Waiting for Fitzgerald

[sgtclub]

I don't know much about him, but he looks like a pretty good choice from the following:

• In a 1999 case, Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark, the 3rd Circuit ruled 3-0 that Muslim police officers in the city can keep their beards. The police had made exemption in its facial hair policy for medical reasons (a skin condition known as pseudo folliculitis barbae) but not for religious reasons.
  
  Alito wrote the opinion, saying, "We cannot accept the department's position that its differential treatment of medical exemptions and religious exemptions is premised on a good-faith belief that the former may be required by law while the latter are not."
  
  In July 2004, the 3rd Circuit Court ruled that a Pennsylvania law prohibiting student newspapers from running ads for alcohol was unconstitutional. At issue was Act 199, an amendment to the Pennsylvania Liquor Code passed in 1996 that denied student newspapers advertising revenue from alcoholic beverages.
  
  Alito said the law violated the First Amendment rights of the student newspaper, The Pitt News, from the University of Pittsburgh.
  
  "If government were free to suppress disfavored speech by preventing potential speakers from being paid, there would not be much left of the First Amendment," Alito wrote.
  
  In 1999, Alito was part of a majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler. At issue was a holiday display in Jersey City. The court held that the display didn't violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment because in addition to a creche and a menorah, it also had a Frosty the Snowman and a banner hailing diversity.
  
  In the case of Homar v. Gilbert in 1996, Alito wrote the dissenting opinion that a state university didn't violate the due process rights of a campus police officer when they suspended him without pay after they learned he had been arrested on drug charges.
  
  One of the most notable opinions was Alito's dissent in the 1996 case of Sheridan v. Dupont, a sex discrimination case. Alito wrote that a plaintiff in such a case should not be able to withstand summary judgment just by casting doubt on an employer's version of the story.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Captain
But I find it somewhat comforting that the born-again right wing in America is looking so heavily to Catholic jurists for jurisprudential guidance. That in itself is an achievement.

True, but I won't exactly compare this to Rosa Parks lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda.

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't know much about him, but he looks like a pretty good choice from the following:

• In a 1999 case, Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark, the 3rd Circuit ruled 3-0 that Muslim police officers in the city can keep their beards. The police had made exemption in its facial hair policy for medical reasons (a skin condition known as pseudo folliculitis barbae) but not for religious reasons.
  
  Alito wrote the opinion, saying, "We cannot accept the department's position that its differential treatment of medical exemptions and religious exemptions is premised on a good-faith belief that the former may be required by law while the latter are not."
  
  In July 2004, the 3rd Circuit Court ruled that a Pennsylvania law prohibiting student newspapers from running ads for alcohol was unconstitutional. At issue was Act 199, an amendment to the Pennsylvania Liquor Code passed in 1996 that denied student newspapers advertising revenue from alcoholic beverages.
  
  Alito said the law violated the First Amendment rights of the student newspaper, The Pitt News, from the University of Pittsburgh.
  
  "If government were free to suppress disfavored speech by preventing potential speakers from being paid, there would not be much left of the First Amendment," Alito wrote.
  
  In 1999, Alito was part of a majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler. At issue was a holiday display in Jersey City. The court held that the display didn't violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment because in addition to a creche and a menorah, it also had a Frosty the Snowman and a banner hailing diversity.
  
  In the case of Homar v. Gilbert in 1996, Alito wrote the dissenting opinion that a state university didn't violate the due process rights of a campus police officer when they suspended him without pay after they learned he had been arrested on drug charges.
  
  One of the most notable opinions was Alito's dissent in the 1996 case of Sheridan v. Dupont, a sex discrimination case. Alito wrote that a plaintiff in such a case should not be able to withstand summary judgment just by casting doubt on an employer's version of the story.

Indeed. He is looking to be an excellent choice. thanks be to the babyjesuschristsuperstar.

eta: and you didn't even list his best credential, the dissent in Casey

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The difference is Reagan effected positive lasting change on both the domestic and international front. Clinton's legacy is perjury, sexual harassment, failed healthcare initiative; attempt to conspire with a babykilling terrorist to cement the second genocide of the jews and 3000 Americans dead.

Well, that explains it then.

S_A_M

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't know much about him, but he looks like a pretty good choice from the following:

• In a 1999 case, Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark, the 3rd Circuit ruled 3-0 that Muslim police officers in the city can keep their beards. The police had made exemption in its facial hair policy for medical reasons (a skin condition known as pseudo folliculitis barbae) but not for religious reasons.
  
  Alito wrote the opinion, saying, "We cannot accept the department's position that its differential treatment of medical exemptions and religious exemptions is premised on a good-faith belief that the former may be required by law while the latter are not."
  
  In July 2004, the 3rd Circuit Court ruled that a Pennsylvania law prohibiting student newspapers from running ads for alcohol was unconstitutional. At issue was Act 199, an amendment to the Pennsylvania Liquor Code passed in 1996 that denied student newspapers advertising revenue from alcoholic beverages.
  
  Alito said the law violated the First Amendment rights of the student newspaper, The Pitt News, from the University of Pittsburgh.
  
  "If government were free to suppress disfavored speech by preventing potential speakers from being paid, there would not be much left of the First Amendment," Alito wrote.
  
  In 1999, Alito was part of a majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler. At issue was a holiday display in Jersey City. The court held that the display didn't violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment because in addition to a creche and a menorah, it also had a Frosty the Snowman and a banner hailing diversity.
  
  In the case of Homar v. Gilbert in 1996, Alito wrote the dissenting opinion that a state university didn't violate the due process rights of a campus police officer when they suspended him without pay after they learned he had been arrested on drug charges.
  
  One of the most notable opinions was Alito's dissent in the 1996 case of Sheridan v. Dupont, a sex discrimination case. Alito wrote that a plaintiff in such a case should not be able to withstand summary judgment just by casting doubt on an employer's version of the story.

I was just reading this article and was going to mention it. Unfortunately, I don't think these opinions say much about him, in that for the most part they seem to follow pretty clear law. I'm curious to read the last one, however, because the description isn't very precise. "Casting doubt on an employer's version of the story" would seem to be exactly the correct standard if that means "raises an issue of material fact." But the plaintiff simply saying "nu-uh" isn't enough, I agree.

But the other cases follow some pretty obvious precedent. Hell, the first amendment case directly follows from the Supreme Court's 44 Liquormart case.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Why do use "drunken"? nothing in Hank's post was an admission of impairment. Why the attempt to slanderise him? Can you ever post without PoPD?

If Hank wishes to reduce the political arguments of the Dems on this board to a Carlin rerun he saw recently and couldn't remember until the end when it was made, and to actually attribute this to sober thinking, more power to him. I was just giving him an out.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
If Hank wishes to reduce the political arguments of the Dems on this board to a Carlin rerun he saw recently and couldn't remember until the end when it was made, and to actually attribute this to sober thinking, more power to him. I was just giving him an out.

This points illustrates your complete lack of comprehension of what hank was saying. There are several Carlin specials that run on HBO from a twenty year time period. The general political commentary is indistinguishable except when he references Reagan or Bush I or Bush II, which is not as frequent as you might think, which lack of distinguishability is evidence of the dimwits inability to critically examine our leaders policies but rather to fall about on the same trite cliched faux intellectual bloviations.

Compare this with a repulican comic doing a routine on Carter in 78 and Clinton in 98. One wouldn't need a scorehead to discern which dimwit was on the skewer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Me either.

The anti-Catholic vitriol I read on Kos, however, is disgusting.

What on Earth could the Catholic Church have done to deserve such mocking and criticism???

But I must admit, I agree. Catholics on the whole, like me, are all pretty much "lapsed" and tend to pick and choose their morals as they go. Only the old ones who don't have anything but their religion really follow all the Churhc's silly rules. Most Catholics are good, solid moral relativists. We even buy Evolution.

The hatred should be more directed to the white trash fundamentalist protestants. Thankfully, they're too goddamned inbred and stupid to be nominated to the SCOTUS.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Most Catholics are good, solid moral relativists.

These are American leftist catholics who would probably be excommunicated but for the donations.

Opus dei has moral clarity to support a culture of life.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This points illustrates your complete lack of comprehension of what hank was saying. There are several Carlin specials that run on HBO from a twenty year time period. The general political commentary is indistinguishable except when he references Reagan or Bush I or Bush II, which is not as frequent as you might think, which lack of distinguishability is evidence of the dimwits inability to critically examine our leaders policies but rather to fall about on the same trite cliched faux intellectual bloviations.

Notably, your exposition of Carlin is better than that of Alito. This is cute, but ignores Hank's transference of the Carlin routine to arguments on the Board, which was my point. What-evah.

Compare this with a repulican comic doing a routine on Carter in 78 and Clinton in 98. One wouldn't need a scorehead to discern which dimwit was on the skewer.

Glad to. Do any examples come to mind?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Opus dei has moral clarity to support a culture of life.

They also have some other issues, no?

A little self-flagellation and mortification of the flesh, anyone? Female servitude is sooo 19th century.

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Notably, your exposition of Carlin is better than that of Alito.

Alito is a judicial conservative who is against Roe and Casey. What more do you need to know. He will refuse to legislate from the bench and/or find faux imagined rights in the constitution. A breath of constitutional fresh air as compared to Clinton's nominees.

Originally posted by Gattigap
but ignores Hank's transference of the Carlin routine to arguments on the Board, which was my point. What-evah.

It doesn't ignore it reinforces it. The Dims have nothing to say about bush other than the same word for word tired cliches that they attempted to critique Reagan with. A group devoid of critical thinking and morality. A sad commentary on the decline of public education in this country at the hands of the demo-socialist teacher's unions.

Originally posted by Gattigap
Glad to. Do any examples come to mind?

Do a search of the net archives for some of my old posts from the early 80s on the USENET which critiqued Carter and then look at my Clinton posts on infirmation. On USENET back in the day my handles were "Ghost_of_MaryJo_Kopechne", "Killer_Rabbit" and "Bert _Lanced".

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Female servitude is sooo 19th century.

The French classification system for wine was developed in the 19th century and yet I wouldn't turn away a first growth bordeaux today on the notion that the system might be outdated.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Do a search of the net archives for some of my old posts from the early 80s on the USENET which critiqued Carter and then look at my Clinton posts on infirmation. On USENET back in the day my handles were "Ghost_of_MaryJo_Kopechne", "Killer_Rabbit" and "Bert _Lanced".

Sorry. I was referring to a putative mainstream Republican comic, and wasn't considering posters to internet chatboards with limited readership.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Sorry. I was referring to a putative mainstream Republican comic, and wasn't considering posters to internet chatboards with limited readership.

Tom Selleck is a republican, no?