[Dialogue] Samuel Alito

[Chagnon@comcast.net]

I found the summary on Alito below very helpful.  It is from the MoveOn
website.  The last half is a Jan. 9 NY Times editorial on Alito that MoveOn
included after that summary.  
Lucille Chagnon
Wilmington, DE 

------------------------
>From MoveOn.org

Americans count on the Supreme Court to serve as a check against abuses of
power by the government or corporations. But Bush and his far-right base
have the opposite vision. They want a Court that gives the President
unchecked power (to tap our phones at will, for example) but renders
Congress powerless to protect us from things like corporate polluters,
discrimination, or unsafe conditions at work.
 Samuel Alito's nomination is Bush's attempt to impose this radical ideology
on the rest of us for decades to come. Here are just a few of the ways
Alito's extreme views would threaten individual rights:
 Privacy
	•	 Alito advocated for complete government immunity for
illegal wiretapping.1
	•	In a 2004 case, Alito tried to authorize the strip search of
a mother and her 10 year old daughter, without a warrant and in their own
home. He was overruled by his fellow judges.2
	•	Alito has written that one of the "legal positions in which
I personally believe very strongly" is that "the Constitution does not
protect a right to an abortion""—flatly contradicting Roe v. Wade.3

 Civil rights
	•	 In 1974, Edward Garner, an unarmed 15-year-old
African-American 8th grader, was shot dead in the back by the police in
Memphis, TN while fleeing from a $10 robbery. Alito agreed with the shooting
and when the law that had permitted it was ruled unconstitutional, he argued
that the Reagan administration should join the appeal. Reagan rejected the
advice.4
	•	After Knight Ridder newspapers reviewed all 311 of Alito's
published decisions, they noted that he almost never sided with an employee
in a case about discrimination on the basis of race, gender or disability.
In many cases, Alito attempted to set a standard that would prevent most
discrimination cases from even getting to trial.5 

 Worker's rights
	•	 Alito ruled that Congress did not have the authority to
guarantee state workers the right to care for loved ones in medical
emergencies—gutting the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Supreme Court
overturned his ruling.6
	•	Alito argued that Congress did not have the authority to
regulate the sale and possession of machine guns—he was overruled by his
fellow judges. The logic he used in his dissent would threaten Congress's
ability to enact almost all worker protections, environmental protections,
and civil rights laws.7

 Sources:
1. Washington Post, December 24, 2005
2. Boston Globe, November 25, 2005
3. http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/alito/111585stmnt2.html
4. Slate, December 2, 2005
5. Knight Ridder, December 1, 2005
6. http://aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/upload/alito_review.pdf
7. Wall Street Journal, November 4, 2005
8. Washington Post, January 8, 2006


-------------------------------------------

 The New York Times 
 Judging Samuel Alito

 Judicial nominations are not always motivated by ideology, but the
nomination of Judge Samuel Alito certainly was. President Bush's previous
choice to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court,
Harriet Miers, was hounded into withdrawing by the far right, primarily
because she appeared to hold moderate views on a variety of legal issues.
President Bush placated Ms. Miers's conservative critics by nominating Judge
Alito, who has long been one of their favorites.
 Judge Alito's confirmation hearings begin tomorrow. He may be able to use
them to reassure the Senate that he will be respectful of rights that
Americans cherish, but he has a lengthy and often troubling record he will
have to explain away. As a government lawyer, he worked to overturn Roe v.
Wade. He has disturbing beliefs on presidential power—a critical issue for
the country right now. He has worked to sharply curtail Congress's power to
pass laws and protect Americans. He may not even believe in "one person one
vote."
 The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around Judge
Alito's confirmation. But the public is skeptical. In a new Harris poll,
just 34 percent of those surveyed said they thought he should be confirmed,
while 31 percent said he should not, and 34 percent were unsure. Nearly 70
percent said they would oppose Judge Alito's nomination if they thought he
would vote to make abortion illegal—which it appears he might well do.
 If President Bush had chosen a pragmatic, mainstream conservative like
Justice O'Connor to fill the seat, these confirmation hearings would be a
breeze. But now, the Senate has a duty to delve into the many areas in which
Judge Alito's record suggests he is an extremist, including:
 ABORTION Judge Alito has not only opposed Roe v. Wade, he has also worked
to overturn it. When he applied for a promotion in the Reagan administration
in 1985, he wrote that he was "particularly proud" of his legal arguments
"that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." In meetings
with senators, Judge Alito has talked about his respect for Roe, but he has
said nothing to discourage his supporters on the religious right who back
him because they believe he will vote to overturn it. The American people
have a right to know, unambiguously, where Judge Alito stands on Roe.
 PRESIDENTIAL POWER
 The continuing domestic wiretapping scandal shows that the Bush
administration has a dangerous view of its own powers, and the Supreme Court
is the most important check on such excesses. But Judge Alito has some
disturbing views about handing the president even more power. He has argued
that courts interpreting statutes should consider the president's intent
when he signed the law to be just as important as Congress's intent in
writing and passing the law. It is a radical suggestion that indicates he
has an imperial view of presidential power.
 CONGRESSIONAL POWER
 While Judge Alito seems intent on expanding the president's power, he has
called for sharply reducing the power of Congress. In United States v.
Rybar, he wrote a now-infamous dissent arguing that Congress exceeded its
power in passing a law that banned machine guns. As a Reagan administration
lawyer, he argued that Congress did not have the power to pass the Truth in
Mileage Act to protect consumers from odometer fraud.
 ONE PERSON ONE VOTE
 Judge Alito said in his 1985 application that he had become interested in
constitutional law as a student partly because of his opposition to the
Warren court's reapportionment rulings, which created the "one person one
vote" standard. He seems to still have believed as a 35-year-old lawyer that
these cases, which made legislative districts much more fair, came out the
wrong way.
 There are other areas—including civil rights, sex discrimination, the
environment and criminal law—where Judge Alito's record appears extreme. The
Senate should question him closely on all of them.
 The Senate should also explore Judge Alito's honesty. According to a
senator he met with, he tried to dismiss his statement about the
Constitution's not protecting abortion as merely part of a job application,
which suggests he will bend the truth when it suits his purposes. Judge
Alito has said he does not recall being in an ultraconservative group called
Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which opposed co-education and affirmative
action. That is odd, since he boasted of his membership in that same 1985
job application. The tortuous history of his promise to Congress to recuse
himself in cases involving the Vanguard companies, which he ultimately
failed to do, should also be explored.
 Judge Alito's nomination is often presented as an abortion rights showdown,
but it is much more than that. Those who care about the broad range of
rights and liberties that Americans now have, and about honesty in
government, should tune into the hearings starting tomorrow—and call their
senators with their reactions to what they hear