# Now serving #3... Samuel Alito **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 31, 2005, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702 "2005-10-31T12:46:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/161 "2005-11-01T15:31:42Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > I’ll happily read you say that was just a wee bit of hyperbole. Otherwise, would you be so kind as to cite and link to an important case in which judges did whatever they pleased totally without regard to the written law? [_Wickard v. Filburn_, 317 US 111 (1942)](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0111_ZS.html) ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/162 "2005-11-01T15:33:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Please pass this happy train of thought on to Justice Stevens (Born: April 20, 1920), would you? I’d love to get him retired and replaced. Well of course. One never knows if you’ll live as long as the Gipper or as short as Tippecanoe. But I’d say the odds of Scalia serving past a theoretical second Edwards term are less than 50%. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/163 "2005-11-01T15:33:56Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > This was an outright poor choice on my part; thus the comment about “great question,” and the shift of subject. OK. > [@](#): > > I’ll shift subject again: I believe that the court’s mandating of the first amendment on the state level has been a very positive thing, especially for nonChristians in the south, as one group. Can you be more specific? Which laws were common in “the South” and have now been rendered null because the SCOTUS mandated the 1st amendment on the states? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/164 "2005-11-01T15:35:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, that’s it? All we gotta do is dump affirmative action and you’ll start munching granola and singing “Kumbaya”? I don’t recognize that song. Can you hum a few bars? As for granola-- it’s a favorite. I’m a child of the 60s in case you didn’t know. Peace, Love, and Rock 'n Roll, baby! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/165 "2005-11-01T15:41:59Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > …I’m a child of the 60s in case you didn’t know… A child of the 60’s? Oh, dear. Your mom…did she ever call herself “Starchild”? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/166 "2005-11-01T15:45:30Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Three words for you, sir: [Oliver Wendell Holmes](http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/owholmes.htm) I’m on your side of this discussion. I think it’s very likely Scalia, a healthy man, would serve up to and past age 80. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/167 "2005-11-01T15:58:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Please pass this happy train of thought on to Justice Stevens (Born: April 20, 1920), would you? I’d love to get him retired and replaced. Is he not qualified in your eyes? Or do you object to his liberal stance on the issues? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/168 "2005-11-01T16:08:34Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Is he not qualified in your eyes? Or do you object to his liberal stance on the issues? I don’t mind his personal liberal views, and he’s certainly objectively qualified. However, his opinions are often unwise, in that they reflect a judicial philosophy that I’d like to see marginalized or even eliminated on the Court. For example, he was the author of _Kelo v. City of New London_, ruling that eminent domain could be used to forcibly take private property from people and turn it over to developers. I find that dangerous - a willingness to ignore the reasonable meaning of “public use” in favor of a more expansive view that defines public use as any purpose that the government wants. This is what comes from permitting judges to ignore the text in favor of imposing their own view of “justice”. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/169 "2005-11-01T16:16:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t mind his personal liberal views, and he’s certainly objectively qualified. > > However, his opinions are often unwise, in that they reflect a judicial philosophy that I’d like to see marginalized or even eliminated on the Court. So in considering Alito for confirmation, objective qualifications are not enough? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/170 "2005-11-01T17:14:15Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > A child of the 60’s? Oh, dear. Your mom…did she ever call herself “Starchild”? No, no, no. _ **I** _ grew up in the 60s. My (late) parents grew up during the Depression. I’m an old fart-- not as old as you, but close. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/171 "2005-11-01T17:24:57Z")
**John Mace:** > [@](#): > > Scalia, for instance, is not a strict constructionist-- he’s an originalist who uses a textualist approach to determine original intent. We’ve had this discussion before, but to the extent that originalism and textualism are different things, Scalia is more the latter than the former. His long-running dispute with Justice Breyer over the value of legislative history makes this clear. Scalia is much less concerned with what the legislators (or the Framers) intended when crafting the law than he is with what the text of the statute (or the Constitution) can plainly and reasonably be interpreted to mean. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/172 "2005-11-01T17:31:34Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > **John Mace:** > We’ve had this discussion before, but to the extent that originalism and textualism are different things, Scalia is more the latter than the former. If someone asks me if I’m a mammal or a primate, I’d say both. To the extent that those are different things, I’m more the latter than the former. But they’re not different things. I said in an earlier thread tht Scalia could be described, in the Genus species mode, as an _Originalus textualensis_. His goal is Originalism. His method to achieve that goal is textualism. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/173 "2005-11-01T17:47:02Z")
[50 posts later](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6745362&postcount=124). Nobody has any comments on his Doe vs. Groody opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/174 "2005-11-01T17:48:12Z")
There are non-originalist textualists. There are non-textualist originalists. There are originalist textualists whose interpretation and application of originalism and textualism lead them to different conclusions, case by case, than Scalia. Just so that’s clear. Textualism is not wholly contained within originalism, nor is it necessarily predictable and determinate. Haven’t you read that Farber book yet? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/175 "2005-11-01T17:51:04Z")
Actually there’s a [new response](http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_10_30_dish_archive.html#113085335464566965) that clarifies things. Never mind. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/176 "2005-11-01T17:58:43Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > There are non-originalist textualists. Are there? Can you give an example? > [@](#): > > There are non-textualist originalists. Agreed. There are non-primate mammals. > [@](#): > > There are originalist textualists whose interpretation and application of originalism and textualism lead them to different conclusions, case by case, than Scalia. Just so that’s clear. Certainly. It’s not a mathematical formula with only one answer. > [@](#): > > Textualism is not wholly contained within originalism, nor is it necessarily predictable and determinate. > > Haven’t you read that Farber book yet? 🙂 I haven’t been able to find it. I actually tried to buy it a Borders a few months ago, but they didn’t carry it. I’ll check Amazon. I’ll admit that I’m using Scalia’s definitions, but if there are other commonly held definitions (by legal scholars), I’d be interested in seeing them. At any rate, this does end up being a bit of a semantic debate. Certainly no on has a copywrite on those terms. 🙂 It would be interesting to see someone who calls himself a textualist, but eschews originalism. Why would he adhere to the text if not to adhere to the original intent? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/177 "2005-11-01T18:06:49Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > [50 posts later](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6745362&postcount=124). Nobody has any comments on his Doe vs. Groody opinion? In another thread I pointed out that Alito’s position here puts him way out of the mainstream. Most Americans are going to find this highly objectionable. As they should. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/178 "2005-11-01T18:06:59Z")
> [@](#): > > It would be interesting to see someone who calls himself a textualist, but eschews originalism. Why would he adhere to the text if not to adhere to the original intent? That’s an easy one. By assigning to words their most reasonable contemporary meanings, you’re 1) providing a built-in mechanism for the evolution of circumstances past the ken of the Framers, and 2) allowing the Constitution to remain comprehensible and accessible to the greatest number of people, both meaning that large scale Article V amendment is less often necessary. Bruce Ackerman and Akhil Amar are both non-originalist textualists, in very different ways. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/179 "2005-11-01T18:12:15Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > So in considering Alito for confirmation, objective qualifications are not enough? You’re mixing apples and '57 Chevy Bel Airs here. I’m saying I’d like to see John Paul Stevens retire. I’m not saying he’s unqualified. If I were a Senator and Stevens were proposed for the Court, I’d vote for him. But if I were President, I’d never nominate him. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702/180 "2005-11-01T19:07:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You’re mixing apples and '57 Chevy Bel Airs here. Why? I’m just trying to get an idea of what you base your preferences for supreme court justices on. I don’t see a great difference between criteria used for confirmation and criteria that leads you to want a justice to retire. > [@](#): > > I’m saying I’d like to see John Paul Stevens retire. I’m not saying he’s unqualified. If I were a Senator and Stevens were proposed for the Court, I’d vote for him. Based on your previous view of Steven’s wisdom and judicial philosophy, I find this surprising. Why would you vote for a nominee that does not meet your criteria for a supreme court justice? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-serving-3-samuel-alito/328702.md?page=10)