| baltassoc |
10-31-2005 02:38 PM |
Alito
Quote:
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.
|