tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post7980366422066250130..comments2024-03-19T07:20:02.485-05:00Comments on Althouse: Reversal in the warrantless surveillance case.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger109125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-33809315666324667642007-07-09T23:50:00.000-05:002007-07-09T23:50:00.000-05:00MrMurder: You don't mind having your ID, social se...MrMurder: <I>You don't mind having your ID, social security number, credit card and financial transaction numbers looked at very close?</I><BR/><BR/>Why are you trading your personal information with Al Queda operatives in Pakistan? If so, I think the government would be wise to check you out.Fenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16734571593963330215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74816165330863884922007-07-09T03:05:00.000-05:002007-07-09T03:05:00.000-05:00You don't mind having your ID, social security num...You don't mind having your ID, social security number, credit card and financial transaction numbers looked at very close?<BR/><BR/>Didn't think so, post them here.<BR/><BR/>You've got nothing to hide. Maybe it could expand your financial aid information...<BR/><BR/>That's where the decision is leading. It's not like a lawyer and insurance company would screen you to deny a job for previous conditions based on such info? It isn't like he'd share it with business at taxpayer expense so they can assimilate info and turn the gov't into a defacto marketing branch and help them cut costs of hiring white collar payroll?<BR/><BR/>It's certain they do not put additional scrutiny on people with "D" next to their voting registration, including prosecutors and judges?<BR/><BR/>Nothing to see here, move along. That is, if you have your papers with you. You can verify that you are citizen?Mr.Murderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01932924875363684259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-68451455098665856332007-07-08T23:34:00.000-05:002007-07-08T23:34:00.000-05:00Alpha: I don't have proof, yet, that the Bush Admi...Alpha: <I>I don't have proof, yet, that the Bush Administration has abused the program this way. Again, it's a secret government. </I><BR/><BR/>You've got to be kidding. This "secret" government routinely leaks classified info to the New York Times, for partisan [Democrat] gain.Fenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16734571593963330215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9997330518802683112007-07-07T23:02:00.000-05:002007-07-07T23:02:00.000-05:00Roger said... For those of us unclean souls who...<I>Roger said...<BR/><BR/> For those of us unclean souls who lack legal education and training, may I request that those offering legal opinions identify themselves as JDs or members of a bar in good standing, so I can separate the question of what the law IS versus what people think it is or wish it to be?<BR/><BR/> Thanks in advance.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Hello Roger,<BR/><BR/>One of the JD-possessing souls (though I'm not sure I'm still in possession of my soul, as I believe it's been sent out as collateral to the student loan people, but anyway...) and a bar member over here. <BR/><BR/>I'm sorry to be the one that tells you there is no Santa Claus, but sadly, simply having a JD does not provide many lawyers with the ability to distinguish between what the law <I>is</I> and what they would like the law to be. It's almost as if lawyers were... <I>human</I>. <BR/><BR/>(to the cynics: I can already read your, "nah, that can't be it" so let me just say: hardy har har, chuckle chuckle, etc etc...)<BR/><BR/>Thanks for thinking the best of us, anyway, Roger.<BR/><BR/>WilliamAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17530605299996836151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26750928631390103302007-07-07T18:51:00.000-05:002007-07-07T18:51:00.000-05:00Rafique,Good to see you over here. :) This actuall...Rafique,<BR/>Good to see you over here. :) This actually plays into the discussion that Pat, Marghlar and I are having over at SF with <A HREF="http://www.stubbornfacts.us/law/a_standing_symposium_simons_take" REL="nofollow">the standing symposium that we started last week</A> and will continue once I finish writing a reply. <BR/><BR/>The difficulty is that the federal courts, which have massive, really quite unbelievably broad power, are constrained in the exercise of that power by the requirement that this power cannot act except to redress the injury presented by a lawsuit properly before it. As Ann's put it before, to constrain that authority, Article III requires "a context to provide an appropriate occasion for saying the law: judges say the law because they have to in order to resolve a specific dispute between parties." Althouse, <I>Saying What Rights Are - In and Out of Context</I>, 1991 Wis. L. Rev. 929, 940.<BR/><BR/>Courts can't simply waive standing: before proceding to the merits (the case <I>can</I> be disposed of on some other threshold question without discussing standing, see <I>Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona</I>, 520 U.S. 43, 66—67 (1997); <I>Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co</I>., 526 U.S. 574, 578 (1999); <I>Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping. Corp.</I>, 127 S.Ct. 1184 (2007)), the court must consider whether these plaintiffs have standing to raise these questions. This is so important that it applies <I>even if no litigant raises the question</I>: because standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite not an affirmative defense, Federal courts have an obligation to assure themselves that litigants have standing, even if defendants fail to press the point. <I>School Cases</I>, 551 U.S. __ (WL 1836531) (2007) ("[petitioner] does not challenge our jurisdiction, but we are nonetheless obliged to ensure that it exists"); <I>Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.</I>, 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) ("[federal] courts, including this Court, have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party"); Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 101-2 ("[w]ithout jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause ... For a court to pronounce upon the meaning or the constitutionality of a state or federal law when it has no jurisdiction to do so is, by very definition, for a court to act ultra vires").<BR/><BR/>The upshot is that - as I said in my opening argument, linked above, and as Judge Batchelder's opinion in the instant case also affirms, lead op. at 23-6 - plaintiffs must have standing, and this analysis doesn't wilt under a "if not these plaintiffs then which" argument. As I said last weel, the goal of the standing inquiry isn't to discover who has standing to litigate clause X, it's a case-specific inquiry that determines if this litigant is entitled to have a federal court resolve his grievance.<BR/><BR/>To some extent you're absolutely correct that the judiciary has "the duty to overturn laws that are unconstitutional." Indeed, the <I>duty</I> to do so is a frequently-overlooked point in the famous aphorism from <I>Marbury v. Madison</I> - "[i]t is emphatically the province <I>and duty</I> of the judicial department to say what the law is." 5 U.S. at 177. But what is the source of that power and duty? As Judge Easterbrook put it, "our Constitution lacks a Judicial Review Clause. The reason why judges are entitled to make constitutional decisions is that the Constitution is <I>real law</I>. That's <I>Marbury</I>'s central point. A written constitution creates a hierarchy of legal rules; and when the Constitution clashes with an ordinary law, the Constitution prevails." Easterbrook, <I>Foreign Sources and the Constitution</I>, 30 Harv. J. of L. & P.P. 223, 226 (2006) (footnote omitted; emphasis in original).<BR/><BR/>In short, to say that the judiciary has a <I>duty</I> to overturn unconstitutional laws is correct, but that duty is easily misunderstood: it is a duty to prefer the Constitution over contrary laws and actions <I>in deciding the case at bar</I>, not a free-roaming license to vindicate the Constitution. The power of judicial review is necessarily tied to the power to decide cases and controversies. That awesome power can <I>only</I> come into play when the courts are presented with a genuine case or controversy - precisely the prerequisite that standing doctrine serves to ensure. While this may seem a semantic distinction only, I'm not affirmatively arguing that "if standing cannot be established, we should leave it up to elections," I'm saying that if standing cannot be established for these litigants, the courts have no power to act, and if standing cannot be established for <I>any</I> litigants, then the only remedy <I>available</I> is the ballot box.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-84653887886825725152007-07-07T17:05:00.000-05:002007-07-07T17:05:00.000-05:00Rather interesting discussion here. LOng time read...Rather interesting discussion here. LOng time reader, first time commenter. Just wanted to respond to a couple of things. I think it was Steven who said that Congress had no authority to limit the President's Art. II power. I'm going to have to disagree. What about Congress's Art. I, Sec. 8 powers? (Laws governing capture on land and water; the conduct of the military, etc)<BR/><BR/>Cedarford: The idea is for all three branches to work together to serve the will of the people. The thing is, things get messed up when ideologues(from both sides) impose their expectations on various branches.<BR/><BR/>Simon said:<BR/><BR/><I> think there's also a similarly-reasoned position taken by some that if there is a program that violates the constitution, and if you can't stop that program through the democratic process, then shutting it down is a proper function of the federal judiciary, and thus, standing doctrine should never permit a situation where no one has standing, thus the federal courts can't be brought into play against a given action. I don't agree with this view either. If no one can establish standing to shut down the NSA programs, gee, I guess you're just going to have to go back to the old-fashioned approach of winning elections. Not every problem has a judicial remedy, or needs one.</I> <BR/><BR/><BR/>Doesn't the judiciary have the duty to overturn laws that are unconstitutional? Unless I've read you wrong, it seems that you're arguing that if standing cannot be established, we should leave it up to elections? I think I've got this whole standing doctrine thing confused.Rafique Tuckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00495370714658850590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-37825307177486558672007-07-07T16:59:00.000-05:002007-07-07T16:59:00.000-05:00Anton - he already did. ;)Anton - <A HREF="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/07/nsa/index.html" REL="nofollow">he already did</A>. ;)Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-69214155705237234462007-07-07T16:11:00.000-05:002007-07-07T16:11:00.000-05:00Fiver says: In other words: I need to read what re...Fiver says: <I>In other words: I need to read what respected attorneys and law professors write before I post. I don't want to get my rear-end handed to me like last time.</I><BR/><BR/>Why don't you give us <I>your</I> analysis of Gilman's opinion, Fiver? Put it up on <I>your</I> blog.<BR/><BR/>You pathetic little turd.Antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17957703351812229868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15933862943623414142007-07-07T13:43:00.000-05:002007-07-07T13:43:00.000-05:00I know I haven't written about Gilman's opinion on...<I>I know I haven't written about Gilman's opinion on the applicability of the statutes and the lack of inherent presidential authority to run free of the statutes. These are difficult questions, this post is way too long, and Saturday is begging for my attention.</I><BR/><BR/>In other words: I need to read what respected attorneys and law professors write before I post. I don't want to get my rear-end handed to me like last time.fiverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14857307533233905067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47524910570536439872007-07-07T11:52:00.000-05:002007-07-07T11:52:00.000-05:00Just remembered another key piece of evidence warr...Just remembered another key piece of evidence warranting concern over likely Bush-Cheney abuse of the warrantless wiretapping program. <BR/><BR/>We learned in mid-June that the National Security letters have been abused. As I recall upwards of 1,000 of these were wrongly used. Of course we don't know that that was for partisan use or not, as far as I know.<BR/><BR/>So when they say "just trust us," I decline. Too bad the courts are no use.AlphaLiberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08711124490821422066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-50035807008939671312007-07-07T11:46:00.000-05:002007-07-07T11:46:00.000-05:00As I said in the NYT op-ed the standing question i...As I said in the NYT op-ed the standing question is basic to the judge's constitutional power. A judge that doesn't take that seriously isn't taking constitutional limitations seriously and shouldn't be trusted to make decisions on the subject. The idea that the limitations are for the other branches is the ultimate judicial hypocrisy. It's no mere technicality.Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-23660844553009646752007-07-07T11:28:00.000-05:002007-07-07T11:28:00.000-05:00Greenwald's got a post up today on the subject. Bu...<A HREF="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/07/nsa/index.html" REL="nofollow">Greenwald's got a post up today</A> on the subject. But it's long (agreed he gets windy much as I like him) and I have chores to do.<BR/><BR/>Here's a key point, as far as I got:<BR/><I>"Yesterday's ruling (.pdf) had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case -- i.e., whether the NSA program is illegal or not -- but instead rested only on the narrow, technical (though important) issue of whether the particular plaintiffs in this case are entitled to sue over the warrantless eavesdropping program (two of the three judges concluded that they are not)."</I><BR/><BR/>As far as Ann's criticisms over opinion writing style, she might want to address the importance of that issue versus the other issues swirling around the case. I think it's style over substance (to the extent I can maintain interest long enough to read it).AlphaLiberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08711124490821422066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-61202064586410566662007-07-07T11:25:00.000-05:002007-07-07T11:25:00.000-05:00To the conservatives here: When I said "you bet" t...To the conservatives here: When I said "you bet" taping to of Dems, i meant to say it is likely. I was speaking of my expectation, my hunch, my assertion. I didn't refer to a study or finding from any investigatory committee or some secret tip. <BR/><BR/>Again, we have a secret government, whose secrecy is protected by the courts, and we citizens have to work with what we have. <BR/><BR/>I base this speculation on the well-document partisan influence over prosecution decisions at DOJ, the politicization of agencies as exampled by Rove's powerpoint at GSA,and John Diulio (sp??) comment I provided above. Also, Nixon's practice of taping and surveilling political critics. Also, the strong opposition to sharing information with Congress about what they are doing. <BR/><BR/>The expectation that the Bush-Cheney Administration would abuse surveillance powers is well-founded. (There's more I could write but let's get serous, this is a comment section). <BR/><BR/>The thing I don't understand is why you guys believe the Bush Administration, esp when they say they only tape domestic calls when a "terrorist" is on the other end. <BR/><BR/>Why do you believe them? Because he's the president? Because he's a Republican? Because...? You seem to prefer to take Bush's words than have laws in place, have consideration of whether the Pres is following the law, or have any oversight or balance. <BR/><BR/>I honestly do not understand this. I don't <I>think</I> conservatives want a police state, in name at least. But you're supporting it's establishment in fact. Can you at least explain why?AlphaLiberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08711124490821422066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-60749625889982782112007-07-07T11:05:00.000-05:002007-07-07T11:05:00.000-05:00Forget about analyzing the opinions; just look at ...Forget about analyzing the opinions; just look at the political affiliations or who appointed the judges and you the outcome of this case can be determined very easily. The rule of law means nothing to Democrat-appointed judges.brylunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865287332396235627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28242862387035372232007-07-07T03:01:00.000-05:002007-07-07T03:01:00.000-05:00Fen said... Alpah: Listening to phone calls of var...Fen said... <BR/>Alpah: Listening to phone calls of various powerful Democratic leaders, campaigns, etc? You bet.<BR/>Prove that. BTW, most NSA employees are Dems."<BR/><BR/>Nawww Fen. I'd much rather you prove that "most NSA employees are Dems". This should be a laugh riot.hdhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573004614816464571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-14767867083960331492007-07-06T23:29:00.000-05:002007-07-06T23:29:00.000-05:00Ann,You are obviously the expert on standing here....Ann,<BR/><BR/>You are obviously the expert on standing here. I think that you weren't surprised that the lower court judge was reversed on those grounds, given your previous criticisms of her opinion. But other than that, was there anything really surprising here? <BR/><BR/>I wasn't surprised at the standing results, but then again, I don't have nearly your depth of understanding of this area of the law. <BR/><BR/>And thanks in advance for any insight you can provide here.Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-18866557756460989172007-07-06T22:34:00.000-05:002007-07-06T22:34:00.000-05:00i just love reading the really, really interesting...i just love reading the really, really interesting arguments regarding whether or not the bush administration can or cannot wiretap americans...without warrants.<BR/><BR/>worst president ever..bar none.<BR/><BR/>who the fuck are you people???Luckyoldsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11489310035114843752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-85250034588700334962007-07-06T21:17:00.000-05:002007-07-06T21:17:00.000-05:00Ann - it's vital to stress that federalism and sta...Ann - it's vital to stress that federalism and standing are vertical and horizontal components of the separation of powers, which makes it all the more ironic that the people who most stringently criticize the Bush administration for running roughshod over the separation of powers are usually the people <I>most</I> interested in SCRAPping standing requirements to facilitate public law litigation and <I>least</I> interested in federalism (in the sense of protecting an independent scope of state action and providing meaningful restrictions on the power of Congress).Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-64753682124681088002007-07-06T20:52:00.000-05:002007-07-06T20:52:00.000-05:00Yeah, here I was worried that I was being too ABCs...Yeah, here I was worried that I was being too ABCs and it turned out to be too complicated to follow (when you don't want to follow it).Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-10792135939838596792007-07-06T20:48:00.000-05:002007-07-06T20:48:00.000-05:00Ann said..."That is my point, and none of my criti...Ann said...<BR/>"<I>That is my point, and none of my critics have touched me on that.</I>"<BR/><BR/>A point underlined by the inability of many of those critics to recognize that your line "Why should the judicial view prevail over the president’s?" is a rhetorical question introducing the following text, rather than a freestanding attack on the legitimacy of judicial review. Most of your critics for that piece, to my recollection, inexplicably read it the latter way.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44416438985228604902007-07-06T20:44:00.000-05:002007-07-06T20:44:00.000-05:00Greenwald's point was about Rule 56 and the defend...Greenwald's point was about Rule 56 and the defendant's failure to come forward with contravening evidence (because it stood on the state secret privilege). On that Judge Batchelder wrote: <BR/><BR/>"As this case was decided on the government’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs “must ‘set forth’ by affidavit or other evidence ‘specific facts,’ which for purposes of the summary judgment <BR/>motion will be taken to be true.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). Applying my formulation of the standing requirements, the plaintiffs have failed to meet this burden because there is no evidence in the record that any of the plaintiffs are personally subject to the TSP. Judge Gilman frequently refers to the attorney-plaintiffs’ allegations, (Gilman Op. 44, 47, 48), and concludes that the <BR/>“attorney-plaintiffs have alleged a[] . . . concrete and particularized injury,” (Gilman Op. 47). OnNos. 06-2095/2140 Am. Civil Liberties Union, et al. v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, et al. Page 39 summary judgment, however, the plaintiffs’ mere allegations are insufficient, and although the publicly admitted information about the TSP “supports” them, (Gilman Op. 48), it does not satisfy <BR/>the plaintiffs’ burden. In applying his formulation of the standing requirement, the reasonableness of plaintiffs’ fear, Judge Gilman concludes that “[t]he likelihood that [the plaintiff in Lyons] would again find himself in a chokehold by the Los Angeles police seems to me far more remote than the <BR/>ongoing concern of the attorney-plaintiffs here that their telephone or email communications will be intercepted by the TSP.” (Gilman Op. 45-46.) Unfortunately for the plaintiffs’ position, besides Judge Gilman’s subjective assessment, there is no evidence as to the likelihood the plaintiffs will be surveilled for this court to consider on summary judgment."Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-46698371269797515032007-07-06T19:38:00.000-05:002007-07-06T19:38:00.000-05:00I stand by all my earlier writing on the subject, ...I stand by all my earlier writing on the subject, which was about standing doctrine and the failure of the district judge to do a serious analysis of the causation and redress prongs and rushing headlong to the case on the merits. The NYT op-ed was a pretty basic civics lesson that I originally said wasn't worth writing because it's such an obvious well-known point about separation of powers. The reaction to the op-ed has proved to me that the editor who told me the lesson still needing teaching was right. Standing doctrine limits judges to their proper role, and when they fail to take it seriously so they can tell some other branch of govt that it has exceeded its role, they are plainly hypocrits and they undermine the power of the judiciary. That is my point, and none of my critics have <I>touched</I> me on that.Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45199223517646819662007-07-06T19:30:00.000-05:002007-07-06T19:30:00.000-05:00Alpha's just mad because he didn't make the list.D...Alpha's just mad because he didn't make the list.<BR/><BR/>Dave TM (tiny member) you make more sense when you talk about wine.Laura Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15855241652633348350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-30475553036154881142007-07-06T18:47:00.000-05:002007-07-06T18:47:00.000-05:00Anna Diggs Taylor had the brains and judicial temp...Anna Diggs Taylor had the brains and judicial temperment of that Dry Cleaning Judge.<BR/><BR/>Luckily she will take herself and her Carter hiring preference quota with her quite soon. (Old biddy is 75).<BR/><BR/>Alpha Liberal - <I>The American system of government is based on the rule of law, not the rule of men. We're not supposed to "take their word for it." </I><BR/><BR/>Hardly. I understand your love of an imperial, liberal and activist judiciary that can bypass the democratic process and elected representatives and push progressive agenda down America's throat. Even when new "rights" like abortion and gay marriage found nowhere in the Constitution or law are magically "found" by reading between the lines. Law is simply social policy. Law, bureaucratic decrees are only credible if it has a foundation in the Will of The People and Their Representatives. Until the 1970s, that was pretty much how America worked.<BR/><BR/>In New York, 3 million people flipped the "authorities" the bird on July 4th and set off illegal fireworks. 700,000 people in New York get around absurdly high Nanny State taxes by buying cigarettes from Hezbollah and Dominican cigarette smuggling groups. And not to get into cell phone rule flouting and people that obsess about if they are violating the right laws needed to survive in business compared to their law-breaking competitors that have decided to blow off the worst laws and regulations.<BR/><BR/>People clearly have an eroding respect for all laws - and it is the fault of widespread "pay to play" corruption, nanny state legislators, petty tyrant bureaucrats, and judges like Quota filler Anna Taylor who confuse interpreting law with creating it.<BR/><BR/>Last I looked, the Constitution starts with "We The People", not "We the Sovereign Lawyers, Judges, and Legislators." And <I>We the People</I> create the laws and institutions we deem best. <BR/><BR/>This isn't a place where the Sanhedrin reign over all as the final word and only they dictate laws the masses must obey. Or the Central Party Committee rendering Diktats.Cedarfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00602418702398818596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26634273998233746902007-07-06T18:14:00.000-05:002007-07-06T18:14:00.000-05:00Kirk said..."Mind if I steal it?"I don't mind, but...Kirk said...<BR/>"<I>Mind if I steal it?</I>"<BR/><BR/>I don't mind, but to give credit where it's due, it's a paraphrase of something Justice Alito said at a federalist society speech last year. I'll try and find you a direct quote.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.com