Many of Alito's rulings have been at odds with Supreme Court

[kurth]

Oct. 31, 2005
Many of Alito's rulings have been at odds with Supreme Court
BY STEPHEN HENDERSON
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Samuel Alito once wrote that employees who allege sex discrimination ought to have a tougher time proving their claims. The Supreme Court disagreed.

Alito once argued that Congress hadn't granted state workers the family-leave benefits that are mandated for other employees. The high court rejected his thinking again.

And Alito, now President Bush's choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, once embraced a standard that would make it harder to punish water polluters. But the Supreme Court didn't go along.

In Alito's 15 years of rulings on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, many of his interpretations of federal law and the Constitution are at odds with established thinking and practice, and ultimately they've been rejected by large majorities on the high court he hopes to join...

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13046385.htm

[Erika]

1. Why do all these radicals so hate the environment?

Don't they have at least some social conscience in what type of world they leave their children and grandchildren?

[Traveling_Home]

2. Alito and SSDI

Here the SCOTUS spanked him on his ruling - his ruling was better for disabled.

The way Social Security has been allowed to operate towards disabled folk sucks. Alito's ruling here would have helped.

"a little-known Social Security case in 2002 which may be instructive when it comes to comparing Alito to Scalia.

In that case, Alito argued passionately with other members of the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court that a disabled woman, Pauline Thomas, should be granted benefits because she had been laid off from her job as an elevator operator and could not find a new job since the position of "elevator operator" had virtually disappeared from the economy. A lower court had ruled that a narrow and technical reading of the Social Security statute did not entitle Thomas to benefits. Alito called this result "absurd" and overrode the objections of several of his colleagues and convinced the full 3rd Circuit to overturn the lower court decision.

Alito's passion didn't move the Supreme Court, however, which overturned his decision in 2003. In a pointed rejection of Alito's opinion--accusing him of "disregarding" basic grammatical rules for interpreting the law--the Supreme Court fell back on the narrow and technical reading and denied Thomas her Social Security benefits. The author of this stinging rebuke to Alito? Justice Antonin Scalia

T

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