Skip to main content

View Diary: What a ScAlito Court Would Mean to Me (219 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think I'll be happy till this is... (none)
    modded OFF the front page.  And I doubt very much that that'll ever happen. Would the author correct the story? Is Kos likely to do that? Almost certaily, two nopes.

    Very clearly the author expresses a legal opinion which is at best well-intentioned, but wildly misinformed.  That article then makes it to the front.  How else should I feel except incredibly perturbed that this site allows articles like this to the front.  It's not just someone's misinformed personal diary at this point.

    •  Your beef (none)
      should be with Armando for frontpaging the diary.  Try sending him a nice email.  

      In the meantime, you are more likely to do some good by calmly explaining the misunderstanding here in the comments.  That way, people who read the diary may see your comment and understand that the diarist may not have a firm grasp of the legal complexities of the case.

      Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

      by johnny rotten on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 05:14:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Done, my e-mail (none)
        I think that the article moved to the front of ought to be modded off the front or very much corrected.  The article is wrong almost from the get go.

        I appreciate the fact that the story that wants to tell about is Alito is that he'll be bad for everything liberal. But, I must say there has got to be a better way than putting a story on the front that is just plain false.

        Alito did not, I repeat, did not vote to make FMLA unconstitutional.  Very clearly, Alito did not question it's constitutionality.  If he had, that would be a genuinely WILD opinion.  However, as it was, FMLA is very clearly supported by Congress' commerce power.  The actual issue before the court was about Congress' ability to abbrogate State Sovereign Immunity.

        I realize that the jurisprudence regarding the 11th and 14th amendment is not an easy topic, but that doesn't justify putting up entirely bad articles that interpret the law even worse.  Under the 14th amendment, there HAS to be a showing that rights protected by the 14th amendment are being violated.  There are lots of examples of certain constitutional rights that aren't--the 7th amendment right to a civil jury being one of them.

        Very obviously that wasn't plainly obvious.  Both the PA Supreme Court and the SCOTUS bent over backwards to make it fit.  That does not mean that Alito voted to make it unconstitutional though.

        Please, for the love of god, offer a correction.


        •  mmmbeer (none)
          You may be sorree...

          Armando is a lawyer. A constitutional lawyer, if I remember correctly. And I've noticed his titanic past clashes with mcjoan.

          But one thing I have never known him to do is take kindly to people making peremptory demands of him.

          Sooo... a friendly warning: if he responds, you may want to duck.

          Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

          by Canadian Reader on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 06:49:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I fear for his clients... (2.66)
            If his legal analysis follows the reasoning in these threads, then I fear for any of his clients.

            I mean, finding the FMLA unconstitutional is not the same as saying Congress didn't not make a sufficient showing to abrogate state sovereign immunity to allow employees to sue the state. The first means that there would not be the FMLA.  The second means that FMLA still exists and is enforceable.

            A closer analysis might be to say that Alito found Congress' unconstitutionally abrogated SSI.  That's hardly fatal to FMLA, though.  We do have a Federalist government with rights accorded to the states on purpose.  We also have an 11th amendment providing for SSI.  

            If you don't like that part, you can always change it. Or you persuade the supreme court to change it.  Alito and the other districts really didn't have the authority.

        •  Correct the piles of shit you laid all over (none)
          Alito ruled that Congress acted unconstitutiopnally wen it expressly abrogated the Sovereign Immunity of the States.

          Go learn some fucking law.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 07:21:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Suck it up jerk (none)
      I'll clsarify it but you are reallt full of shit here.

      You're lucky I wasn't here to pin a tail on your ass.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 07:10:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site