Justice Sammy Alito, what's with his monstrous attitude towards woman

I can think of a few jobs I’d love to hire him for, but decorum demands I remain silent. I hope no one leaks my memo.

Which begs the questions: What is Alito’s trip? Is Alito simply another master race sociopath, or can it be more benign?

But what do I know? Guess I’ll refer to folks who have studied the player, first one from 2005:

Right to Wife

Why does Judge Alito treat women like girls?


NOV 03, 2005

Judge Alito, it’s a pleasure to have you before our committee this morning. You’re obviously an accomplished jurist, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak very highly of you. I really have only one question for you, and it’s my hope that you’ll be able to put my mind, and the public’s mind, at ease about it. What I’d like to know is, why do you think it’s constitutional to treat a pregnant woman like a child?

I’m referring, of course, to your dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey 14 years ago. As you know, that case involved a Pennsylvania statute that required women to notify their husbands before having abortions, on pain of criminal sanctions. You voted to uphold the statute.

First of all, Judge, I notice that in your concluding footnote to that case, you mentioned that the plaintiffs had asked your court to hold the statute unconstitutional because it “violates the rights to marital and informational privacy and equal protection.” You wrote that you wouldn’t address those arguments because your colleagues had relied on a different argument, the right to abortion.
Since you rejected the abortion argument and didn’t bother addressing the other arguments, I guess we can infer that they wouldn’t have changed your vote. So, you don’t think privacy or equality entitles a woman, constitutionally, to make the decision without consulting her husband.

Now, about the abortion argument. … heck of an eye opener article follows.

By Adam Liptak

Nov. 13, 2020

WASHINGTON — In an unusually caustic and politically tinged speech, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a conservative legal groupthat liberals posed a growing threat to religious liberty and free speech.

The remarks, made at the Federalist Society’s annual convention Thursday night, mirrored statements Justice Alito has made in his judicial opinions, which have lately been marked by bitterness and grievance even as the court has been moving to the right. While Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has tried to signal that the Supreme Court is apolitical, Justice Alito’s comments sent a different message.

Coming as they did just weeks after Justice Amy Coney Barrett succeeded Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, giving conservatives a 6 to 3 majority, the remarks alarmed some on the left. …


The Supreme Court justice wants to turn the U.S. into a dystopian hellscape where women are property—and he’s not stopping there.


MAY 3, 2022

By now, you’ve likely heard the news that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn the national right to an abortion, an expected but nevertheless jolting, devastating blow to reproductive rights. We know The Handmaid’s Tale is about to go from scripted narrative to retroactive documentary thanks to the leak of a draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which arch conservative justice Samuel Alito writes, in a hateful 98-page screed, that “ Roe [ v. Wade ] was egregiously wrong from the start” and that it “is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” Which Alito obviously knows would lead to abortion care being severely restricted or fully outlawed in roughly half of the country and make it not only a felony to perform an abortion in some states, but a felony to obtain one.

As Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern notes, the draft—which could change before a the final ruling, as could the various justices’ votes—doesn’t just lay out the case for why Roe should be overturned, it goes full scorched earth. …

1 Like

I wound label his attitude paternalistic rather than monstrous. Probably stems from his Italian Catholic background.

That’s the problem with ego-centric paternalistic attitude, it gets unhinged, and incapable of recognizing their own monstrosity.

Oh yeah Italian Catholics, or Catholics in general, you mean the protectors of pedophiles?
Sorry no free pass from me.

PS what about your daughter?

I don’t have a daughter. If I did, she would grow up in a paternalistic environment.

Well I sure hope you don’t think you’d own your daughter.

1 Like

That is the worst. With such control, she’ll surely end up with anorexia.

There is no lack of women who grew up in liberal households who have a long list of psychological problems. A wishy washy father is much worse for a daughter than a strict father.

ROFLMAO! You don’t know anything about psychology either. A young lady, who feels she has no control in her life, will find something to control and that is generally food. One of the prime reasons for an eating disorder is over controlling fathers. So, if you control everything in your daughter’s life, she could very well end up with an eating disorder, because she can control that. BTW, not eating, for very long periods of time, such as with anorexia, is a very good way to keep pregnancy from happening. Exercising too much is another and bulimia screws with hormonal functions. If they can’t control their lives, they can control food, clear to the point that it screws with reproduction.

Eating disorders are far more common than they were in the past and wimpy dads have been the norm since boomers started having kids. Call me skeptical of a connection between strict fathers and eating disorders. A bigger factor is probably peer groups.

Obesity has 3 main factors, too much TV and not enough sport, too much sodas and too much junk food.

I am a baby boomer. Junk food ans sodas were prohibited at home, TV was limited. Our daughter practiced sports. She is not overweight.

I think that the lack of regulation of advertisements for sodas and junk food is a crime.

Unfortunately, it is true that strict fathers, who do not allow their kids any control over themselves, can trigger anorexia in their kids. Food is the only thing the kid feels s/he can control. It’s not the linent father who triggers the disorder. Lack of control can lead to an eating disorder. Even rape and incest can lead to an eating disorder. Doubt all you want, but you apparently are not a psychologist, a psychiatrist, or even someone who’s had/has an eating disorder and in treatment. Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Then again, I was raised by boomers and the greatest gen. I’m guessing you’re just a Millenial or Z. Peer groups have nothing to do with eating disorders, which is a mental health issue.

Re: Strict vs Freedoms

I’ve seen it plenty of times: When young adults escape from their over-controlling home lifestyles, it often results in a whiplash of extreme reactions in which they have to learn some hard lessons - and some don’t even learn then.

They need to be brought up in a “guided freedoms” environment.

And statements like “XYZ disorder is far more common now than in the past” is pretty empty for me.
I think in many cases it is because it was finally recognized, and defined, and/or talked about.

A family member has had a medical condition for decades. Our own digging found there actually was some research going on about it, and it was brought to the attention of the doctor, who had not heard of it - this was years ago (5-10??).

Now I’m starting to see a few articles - and of course med commercials about it. Does that mean it didn’t exist 20 years ago just because YOU haven’t heard about it?

Sorry to distract from Alito, but just wanted to point out how some words from some people become more and more hollow to me with each subsequent post.

There was never any underage sex or pregnancies in the olden days. Your sister just went to visit your Aunt in Kansas for a few months.

1 Like

More complex. This reminds me something:

About Hollywood in the thirties

For women, it was often frowned upon for them to get married and have children at a young age, during their prime ingenue/leading lady years. The studios had complete control over their stars’ careers and kept them constantly working.

For instance, look at the career of Loretta Young. She averaged 5 movies per year, but had as many as 11 in 1931! Same with Bette Davis, who appeared in 9 movies in 1932. Myrna Loy made a whopping 13 movies in 1930. Yes, these women were huge stars, but they were not at all in control of their careers as actors are today. If they wanted to continue working, they had to comply with the studios’ demands. And in addition to shooting, they had to be available for costume fittings, fan magazine photo shoots, and media interviews. There was literally no time for them to have a family until later in life, which is why many adopted children.

If a star happened to get pregnant, the studio quickly scheduled an abortion for her, whether she liked it or not. (The exception being Loretta Young who bravely took matters into her own hands and had her baby secretly, then adopted her later, managing to avoid an abortion, and a career-killing pregnancy while still getting to raise her own child - pretty ingenious.) The list of Hollywood stars who had abortions reads like an A-list of the most popular actresses of their day: Judy Garland, Lana Turner, Ava Gardner, Jean Harlow, Kay Francis, Joan Crawford, Dorothy Dandridge, Bette Davis and Tallulah Bankhead. And maybe that is the point: if these women hadn’t been willing to get rid of their pregnancies, their careers might have floundered.

So the result was, many stars either had children later in life (like Bette Davis) or adopted (like Joan Crawford). Also, since abortion was not always medically safe, some of these women (like Polly Bergen) were unable to have children afterwards, which was another reason they chose adoption.



A member of my family who visited Hollywood in the thirties and played in at least one movie, explained to me that some actresses went away " to rest" and came back some months later with an " adopted child. "

Does Justice Alito wants that in USA :

[A Woman Just Got 30 Years for Homicide After Losing Her Pregnancy]

Good Point.

Lucile Ball was one of the exceptions and they had to fight to be open about it.
… then she was accused of being a Communist

Edit: and yes, Lucile was some time later than the 30’s

Interesting tidbit. Hollywood has always been a nihilistic wasteland