Talk:Samuel Alito/Archive 2

• Talk:Samuel Alito/Archive 01: 27 October 2005 – 13 January 2006
• Talk:Samuel Alito/Archive 02: 13 January 2006 – 3 February 2006

Reminder to sign posts

Hello, this is a reminder that it is Wikipedia policy to sign your post on discussion page. Please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, Johntex\^talk 17:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

New Issues

Recently the change was made from "LexisNexis reports that Alito has written more than 700 opinions," to 400 opinions. Do we know which is correct? 68.50.103.212 04:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Opponents of the unitary executive theory

Some feel the need to deny opponents of Alito fear his view of the Unitary Executive theory. Clearly they deny that critics base their interpretation of his view on his documented statements on the matter. Please, explain how this is incorrect before deleting that explanation. Of course I will supply extra sources if that is the problem. Second I would like to remind editors of the 3RR rule.--Nomen Nescio 05:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Read my edit comments, please. I am not denying that opponents are concerned about his view of the unitary executive. I am removing the clause stating that their concerns are "based upon his known interpretation of the unitary executive . . .", since it assumes without proof that the opponents' description of his position is correct. This assertion -- that their opinion is correct while his own description of his own view is false -- is POV. However, because of the 3RR, I will let the current version stand for the day. Jpers36 05:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not say their view represents his view. It merely states that it is based upon what Alito has said in the past and what they fear it might mean. Whether their interpretation is correct, in asserting what it does, is an entirely different matter, as you well know. However, to claim opponents are telling the truth would have to be substantiated with evidence, as you rightly stated, therefore you have not seen me doing that.--Nomen Nescio 05:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Have added more sources, hope this will convince you they are concerned based upon his record. Nevertheless, will change known to perceived, and this to previous (later edit).--Nomen Nescio 06:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Some editors feel the need to withhold an explanation on the criticism from the casual reader. This of course must be warranted since:

• The sources do not support Alito and should therefore be deleted,
• The reader should never be told both sides of the debate, it only confuses the reader into thinking he can decide for himself what to think of it,
• However, the deletion of critical sources and the discussion on why Alito is controversial has to constitute a violation of WP:NPOV. I hate to say it but we should leave the criticism, otherwise an admin might disagree and think this is a case of POV pushing.--Nomen Nescio 20:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

These sources are all strongly POV (PFAW, blog postings, editorials) and shed no light the meaning of the Unitary Executive theory or the current controversy. An encyclopedia is not a vehicle for collecting any unqualifed opinion that may make a rhetorical point. Nor is an encyclopedia a place for making rhetorical points. Nor does piling on more blog postings make them any better of a "source." In addition to all of the bogus "sources", this sentence

But, in effect, support the interpretation of the Bush administration that as Commander-in-Chief President Bush can not be restrained by any law, national or international.

is strongly POV and misrepresents both the position of the Bush administration and the position of serious advocates of the Unitary Executive theory. It is neither a serious argument, nor a serious conclusion. It is akin to arguing that supporters of Roe v. Wade are "baby killers." This paragraph needs to be modified to concisely state the controvery over the Unitary Executive theory using real experts and not overheated rhetoric. Perhaps there are quotes from the Senate debate that could be used to state the opposing view? --Paul 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, the sentence stands for what critics think the Unitary Executive might mean. If you were to read the sources you would find legal experts, and newspapers among them. To say they are blatantly POV misstates the facts. As if, having a different view on the law, makes the analyst POV. Furthermore, I inserted a myriad of sources just to show there is no POV but sincere criticism. To delete the criticism would make it POV! First read the sources, then we can discuss the matter.--Nomen Nescio 21:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, be civil and discuss. Should that not be possible, and this wanton censorship continues, without even an attempt of finding compromise I will ask for an admin to intervene.--Nomen Nescio 01:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Nomen Nesico, we are being civil. At this point there have been three different people removing your edit. Please calm down and think about what that might mean. The reason your edit is being removed is because you have inserted a blatant, distorted and unsupported attack on Alito's view of the "Unitarty Executive" theory. Just because an opponent of Alito, like "People for the American Way" says that the Unitary Exectutive Theory means something, does not make it the truth. Wikipedia is not a place to document all attacks and claims made during a political fight, it is a place where a Neutral Point of View is supposed to previal and where facts are presented and opinons are minimized. Alito, whether you agree with him or not, is the best source for determining what he thinks the Unified Executive Theory means. It is not the mission of Wikipedia to document the substance of attacks on Alito, rather the mission is to describe the disagreements that people have. I urge you to limit edits to addition of substantive quotes and references. I would welcome an appropriate quote from an opposing Senator. I have once again reverted your edit (which, as one editor correctly pointed out belongs in the confirmation article instead of this one, if it belongs anywhere). --Paul 02:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing the matter. You must have noted my contribution is not an unsupported POV attack. If you read the sources (The Guardian, Chicago Tribune, legal experts, et cetera) it must be evident this is an analysis based upon his statements. You might disagree, but how is inserting such an analysis by legal scholars and newspapers POV. I stress, my addition nowhere states these are his views. It merely says opponents fear this is his view! Please explain why discussing criticism on his perceivede view of the unitary executive is not allowed. Since it is well sourced, and not attack but analysis I will insist on this unless you can explain how that is POV.

BTW, had you read the sources you would have found they advance exactly what you are asking: "I would welcome an appropriate quote from an opposing Senator."

I have asked for a third opinion to decide whether this censorship is warranted. Clearly reverting is easier than addressing the views based upon what legal experts say. None of the reverting editors have explained why newspapers can not be used, or why legal analysts can not be used. Since this is a violation of NPOV I will ask an admin to interven.--Nomen Nescio 02:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Instead of constantly screaming "censorship," you might want to familiarize yourself with the concept that you don't own wikipedia. Once you make a poorly written POV contribution, others are free to clean it up without regard to your personal political agenda. --Ajdz 16:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Since a well sourced addition explaining criticism is denied, and no serious debate is possible, I have asked for comment by others.

The problem seems to be the following edit:

Nevertheless, based upon his previous statements regarding the "unitary executive,"[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] opponents fear he will not uphold the separation of powers as intended by the Constitution.[12] But, in effect, --Paul 18:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)support the interpretation of the Bush administration that as Commander-in-Chief President Bush can not be restrained by any law, national or international.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] (Note: have removed "of his confirmation" to alleviate some concern, and added new sources)

The following objections have been raised: 1 The sources are claimed to be POV, although it is not explained why, or even what sources are allowed (FOX News?) and who gets to decide, 2 This analysis of Alito's possible views is called POV, although it is not explained why discussing criticism is not allowed.

Sincerely--Nomen Nescio 03:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The sources cited are all editorials, Nescio, which means they are openly and intentionally POV. The POV is not a problem for an editorial -- it is in fact the intention of an editorial to put across one's point of view in an intelligent manner -- but it makes editorials nearly worthless as an encyclopedic source. The exception is when pointing out that some person or group of people have a concern about a situation, but the encyclopedia must note such concerns without incorporating the editorial's POV within the article. Your edits are incorporating the editorials' points of view, whereas the edits of others (including myself and Giles22) are attempting to remove such incorporation while still noting the concern. Jpers36 15:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I understand what you are saying, so repeating the previous explanation still does not answer these little inconsistencies:

1 How can criticism be NPOV? It is a contradictio in terminis, or oxymoron if you like. The raison d'etre of criticism is another POV. So, to demand criticism to be NPOV is an impossible and ludicrous request.

2 As I understand it the article must remain NPOV, but within different controversial topics POV's can be and should be discussed. They should be identified as such and that is exactly what I have done.

3 When discussing criticism it seems odd to dismiss legal analysis on the subject merely because it contradicts your personal believes. Having read the sources you must have noticed several professors of law, and dismissing their contribution as POV is not only POV in itself, it is proof of ignorance. Leagal analysis is legal analysis, and as such can not be disallowed on the grounds of you disagreeing with its conclusion. Or, can such analysis only be used when the professor explains it in a seminar at university?

4 When claiming sources are POV you are misstating wikipedia policy and also misrepresenting the facts. As it is, several newspaper articles presenting the facts, are dismissed also. This can only mean that disallowing the sources is based upon refusing dissenting views. As to the editorials, I was not aware they can not be used as source. Please show me where wikipedia policiy forbids the use of editorials.

Thanks for responding, sincerely --Nomen Nescio 22:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: it is without question appropriate to report on the controversy about Alito and the Unitary Executive theory. It is also appropriate to note that Alito has publicly stated a different definition of the theory than that which his critics suspect him to privately hold. Whether his critics are correct, that he is prevaricating in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, or whether they are mistaken, and he really does hold an innocuous view on the subject, the fact that a controversy exists is highly relevant and should be reported in the article. --HK 07:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: HK has it right. My formulation is that the task of a Wikipedia editor is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. WP:NPOV says "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." It also warns to avoid giving undue weight to minority opinions. We should include all points of view (opinions) about Alito. At the same time, this article is about him and not his critics. WE should avoid writing anything that looks like "his critics say..." Opinions should always be attributed in some manner when they are given. Specifically, if a bunch of newspaper ediorials say "X", and we think it is relevant, then we should write, "Many newspapers editorials said 'X'" Likewise, we can report polls, "In March 2005, 30% of likely Connecticut voters favored X". We can even cite notable critics by name, "Senator Y called X, 'Hogwash'". We should cite any direct rebuttal he or his supporters have made, but not make up responses on our own. We need to keep everything in proportion. If Samuel Alito is confirmed he may serve for several decades, and if not he may still have a long and productive existence. Let's keep the minutiae down to a minimum so that this article remains readable. Discussions of legal or ideological topics are be best handled in articles on those topics, like unitary executive. And thanks to everybody for keeping a collegial editing atmosphere. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all for their contribution to the debate. It is clear to me that the following can be concluded: 1 Discussion of criticism is allowed, as long as it is identified as such, 2 editorials can be used as source to substantiate such an evaluation of Alito's ideas. Based on the suggestions by other Wikipedians we can savely say that all of the objections have been addressed, and none are in accordance with WP:NPOV. Now it has been established my edit does not violate wikipedia policy I will again insert the original comment. I will slightly alter it to make sure there can be no doubt it is not Alito's view. Sincerely -- Nomen Nescio 00:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Paul.h Nescio, I think you are assuming too much from what has been written here. No one disputes that it is appropriate to show both sides of a debate, but there is also considerable agreement that an article cannot push a POV. You have not changed your edit any based on this discussion, and it is still inappropriate for the following reasons:

1 Nevertheless, based upon Alito's previous statements -- this is an unsupported assertion. WHAT statements? There are no facts here. This could just as well say Nevertheless, based on the phase of the moon. The statements need to be referenced, or this needs to be restated in a non-implicative manner.

'2 ...opponents, through many editorials, have expressed their fear he will not uphold the separation of powers as intended by the Constitution. This is still inserting POV editorials without showing any clarity about what is being asserted. Without a connection between something Alito has said or done, this is just pushing a political argment POV.

3 ...They believe assert or maintain is a better, more neutral word; we can nott know what they believe.

4 ...he will support the Bush administration in its interpretation of the Unitary Executive, which they claim is that as Commander-in-Chief the President can not be restrained by law, national or international. This implies that the Bush administration claims that the President can not be restrained by law which is, to my knowledge, is not somethat that the administration has ever claimed. You need a reference to suppport this, or it must be removed. It is not appropriate to say that "critics claim that the President says he can not be restrained by law" without having a quote where that is spelleld out. Otherwise, you are inserting an unsupported POV into the article.

Without some direct, non-POV sources with real quotes to back up the assertions in your edit, this is my suggestion on how it should be rewritten to remain NPOV and conform to Wiki standards:

Nevertheless opponents of Alito have expressed their fear he will not uphold the separation of powers as intended by the Constitution. They believe he will support the Bush administration in its interpretation of the Unitary Executive, which they claim is that as Commander-in-Chief the President can not be restrained by law, national or international.==Requests for comment==

Since a well sourced addition explaining criticism is denied, and no serious debate is possible, I have asked for comment by others.

The problem seems to be the following edit:

Nevertheless, based upon his previous statements regarding the "unitary executive,"[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] opponents fear he will not uphold the separation of powers as intended by the Constitution.[37] But, in effect, --Paul 18:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)support the interpretation of the Bush administration that as Commander-in-Chief President Bush can not be restrained by any law, national or international.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] (Note: have removed "of his confirmation" to alleviate some concern, and added new sources)

The following objections have been raised: 1 The sources are claimed to be POV, although it is not explained why, or even what sources are allowed (FOX News?) and who gets to decide, 2 This analysis of Alito's possible views is called POV, although it is not explained why discussing criticism is not allowed.

Sincerely--Nomen Nescio 03:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The sources cited are all editorials, Nescio, which means they are openly and intentionally POV. The POV is not a problem for an editorial -- it is in fact the intention of an editorial to put across one's point of view in an intelligent manner -- but it makes editorials nearly worthless as an encyclopedic source. The exception is when pointing out that some person or group of people have a concern about a situation, but the encyclopedia must note such concerns without incorporating the editorial's POV within the article. Your edits are incorporating the editorials' points of view, whereas the edits of others (including myself and Giles22) are attempting to remove such incorporation while still noting the concern. Jpers36 15:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I understand what you are saying, so repeating the previous explanation still does not answer these little inconsistencies:

1 How can criticism be NPOV? It is a contradictio in terminis, or oxymoron if you like. The raison d'etre of criticism is another POV. So, to demand criticism to be NPOV is an impossible and ludicrous request.

2 As I understand it the article must remain NPOV, but within different controversial topics POV's can be and should be discussed. They should be identified as such and that is exactly what I have done.

3 When discussing criticism it seems odd to dismiss legal analysis on the subject merely because it contradicts your personal believes. Having read the sources you must have noticed several professors of law, and dismissing their contribution as POV is not only POV in itself, it is proof of ignorance. Leagal analysis is legal analysis, and as such can not be disallowed on the grounds of you disagreeing with its conclusion. Or, can such analysis only be used when the professor explains it in a seminar at university?

4 When claiming sources are POV you are misstating wikipedia policy and also misrepresenting the facts. As it is, several newspaper articles presenting the facts, are dismissed also. This can only mean that disallowing the sources is based upon refusing dissenting views. As to the editorials, I was not aware they can not be used as source. Please show me where wikipedia policiy forbids the use of editorials.

Thanks for responding, sincerely --Nomen Nescio 22:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: it is without question appropriate to report on the controversy about Alito and the Unitary Executive theory. It is also appropriate to note that Alito has publicly stated a different definition of the theory than that which his critics suspect him to privately hold. Whether his critics are correct, that he is prevaricating in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, or whether they are mistaken, and he really does hold an innocuous view on the subject, the fact that a controversy exists is highly relevant and should be reported in the article. --HK 07:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: HK has it right. My formulation is that the task of a Wikipedia editor is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. WP:NPOV says "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." It also warns to avoid giving undue weight to minority opinions. We should include all points of view (opinions) about Alito. At the same time, this article is about him and not his critics. WE should avoid writing anything that looks like "his critics say..." Opinions should always be attributed in some manner when they are given. Specifically, if a bunch of newspaper ediorials say "X", and we think it is relevant, then we should write, "Many newspapers editorials said 'X'" Likewise, we can report polls, "In March 2005, 30% of likely Connecticut voters favored X". We can even cite notable critics by name, "Senator Y called X, 'Hogwash'". We should cite any direct rebuttal he or his supporters have made, but not make up responses on our own. We need to keep everything in proportion. If Samuel Alito is confirmed he may serve for several decades, and if not he may still have a long and productive existence. Let's keep the minutiae down to a minimum so that this article remains readable. Discussions of legal or ideological topics are be best handled in articles on those topics, like unitary executive. And thanks to everybody for keeping a collegial editing atmosphere. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all for their contribution to the debate. It is clear to me that the following can be concluded: 1 Discussion of criticism is allowed, as long as it is identified as such, 2 editorials can be used as source to substantiate such an evaluation of Alito's ideas. Based on the suggestions by other Wikipedians we can savely say that all of the objections have been addressed, and none are in accordance with WP:NPOV. Now it has been established my edit does not violate wikipedia policy I will again insert the original comment. I will slightly alter it to make sure there can be no doubt it is not Alito's view. Sincerely -- Nomen Nescio 00:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Paul.h Nescio, I think you are assuming too much from what has been written here. No one disputes that it is appropriate to show both sides of a debate, but there is also considerable agreement that an article cannot push a POV. You have not changed your edit any based on this discussion, and it is still inappropriate for the following reasons:

1 Nevertheless, based upon Alito's previous statements -- this is an unsupported assertion. WHAT statements? There are no facts here. This could just as well say Nevertheless, based on the phase of the moon. The statements need to be referenced, or this needs to be restated/deleted.

'2 ...opponents, through many editorials, have expressed their fear he will not uphold the separation of powers as intended by the Constitution. This is still inserting POV editorials without showing any clarity about what is being asserted. Without a connection between something Alito has said or done, this is just pushing a political argment POV.

3 ...They believe assert or maintain is a better, more neutral word; we can not know what they believe.

4 ...he will support the Bush administration in its interpretation of the Unitary Executive, which they claim is that as Commander-in-Chief the President can not be restrained by law, national or international. This implies that the Bush administration claims that the President can not be restrained by law which is, to my knowledge, is not somethat that the administration has ever claimed. You need a reference to suppport this, or it must be removed. It is not appropriate to say that "critics claim that the President says he can not be restrained by law" without having a quote where that is spelleld out. Otherwise, you are inserting an unsupported POV into the article.

Without some direct, non-POV sources with real quotes to back up the assertions in your edit, this is my suggestion on how it should be rewritten to remain NPOV and conform to Wiki standards:

However, opponents of the Alito nomination remain concerned that Alito believes in extensive Presidental powers and would defer to Presidential authority in separation of powers disputes.

I look forward to your response. --Paul 18:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Some quotes:

On his record:

Alito's record reveals that he "has been extraordinarily deferential to the exercise of government power, especially executive branch power, except in cases involving alleged infringements on religious expression," according to the AFJ. His "judicial record strongly suggests that he will ... interpret the Constitution as giving the president greater authority to evade Congressional statutes and constitutional limitations whenever deemed essential to national security."[51] He has supported the fringe "unitary executive" theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution.[52] Judge Alito backed away from one of his most extreme statements in this area - his assertion, in a 1985 job application, that he believed "very strongly" in "the supremacy of the elected branches of government." But he left a disturbing impression that as a justice, he would undermine the Supreme Court's critical role in putting a check on presidential excesses.[53]

Stance towards Presidential powers:

However, Bush's recent actions make it clear that he interprets the coordinate construction approach extremely aggressively. In his view, and the view of his Administration, that doctrine gives him license to overrule and bypass Congress or the courts, based on his own interpretations of the Constitution -- even where that violates long-established laws and treaties, counters recent legislation that he has himself signed, ........[54] “I have carefully read the writings, the speeches and the decisions of Samuel Alito in [the area of executive power], and they all point in one direction: a very troubling pattern of great deference to executive authority,” Chemerinsky said in his testimony.[55] Alito apparently believes that a president may decide by executive fiat what law is or is not constitutional, and whether he is bound by the rule of law. Alito's willingness to elevate the president to an exalted status above the law is truly frightening to hear from a Supreme Court nominee. This view harkens back to the divine right of kings (the king is accountable to no one but God), which was forever rejected by our American Revolution. Alito is clearly signaling that if he serves on the Supreme Court, he will serve as a rubber stamp for the exercise of unchecked executive power.[56] Whatever else Alito may or may not have made clear about his views on such issues as abortion, federalism and religious freedom, he has certainly made clear that he has no interest in restraining the acts of this commander in chief.[57]

IMHO, this substantiates my version. Sincerely-- Nomen Nescio 18:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

These are all just POV editorializing, and it is not appropriate to regard them as a source, or to use them to back up POV assertions in the article. One by one...

Alito's record reveals that he "has been extraordinarily deferential to the exercise of government power, especially executive branch power, except in cases involving alleged infringements on religious expression," according to the AFJ. His "judicial record strongly suggests that he will ... interpret the Constitution as giving the president greater authority to evade Congressional statutes and constitutional limitations whenever deemed essential to national security."[58]

Where does Alito's record reveal this? If I could find an editorial that says: "Alio's record reveals that he favors eating babies for breakfast." Would that be appropriate to put in the article?

He has supported the fringe "unitary executive" theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution.[59]

This is just a distortion and an attack. Alito has explicity said what he means by the Unitary Executive Theory and it is quoted in the article. Where is the quote from a respected legal authority that supports these assertions? Plus it is loaded with POV things like "fringe" and "detain Americans"

Judge Alito backed away from one of his most extreme statements in this area - his assertion, in a 1985 job application, that he believed "very strongly" in "the supremacy of the elected branches of government." But he left a disturbing impression that as a justice, he would undermine the Supreme Court's critical role in putting a check on presidential excesses.[60]

More POV pushing ("extreme statements"). And it is also illogical. How does saying that you believe in the supremacy of the elected brances of government, translate to not putting a check on presential excesses? There are two elected branches of the U.S. government, and Alito's statement could just as resonably be read as saying that he thinks that courts should normally defer to the legislature and executive. It says nothing about what Alito thinks of the limits of Presidential or Congressional power. In the context of Alito's stated philosopy, it is a simple statement of what Chief Justice Roberts referred to as "Judicial modesty."

However, Bush's recent actions make it clear that he interprets the coordinate construction approach extremely aggressively. In his view, and the view of his Administration, that doctrine gives him license to overrule and bypass Congress or the courts, based on his own interpretations of the Constitution -- even where that violates long-established laws and treaties, counters recent legislation that he has himself signed, ........[61]

What is the connection between the Unitary Executive theory, and the "coordinate construction approach"? What does someone's opinion of what Bush thinks have to do with what Alito thinks?

“I have carefully read the writings, the speeches and the decisions of Samuel Alito in [the area of executive power], and they all point in one direction: a very troubling pattern of great deference to executive authority,” Chemerinsky said in his testimony.[62]

Another purely POV opinion unsupported by any argument or examples.

Alito apparently believes that a president may decide by executive fiat what law is or is not constitutional, and whether he is bound by the rule of law. Alito's willingness to elevate the president to an exalted status above the law is truly frightening to hear from a Supreme Court nominee. This view harkens back to the divine right of kings (the king is accountable to no one but God), which was forever rejected by our American Revolution. Alito is clearly signaling that if he serves on the Supreme Court, he will serve as a rubber stamp for the exercise of unchecked executive power.[63]

Yet Another purely POV opinion unsupported by any argument or examples.

Whatever else Alito may or may not have made clear about his views on such issues as abortion, federalism and religious freedom, he has certainly made clear that he has no interest in restraining the acts of this commander in chief.[64]

And Yet Another purely POV opinion unsupported by any argument or examples. I could just as well use these quotes as a "reference" to insert the following statement into the article: As evidenced by the following quotes, Alito's opponents have clearly been driven insane by the prospect that he will replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, and have been inventing noxious interpretations of his jurisprudence unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

To reiterate, it is not appropriate to use references to POV material to insert POV material into a Wikipedia article. --Paul 19:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: I think that the two of you might want to cool off a bit, because some of this verges on hair-splitting. I will make a couple of observations: the citing of editorials to illustrate the controversy over Alito is completely legitimate, provided there is no Wikipedian commentary about what the editorials imply. When in doubt, find a succinct quote which summarizes the point of view (by the same token, editors should be careful not to draw inferences about Alito's views either, and when in doubt, quote.) Paul, I don't think you have any basis for objecting to this. No matter how wrong an editorial may be, it is still a legitimate source when discussing the controversy that surrounds Alito. The only constraint would be that the article space allotted to the citations should be just enough to illustrate the point, and no more.

Also, Paul wrote the following: "This implies that the Bush administration claims that the President can not be restrained by law which is, to my knowledge, is not somethat that the administration has ever claimed. You need a reference to suppport this, or it must be removed." In this interview, conducted yesterday with Bob Schieffer of CBS, Bush seems to come very close to saying precisely that. I say "seems," because Bush is very inarticulate in the interview and there is a lot of ambiguity which I attribute to fuzzy thinking on his part. There probably is no quotable quote there, of the kind that you request, but stay tuned; if Bush keeps talking, one may emerge. --HK 23:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Additional Comment Although I spent some time ridiculing these alarmist editorials and commentaries, my last edit retained the reference to the list of external links. What I objected to, and still object to, is the inclusion of these inflamatory and generally inaccurate charges in the article. The objectionable edit presents the POV arguments without putting them in quotes or making it clear that the Wikipedia editors do not endorse these charges, nor does it point out that there are as many people who think this is unsupported scaremongering as those who read these arguments and are concerned about the future of the country.

I agree with an earlier commentator, that this disagreement belongs in the main Samuel Alito Confirmation article, not here. I also continue to think that the disagreement can be much more succinctly stated without the generally imprecise and inaccurate statements in the current paragraph:

• "based upon Alito's previous statements"—with no statements quoted
• "separation of powers as intended by the Constitution."—this itself is a point of contention.
• "They believe he will support the Bush administration in its interpretation of the Unitary Executive"—The Bush administration has made no claims based on the Unitary Executive theory.
• "which they suggest is that as Commander-in-Chief the President can not be restrained by law, national or international"—sloppy not clear if "they" is the Bush administration or "opponents"

--Paul 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Paul: Your concerns are clear, but I do feel your reasoning is flawed.

1 You claim there are inflamatory and generally inaccurate charges in the article. Although I agree the arguments might result in emotional responses, this in itself is not sufficient to deny inclusion. We are here to present facts, not to protect people from getting annoyed. As to the inaccuracy, this is a biased and unsupported allegation. The law is, at times, ambiguous, therefore multiple interpretations are possible. The deny the fact that one could have a different opinion on what the law means is not only incorrect, it is also a violation of WP:NPOV.

2 Claiming it is not clear who is saying what, misrepresents the facts. As you are well aware, it is overtly stated that opponents have this view. Please, do not insert confusion where there is none.

3 The reference to Alito's previous statements can of course be expanded with quotations. However, as you yourself have said, this is not the place to elaborate on this topic. You will have to decide, either we try and keep the discussion as succinct as possible, or you insist on the quotes and this part of the article will get expanded beyond what is reasonable.

4"""separation of powers as intended by the Constitution."—this itself is a point of contention. Are you saying that the trias politica is NOT defined in the constitution?

5 The Bush administration has made no claims based on the Unitary Executive theory. Once again, a misrepresentation of history. Please review the arguments used to refute the Geneva Conventions, justify and redefine torture (by Yoo), to create enemy combatants (by Yoo yet again!), or even the way in which Bush -and not Congress- declared war to invade Iraq. There are numerous examples of this administration resorting to the Commander-in-Chief routine (based upon the Unitary Executive) as justification for violating the law. Or, as they (the adninistration and its supporters) say, suggesting the law can be interpreted in other ways.

6 Sadly you resort to deleberate obfuscating the arguments: not clear if "they" is the Bush administration or "opponents." First, as I understand it one would refer to an administration as it. Meaning, that if interpreatation is to be attributed to the Bush administration the sentence would be: "...which it suggests is that as Commander-in-Chief ..." Second, the entire discussion is about what opponents think the view is Alito and the Bush administration have. It is more than evident that they is supposed to be opponents. If, however you feel the need to, feel free to replace they with opponents.

7 While you object to "unsupported scaremongering," I would like to object to unsupported warmongering. As you well know the Bush administration in the pursuit of OBL made a wrong turn and ended up in Iraq. Mysteriously forgetting OBL ever existed. Then, the US opposed a non-military solution to the conflict with SH citing extremely acute dangers. Although numerous expert said they had grave doubts, the Bush administration insisted they had "evidence." It turns out that all the "evidence" is flawed. Move forward several years and what do we hear, Iran is a major imminent threat, and once again the drums are beating. In short: unsupported warmongering. This comment is to place your assertions in perspective. In addition, the war on terror is the ultimate "unsupported scaremongering." One look at the facts and we can see that the risk of terrorism is dwarfed by the risk of being killed by: a car accident, b heart attack, c murder, d hunger, e bombings or war in general (see Darfur, Iraq, et cetera) f malaria, g AIDS, h alcohol (cirrhosis, DUI), et cetera. If the actual victims were to be reflected by the media, terrorism would certainly not get the attention it does today. This discrepancy can only be the result of "unsupported scaremongering."

Back to Alito, I think either statement (from Paul or NN) is permissible. Both adaquately convey opponents' feelings about Alito, as long as they are clearly labeled as opinions I see no reason to exclude one or the other. NN's is apparantly written from the slant of a detractor, but does convey specific complaints; whereas Paul's is more ambiguous it does seem less inflamatory. I think that Paul's version would be the better, since it deals more generally with opinions which have little bearing on Alito himself (the subject of this page); the more specific complaints would be better off somewhere else, such as one concerning his nomination. 216.99.65.10 16:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A different point is, you have inserted a duplicate portion of the contributions above. Maybe, you want to look if some it can be deleted to shorten this page. Sincerely -- Nomen Nescio 07:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

ABA rating

In the section about the nomination to the Supreme Court, the sentence following the ABA rating, beginning with "However", has a negative connotation regarding the appropriate application, if any, of the ABA rating. Juansmith 09:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed this, but I missed your comment here before I made the change. Is the new wording acceptable? Jpers36 14:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That looks fine. It makes the necessary distinction without passing any judgment on the validity of the test. Juansmith 10:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Current Tag

This article does not document a current event, but is updated quite frequently. Suggestions?

Chinese Court Cases

Why is there no mention of the court cases for Chinese seeking ayslum. The ones im talking about are specifically Chen v. Ashcroft, Liu v. Ashcroft, and Zhang v. Gonzales.

Confirmation hearing section

Shouldn't this section be integrated into the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination entry? Especially since it's on the main page; the link there leads to nothing about the hearings themselves.

--bbsrock

Agree Most of the material in this article related to the confirmation process and controversies should be moved to the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination article. A paragraph should remain here summarizing. --Paul 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Picky Detail: Alito's yearbook

Can someone confirm the part about Alito having put the business about "warming a seat on the Supreme Court" in his yearbook? Other sources are reporting that this was written by a friend, about Alito. -- Charlie (Colorado) 00:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Mrs. Alito and The Swiftboat Veterans

Would someone like to follow-up on this please? Thanks!

Why are Swift Boaters -- the folks who smeared John Kerry's war record in the 2004 election -- now trying to promote Alito's nomination by capitalizing on yesterday's bizarre incident?

We're referring to this release sent out yesterday by Creative Response Concepts, an Alexandria, Va., based PR firm with deep blood lines on the far right:

The always-alert Creative Response Concepts, a conservative public relations firm, sent this bulletin: "Former Alito clerk Gary Rubman witnessed Mrs. Alito leaving her husband's confirmation in tears and is available for interviews, along with other former Alito clerks who know her personally and are very upset about this development."

In case that was too much trouble for the journalists, the firm also e-mailed out a statement from the Judicial Confirmation Network calling "for the abuse to stop."

This post this summer from the citizen-journalists at ePluribus Media notes that the Judicial Confirmation Network is essentially an arm of Campaign Solutions, "the public-relations firm for Bush-Cheney '04, the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee." And the JCN had hired Creative Response Concepts as a key part of its team to aid John Roberts, now the Chief Justice, and Alito in their Senate confirmation battles. (JCN's leader, Gary Marx, used to work for Century Strategies, the firm of Ralph Reed, best pal of Jack Abramoff...small world, isn't it?)

More: http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002645.html

Casey link

Feel free to update my link to Alito's Casey opinion, if you can find a more NPOV/verifiable source. Jpers36 05:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Prospect magazine article

"The executive committee of CAP published a statement in December 1973 that affirmed unequivocally, "Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy." A 1983 essay in CAP's magazine Prospect, entitled "In Defense of Elitism", explained: "Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children." By 1985, thirteen years after his Princeton graduation, Altio continued to tout his membership in the conservative group while readying his job application for the Reagan Administration. [3]"

Anyone agree that article found in the magazine of a group he belonged to should be taken out? I think it is misleading, creates the impression that was his view, but he was many layers removed from the article. Lotsofissues 10:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

He boasts his membership in the group from its founding, to the year before it was terminated. That's 13 years after his graduation. He knew what they were publishing. If he really didn't agree with what they were doing, don't you think he would leave it off his resume? Seems pretty biased that it's okay to include his participation in long lost student activities when they are in defense of homosexuals and addressing privacy issues, but anything that may show conservative tendencies makes red-flags go up? --Howrealisreal 12:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems a little unfair to ascribe to Alito opinions expressed in a magazine to which he subscribed. I subscribe to Scientific American and sometimes read The nation, but I don't subscribe to all views expressed in those magazines uniformly. -- Charlie (Colorado) 00:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between subscribing to a magazine and being a member of the group that produces a magazine. It is true, I subscribe to plenty of magazines and newspapers that I don't always agree with. In fact, I like to read a lot of periodicals that I specifically disagree with. But, on the other hand, I also do not work for— or am I a boasting member of— those publications and their related organizations. If you worked for Scientific American, of course you can not agree with everything they publish universally, but you are quite connected to the image of that magazine and the viewpoints they express. --Howrealisreal 23:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The then editor of the 1983 Prospect article "In Defense of Elitism" says that it was a satire, and chides Kennedy for reading snippets from it as if it were a serious opinion piece. Can anyone get the entire content of the article and link it so the reader can judge for themselves what it is saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.167.254.1 (talk • contribs)

The best sense of Alito's views is given by his application for employment by the Reagan Administration in which he says "I am and always have been a conservative and an adherent to the same political views that I believe are central to this administration. It is obviously very difficult to summarize a set of political views in a sentence but, in capsule form I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremecy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values. In the field of law I disagree strenuously with the ursurpation by the judiciary of decision making authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate...When I first became interested in government and politics during the 1960's the greatest influences on my views were the writings of William F. Buckley, Jr. The National Review, and Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign. In college I developed a deep interest in constitutional law motivated in large part by disagreement with warren Court decisions particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause and reapportionment. I discovered the writings of Alexander Bickell advocating judicial restraint and it was largely for this reason I decided to go to Yale Law School.

After graduation from law school, completion of my ROTC military commitment and a judicial clerkship I joined the US Attorney's office in New Jersey, principally because of my strong views regarding law enforcement...I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the constitution does not protect a right to an abortion....I am a member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy and a regular participant at its luncheon meetings and a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a conservative alumni group. During the past year I have submitted articles for publication in the national review and the American Spectator.Sea level 22:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Article really neutral?

From this article, I get a biased view. For example, under abortion, it only shows places where he supported abortion rights. I read in the newspaper that he didn't support Roe vs. Wade when he applied for a position with Reagan's adminisration. Fireworld2406 00:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Its definitely both scrubbed and biased. You could take this article in its entirity from Republiican talking points. I attempted to add Alio's own statements from his Reagan admin application and got a message to the effect that there are POV policies.Sea level 00:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia knows it cannot get away with the typical liberal slant of most of its articles when lots of folks are likely to see the article (such am article about a topic implicated in current news events). Therefore this article is actually balanced. Thats why you find it so odd - you are just used to seeing ridiculously leftist editing that you encounter in most wiipedia articles. (unsigned)

"typical liberal slant"??? The truth is a relation between a proposition and reality. Its the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. NPOV means no bias, no spin, no intentionaly misleading statements, no omissions, You may not like what a guy said in order to get a job in the Reagan Administration; his making that statement gives the impression that Samual Alito thought the Reagan administration would view those ideas positively and maybe that reflects on them as much on them aS on him, but they are his words and they belong in an article about him.Sea level 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The worst sort of the lie is the truth that you never tell. A man can verify that what you say is correct or incorrect to the satisfaction of his interest. But it's much more difficult to verify that you've told all he needs to make up his mind. I read the article and felt that it was even-handed, if maybe a little soft. When I say "soft" I mean only to relative to other articles about political figures, which alternate between excoriating them and apotheosizing them. This one actually feels like a respectable balance between the two. Take that with a grain of salt, however; I don't find Alito an especially loathesome choice for the Supreme Court, so if the article is biased in his favor, I'm unlikely to notice. Bjsiders 18:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The article would be more even handed and better history if it addressed in detail all the issues with Alito that Senators filibustered his confirmation over.Sea level 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

lock down

I'd lock this page up 'cause a shit storm may be comming.

I agree the recent edits on this page have been very argument. I would suggest a revert to a Jan 28 version and block edits till a couple of weeks after confirmation. Wholmestu 05:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Too much information in places

• There is two paragraphs in reference to CAP in personal life, which seems a bit overkill since Alito is said to only have supported CAP in reference to ROTC. Maybe one or two sentences about the whole ROTC, CAP and issue made in the hearings?

Samuel Alito listed CAP on his application for employment with the Reagan administration for a reason and that reason wasn't ROTC. He made it clear on that application that his first interest in the law and the court was opposition to the Warren court rulings that helped preserve the rights of minorities and women. He maintained a close friendship with Andrew Napolitano the founder of CAP for eighteen years and at the same time maintained he didn't know what king of racist sexist organization CAP was? That's simply not a credible statement.69.164.66.203 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think the whole "Issues raised in confirmation hearings" section can be removed as the information is contained in the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination main page.
• Also, this Talk page needs archiving, it is 111kb. Alito has been confirmed and sworn in, I think its a good time. I would do it myself, but I have never done it before and want to leave it for someone more qualified.

I wanted to seek commment before making any drastic changes due to the high profile-ness of this article. Assawyer 19:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Case history" section should be removed. A lot of what's in that section is already in the counterpart section of the article "Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination". What's not already in that section can simply be transferred there. Now concerning the section titled "Issues raised in confirmation hearings", I, for one, think that section should stay for now. User 71.96.165.158 12:21 AM, 1 February 2006 (CST)

current event?

well, he was just confirmed this afternoon. shouldn't this still be said as a current event? The pointer outer 23:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Assawyer, or whatever his name is, deleted my comment (the little dickins). Anyways, I think the article makes Alito (figurativly) like a saint. This is MY oppinion, so dont get your panties in a bunch. Son Goku22

Is Alito A Good Choise?

I say no, and I have my reasons, but I would like to hear others opinions and their arguments to back them up. Son Goku22

Of course he's not a good choice. At least, he's not a good choice for the majority of America. But neither is Bush. Bush is an awful choice, so you can't be surprised when he chooses someone who is also an awful choice. But, if for some reason, you like Bush, and enjoy supporting the movement to force your opinion on abortion on others (though it's defintately not all about abortion, folks), then you'll probably think he's the best thing America could ever have. My personal opinion is that you shouldn't force your opinion or beliefs on others on a choice that is that personal. Debate is fine, but since it is such a personal choice, you shouldn't order someone to believe in what you think. I had an id, I simply forgot it, and I really don't care to create a new account simply for this comment

Why would this discussion take place here? A talk page isn't a shooting-the-breeze debate forum, it's for discussing the article itself, and whether or not Alito is a good choice isn't something that could be NPOV and so it wouldn't be included in the article no matter how this discussion pans out. —Cleared as filed. 03:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A sub debate could happen, sort of like the ones over the hurricane season.(would be in a seperate page though; a sort of wiki relief) 12.220.94.199 03:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I had an id, I agree with you all the way. Son Goku22

Son Goku22, I'm no user, but shouldn't this discussion be saved for your favorite blog? User 71.96.165.158 12:27 AM, 1 February 2006 (CST)

This is not appropriate because the topic was started for the sole purpose of bashing Alito (and Bush for that matter). If you are going to start a topic that isn't relevant to the article, at least make it open ended as opposed to, "Is Alito a good choice? I say, no." Haizum 07:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Bush has been elected twice by the people to serve as President (and the people knew that the President select justices, and Bush repeatedly stated that he would select justices like Scalia and THomas. THe people have gotten what they asked for! And the polls showed that most people supported Alito's confirmation. People who deny this are barking moonbats.

Bush was selected by the Supreme Court even though the majority of people voted for Gore. Polling shows more people than not are calling for Bush to be impeached.

Bush defeated Gore through the only count that matters - that of the electoral college. He also defeated John Kerry, so he has twice been elected by the lawful process of his country. Please take your off-topic posts elsewhere. Johntex\^talk 02:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment is another issue that shows the disconnect between elected representatives and the people. According to a January 2006 poll by Zogby, by a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval. People who deny that are uninformed.

By your reasoning it would be odd if people both wanted Bush impeached and his selection of a judge confirmed.69.164.66.203 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a blog or discussion forum. Take discussions that are not about the article elsewhere. Thanks. Peyna 01:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Format

There's some good stuff in this article. But it doesn't flow very well. For example, we have a long list of cases the man heard on the bench. Yes, this was much talked about in the confirmation hearings, but I wonder how relevant these cases are individually or in the aggregate. Another flow problem comes under the "Career" heading where we jump from prose to a resume format. This would look so much better as prose rather than a list. I salute those who have been working hard on this article (I have not) and just wanted to offer a few thoughts from someone who hadn't read this before. PedanticallySpeaking 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm...

Yesterday the Main Page said he was the 110th AJ, today it says 96th, any explanation for this? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Court career

While Yahoo! news [65] and various other news outlets have reported that Alito voted in favor of the stay, the Order listed on the Supreme Court website seems to contradict those reports. The order is on the second page of http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/020106pzr.pdf. The order states:

(ORDER LIST: 546 U.S.) 
05-8919    WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2006 CERTIORARI DENIED 
(O5A694)   TAYLOR, MICHAEL A. V. CRAWFORD, DIR., MO DOC, ET AL.
               
The application for stay of execution of sentence of death 
presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court 
is denied.  The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. 
Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision 
of this application and this petition.

There could be more than one vote, but once they have denied the stay and cert. it would be over for Taylor.

If you keep scrolling down the order list, you'll see that there was indeed more than one vote. The first claim was about a racial issue (I think) which the court unanimously rejected. The 6-3 split came on a variation of the "is lethal injection by a particular method cruel and unusual punishment" question, on which the court recently took another case from Florida. That was the grounds on which the 8th circuit had originally granted the stay, which the Supreme Court sustained. Jlp858 08:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Reminder to sign posts

Hello, this is a reminder that it is Wikipedia policy to sign your post on discussion page. Please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, Johntex\^talk 17:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation votes

Shouldn't the confirmation vote record be on the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination page? Jpers36 16:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree none of the other SCOTUS Justice pages have this level of detail. --Paul 16:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

None of the othe SCOTUS judges have been so strongly opposed by half the Senate. 69.164.66.203

False. Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a closer margin: 52-48. Jpers36 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• (After edit conflict) Actually, Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a smaller margin. Johntex\^talk 23:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree -- remove that info from this page - uneccesary duplication of info found at Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination Johntex\^talk 23:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Mild Dissagree - We should keep it on, and add the other votes to the other Justice's pages. WikieZach 21:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mildly Disagree about Mild Dissagree Who is going to go back and research the voting for the other 110 Justices? (Hint, this can't be done using the Internet). And, what possible use would such information be? --Paul 23:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Disussion about Votes

I'm just saying we should start now, as well as complete the votes for the other eight standing justices, not all 110! WikieZach 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

96th

The article says that he is the 96th assoc. justice. That seems correct (110 justices - chief justices who weren't promoted), but we need a ref. Can anyone find one? BrokenSegue 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I can get one in about a minute (i work at cnn!) WikieZach 23:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not that good but here: [66]

That ref says he's 110th, but doesn't say that he is the 96th associate justice. BrokenSegue 00:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC) It was User:Damario0 who added the 96th fact. He has no user page or talk page. BrokenSegue 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Tie breaking on cases already argued

Regarding these recent changes:

Before:

By joining the court mid-tern, Alito has not heard arguments for many cases which have yet to be decided. If there is a deadlock in pending cases, Alito may be asked to break the tie, and the cases would be reheard in the fall term. Alternatively, the tie could stand, and the decision of the court below would be affirmed, without creating precedent.

After:

By joining the court mid-term, Alito has not heard arguments for many cases which have yet to be decided. If there is a deadlock in pending cases, Alito may be asked to break the tie, the court could rehear the cases in the fall term, or the tie could stand and the decision of the court below would be affirmed.

This does tighten things up, but it also changes the meaning. I'm not sure that Alito can vote on a case which was argued while he was not a member of the court? Although I haven't found a reference yet, my understanding is that he has to hear the arguments before he can vote on a case. Thus, if Alito is asked to break the tie, the case must be reheard. --Paul 20:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

He can't break the tie, I'm not sure where that came from. The court can vote without him, and if it is 4/4, then they can decide whether to leave it at that, in which case it's essentially the same effect as a cert. denied. In the alternative, they can decide to rehear the case, which means they start all over from the beginning with Alito instead of O'Connor. I do not know how many judges have to vote to rehear for a rehearing to take place. Peyna 20:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I still think it is slightly inaccurate. For one, I don't believe the court can force a rehearing on its own motion. What would have to happen is that the court announces their decision of a tie, which means the lower court's decision is affirmed. Then the losing party would move for a rehearing, which the court could grant and then Alito would be able to be involved in that hearing and the decision of the court. An even-split court's decision is not all that much of a rarity, it happens more often in the case where one justice will recuse themselves from the case, and the same rules apply. Of course, all of these "rules" are set by the court itself and could be changed by the court unless that change really upset Congress, but Congress usually lets the court handle its internal workings. Peyna 20:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Roe v. Wade reargued after a change in Court makeup and before issuing the decision? Isn't it possible for the court to ask for additional arguments on a case it hasn't decided, specifying the question it wanted argued? --Paul 21:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right, it does appear the court can vote to have a rehearing without a motion by one of the parties. I wonder if the rule of 4 is followed for that purpose? Peyna 21:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess we won't know until (unless) it happens, which it most likly will. WikieZach 21:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

New Picture

Can anyone find a better picture of Justice Alito than the one at the top of his biography page? Maybe an offical portait as Chief Justice Roberts and the other assoc. justices have on their bio. pages?

• No official image of Alito has been taken. As soon as the official picture is published, it will be added to the article.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 12:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060303/ids_photos_ts/r1145697098.jpg this is as close to a official scotus picture as possible thus far, should post it.

I added the official Alito photo that came out today. It has a nice "old school" feel to it. Compare to the one from the Harry Blackmun article. Nice.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 06:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

this page feels POV to me

i'm not going to POV tag the whole page at this point, but this does *NOT* feel like a balanced page. it looks like it was intentionally written to hide the controversy over alito. if you had no idea who he was, you would *NOT* get a clear idea of how controversial he is or how conservative he is. there is no "controversy" section at all, as is usual for controversial topics, and in his section on his supreme court career, far more space is devoted to discussions of how he's "not like scalia", when an examination of his voting record would surely show for more votes with scalia than against him. i POV tagged the section for this reason. it also has questionable statements like "... hints at Alito's respectful attitude toward precedent", which sounds like press-release fodder.

nb the article contains an error; hamdan v. rumsfeld was voted 5-3, not 5-4, as roberts did not vote.

Benwing 20:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Alito nomination page has a lot about the controversy. Actually, I think the nomination page, or the nomination and confirmation hearing sections of this page, are appropriate places to discuss the controversy. So far, Alito hasn't been on the Court long enough to generate significant Supreme Court-related controversy.

The Supreme Court section talks about how he votes fairly conservatively, with notes on how he created a 5-4 conservative majority in the three reargued cases, as well as his votes with the conservatives in Hamdan and Rapanos. That's five of the major cases, in the mere half Term he's been on the Court. That can probably be beefed up, but since so many of the cases are either unanimous (or nearly so) or split along not-quite-left-right lines, it couldn't be beefed up that much using only cases from the last half-Term. There's only one example of how he's voted non-conservatively. And the non-Scalia/Thomas examples are in there because of, e.g., the "Scalito" nickname; that section isn't even trying to show Alito's non-conservatism, as those examples are cases where Alito (despite disagreeing with Scalia/Thomas) nonetheless voted conservatively.

As for his attitude toward precedent, perhaps "respectful" isn't an ideal word, but one does talk in legal circles about "respecting" precedent. Not everyone agrees that one ought to respect precedent, so saying that someone "respects" precedent isn't even an inherently complimentary statement. But how Alito feels about precedent is an important issue, and his Randall v. Sorrell concurrence is an important indicator about that.

The Hamdan vote has been corrected. Chaucer1387 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Alito is controversial in the least. It was the Alito nomination and the Senate hearings that were controverisal. User:Chaucer1387 has it right, that controversy is adequately covered in the Alito nomination article. Inserting that controvery here, it seems to me, would be inserting a POV into what is now a pretty good article. --Paul 19:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You "don't think Alito is controversial in the least"??? Really?

The fact that a justice's nomination was highly controversial makes the justice's presence controversial, simple as that.

Chaucer1387, here's what I'd like to see:

• There's nothing in this article at all that indicates how controversial his nomination was, and how controversial his presence on the court is, at least among democrats. In fact, I'd say that section is actively misleading and POV, since it (a) omits all discussion of this, (b) describes him as "well qualified" by the ABA, which implies that there is no controversy. The "confirmation hearings" section doesn't really clarify this. This article needs to clearly state how contentious the hearings were; not since Thomas has there been a similarly opposed nominee, or a more split vote.

• I think there's far too much text devoted to Alito "not being like Scalia". A NPOV discussion would indicate how many cases Alita and Scalia have voted together vs. different, compared with Scalia and other candidates. There is no need to devote a large amount of text entirely to attempting to disprove something that statistically may well be completely true; this smacks of POV.

• The section on "respectful attitude to precedent" should be deleted; certainly, one single case cannot determine this, and what Alito himself says can hardly be taken at face value. Past surveys have shown that Scalia is *least* respectful of precedent in terms of his willingness to vote against precedent, and the only NPOV way to show this one way or the other for Alito is with similar statistics.

Benwing 05:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On your first point: The ABA bit is in the "nomination" section, where it belongs. As for the controversy of the nomination, maybe that's adequately covered in the "nomination" section, maybe not. I didn't even read the nomination section until just now, to find where the ABA fact was. I still haven't read the main article on "Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination," nor have I read the portion of this article about the confirmation hearings, as those sections hold little interest for me. That controversy stuff belongs there.

While Alito remains "controversial" in a sense, that's merely because he's a conservative and votes conservatively. The proper way to cover this is to show, using opinions and other available sources, (1) that he's a conservative, (2) to what extent he's a conservative, (3) and what kind of conservative he is. That's the theory behind the three subsections of the "U.S. Supreme Court career" section. First, show several cases where he voted conservatively. I've listed five (and I've just added a couple). Second, show where he hasn't voted with the conservatives. I've listed one that I'm aware of. Third -- and this goes to your third point -- show how he's differed from other conservatives. To that end, I've listed three cases where he's differed with Scalia or Thomas. This third part involves fewer cases than the first part, but it does take up more space on the page because these are harder-to-explain distinctions. (With the addition of cases in the first section, this third section should seem smaller by comparison. Also, I've further clarified that in one of those not-Scalia cases, it was Alito who was more conservative and Scalia who was voting with the liberals.)

Incidentally, the Harvard Law Review publishes a statistical analysis of the Supreme Court Term in their November issue each year. That's the standard source for numbers of the form "how often one Justice voted together with another." I look forward to reading it in November, and incorporating the relevant statistics then.

On your third point: Obviously, everyone cares what Alito thinks about precedent, because the elephant in the room is Roe v. Wade, and these days, debates about Roe are carried on by debating whether Roe is a firmly established precedent and whether such precedents should be respected purely for their precedential value. (The term "respected" here is a neutral term. It shouldn't be read as anything positive; I myself think respecting a precedent that you believe to be wrong is highly overrated. In any case, following a precedent is just called "respecting" it.) So far, he hasn't faced an abortion-like case, so there's nothing to say about that. The one hint he's given about his attitude toward precedent is that separate opinion in Randall v. Sorrell. So this is very important!

While of course it's better to have statistics, it's too early in his career to know this, and I think the word "hints" adequately hedges. But since I think it's the word "respectful" that mainly bugs you, I'll change "hints at Alito's respectful attitude toward precedent" to "may give some hint as to Alito's attitude toward folllowing precedent." It's the same thing. Chaucer1387 01:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I concur with User Chaucer1387, his presence isn't controversial, it was his nomination process. If he does something controversial while in the court, like joining Scalia's and Thomas' originalism theories or voting to overturn some landmark ruling, then I think it would be appropiate to talk about controversiality. Maybe we should wait until next term, when the Court will deal with abortion in Gonzales v. Carhart and with affirmative action. If Alito takes some strong stance in those cases that may cause controversy, then we should insert it in the article.

User Benwing states that "Alito's presence in the court is controversial for democrats." IMHO, that's a Catch-22, because Breyer's and Ginsburg's presence in the court is equally controversial for Republicans. So by that argument, every Supreme Court Justice page will have to have some sort of "controversy" section.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 13:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Benwing, do this discussion and recent modifications alleviate your concerns? Might one remove the POV tag?--Chaucer1387 14:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chaucer1387, sorry for not getting back sooner. The section looks much better to me and I removed the tag. As for the "controversial" issue, ultimately, what I think I really wanted was somewhere that obviously announced Alito's controversial nomination, so I added a sentence about this in the intro. User:Coburnpharr04 is right that many or most justices are controversial; that's not surprising given the power invested in them, and I don't think a "controversy" section would be out of line in such cases, even if it applied to most of the justices. In this case, the obvious controversy, however, was about his nomination; neither Breyer's nor Ginsburg's nominations were especially controversial, and the confirmation votes were not along party lines. (Nor for that matter was the vote on Roberts.) Benwing 10:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW Thank you for all the hard work put into this article! Thanks also for managing to remain NPOV on an issue where staying neutral is hard to do. Benwing 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Shorten nomination & confirmation section?

Speaking of the debate immediately above, I've taken a look at the nomination and confirmation sections of this article. First, I've merged them into one section, because the "Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination" article covers both the nomination and the confirmation hearings. I've also deleted the Wikinews item, since this is now 7 months old. Second -- and I won't do anything about this without input from you guys -- I suggest that the section be shortened a bit: If someone is interested in the unsuccessful filibuster attempt, the 72-25 cloture vote, or the identity of the senators voting against him, can't they look up the longer nomination article? Chaucer1387 01:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think we should also shorten his supreme court career section. I don't find it too convinient to have an analysis of so many cases. He is the junior jsutice and yet his supreme court career section is the longest of any justice, except scalia.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 13:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, well, I guess one can't make everyone happy. In my view, the Supreme Court career section should be the longest section, because he's actually a Supreme Court Justice now, and that's the really important thing that people should know about. (I do agree, though, that the section shouldn't keep expanding; as he stays on the Court. The section shouldn't be twice as long by the time his next half-Term is done; in fact, I think it should probably stay as long as it is now, with new important cases muscling out the old ones, or with cataloguing of cases making way for trends as they become apparent.) On the other hand, I think the nomination and confirmation section should be of little interest in the near future. To the extent it says anything about Alito, his voting record should substitute for it; and to the extent it says anything about party politics during the Bush presidency, that will be less interesting by the time we have a new president. Chaucer1387 13:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• I understand your points. I guess this is just part of some of the unfairnes of wikipedia: recentism. Samuel Alito's Career section is the longest of many justices in the encyclopedia, including pillars like William Brennan and Harry Blackmun. Oh well. I agree, if it is to stay that long, we should be sure that only really important cases stay. For example, by the time he rules in his first, let's say, abortion case, that case alone will probably gather around four paragraphs in this article. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just checked out Blackmun and Brennan. Blackmun's Supreme Court career section takes up about 2.5 screens for me, and Brennan's takes up about 1.75 screens for me. O'Connor's is almost 3. Scalia's is hard to say because there's no "Supreme Court career" section, but it's something more than 3. Kennedy's is more than 2.5. Breyer's is a bit over 1.5. Not much for Ginsburg, but I think that's a failing of the Ginsburg article. Alito's section clocks in at a bit over 2 screens, almost 2.5; I think that's appropriate, especially since people are more interested to know about Alito right now. I don't know about the "four paragraphs" business, but his first abortion case should certainly take up a decent amount of space, and if I'm still active on this page by then I'll make sure to keep the total length of this section about the same. Chaucer1387 18:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I started 2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Samuel Alito (and similar lists for all other present justices) so there is another place to go into a more detailed summary (aside from individual case articles) of his opinions, rather than trying to cram too much info in his biographical article. Please note the template I added at the bottom of this article has links to the as-yet unwritten lists for each year of his Third Circuit career as well, so those decisions can be documented too. Postdlf 00:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. I guess the parts that are mere opinion summary can be shortened or eliminated -- perhaps that whole Third Circuit summary section, once the Third Circuit opinions are up and running? On the other hand, if an opinion is used to make a substantive point about Alito's philosophy (e.g. to make an argument about what sort of conservative Alito is), I suppose it should stay in -- though the presence of a summary elsewhere might allow us to shorten those, perhaps a lot.--Chaucer1387 01:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any specific suggestions about this article, but your general recommendations make sense to me. Please drop me a note on my talk page if you start a new list for one of his Third Circuit years and I'll be happy to help with the formatting. Postdlf 16:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Jewish?

There seems to be some that think that Mr. Alito is a Sephardi Jew, his family only converting to Catholicism recently. I've added a "source needed" badge for info on his heritage. Thank you. --172.128.32.189 09:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Nature of Nomination, Confirmation and Alito in General

I am new to this, but I agree with others that this article does not properly address the controversial nature of Alito. The appointment/confirmation part on the ABA makes it sound as if this was just another appointment. He is one of three Supreme Court nominations to be opposed by the ACLU in its entire history. He is the definition of controversial appointment/justice. While this is addressed more thoroughly in the article on his appointment this is also important to this article. All supporters and opponents should not be listed in this article, but his controversial nature should be made clear. For this reason I added something on the ACLU because the ACLU opposition underlines just how controversial his nomination was. The introduction of the article writes that “He is regarded as a generally conservative jurist.” This simply does not describe his controversial nature. Many democrats would characterize him as a radical ultraconservative along the lines of Robert Bork. This widely held opinion should be addressed in the article. --Wikipediatoperfection 2:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

An example of his wily use of logic: The death penalty is constitutional, it follows that there exists a constitutional means of carrying out the death penalty. And again: the AMA affirms that participation of medical personnel in administering the death penalty is unethical, therefore it is unfeasible to find a better method than the present 3-dose protocol (since the doctors will not cooperate), therefore the present method is constitutional. (See what he did there?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Designation as an Italian-American

I noticed in the first paragraph Justice Alito is labled as an Italian American Which is incorrect in two ways. Firstly His Honor was born in New Jersey so he is an American not an Italian Immigrant. Secondly the only persons who truly hold the title of Italian-Americans are those who hold dual citizenship, all others are either Americans or Italians. I believe this also applies to any such title, Afriacn-American for example.

“A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group has yet to become an American, and the man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is not worthy to live under the Stars and Stripes.”

Woodrow Wilson May 1915

DarinBlack 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page on Italian American (through redirects, this is the same as with a hyphen) says: "An Italian American is an American of Italian descent." This is also the way it's used in English, and by, say, the National Italian American Foundation quoted further down on the Alito page. The notion that the terms "American" and "Italian" track citizenship and are therefore exclusive except in cases of dual citizenship does not exhaust the meanings of "American" and "Italian" in the English language, nor does it even represent the primary meanings. The alternate notion that the terms "American" and "Italian" track birthplace is (1) in substantial tension with the previous notion, and (2) also does not exhaust the meanings of the terms in the English language.

The Wilson quote is, first, not on point, as it only says that a man who thinks of himself as belonging to an ethnic group isn't an American; I could assume for the sake of argument that this is true, and nonetheless believe that a man who does in fact belong to an ethnic group may still also be an American (as long as he doesn't think of himself that way). Second, the Wilson quote uses "American" in a normative, not a descriptive, sense. Third, to the extent the Wilson quote purports to use "American" in a descriptive sense, Wilson is not a particularly authoritative exponent of the English language, and in this case the quote is incorrect as to what it takes to not be an American. Chaucer1387 02:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wilson was also speaking many decades before the use of hyphenated ethnic self-identities became common in the U.S. and seen as a point of pride. Postdlf 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro: conservative nature

I am going to change the line "He is regarded as a generally conservative jurist." to "He is a conservative jurist, who since becoming a member of the Supreme Court has consistently voted with the conservative members of the court." I think the original sentence should be changed as his conservative nature has never been in question because it is agreed upon by both supporters and opponents. As he has had a conservative record since joining the court I think this sentence is appropriate. Wikipediatoperfection 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for the assertion in the lead that he has a "libertarian streak"-- the word libertarian only is mentioned twice in the article, and being a member of a society that some libertarians are members of doesn't mean you have a "libertarian streak." Especially with being in the intro, this is going to need a cite. The ACLU opposed his nomination on grounds that he would give the government too much power; that's not really a libertarian point of view or the way a libertarian judge would rule.--76.182.88.254 07:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Cato Institute says that he has a libertarian streak so I suppose I'll put that information back in. The ACLU probably just opposed him because he is considered to be conservative.--Gloriamarie (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"probably" seems to mean here "I'm too ignorant to know better". -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-considering 1st paragraph edit?

I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent edit of this article -- not that I'm sure that the data are necessarily "wrong." Rather, I'm persuaded that the strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is an unhelpful approach to this specific subject. I note that articles about other sitting Justices have been similarly "enhanced;" and I also believe those changes are no improvement.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, I would invite anyone to re-visit articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

• A1. Benjamin Cardozo
• A2. Learned Hand

• B1. John Marshall Harlan
• B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

At a minimum, I'm questioning this edit? It deserves to be reconsidered. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The number of Catholics on the court, past and present

These are two different numbers. One could reasonably infer that there are a whole lot of Catholics on the present court. If I wanted to make a guess, and was in a forum that I could argue a position without the constraints on 'original research', it would be possible that the Catholicism of some or all of these appointees became material to the persons doing the appointments. One might even deduce that this has some planetary connection to Roe v Wade and its progeny (no pun intended). That Catholics are potentially overrepresented on the present court, at least compared to the numbers that were there historically, is a relevant and probative fact. This issue is best illuminated by leaving in the 5 and the 11. That's my opinion. FWIW. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Stan

Bot-created subpage

A subpage at Samuel A. Alito Jr./fjc was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Shortening the lead

I think the following material is okay in the article, but excessive for the lead: "the second Italian American and the 12th Catholic in the history of the Supreme Court, and the fifth Catholic on the current Court at the time he assumed office." Putting it into the lead seems to be undue weight, and I'm not aware this is done for other justices.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. There's one editor who was very insistent about the Catholic thing, but I don't see the need for that level of emphasis. Coemgenus 02:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Catholic stuff isn't necessary, but the current lead is too short. And it should focus more on biography and less on ideological labelling (ugh) and justice agreement analysis (best left to the body of the article). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

New nominee (May 2009)

There's a blind redirect to this page from "Supreme court nominee" but there is another Justice stepping down. The blind redirect needs to be removed but I don't know how to do that. Please remove the redirect. 24.145.157.81 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirects deleted. Unnecessary and prone to inaccuracy when there are no SCOTUS nominees. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

family background

nothing about his family background or childhood? john k (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It was all chopped out of the article in this edit by an IP address seven months ago and never restored. Until just now, when I did it. It's pretty amazing that no one has an article about a sitting Supreme Court justice watchlisted. Only in WP ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The article also had some other structural problems. I've redone the sectioning, trying to make it more prosified and more chronological and to highlight his time as federal appellate judge without overwhelming the table of contents. I haven't added or subtracted any material, just rearranged it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

SOTU

The inclusion of his head-shake and unknown comment at the address tonight is the most ridiculous use of Wikipedia space I've ever seen. I shook my head at George Bush, will someone please note that? Bottom line, the head-shake was not an Earth-shattering moment and for that I am prepared to delete the line. Thoughts? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a healthy number of articles on Google News referring to it. While surely not Earth-shattering, it is certainly notable and I came here tonight specifically to see if there would be a debate on whether or not it should be included. I didn't even notice it during the speech, but it was one of the first things brought to the attention of viewers on both NBC News and CNN. For some reason apparent dissent is very popular with this president (see Joe Wilson), much more so than any president before. I'd say wait to see how this develops over the course of tomorrow. Stan weller (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"For some reason apparent dissent is very popular with this president, much more so than any president before." Umm... Not really. Dissent is part of the American political system. I would imagine that during any previous State of the Union (or any presidential) addresses you would find people shaking their heads or making snide comments to their neighbors - just that it wasn't caught on TV. You can go to either extreme - Alito and Wilson represent a sentiment that it's okay to dissent with Obama, or Alito and Wilson were victims of the media, who jump on any opportunity to make opponents of Obama look like dissenting, disrespectful, obstructionists. Marchoi (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason Rep. Wilson's outburst was controversial is because he yelled "YOU LIE" which is a breach of decorum in the US House. The reason Justice Alito's gesticulation is notable is because Supreme Court justices traditionally sit stoically during the SOTU, giving no response.

You cannot "waste space" on Wikipedia. #2 The reason your head shake at George Bush is not notable is because you are not a Supreme Court Justice. #3 Supreme court justices traditionally give no response either way when attending the State of the Union. That is why it was reported widely in the news media and that is why it is notable for inclusion. I have put the line back in. You will have to come up with something better than "ridiculous" and "not Earth-shattering" and "no one reported my head shake at George Bush"

The claim "much more so than any president before," doesn't accomplish anything without a source. I'm leaning towards opposing the inclusion, as it seems ridiculous and not notable. I don't feel like taking a position right now though, but I'm removing the "and controversy" from the sentence, because it's rather alarmist. WP has a love affair with the word "controversy," when stating the event should suffice.—DMCer™ 19:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The claim that it's ridiculous is ridiculous -- nothing could be more ridiculous than GnarlyLikeWhoa's comparison to his own head shaking. And it's a fact that it was controversial -- it directly and immediately resulted in public debates about it on news programs and elsewhere. Your removing factual material just because you personally think that "WP has a love affair" (a foolish reification) is a violation of WP policy. -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The sentence reaks of recentism and is not notable in the subject's life. It should be removed.LedRush (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion ignores the discussion and the facts; Alito's action drew extensive public response and is highly unusual for a Justice. It should only be removed if there is a consensus among editors to do so, but clearly there is not. Insisting on removing it results in an edit war, and in the absence of any comment we will see strongly POV versions inserted, as we already have. -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion ignores neither the opinion or the facts. I would like to remind you of the three revert rule (as I have on your talk page) which you are in danger of violating. Also, I would like you to remember that it is Wikipedia policy to be more careful in describing events in the biography of a living person. As others have noted, this event has just occurred and it is impossible to tell whether or not it will be meaningful in Alito's life, though I would bet a large sum of money that it is not.

Also, for the record, I am leaving the sentence in the article while we discuss it, but I removed the term "controversy" as it is a loaded word that should be avoided, and the fact that this is a biography of a living person. I have seen no argument as why the event needs to be characterized with this loaded word and what benefit the article or the reader derives from such a characterization.LedRush (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"In danger of violating"? I have either violated it or not, and I am in no more danger of violating it than you are, so stop with the threats and the hypocrisy. As for you betting a large sum of money: a) No, you would not. b) If you did, you would lose. c) What you would bet has no bearing on what belongs in WP. As for "controversy", it is not a "loaded word" -- that itself is a loaded charge. Alito's action did not merely garner attention -- it generated a debate, in fact several debates ... duh. So you're wrong about everything, but I'll leave it to others to revert your errors. -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not intend to threaten you. Sometimes IPs don't know the rules as well more seasoned editors so I wanted to let you know that one more reversion could have some negative consequences. You are correct that since my post that I have also made what could be considered a second reversion.

As for my opinions having no bearing on what belongs on wikipedia, I believe you are mistaken. My opinion matters, just as yours does.LedRush (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I said that what you would bet on -- which is your expectation of future events -- has no bearing, not your opinions in general ... duh. As a "seasoned editor", you should know the WP policies on such predictions. As for your reversions, they both removed relevant information -- Alito did more than mouth words, and his actions have created quite a bit of controversy -- that's a fact, and is different from merely garnering attention. -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you mistook my comment for one discussing gambling and not what it was: an opinion of the notability of this incident.

Regarding my removal of gesticulating, it was not my intention to remove relevent information. I don't think the opinion that Alito grimaced is particularly notable in the context here, as it is what he mouthed which is most important. However, I will not attack the language specifically, and will continue to concentrate on the larger discussion.

Finally, I don't see how you can say that it is a fact that this is a "controversy" now. It's only been 18 hours or so since it happened. Furthermore, whether or not it was a controversy is not the end of the discussion. The question is whether or not the event rises to the level that it is notable in the Alito's life. The jury is obviously still out on that matter, though I have made my opinion (and gambling leanings) clear.LedRush (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I said it was a prediction about the future, not merely an opinion about what is notable -- that's what the gambling metaphor is about. And not being able to see something, or understand the straightforward meanings of words, is not a virtue. There is a controversy, whether it will be long-lived or not. But to understand why this is a notable and probably lasting incident, see http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/28/alito/index.html

But hey, educating you is not the purpose of this page, and I've already wasted more than enough time on this, so I will now "step back" -- I hope you can manage to. - 98.108.220.157 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You say that "what you bet was no bearing on what belongs in WP". This looks to undermine my opinion regarding what is notable by trivializing the way in which I made my opinion known. I believe my words are quite clear, despite your continued and unprovoked insults to me (and others, for that matter). I made the prediction as a way of expressing how this is non-notable and an example of recentism. You can dispute my point and disagree with my opinion, but I don't see what your continued insults or desire to attack a prediction add to the discussion.LedRush (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way to "step back". -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I just changed the word "gesticulate" as it has a negative connotation and is generally used to denote excited and animated actions.LedRush (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Stan Weller's comment is a striking reminder that people have not learned history's lessons, that we've reached a point in today's debate where there are some in this country who cannot discern the difference between the apocalypse and typical dissent. Further, his line "For some reason apparent dissent is very popular with this president, much more so than any president before" sounds like a typical line of invented news courtesy of Fox News or a Freedom Works blog. It is the most false statement I've heard all month--there is absolutely no way to measure that, but if there was Stan and others must have been sleeping for 8 years during Bush's reign of terror when every one of his moves was countered with nationwide protests (real protests with people and correctly spelled signs), or maybe they were sleeping during every other Presidency ever.

I deleted the lines because they are simply irrelevant to the Justice's career and personal life. Clearly because there are some on Wikipedia who eagerly want to raise their hand up first in class, the comment is still here even though the world will forget about this in a month. Baffling how we're including information of Wikipedia on what a human being may or may not have said or because he may or may not have had a reaction while there were cameras on him.

So, congratulations editors. I expect the usual Trekkie-like persistence to include tabloid quality information on Wikipedia. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comments and attitude are not helpful. -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The comments are quite helpful, but the attitude of both anony98 and Gnarly could be more conducive to intellectual discussion.LedRush (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean agree with you? I refuse to condone such cheap, in-the-moment editing on Wikipedia. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Was that meant for me?LedRush (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

His comments about "some on Wikipedia", "the usual Trekkie-like persistence", etc. are not helpful, nor his characterizations of what were doing for 8 years, etc.; such comments don't belong here. -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but neither do your condescending posts, "duhs", or accusations of bad faith. Perhaps we all need to take a step back and cool down a bit.LedRush (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere did I accuse anyone of bad faith; I'm sure everyone believes what they are saying. As for stepping back -- feel free to. -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I used the term "bad faith" too broadly. When you falsely accused my of threatening you and called me hypocritical, I assumed you thought I did those things in bad faith.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr.98.108.220.157 should take a minute to humble himself by at least listening to and appreciating the advice of a Wikipedia old-timer like LedRush. LedRush is doing his best to promote civility and 98.108.220.157 is snapping back in this irrational, childish way. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks are against WP policy and removing them is within WP policy; I struck this out but GnarlyLikeWhoa undid that. Administrative action may ensue. -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack. If you do, you should ask for an apology and discuss it (not on this page, preferably). If you still feel wronged, make a complaint on the Civility board. However, seeing as you have called people ignorant and have otherwise been rude, I doubt you will get anywhere over there. It is generally not acceptable, except in the clearest abuses, to alter others' postings.LedRush (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"I'm sure everyone believes what they are saying." -- no longer. -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ithizar has removed the material that has been edited and refined by people of various opinions as to its notability, saying " Please gain consensus before re-adding this." -- in opposition to Wikipedia policy; consensus is not required to add factual material. I won't be doing any more editing on this, but I hope others will do the right thing. -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally on a BLP, you need consensus to add controversial material, not to remove it.LedRush (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The material is not controversial (funny seeing you use that word), only its notability is. If you believed what you are saying, why did you edit the material rather than remove it? You are now defending the removal of material that you yourself took the time and effort to edit. My ability to see good faith here is being severely strained. (The bogus semi-protection of this page is a particularly bad sign.) -- Jibal (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove it though I argued for its removal. I took this approach because of the vitriol I expected had I just removed it. Also, it is better to gain consensus before taking disputed actions.LedRush (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It is standard practice, as has been noted, on a BLP to remove information if there is a dispute about its inclusion until consensus can be reached. BLP are given extra attention with regards to inclusion of disputed information. Plus, there already seems to be a (rather loose) consensus here that the information is not presently notable. Think about it from the point of view of the WP:Recentism guidelines: "In ten years will this still appear relevant?" I seriously doubt that in ten years anyone will remember, much less care about, this minor footnote. At most, it deserves a quick mention in the article about the State of the Union speech itself, not a paragraph or even a separate section in Alito's biography. Ithizar (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If any political views weaseled their way into my opinion on the matter I apologize for it and will also clarify. (But I will point out that I called on people to at least wait until today to see what sort of a story this would become.) I'd like to direct everyone towards Jeffrey Toobin's short piece at the New Yorker today. Toobin points out that it isn't good or bad what Alito did, but is simply a revelation for people who are often at a distance from the Court. For views to be expressed by a Justice in such a public forum as a State of the Union is unusual, saving certain appearances in the media where such acts of honesty might be expected. That Toobin and others felt the story was worthy enough of this attention shows that there is something notable about the gesture/gesticulation/bobble. But looking over the responses since last night I will agree with others who say that it is not a landmark moment; it's not like he kicked his shoes off and started wrestling Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Stan weller (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)