Comments on: Alito and John Thune’s America http://prairieprogressive.com/2005/10/31/alito-and-john-thunes-america/ thoughts while vastly outnumbered on the northern great plains Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:38:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Deuce http://prairieprogressive.com/2005/10/31/alito-and-john-thunes-america/#comment-130 Deuce Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:08:00 +0000 http://prairieprogressive.com/?p=568#comment-130 See a few examples of Alito's record opposing the rights of people with disabilities: http://www.bazelon.org/takeaction/alerts/alitosrecord-details.htm 1999, Judge Alito ruled along with other judges on the Third Circuit to allow the National Board of Medical Examiners to flag test scores of individuals who received accommodations on their medical licensing exams due to their disabilities. The plaintiff claimed that the medical board's practice subjected him to possible discrimination in internship and residency programs. The court ruled that flagging was not discrimination because the ADA does not specifically bar it. "The decision reflects a misunderstanding of and hostility to the ADA," says Bazelon. (Doe v. National Board of Medical Examiners, 199 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 1999)). That same year, he ruled in ADAPT v. United States Dep't of Housing & Urban Development, a decision that prevented individuals with disabilities and from suing the Department of Housing and Urban Development for failing to enforce its regulations concerning accessible housing. "HUD had not fulfilled its duty to ensure that multi-family housing was accessible to people with disabilities. It had also failed to investigate complaints of inaccessible housing and take enforcement action, although HUD officials had acknowledged widespread compliance problems," says Bazelon. (170 F.3d 381 (3d Cir. 1999)). See a few examples of Alito’s record opposing the rights of people with disabilities:

http://www.bazelon.org/takeaction/alerts/alitosrecord-details.htm

1999, Judge Alito ruled along with other judges on the Third Circuit to allow the National Board of Medical Examiners to flag test scores of individuals who received accommodations on their medical licensing exams due to their disabilities. The plaintiff claimed that the medical board’s practice subjected him to possible discrimination in internship and residency programs. The court ruled that flagging was not discrimination because the ADA does not specifically bar it. “The decision reflects a misunderstanding of and hostility to the ADA,” says Bazelon. (Doe v. National Board of Medical Examiners, 199 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 1999)).

That same year, he ruled in ADAPT v. United States Dep’t of Housing & Urban Development, a decision that prevented individuals with disabilities and from suing the Department of Housing and Urban Development for failing to enforce its regulations concerning accessible housing. “HUD had not fulfilled its duty to ensure that multi-family housing was accessible to people with disabilities. It had also failed to investigate complaints of inaccessible housing and take enforcement action, although HUD officials had acknowledged widespread compliance problems,” says Bazelon. (170 F.3d 381 (3d Cir. 1999)).

]]> By: GotYourBackJohn http://prairieprogressive.com/2005/10/31/alito-and-john-thunes-america/#comment-129 GotYourBackJohn Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:01:00 +0000 http://prairieprogressive.com/?p=568#comment-129 The problem with your assertions about Thomas, Scalia and Scalito is this... The are upholding the role of the Supreme Court in the process. Their findings all represent an adherence to the role of the Supreme Court the way it was intended. They do not rule as to the right and wrong of different social issues but rather on the constitutionality of the cases brought before them. Your assertions that they are supporting interogation without miranda rights is absurd althought that may be a result of their finding. They are simply saying that this is not an issue of the Constitution. If you would rather have the Supreme Court decide on all of these issues, then we might as well not have Senators and Representatives but rather just a Supreme Court to decide all of these issues. The Supreme Court is limited and cannot make law. Anything more severely and irreparably damages the balance of powers. The problem with your assertions about Thomas, Scalia and Scalito is this…

The are upholding the role of the Supreme Court in the process. Their findings all represent an adherence to the role of the Supreme Court the way it was intended. They do not rule as to the right and wrong of different social issues but rather on the constitutionality of the cases brought before them. Your assertions that they are supporting interogation without miranda rights is absurd althought that may be a result of their finding. They are simply saying that this is not an issue of the Constitution.

If you would rather have the Supreme Court decide on all of these issues, then we might as well not have Senators and Representatives but rather just a Supreme Court to decide all of these issues. The Supreme Court is limited and cannot make law. Anything more severely and irreparably damages the balance of powers.

]]>