Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsAlito
IN THE NEWS

Alito

FEATURED ARTICLES
OPINION
January 13, 2006
Re "Alito Remains Unruffled in Testy Hearings," Jan. 12 It's hard to believe what is happening at the hearings on the nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. The fine job that select senators are doing at smearing this judicial servant is appalling to watch or read about. It leaves me wondering how any right-minded young man or woman would ever want to get into the political arena, where such feeding to the lions is practiced routinely. MICHAEL KELLEY Riverside The Times' headline said: "Alito Tells Skeptical Democrats He Would Keep an Open Mind" (Jan.
ARTICLES BY DATE
ENTERTAINMENT
April 16, 2014 | By Joe Flint, This post has been corrected, as indicated below.
There will be no tie in the Supreme Court battle of Aereo vs. the broadcasters. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, who previously had recused himself from participating in the case, will take part in it after all, according to SCOTUS Blog , which tracks the Supreme Court. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for next week. Alito had given no reason for recusing himself from the case, but one possible reason is that a justice or his family has stock in some of the companies involved in the dispute.
Advertisement
OPINION
January 12, 2006
Re "Alito Tells Skeptical Democrats He Would Keep an Open Mind," Jan. 11 Listening to Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings, I find it hard to reconcile the centrist views of his testimony with the hard-right tenor of the paper trail he long ago began accumulating as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Reagan administration. I have also listened attentively to his explanations of controversial positions he took as an appellate judge in case after case. Even when Alito was the lone dissenter, as he often seemed to be, his answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding those extremely conservative opinions seemed designed to ward off the merest suggestion that he is, in fact, anything but Sandra Day O'Connor's rightful heir to the swing seat on the Supreme Court.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
March 26, 2013 | By Maura Dolan
One leading law professor said he saw little support on the U.S. Supreme Court for keeping Proposition 8, California's ban on gay marriage. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at UC Irvine and a constitutional law professor, said a reading of the transcript  showed that several justices were particularly concerned about standing, especially Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If the court dismisses the appeal on standing, the ruling by a federal district judge would probably stand.
OPINION
November 16, 2005
Re "Old Job Forum, New Questions," Nov. 15 We should cut Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. a break on the antiabortion statement in his Reagan job application. Most people will lie to get a better job. Wait, he's now applying for a great job. Never mind. DAVID DIETRICH Temecula We need a moderate to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Revelations so far show that Alito is far out of the mainstream. DOROTHY REIK Topanga Freedom of choice is enshrined in the Constitution.
OPINION
November 1, 2005 | Glenn Sacks, GLENN SACKS writes about issues involving men and fathers. His website is www.GlennSacks.com.
IMMEDIATELY AFTER President Bush nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court, the National Organization for Women sent out a nationwide "action alert" announcing that it is "ready for the fight" against Alito, and that he "opposes our rights." Planned Parenthood also wasted no time before blasting the nomination, saying that Alito had shown "callous disregard of battered women." How did Alito do these terrible things?
OPINION
November 2, 2005
Re "Conservatives Cheer Court Nominee," Nov. 1 Never has there been so much celebration over a nominee to the bench. This alone should send up a red flag. The fact that conservatives are preening and slapping each other on the back proves they believe federal appeals court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. will actively advance a certain agenda. What happened to judicial restraint? The discussion on this nomination is not about any narrow issue. Democrats and uneasy Republicans must move toward the greater issue of an activist Supreme Court that advances the views of a particular constituency versus a court that respects the law of the land.
OPINION
January 23, 2006
Re "Democrats Poised Against Alito," Jan. 19 It was heartening to read that most Democratic senators oppose the confirmation of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. They should, however, use this momentum to mount a filibuster. His rulings over the last 15 years clearly indicate that he is way to the right of mainstream America. His record refutes the decades of progress made in the courts on behalf of privacy, civil rights and control of corporations. This is the time for the Democrats to stand together and demonstrate that Alito is the wrong choice for the Supreme Court.
NEWS
November 16, 2012 | By Michael McGough
I have a soft spot for the Federalist Society, the 30-year-old organization of conservative and libertarian lawyers and law students that is part debating society, part employment agency for would-be judges and government lawyers (but only if they're interested in serving in Republican administrations or clerking for conservative judges). The discussions at FedSoc meetings are stimulating, and there is usually at least one liberal on every panel -- just as the FedSoc's liberal copycat , the American Constitution Society, finds room for conservatives on its panels.
OPINION
January 12, 2006 | Mark Tushnet, MARK TUSHNET, author of "A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law" (W.W. Norton, 2005), teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center.
IN HIS OPENING remarks Monday, Samuel A. Alito Jr. told the Senate Judiciary Committee that as a judge his only commitment was to the rule of law, and that he didn't -- and wouldn't -- bring any "agenda" or "preferred outcome" to the Supreme Court. Fair enough. But what exactly does it mean to say that you're committed to the rule of law and nothing else? Consider a case that came before Alito as a federal appeals court judge in 1996. United States vs.
NEWS
November 16, 2012 | By Michael McGough
I have a soft spot for the Federalist Society, the 30-year-old organization of conservative and libertarian lawyers and law students that is part debating society, part employment agency for would-be judges and government lawyers (but only if they're interested in serving in Republican administrations or clerking for conservative judges). The discussions at FedSoc meetings are stimulating, and there is usually at least one liberal on every panel -- just as the FedSoc's liberal copycat , the American Constitution Society, finds room for conservatives on its panels.
OPINION
January 25, 2012
By a surprisingly unanimous vote, the Supreme Court this week ruled that police must obtain a warrant before attaching a tracking device to a car or other vehicle. The decision is a welcome affirmation of the constitutional right to privacy in an era of advanced technology. But the majority opinion's rationale was needlessly narrow. Whether there is a broad right to freedom from new kinds of intrusive electronic surveillance remains to be answered. The case involved the conviction of Antoine Jones, a suspected drug dealer in the District of Columbia who was arrested after being monitored for 28 days by a global positioning system device surreptitiously attached to his Jeep by law enforcement agents without a warrant.
NATIONAL
October 5, 2011 | By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
The Supreme Court appeared unusually sympathetic Tuesday to the plight of an Alabama death row inmate who could be executed because two lawyers handling his appeal had left their law firm without telling him. When a court clerk sent a letter to their prominent New York firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, advising the young lawyers that Cory Maples' initial appeal had been denied, it was returned marked: "Return to sender — left firm. " The 42-day deadline to appeal then expired. At that point, Alabama's state prosecutors and judges took a stiff stand.
OPINION
June 5, 2011
Looking at Liu Re "Impaired judgment," Opinion, June 1 There is a reason that attacks like those made on Goodwin Liu, who recently asked that his nomination to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals be withdrawn, are called "Borking. " This horrible process began with the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's bizarre attack on Robert Bork, a recognized constitutional scholar whom President Reagan nominated to the Supreme Court. Ever since then, federal court nominees have been targeted by ideological opponents of the administration nominating them.
OPINION
January 27, 2011
By a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court has ruled that contract employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory must undergo the same background checks ? including questions about drug abuse and treatment ? that are required of government employees. The decision is defensible on the grounds of consistency, and such checks are a long-established feature of both public and private employment. But privacy advocates still have reason to cheer this decision. The court could have held that people have no right to withhold personal information from the government, but most of the justices declined to do so. Instead, in his majority opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. assumed for the purposes of argument that Americans have a constitutional right to "informational privacy" that limits what the government can require of them.
NEWS
January 25, 2011 | By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
Six Supreme Court justices are expected to attend President Obama's State of the Union speech Tuesday, amid growing concern over the politicization of the nation's high court. A court spokesman would not identify which of the panel's nine justices would attend, but it appeared likely that Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would be the three to skip the president's speech. Alito, who shook his head in disagreement as Obama spoke last year, had accepted an offer to teach law classes in Hawaii this week.
OPINION
January 25, 2012
By a surprisingly unanimous vote, the Supreme Court this week ruled that police must obtain a warrant before attaching a tracking device to a car or other vehicle. The decision is a welcome affirmation of the constitutional right to privacy in an era of advanced technology. But the majority opinion's rationale was needlessly narrow. Whether there is a broad right to freedom from new kinds of intrusive electronic surveillance remains to be answered. The case involved the conviction of Antoine Jones, a suspected drug dealer in the District of Columbia who was arrested after being monitored for 28 days by a global positioning system device surreptitiously attached to his Jeep by law enforcement agents without a warrant.
NATIONAL
October 5, 2011 | By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
The Supreme Court appeared unusually sympathetic Tuesday to the plight of an Alabama death row inmate who could be executed because two lawyers handling his appeal had left their law firm without telling him. When a court clerk sent a letter to their prominent New York firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, advising the young lawyers that Cory Maples' initial appeal had been denied, it was returned marked: "Return to sender — left firm. " The 42-day deadline to appeal then expired. At that point, Alabama's state prosecutors and judges took a stiff stand.
NATIONAL
June 29, 2010 | By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that cities and states must abide by the 2nd Amendment, strengthening the rights of gun owners and opening courthouse doors nationwide for gun rights advocates to argue that restrictions on firearms are unconstitutional. In a 5-4 decision, the justices said the right to have a handgun for self-defense is "fundamental from an American perspective [and] applies equally to the federal government and the states." The high court overturned 19th century rulings that said the 2nd Amendment restricted only federal gun laws, not local or state measures.
NATIONAL
January 29, 2010 | By David G. Savage
If there was ever an era of good feelings between President Obama, a Harvard Law School grad and former law professor, and the justices of the Supreme Court, it apparently ended this week. As six of the justices sat in the front row Wednesday night for the annual State of the Union address, Obama denounced a court ruling last week as opening the floodgates to corporate money in American elections. Dissenting was Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who shook his head and appeared to say "not true" as the president spoke.
Los Angeles Times Articles
|