-clinton-keeper-for.html).

{{ In 2003, he was accused of conflict of interest after he dismissed a lawsuit against the Vanguard mutual fund. It emerged after the decision that he had a substantial amount invested in Vanguard. He denied any wrongdoing, though he immediately removed himself from the case when the plaintiff requested a new hearing. }}

Protecting his investments?

FREE VULGAR SPEECH and HARRASSMENT

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050719/19alito.htm

{{ In Saxe v. State College Area School District, Alito, writing for the panel, argued that the school does not have the right to punish students for vulgar language or harassment when it doesn't disrupt the school day. }}

Alito believes vulgar language and harassment should be protected as free speech. I don't think he even requires "Frosty the Snowman" to balance it out like he does with religious expressions.

The bottom line is that Alito has made rulings that favor abortion and sodomite protection and his conservative image is indeed only IMAGE.