Why was the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court contreversial?
157429
ALL supreme court nominees are controversial, because a president nominates based on their political beliefs, then the nomination goes in front of a two-party legislature.  One party will be opposed and one will be for, unless the nominee sits squarely in the middle.  Mr. Alito leaned right, so the left wing was unhappy that he was nominated.
127388
Judge Alito is an originalist so he believes his job is to inturpret the constitution, not legislate. Bush appointed him because of that, not because he's conservative. But it so happens that the constitution is, on the most part, a conservative document. I believe Alito is the perfect choice. He will make decisions based on the laws that congress passes. If we disagree with those laws, we need to elect congressmen to change them. We shouldn't expect the judicial branch to do the job of the legislative branch.
340101
The Supreme Court hears arguments from both parties to the case.  A party may decide to use public opinion as part of their argument, but decisions on constitutional questions are typically decided based on the text of the constitution, the historical reasons for adopting the provision in question & previous decisions of the United States Supreme Court.  Decisions from lower courts, both state and federal, are relevant considerations, but it's not necessary for them to decide.
83256
Your question makes no sense at all. However, let's say that you had asked if pro-choice supporters would work hard for Democrats because of the recent appointments to the Supreme Court.\n\nThe extreme pro-choice (dare I say pro-abortion) crowd is extremely angry about the Alito confirmation (moreso than the Roberts confirmation, because Alito refused to say that Roe v. Wade is settled law). They are very angry at the 17 Democrats who voted for cloture (that is to end the filibuster, which could've been sustained if it had been supported by all 42 senators who eventually voted against the confirmation). This will likely dampen their enthusiasm for Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008.\n\nAlso, it should be noted that the confirmation hearings and the attempt to filibuster Justice Alito should provide Republicans with some ammunition against Democrats.\n\nI don't think this will be a successful issue for the Democrats, however, as the most vocal opponents of the nominees are out of the mainstream of American thinking.
200004
Samuel Alito, Jr.  \n(Associate: January 31, 2006)\n\nJohn Roberts, Jr.  \n(Chief: September 29, 2005)\n\n\n\nStephen G. Breyer  \n(Associate: August 3, 1994)\n\nRuth Bader Ginsburg  \n(Associate: August 10, 1993)\n\nClarence Thomas  \n(Associate: October 23, 1991)\n\nDavid H. Souter  \n(Associate: October 9, 1990)\n\nWilliam H. Rehnquist  \n(Associate: January 7, 1972 and Chief: September 26, 1986)\n\nAntonin Scalia  \n(Associate: September 26, 1986)\n\nSandra Day O'Connor  \n(Associate: September 25, 1981)\n\nJohn Paul Stevens  \n(Associate: December 19, 1975)
674455
Stephen G. Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito, Anthony M. Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, John G. Roberts, Antonin G. Scalia, and David H. Souter.
704511
The Supreme Court decided that Gideon had a right to an attorney therefore overturning the court case decision of 1942 Betts Vs. Brady which said that the court could only appoint a lawyer to a person that cannot afford one if they are charged with a capital crime, I believe. So in the case of Gideon v Wainwrtight of 1963 the court decide that EVERYONE must be provided the option of a lawyer and that if they cannot afford one the state will provide one for them. The court's reasoning was the right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments
607002
It was basically about due process.\n\nSomeone was receiving welfare, but then the state decided that he was no longer eligible and told him that the payments would stop.  He said, wait a minute, if you let me explain the circumstances, you'd see that I'm still eligible (it is called a "hearing" when someone is allowed to come in and tell their side of the story).  The state said, fine, you can come tell us about the situation (we'll give you a "hearing"), but first we are going to terminate the payments.  If, after hearing your side of the story, we think you are still eligible, then we will start making the payments again. SO THE STATE OFFERED HIM A POST-TERMINATION HEARING.\n\nThe guy thought that he should get a PRE-TERMINATION hearing, and that the welfare payments shouldn't be stopped BEFORE he was able to explain his side of the story.  So he sued the state.\n\nThe state argued that it would be too expensive and time consuming to give all welfare recipients a pre-termination hearing.\n\nThe case went all the way to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court decided that it was unfair to terminate the payments without first hearing the guy's explanation of why he was still eligible.  The court said WELFARE RECIPIENTS MUST BE ALLOWED A PRE-TERMINATION "HEARING" BEFORE THEIR PAYMENTS ARE CUT OFF.\n\nWhy?  In the words of the court: "The interest of the eligible recipient in the uninterrupted receipt of public assistance, which provides him with essential food, clothing, housing, and medical care, coupled with the State's interest that his payments not be erroneously terminated, clearly outweighs the State's competing concern to prevent any increase in its fiscal and administrative burdens."\n\nWhat "vocab" don't you understand?
877281
Sometimes judges had personal experiences in the past with similar situations in cases that they try.  Thus, they decide in such a manner the way they experienced the case which should not be the case.  Appeal your case by a petition for review by the higher court citing the bias of the judge.
1017376
the supreme courts are swamped.  cases are viewed in the order they come in, before a case can be reviewed a sentence must be obtained, then the attorneys must go through every point of law to determine what to file an appeal on, I believe this procedure is allowed 3 times.
984235
You better believe it.  The framers were very wise to include these contingencies in the Constitution.\n\nYou get your chance on Tuesday :-)
626655
The court was split in the following manner:\n\nIn a opinion by Kennedy, J., joined by Rehnquist, Ch. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined as to holdings 1 and 2b below by Stevens, J., and joined as to holdings 1a, 1b, and 2 below by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., it was held that the Court of Appeals should remand the case to the District Court, where the (1) Court of Appeals had erred (a) by invoking the do novo standard of review, as the appellate court reviewing a District Court's decision to depart from the sentencing ranges in the Guidelines ought to apply an abuse-of-discretion standard, (b) in finding that the suspect's misconduct did not justify the District Court's downward departure five offense levels, and (c) in finding that the officers' susceptibility to prison abuse and their burdens of successive state and federal prosecutions could not be relied upon for downward departure; and (2) the District Court abused its discretion in considering, as factors justifying downward departure, the officers' (a) career loss, and (b) low risk of recidivism.\n\nStevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, (1) agreed with the Supreme Court's opinion that (a) the Court of Appeals had applied the wrong standard of review and had erred in finding that the suspect's misconduct did not justify a downward departure and in finding that the officers' susceptibility to prison abuse and other burdens of successive state and federal prosecutions could not be relied upon for downward departure, and (b) the District Court had abused its discretion in considering low risk of recidivism; but (2) expressed the view that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it relied on the unusual collateral employment consequences faced by the officers as a result of their convictions.\n\nSouter, J., joined by Ginsburg, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, (1) agreed with the Supreme Court's opinion that (a) the Court of Appeals had applied the wrong standard of review and had erred in finding that the suspect's misconduct did not justify a downward departure, and (b) the District Court had abused its discretion in considering the officers' career loss and low risk of recidivism; but (2) expressed the view that the Court of Appeals' rejection of the downward departures based on susceptibility to abuse in prison and on successive prosecutions ought to be affirmed.\n\nBreyer, J., joined by Ginsburg, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, (1) agreed with the Supreme Court's opinion that (a) the Court of Appeals had applied the wrong standard of review and had erred in finding that the suspect's misconduct did not justify a downward departure, and (b) the District Court had abused its discretion in considering the officers' career loss and low risk of recidivism; but (2) expressed the view that the record in the case did not support departures based upon either the simple fact of two prosecutions or the risk of mistreatment in prison.
820122
Yes, it is important, The U.S. Supreme Justices when they retire or leave or die are apponted by the President, how do you think John Roberts and Samuel Alito became Supreme Court Justices?\nYes , the president does have power in this area when it involves the appointment of Supreme court justices
867902
Essentially it was the deadline that was set for a decision as to who would be the President of the Inited States.\n\n"The federal statute to which the Court referred—3 USC § 5, the so-called safe harbor provision—provides that when a state has made a “final determination of any controversy” concerning the appointment of electors “at least six days prior” to the date the electors meet in the state capital to vote, “such determination . . . shall be conclusive” on Congress. [8] By law the electors met on December 18, 2000, so December 12 was the cut-off for taking advantage of the safe harbor."
98420
This was neither Conservative nor Liberal, it was Constitutional based relative to the VI Article of the Bill of Rights\n\nFacts of the Case \nGideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.\nQuestion Presented \nDid the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?\nConclusion \nIn a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."\n\n************  \n\nTo the individual suggesting to boycott this question because it seems to be a homework question.  \n\nThat may or may not be true, but it is immaterial to the function of the Yahoo Question and Answer system.  People ask questions and others answer.  The motivation of asking (or answering) the questions aren’t important.  If someone is trying to do their homework through this system, they are the ultimate loser because they don’t do their own research.  It is their problem, not ours.
417983
That trial was ultimately heard before the Supreme Court. Their opinion is at the site below. The ruling goes over the District ruling in detail.\n\nEdit:\nDon't pay for that crap in the site above. It's just a poorly written essay about the cases, not the opinion itself, which is available freely below.
147109
Although I am fairly conservative and a death penalty supporter, I can't say that definitively that his decision was wrong.  The CNN only touches on the allegation of cruel and unusual punishment.  The decision only delays the execution to give the Court more time to decide if it is going to accept and decide whether the intended method of execute constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.\n\nAlito's vote isn't a ruling on the merits of the case.  If memory services correctly, I believe Alito will be the one to recommend to the other justices on whether or not to take the case.  If the Court ultimately decides not to take the case, the stay of execution will be lifted.