Take Action – Call Senators to Oppose Alito
Call your senators today to voice your opposition to Alito. His record and his support for executive powers (at the expense of the other two branches of government) pose a threat to our rights and our future. Still not sure? Read this:
Alito’s Record
As research continues into Judge Samuel Alito’s extensive record, here are some of his most troubling opinions:
1. Privacy: In dissent, Alito would have upheld the strip search of a mother and her ten-year old daughter, even though the warrant allowing the search did not name either of them. Judge Michael Chertoff, now head of the Department of Homeland Security, criticized that position as threatening to turn the constitution’s search warrant requirement into little more than a “rubber stamp.” Doe v. Groody
2. Community safety: Alito, dissenting in the case of United States v. Rybar, said that Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to restrict the transfer and possession of machine guns at gun shows. In response to Alito’s assertion that Congress must make findings or provide empirical evidence of a link between a regulation and its effect on interstate commerce, the majority said, “Nothing in Lopez (an earlier Supreme Court case) requires either Congress or the Executive to play Show and Tell with the federal courts at the peril of invalidation of a Congressional statute.”
3. Family and Medical Leave: Writing for a unanimous court in Chittister v. Dep’t of Community & Economic Development, Judge Alito held that Congress did not have the authority to allow state employees to sue for damages under one section of the Family and Medical Leave Act. By contrast, the Supreme Court in a later case (Nevada Dep’t of Human Resources v. Hibbs) upheld the FMLA against a similar challenge; the Court’s decision was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justice O’Connor.
4. Reproductive Freedom: In dissent, Alito would have upheld a provision of Pennsylvania’s restrictive anti-abortion law requiring a woman in certain circumstances to notify her husband before obtaining an abortion. His colleagues on the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court majority disagreed and overturned the provision. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
5. Racial Discrimination in the Workplace: In dissent, Alito argued for imposing an evidentiary burden on victims of employment discrimination that, according to the majority, would have “eviscerated” legal protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In particular, the majority said that Alito’s position would protect employers from suit even in situations where the employer’s belief that it had selected the “best” candidate “was the result of conscious racial bias.” Bray v. Marriott Hotels
6. Gender Discrimination in the Workplace: As a lone dissenter in a 10-1 decision of the full Third Circuit, Alito would have made it more difficult for someone alleging discrimination to present sufficient evidence to get his or her case to a jury. In particular, Alito would have prevented a woman claiming gender discrimination from going to trial, even where she had produced evidence showing that her employer’s claim that it had a legitimate reason to deny her a promotion was a pretext for the employer’s allegedly discriminatory actions. Sheridan v. E.I.DuPont de Nemours and Co.
7. Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection: Alito cast the deciding vote and wrote the opinion in a 2-1 ruling rejecting claims by an African American defendant who had been convicted of felony murder by an all white jury from which black jurors had been impermissibly struck because of their race. The full Third Circuit reversed this ruling, and the majority specifically criticized Alito for having compared statistical evidence about the prosecution’s exclusion of blacks from juries in capital cases to an explanation of why a disproportionate number of recent U.S. Presidents have been left-handed. According to the majority, “[t]o suggest any comparability to the striking of jurors based on their race is to minimize the history of discrimination against prospective black jurors and black defendants …” Riley v. Taylor
–from Save the Court
Out of 300 some decisions and you point to a handful of decisions that you don’t agree with so that means he doesn’t qualify to sit on a 9 judge panel. I think it is great that you are exercising your freedom of speech, but it will be for not. Since the Republicans hold a majority on the committee and in the full senate so confirmation is pretty much a fore gone conclusion. I guess if the Democrats want to push for a liberal judge they need to do better in election campaigns and win elections.
I have to admit to being quite discouraged w.r.t. Alito. The spineless Democrats have already conceded the field, forgetting that Alito will probably move to enshrine the power that Bush as already claimed for himself. But at this point the only reason I can see for filibustering is to actually cause Frist to use the “nuclear option”. I blogged on why here.
What I find quite amusing is that so many people have latched on ton one cuase or another as to why they think any nominee shouldn’t be confirmed. The only thing that should matter is can the nominee fullfill the duties as a Associate Justice; apply the correct constitutional law when it comes to the cases before the court. It isn’t the job of a Justice to rule based on his ideology or what his party affiliation says he should rule. Too many liberals are fixated on his conservative nature and fear that he will some how will be able to overturn Roe v. Wade or in the case of Kvatch thinks he will somehow single handedly be able to back the White House in whatever it wants to do. The fact of the matter is the US Supreme Court has upheld much of what the Executive Branch does and has been that way been many years before George W. Bush got to Washington.
Perhaps your children (do you have any?) won’t be quite as amused.
The constitutional law is interpreted case by case by the Justices of the Supreme Court. If it were a matter of “correct application” there would be no dissenting opinion.
The fact of the matter is that Supreme Court Justices have non-elected lifetime positions with powers that affect us all. Yes, the Supreme Court upholds the Executive branch on many occasions – and much of the time there is no reason not to do so. I don’t think that point contributes anything to the debate.
The point is that our system is designed to prevent a takeover by any one party or ideology – it is meant to develop wisdom and fairness in protecting the interests and rights of the American people – all the people.
Alito is a danger because it is likely he’ll take his own views and impose them on the American people, and those views are far outside the mainstream – even outside the Republican mainstream. It is not in the interests of most of us for the Supreme Court to give too much power to the executive branch, or to breach our rights of privacy, or to discriminate against women and minorities. It just isn’t appropriate to bring a such a political agenda – full of intent to control and dominate women (including unauthorized but in his view “constitutional” strip searches of children!), discriminate on the basis of race and disability, and even strike down “family values” legislation like the family and medical leave act.
He was coached on his answers by the very lawyers who created the public justifications for Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program, including Harriet Miers (now the inexplicable nomination makes more sense – she personally approved the program). Conflict of interest – key lawyer for the program advising to Alito how he should respond to senators who ask questions about it, “recommendations” for later adjudications? His refusal to recuse himself even from personal conflict of interests (like Vanguard, a company in which Alito has invested between $390,000 to $975,000 of his personal fortune). Is this an indication of his noble ideals?
There is no sign that Alito actually practices an open-minded judicial approach. Even Scalia is less ideological. It’s not just a couple of cases. Here are some people who will get burned consistently: a consumer suing big business (hope that new product doesn’t kill or maim you!), a woman (on a wide range of issues, not just privacy rights), a criminal defendant, a foreign national facing deportation, an employee alleging discrimination. In 15 years on the bench, Alito has filed more than a dozen dissents in criminal cases or cases involving the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Alito thinks its ok for marshals to pump a sawed-off shotgun at a family sitting around its living room – if they are being evicted.
It would be easier if these guys would adopt a name and a uniform, like some of their kind at other historical moments. But they have decided to present a kinder, gentler face until the coup is complete. I pray that I am being hyperbolic here. I really do. Meanwhile, I speak what I see. This is not a Supreme Court judge who would be good for Americans. I think you mean well, Jon, but you’ve been sucked in. Alito is a big boo-hiss.
I haven’t been sucked in by anything or anyone. I haven’t read or heard anything that makes me beleive he won’t make a good Associate Justice. I have heard plenty of what I believe to be nonsense reasons why he wouldn’t make a good Associate Justice, but I would expect that from Democrats and liberals.
Just because he appears to be willing to back up the Executive Branch doesn’t automatically disqualify him. I think it is obvious that your disapproval of President Bush and his administration is likely behind your being so adamant about the backing of the executive branch being a major point for your disapproval of Alito.
As I said previously, my argument is not that he should be unwilling to support the Executive Branch. Much of the time, the Supreme Court does support the administration. However, it is an important part of its function to be a check and balance on abuses of power, including those of the administrative branch.
I would be as adamant if Gore or Kerry were President and abusing power – especially if the abuses threatened our democracy, our rights, and our historical values as a country. You have said yourself that it is all about the party for you – that you felt comfortable with your double-standards with regard to Bush vs. Clinton. Don’t project that on me.
Unless the new “Republicans” really are going to disallow future elections, they too should be very concerned about the new radical doctrine of “unitary” executive power. I am sure that you and others will discover your disapproval later on…
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 47
You know what I find interesting, John? You blatantly contradict yourself and walk right by it.
“The only thing that should matter is can the nominee fullfill the duties as a Associate Justice; apply the correct constitutional law when it comes to the cases before the court. It isn’t the job of a Justice to rule based on his ideology or what his party affiliation says he should rule.”
You see, the “correct constitutional law” is, at heart, an ideological argument. You are arguing that it shouldn’t be an ideological decision because it is an ideological decision.
In your next comment you state:
“Just because he appears to be willing to back up the Executive Branch doesn’t automatically disqualify him.”
Yes, it does. Because being an Associate Justice means that he should back up the Constitution – not the Executive Branch. Your statement betrays your understanding that he is more allied with the President than he is with upholding a co-equal and independent branch.
The fact is that Alito sits on a fairly conservative appeals court – and yet he consistently finds himself in the minority. I’ve studied the Conservative Intellectual movement from its early foundings in the Southern Agrarian movement and traced it from there back to the anti-federalist sentiments. He simply doesn’t fit in as an intellectual Conservative.
XT