Justice Samuel Alito Research

His appointment to the Supreme Court had been rejected by the liberalist in most cases basing their ideas on the fact that Alito was conservative and hence would most likely be supporting the government in his rulings. This was brought to an end when George W. Bush appointed Alito in 2005 to replace a retiring Supreme Court judge. He landed in the best place where the conservatives had always expected by fighting gay marriages, discriminating religion, preferences on the racial aspect, developed opinions against gun violence, ruled against restrictions in finance, protected labor rights as well as protecting the marginalized groups in his major speeches. He was opposed to the Obama care health act as well as same-sex marriages in the United States.

After graduating from Princeton University, he served as a second lieutenant in the American army. He later joined Yale law school and edited the Yale school journal after being discharged from the position of a captain. His duty was primarily based on the executive as well as the judiciary systems of government. He had been serving as a judge in the third circuit since 1990 in America. Members of the Congress were worried after the appointment of Anthony Alito to the Supreme Court, hoping that he would most likely push the court to the conservative direction as opposed to their past chief justice who was believed to have a moderate swing vote when dealing with the court cases. His parents contributed to his success basically because the father worked in the legislative department in New Jersey while the mother worked as a school principal.

In most cases, he supported an affirmative action and further supported the provision developed to enhance the rights of the homosexuals in the country. In his legal career, he was against the issues of drug trafficking and the increased crime rates that were enhanced by the ease of gun ownership by a large number of the Americans (Calvert, 2014). Nomination and Confirmation Before his appointment court hearings sparked a lot of arguments in trying to understand the constitutional duty of the Senate in the course of providing consent to the president. According to the Republican majority in the Senate, the main consideration ought to be given to those nominated based on the professional qualifications but the Democrats argued that there should be recognition of the nominated person's ideology in that case.

Many people in the United States such as Senator Charles Schumer were willing that should have got another nominee and not justice Alito. In his view, he believed that the nominee would not be able to unite the American but would rather divide them. He is among the youngest judges to have been appointed to the Supreme Court and his nomination was seen as a chance for him to be there for decades in the Supreme Court. On the other hand, his supporters had described him as a jurist who would not undo the work of others so as to uphold his own agenda. His inclusion in the Princeton Alumni Group was an issue that was considered during confirmation by the Democrats while arguing that the group had been known to oppose the admission of women as well as minority groups.

He opposed the critics that were imposed on President Obama after the election by simply wincing his head. He contributed in writing several critical opinions in the Supreme Court that finally led to the separation of the Supreme Court judges basically on the ideological lines. In a case such as in Ledbetter versus Goodyear Tire and Rubber organization in 2007, he described that the statutes of limitation were applicable to the discrimination of wage claims especially in a situation when a victim was unaware of the discrimination and last until the period that a claim was brought to the court. In addition to this, in McDonald versus City of Chicago in 2010, he was able to extend the Heller’s court amendment being analyzed in the states.

Furthermore, there were some controversial statements that were written in the supreme court in America that were attributed to Alito reasoning. In his rulings, he used the idea of solving any textual complexity by adhering to the primary interpretations of the terms in which some legal guidelines were developed especially during the period of their adoption. In some situations, he also explained some of the ambiguous statement that was based on the law by looking at their historical background. According to him, he was ever pragmatic when compared to other conservatives in the court. He based his pragmatic aspect to the cat that he took little time as opposed to his colleagues in the legal academy. Several people during the court processes, Alito was described as very unfriendly to the defendants and his nature could easily was attributed to the fact that he once took a role as a prosecutor and hence keeping defendants away from him (Davis, 2016).

Alito called for the observation of the legality of the federal provisions that criminalized the selling and production of the cruelty of the animal videos. His obligation rested on the legality that the statute had been developed to reduce the cruelty directed to animals and not directed to limiting the speech (Higginbotham, 2007). Conclusion When Justice Alito was an attorney, he addressed many crime cases a situation which made many observers to understand that his legal head and that attracted his rise to an associate justice. He was appointed by President Bush in 1990 to act as a judge in the court of appeal for the third circuit. While working in the third circuit, Alito carried out the duties of the court for sixteen years a time when the liberal judges were dominant.

Despite the fact that he appeared to support the conservative judges in the court, he never showed such issues when there was an argument against them and the liberal judges about the supremacy of certain statutes. In the complex situation, he preferred that the historical nature of their applicability in order to help eradicate the nature of ambiguity that had been felt in some cases. He had been supported to have the best legal mind since he was acting the Third Circuit after defending certain cases and making honest rulings. Basing on the fact that he was a member of the Catholic Church, he had always warned the United States to observe the liberty of the church due to the increased acceptance of crime and the upholding the gay and lesbian marriages by a majority of the judges and had been accepted in several states within the country.