Meet Judge Alito ! ! !

[Czolgosz]

Read Judge Samuel Alito's dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991). Instead of following the law, he tried to let the politicians re-write the Constitution to restrict a woman's right to make decisions about her own body!

Read Judge Alito's dissenting opinion in United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), where he tried to ignore almost 70 years of cases which had clearly decided the scope of Congress's authority! Here's a bonus: Judge Alito doesn't think Congress has the authority to regulate private citizens' ownership of machine guns!

Read Judge Alito's dissenting opinion in Banks v. Beard, 399 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. 2005), where he tried to re-write the law so prisoners didn't have access to newspapers or family photos!

Finally, read Judge Alito's dissenting opinions in Sheridan v. Dupont, 74 F.3d 1439 (3d Cir. 1996), and Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 110 F.3d 986 (3d Cir. 1997), where Judge Alito gives a big judicial OK to racial and gender discrimination!



Of course, even the Republican-dominated court of appeals and Supreme Court thought Judge Alito's ideas were radical, out of the mainstream, and maybe a little bit crazy.

But now just envision an America where each of these dissenting opinions by Judge Alito has become the universal law of the land!

Yea for President Bush and hooray for America!

[Czolgosz]

1. Here's a link to his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey where he wrote

"General evidence about the problem of spouse abuse ... concerning the dimensions of the problem, as well as evidence that battering occurs in all socioeconomic groups and is sometimes fatal..., while documenting the existence of a broad national problem, provides no basis for any estimate of what is relevant here--the impact of Section 3209."

He's a keeper!

<http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/alito/ppcasey102191opn.html#alito>

[Czolgosz]

2. Here's a link to his dissent in United States v. Rybar where he wrote

"At issue here is another type of purely intrastate firearm possession, i.e., the purely intrastate possession of a machine gun.... If there are distinctions of constitutional dimension here, they are too subtle for me to grasp."*

<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_rybar.txt>

*Let's be glad that this constitutional distinction was not too subtle for the other judges on the Third Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court to grasp. Do we really want a judge who cannot grasp the nationwide effect of machine gun ownership and, therefore, believes that Congress lacks the authority to regulate such matters?