Alito and SSDI ruling

[Traveling_Home]

The way Social Security has been allowed to operate towards disabled folk sucks. Alito's ruling here would have helped.

"a little-known Social Security case in 2002 which may be instructive when it comes to comparing Alito to Scalia.

In that case, Alito argued passionately with other members of the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court that a disabled woman, Pauline Thomas, should be granted benefits because she had been laid off from her job as an elevator operator and could not find a new job since the position of "elevator operator" had virtually disappeared from the economy. A lower court had ruled that a narrow and technical reading of the Social Security statute did not entitle Thomas to benefits. Alito called this result "absurd" and overrode the objections of several of his colleagues and convinced the full 3rd Circuit to overturn the lower court decision.

Alito's passion didn't move the Supreme Court, however, which overturned his decision in 2003. In a pointed rejection of Alito's opinion--accusing him of "disregarding" basic grammatical rules for interpreting the law--the Supreme Court fell back on the narrow and technical reading and denied Thomas her Social Security benefits. The author of this stinging rebuke to Alito? Justice Antonin Scalia

T

Edit: added link - sorry

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1124387,00.html

[kanrok]

1. Please provide a citation to the case

It sounds like an interesting read. Thanks.

[Pepper32]

2. Yes it does.

I hope the OP provides a link or source. :popcorn:

[kanrok]

3. I checked Findlaw

and all I found searching for "Alito and SSDI" was this case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/3rd/992313p.html

Not anything to do with what the OP cited.

[Traveling_Home]

4. Added Link

Sorry, sloppy of me

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1124387,00.html

Second and Third Paragraph

T

[kanrok]

5. Thanks

[Pepper32]

6. No problem. Thanks for the link.

[Traveling_Home]

7. Here's a Findlaw reference PDF

PDF of ruling

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/003506p.pdf

[kanrok]

8. Cool, thanks.

[Pepper32]

9. Now that was an interesting read

That fallout (I mean ruling) between him and his Circuit Court colleagues seemed very personal.

While I found his decision reasonable and morally correct. I wonder if republicans would consider him as someone that legislates from the bench?

After reading this I can see how some bad blood may exist between Saclio and Alito.

Thanks again, Traveling_Home!

I found this to be the most interesting part of the document:

Alito's response to the dissent (CC judges) accusations

The dissent argues that our reasoning in this case is "flawed in six ways," but the dissent’s arguments are unpersuasive. The dissent asserts that the statutory language supports its position, accusing us of "rewriting the statute," "contort the statutory
language," "reject its literal meaning," and"engraft" upon it an "additional component." Dissent at 15, 17. In the words of the dissent, the statutory language is "perfectly clear," it "permits no other conclusion," it "clearly mandates" the result reached by the dissent, and its meaning is "plain." Id. Notably absent from the dissent, however, is any attempt to provide reasoned support for these charges. In particular, the dissent makes no effort to respond to our argument that the statutory language, when read in accordance with standard rules of usage, prescribes that the claimant’s "previous work" must still"exist< > in the national economy." See supra at 6. Three of the dissent’s arguments are beside the point because they are based not on the statute, but on the regulations.

[salvorhardin]

10. Silly!

It's not legislating from the bench unless a liberal does it! Didn't you get the memo? :-)

[Wordie]

11. I'm really very surprised by this, as some of his other stands do not seem

consistent with what he has done here. What gives? (And btw, reading the findlaw pdf, the arguments on this case seem really quite strange, on either side.)

Of course, it is the overall record that really matters, I suppose, rather than an isolated case like this one.

[Imagevision]

12. Scalia goes duck hunting with Cheney before he rules on Cheney not

having to provide his dealings with Enron and Ken Lay while in the WH.