|
Samuel Alito on Families & Children
Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. George W. Bush 2005)
|
|
|
Constitution doesn't define marriage, so DOMA should stand
In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined the term "marriage" under federal law as a "legal union between one man and one woman" deprived same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws
of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law.Situation: Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto, Canada in 2007. Their marriage was recognized by New York state, where they resided. Upon Spyer's death in 2009,
Windsor was forced to pay $363,000 in federal taxes, because their marriage was not recognized by federal law.
OnTheIssues explanation: This ruling led to a series of state legalization of same-sex marriage, as well as federal equality of
same-sex rights (but not federal equality of marriage).
Opinions:Majority: Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, & Kagan; dissent: Roberts, Alito, Thomas & Scalia, on mixed grounds of federalism & traditionalism.
Source: CNN.com on 2012 SCOTUS docket #12-307
, Jun 26, 2013
Ok to jail husband indefinitely until divorce judgment paid
Case Summary: Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Circuit 2002) Alito rules that plaintiff?s continued criminal detention was warranted, even after seven years, based upon his ongoing failure to pay a $2.5 million divorce judgment.
Since he was jailed for civil contempt, Alito held, and ?state courts have repeatedly found that Mr. Chadwick has the present ability to? pay the judgment,
I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government,
the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values.
Source: Alito’s application for Deputy Assistant Attorney General
, Nov 7, 2002
Government has a role in protecting traditional values
I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government,
the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values.
Source: Alito’s application for Deputy Assistant Attorney General
, Nov 15, 1985
1st Amendment doesn't apply to vague restrictions.
Justice Alito wrote the concurrence on BROWN v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS on Jun 27, 2011:
A California law imposed $1000 civil fines on persons who sold or rented to minors "violent video games." The video game industry sued to prevent enforcement of the law.
HELD: Delivered by SCALIA; joined by KENNEDY, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN
Video games are a form of speech and are subject to protection under the First Amendment because it has proved difficult to distinguish between politics and entertainment. Games communicate ideas through literary devices. A well defined constitutional tradition is that restrictions based on the content of speech are permitted only in only a few areas, such as obscenity, incitement to violence, or uttering fighting words. Depictions of violence are not within this tradition. California has not chosen to restrict those other media, e.g., Saturday morning cartoons, therefore California's law is underinclusive, suggesting that it disfavors a particular speaker or viewpoint.
CONCURRED: ALITO concurs in judgment; joined by ROBERTS
The California law should have been struck down on due process grounds as "vague": It lacked sufficiently narrow definition of "violent video game" so that a retailer would be put on notice. The Court should not have resorted to the First Amendment and should have been far more careful and moved with more deliberation in evaluating a new technology, since the future may find participating in a video game is actually different from watching movie.DISSENT: THOMAS dissents
The Founders would not have seen any right to speak to a minor other than through his parents, which is what the California law permits.DISSENT: BREYER dissents
The California law withstands other First Amendment's strict scrutiny.
Source: Supreme Court case 11-BROWN argued on Nov 2, 2010
Page last updated: Mar 21, 2022