« Report from Summit County Brunch | Main | Our Senators Respond .. Well One of them Responds »
October 31, 2005
It's ... Scalito!!!
If folks thought President Bush could not do any worse than Harriet Miers, the White House worked heavily to prove that notion wrong this morning.
As most of you know, President Bush announced today that he is nominating Samuel Alito as a Justice on the United States Supreme Court. Judge Alito hasn't earned the nickname "Scalito" for nothing.
Think Progress has a great first take on some of Alito's radical views:
ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]
ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]
ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]
ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]
Once again, President Bush has treated his appointment to the Supreme Court as an absolute right, ignoring the very important need to have the Senate "advise and consent" on that choice.
Senator Harry Reid was right to object to these heavy-handed tactics:
I am disappointed in this choice for several reasons. First, unlike previous nominations, this one was not the product of consultation with Senate Democrats. Last Friday, Senator Leahy and I wrote to President Bush urging him to work with us to find a consensus nominee. The President has rejected that approach....
I look forward to meeting Judge Alito and learning why those who want to pack the Court with judicial activists are so much more enthusiastic about him than they were about Harriet Miers.
While it was clear that Harriet Miers was not qualified for the Supreme Court, it was also clear that the right-wing radicals who objected to her nomination -- the same ones clamoring for "up or down votes" for the President's nominees -- clearly only want up-or-down votes for nominees they've rubber-stamped in advance.
Sadly, it seems like Judge Alito has received that rubber stamp from the most radical in our society. We cannot affort to turn the clock back; we cannot afford somebody who is to the right of Scalia on the Supreme Court.
Posted by dslater at October 31, 2005 10:17 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://WWW.demnotes.COM/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/240