Justice Alito Quotes

asked by Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times about the fact that in that same term, the number of female clerks fell to single digits for the first time in more than a decade. Only seven women would be among the thirty-seven clerks, and two of them were working for RBG. Why not ask a justice who had hired no women? suggested RBG. That would be Alito, Souter, Scalia, and Thomas.

In his 2010 State of the Union address, Obama made headlines by denouncing the Court’s decision, saying that it “reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections.” In response, the associate Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito Jr., who attended the address, was seen shaking his head and mouthing the words “not true.

The exchange between the president and Justice Alito underscored their very different personal orientations to campaign finance regulations. On one hand, Alito and his majority colleagues had crafted an opinion in accordance with the views of many civil libertarians. In this framework, political money is viewed as effectively the same thing as political speech, because the former presumably facilitates the dissemination of a specific message. Assuming that political speech is sacred in a free society, adherents to this viewpoint tend to view campaign finance regulations with skepticism, arguing that they complicate the act of speaking in a political setting.

Justice Roberts ultimately posed a hypothetical question to Stewart: If a 500-page book was ostensibly about some issue, but contained a single sentence of express advocacy—that is, the last sentence said to vote for a candidate—could that book be banned? Stewart responded that the publication of such a book could indeed be prohibited if its production was paid for via a corporation’s general funds, and not from a PAC. In so doing, Stewart noted that the challenged material in the MCFL case had been a newsletter, which established a constitutional basis for prohibiting express advocacy—regardless of medium—funded by corporate treasuries. Justices Alito, Kennedy, and Chief Justice Roberts had effectively backed Stewart into a corner. In admitting that the BCRA could potentially enable the government to ban the publication of a corporate-funded book for a single line of express advocacy out of 500 pages, the justices had greatly expanded the scope of the case.

the same week as the Taliban ruling in Afghanistan—we in the United States got the draft of Justice Alito’s opinion to roll back in brutal ways recently gained rights in the United States with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It could be that the Taliban action and Alito’s draft opinion occurred in the same week only by coincidence. It could be, but we may doubt it. The two matters are a part of a vigorous, worldwide reassertion of patriarchy that occurs in many places under authoritarian regimes. I take it that Alito’s opinion belongs to that worldwide enterprise. It flies under the compelling banner of “pro-life,” but the moment should be recognized for what it is, not at all “pro-life,” but anti-abortion and anti-woman.

Justice Alito has decreed that the only ones with assured constitutional rights are plantation owners and other property-owning white males. But our Holy Book asserts otherwise and denies any biblical affirmation to such subordination and repression of women.

the Supreme Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) added: “The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights.” For that proposition, Justice Samuel Alito, author of the opinion, referred the reader to five chapters of this book.

The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied,