Alito

[OnyxCougar]

You know, I never used to get these emails until I started coming here. *mutters* Damn people have corrupted me and shattered my little protective bubble of ignorance...

Emphasis Mine

Dear MoveOn member,

As we begin the new year, Washington is turning its attention toward Samuel Alito, the far-right judge President Bush nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. The Senate hearings are only a few days away, and we've reached a critical time to act.

When applying for a top job in the Reagan administration, Alito proudly touted his membership in the "Concerned Alumni of Princeton,"1 a far right group that sought to restrict the admission of women and minorities. The group was so extreme that even fellow alumni Bill Frist called their views "distorted, narrow and hostile."2 Now, Alito claims he "cannot recall" ever being a member.3

Unfortunately, this is just one example of Alito's many decpetive attempts to hide his extreme right wing views on issues like civil rights, worker's rights and privacy. That's why we're aiming to deliver 50,000 letters to the Senate this week opposing Samuel Alito and demanding a Supreme Court nominee we can trust to protect our constitutional rights.

You can write and send your letter online here:

http://www.political.moveon.org/alitoletters? =&id=6603-6723646-zrZlVm84EwFZSaYvLsNDwQ&t=2

Writing a letter to your Senators just takes a minute, and you don't have to be an expert—just tell your Senators why opposing this nomination is important to you.

There are many reasons to oppose Alito, and the leading national advocates on civil rights, privacy, worker's rights, women's rights, the environment, gay and lesbian rights, and religious liberty have all opposed Alito. To help you write your letter, we've included some of their reasons for opposing Alito below.

Alito has shown a disturbing record of being willing to say anything to get a job—citing his extreme views in some cases, and hiding them in others. Here are two more examples of this kind of deception:

Constitutional views: When applying for a job in the Regan administration, Alito wrote of his strong strong belief that the Constitution does not legally protect a woman's right to choose.4 Last month, he claimed that he only said it to get a job.5 If he would deceive about something so important for that job, what would he say to get on the Supreme Court?

Judicial ethics: During the nomination process for his current post as a federal judge, Alito promised the Senate, in writing, that he would not rule on cases that he had a personal financial stake in.6 He broke that promise, repeatedly.7

All Americans can agree that we must be able to trust the Supreme Court to protect our core rights and freedoms and act with integrity. Alito's extreme views and record of deception make him the wrong choice for our country.

As the far-right barrages the Senate with millions of dollars of advertising and swarms of lobbyists, it's critical that your senators hear from directly from you. Please take a minute to write your Senators and help us deliver 50,000 personal letters opposing Alito's nomination to the Senate in the next week.

http://www.political.moveon.org/alitoletters? =&id=6603-6723646-zrZlVm84EwFZSaYvLsNDwQ&t=3

Standing up to President Bush and stopping this nomination will require extraordinary courage from our representatives in Washington. But pushing our leaders to actually lead is what you do best, and this is a fight we can win.

Thanks for all that you do,

–Ben

P.S. In the past two months, dozens of organizations across the political spectrum, representing millions of Americans, have publicly opposed Alito's nomination. Here's just a few, and what they had to say:

AFL-CIO

"We are compelled to oppose [Alito's] nomination to be an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court. ...Judge Alito's decisions and dissents show a disturbing tendency to take an extremely narrow and restrictive view of laws passed by Congress to protect workers' rights, resulting in workers being deprived of wage and hour, health and safety, anti-discrimination, pension and other important protections."8

NAACP

"We have undertaken an extensive review of Judge Alito's civil rights record spanning his career as a lawyer and a judge...As a result we have concluded that Judge Alito's confirmation would cause a substantial shift in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on civil rights and that his confirmation would be to the detriment of the nation. Thus, we are compelled to oppose his nomination."9

Sierra Club

In the first such move since the Bork nomination of 1987, on December 20 the Sierra Club joined with other national environmental groups to urge Senators to oppose the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. Americans deserve mainstream, independent Justices, with unassailable integrity, who will protect individual rights and freedoms. Unfortunately, Judge Alito's opinions and other statements, combined with a disturbing lack of candor since being nominated, show that Judge Alito cannot be trusted to protect those rights and freedoms.10

NARAL Pro-Choice America

Samuel Alito, Jr. of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is an anti-choice jurist. As a member of the three-judge panel that heard Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey before the case went to the Supreme Court, Alito wrote a dissent in which he argued to uphold even more abortion restrictions than the Supreme Court eventually upheld in its now-famous decision. Alito, who has been called "a favorite son of the political right," would likely vote to eviscerate or eliminate the protections of Roe as a member of the Supreme Court.11

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

According to Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., the First Amendment puts
few limitations on politically powerful majorities' ability to use the
machinery of government to advance their religious views, even at
the expense of the religious freedom of minorities. Replacing Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor with Judge Alito would fundamentally alter
First Amendment law and immediately put at risk many of the crucial
protections for religious minorities that the Supreme Court has
recognized and consistently enforced over the past sixty years.12


The Human Rights Campaign

As a Judge, Samuel Alito struck down a school policy that protected gay students from harassment. He is far to the right of Justice O'Connor on due process and reproductive rights. Judge Alito's narrow view of Congress would dangerously threaten Congress' power to enact non-discrimination legislation protecting citizens and has failed to distance himself from a group that advocated discrimination of which he was a member. In short, Judge Alito is the wrong choice for the Supreme Court.13


People for the American Way

Samuel Alito has been a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit since his appointment by the first President Bush in 1990. In that time, Alito has compiled an extensive, extreme right-wing judicial record on numerous matters of importance to the protection of the rights and interests of ordinary Americans—a record that has earned him the nickname "Scalito" for his ideological resemblance to Justice Antonin Scalia. Alito's judicial opinions demonstrate that he is an out of the mainstream opponent of fundamental legal rights and protections for all Americans and must not be confirmed to the Supreme Court.14


Sources:

1. "Alito '72 joined conservative alumni group" Daily Princetonian, November 18, 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1304

2. "From Alito's Past, a Window on Conservatives at Princeton," The New York Times, November 27, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1315

3. "'No recollection of CAP, Alito says" The Daily Princetonian, December 1, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1306

4. "Alito Distancing Himself from Views on Abortion in '85 Letter," Washington Post, November 16, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1307

5. "Alito to Feinstein: 'It was different then...'" Washington Post, November 15, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1308

6. "Plaintiff alleges Alito Conflict" Boston Globe, November 3, 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1309

7. "Democrats Query Nominee on Ethics" Washington Post, November 10, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1310

8. "AFL-CIO Announces its Opposition to Nomination of Judge Alito to U.S. Supreme Court," AFL-CIO, December 14, 2005
http://aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/pr12142005.cfm

9. Report on the Nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to the Supreme Court," NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, December 15, 2005
http://www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/...ted_States.pdf

10. "Supreme Court Nominee Judge Samuel Alito, Jr.," Sierra Club, December 20, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1311

11. "Facts about Samuel Alito," NARAL Pro-Choice America
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1312

12. "Report Opposing Confirmation of Samuel A, Alito Jr. as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court," Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1313

13. "Judge Samuel Alito: The Wrong Choice to Protect our Civil Rights," The Human Rights Campaign
http://www.hrc.org/supremecourt/

14. "Samuel Alito: Leading the Attack on Fundamental Legal Rights and Protections for All Americans," People for the American Way
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1314

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

You know, I never used to get these emails until I started coming here. *mutters* Damn people have corrupted me and shattered my little protective bubble of ignorance...

Emphasis Mine

Wait till you start getting the right-wing e-mails. They beat the liberals to the website registration. This reminds me of a report I saw on Afghanistan last night. It turns out the US destablized Afghanistan to prevent the Russians from gaining a foothold there and dominating the region. We spent a large amount of money doing this, and set the stage for the Taliban and Bin Laden.

From declassified Russian documents, it does not appear that this was their intention. They were involved in Afghanistan because they thought that we wanted to dominate the entire region and install bases. This was never our stated intent.

If both sides are to be believed, the entire Afghanistan conflict resulted from each side getting interested because the other side appeared to be showing too much interest.

Alito really is an enigma. On the surface he does appear to take a 'by the book' constitutional approach which maybe originalism or may even be the even more narrow 'strict construcionalism'. His work as a lawyer in the Justice Department appears to point to conservative activism, but that may be misleading. As a lawyer, it was his job to do what he was asked, assuming the task was not illegal. So his theorizing about ways to introduce the conservative agenda were part of his job, and he may not be attached to them enough to be influenced as a justice.

In the end, social conservatives believe that they are owed something by the adminstration and are assuming that Alito is their payoff. There is no definitive proof of this. In the end, the conservatives and liberals are fighting over Alito because of the interest of the opposing side. If anything, Alito might be a gift to Bush's business donors.

In any case, expect the e-mails, TV ads, and web postings to heat up in the next few weeks.

I do think Alito is his own person, and not some fawning idiot, so I think that GWB will be disappointed if he looks for approval on renditions, torture, and other 'war' issues. The Bill of Rights were written after a war in which our founding fathers were the insurgents, so the 'enemy combatant' argument will have a limited amount of traction there when applied to US citizens.

[wolf]

Gee, he sounds really scary when you only look at teeny weeny pieces of his career.

[Happy Monkey]

And he looks bleh when you look at the rest. So on average, somewhat scary.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Wait till you start getting the right-wing e-mails. They beat the liberals to the website registration. This reminds me of a report I saw on Afghanistan last night. It turns out the US destablized Afghanistan to prevent the Russians from gaining a foothold there and dominating the region. We spent a large amount of money doing this, and set the stage for the Taliban and Bin Laden.

From declassified Russian documents, it does not appear that this was their intention. They were involved in Afghanistan because they thought that we wanted to dominate the entire region and install bases. This was never our stated intent.

If both sides are to be believed, the entire Afghanistan conflict resulted from each side getting interested because the other side appeared to be showing too much interest.

Alito really is an enigma. On the surface he does appear to take a 'by the book' constitutional approach which maybe originalism or may even be the even more narrow 'strict construcionalism'. His work as a lawyer in the Justice Department appears to point to conservative activism, but that may be misleading. As a lawyer, it was his job to do what he was asked, assuming the task was not illegal. So his theorizing about ways to introduce the conservative agenda were part of his job, and he may not be attached to them enough to be influenced as a justice.

In the end, social conservatives believe that they are owed something by the adminstration and are assuming that Alito is their payoff. There is no definitive proof of this. In the end, the conservatives and liberals are fighting over Alito because of the interest of the opposing side. If anything, Alito might be a gift to Bush's business donors.

In any case, expect the e-mails, TV ads, and web postings to heat up in the next few weeks.

I do think Alito is his own person, and not some fawning idiot, so I think that GWB will be disappointed if he looks for approval on renditions, torture, and other 'war' issues. The Bill of Rights were written after a war in which our founding fathers were the insurgents, so the 'enemy combatant' argument will have a limited amount of traction there when applied to US citizens.

What a good post, richlevy.

Your analogy is apt and insightful. Bonus points for the tie in to current events. Overall a pleasure to read. I also hope your analysis about being his own man is on target. I haven't enough evidence yet to make a decision with confidence.

Originally Posted by wolf

Gee, he sounds really scary when you only look at teeny weeny pieces of his career.

Well. Wolfster, use that intellect of yours to do something other than looking at the fragments. You might start with the 72 page analysis given by your favorite commie outfit, the ACLU

Since, I realize your time is limited and you have many nuts to crack, I'll reprint their synopsis here:

Alito’s intellectual qualifications are not in doubt. He has a stellar academic record and has held a succession of important government positions during his career. His opinions as a judge are thoughtful and, on the whole, cautious. Generally speaking, he operates within existing precedent rather than rails against it. This judicial style may be partially temperamental; in part, it undoubtedly reflects his role as a circuit court judge bound by Supreme Court caselaw. However, there is often considerable room to interpret Supreme Court decisions and congressional statutes, and Alito has regularly used that room as an opportunity to narrow and restrict civil rights and civil liberties protections. For example, Alito:

1) Wrote a dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey arguing that a state’s spousal notification requirement did not unduly burden a woman’s right to privacy, a position later rejected by the Supreme Court;
2) Joined a dissent arguing that a student-led prayer at a high school graduation ceremony did not violate the Establishment Clause;
3) Wrote several dissents arguing for tighter standards for plaintiffs seeking trial on their race, gender and disability discrimination claims;
4) Dissented from a decision ruling that the strip search of a suspect’s wife and ten-year-old daughter exceeded the scope of the search warrant and was therefore unconstitutional;
5) Rejected a death row inmate’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim where the trial counsel had failed to uncover substantial mitigating evidence – a decision later reversed by the Supreme Court;
6) Dissented from an en banc ruling in a death penalty case arguing that the prosecution had unconstitutionally used its peremptory challenges to exclude all the black prospective jurors;
7) Wrote a dissent arguing that a policy prohibiting all prisoners in long-term segregation from possessing newspapers, magazines or photographs unless they were religious or legal did not violate the First Amendment.

It is, of course, impossible to summarize a fifteen-year judicial career in a few bullet points. But it is also fair to say that these highlighted decisions illustrate a broader pattern of judicial decision-making. By and large, Alito’s opinions make it more difficult for plaintiffs alleging discrimination to prevail, easier for the government to lend its support to religion, and harder to challenge questionable tactics by the police and prosecution.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by wolf

Gee, he sounds really scary when you only look at teeny weeny pieces of his career.

The part that scares me is that he says stuff like he really means it, then when the chips are down, he forgets he said it. He admitted to saying stuff just to get a job. Hells bells! I admire his honesty in that statement, but at the same time it terrifies me that we'll have a person on the supreme court for life, and we don't really know what he stands for, because anything coming out of his mouth at the point, by his own admission, means nothing.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

The part that scares me is that he says stuff like he really means it, then when the chips are down, he forgets he said it. He admitted to saying stuff just to get a job. Hells bells! I admire his honesty in that statement, but at the same time it terrifies me that we'll have a person on the supreme court for life, and we don't really know what he stands for, because anything coming out of his mouth at the point, by his own admission, means nothing.

In other words, a lawyer.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But he's not a lawyer, he WAS a lawyer, now he's a judge.

Saying stuff to just get the job is unacceptable even in as sleezy a profession as the law. Maybe he said that he just said that to get the job to get THIS job. An individual who admits that he has acted with such a lack of integrity might be granted probation and a chance to do things right this time, but certainly should not be allowed anywhere near a position as a Supreme Court Justice in the United States. Surely, our nation has suffered enough at the hands of those out for merely their own gain and the country, along with their fellow countrymen, be damned.

[wolf]

Thank you for the analysis, Mari.

His decisions have been overturned. Not an unusual circumstance. Does anybody list a percentage for that?

Of the 7 examples (out of how many hundreds of cases he's heard?) you state there are a few where I would have potentially been on the dissenting side, but I can't say that with authority without reading the actual decisions.

I don't see how #7 is a First Amendment issue at all ... freedom of the press does not include a guarantee of freedom of access TO the press. I checked.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by wolf

I don't see how #7 is a First Amendment issue at all ... freedom of the press does not include a guarantee of freedom of access TO the press. I checked.

It's probably a speech issue and not a press issue. The possession and display of pictures of one's choosing is an expression of non-verbal speech, similar to the display of a flag.

Also, knowledge of current events is necessary to stay informed and form opinions, which are a necessary component of speech. Deliberately keeping someone ignorant is depriving them of the right to have an opinion.

Originally Posted by wolf

Of the 7 examples (out of how many hundreds of cases he's heard?) you state there are a few where I would have potentially been on the dissenting side, but I can't say that with authority without reading the actual decisions.

I don't see how #7 is a First Amendment issue at all ... freedom of the press does not include a guarantee of freedom of access TO the press. I checked.

Minor point: Actually, the ACLU is giving these examples. I just snipped 'em up from the 72 page analysis that I gave the link to above.

Where did you see a discussion of the difference between freedom of the press versus free access to the press? That sounds like Orwellian double-speak to me: "You may write anything you want but you can't show what you've written to anybody else." How is that freedom of the press?

What if some of these prisoners had been wrongfully prosecuted by a corrupt DA or judge? The DA or judge is later on indicted and the case is duely reported in the local paper, Wouldn't it be important for the prisoners to know about this, so that they could request that their own cases be reviewed in light of this development? That's just one hypothetical of many that I could come up with.

Bottom line, I'm with Onyx. Who cares about any of the rest of this stuff, though? The man admitted to lying about his stance on certain issues in order to "get the job." This is completely unacceptable. I'd grant him probation and a chance to do the right thing this time around, but I certainly wouldn't grant someone so lacking in integrity a place on the Supreme Court Bench.

What? Have we all gone nuts? Are we so jaded that now politicians can openly admit that they are liars and all we do is thank them for their "honesty"?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by richlevy

It's probably a speech issue and not a press issue. The possession and display of pictures of one's choosing is an expression of non-verbal speech, similar to the display of a flag.

Also, knowledge of current events is necessary to stay informed and form opinions, which are a necessary component of speech. Deliberately keeping someone ignorant is depriving them of the right to have an opinion.

I think you're reaching on that one, Rich. The Constitution says we have the right to form and express an opinion. As you can easily observe all around you and in some media, an informed opinion is neither expected nor required.
Hell, you don't even need one to vote.

[richlevy]

I was watching the Alito hearings today. I have to say, he acquitted himself very well, although he really gave some disingenuous answers. One part of the questioning revolved around 'signing statements' which Alito pushed for during the Reagan adminstration.

In effect, a president can write a signing statment completely undermining his support of the law, which is what happened with the torture ban. Up until now, the courts have not given this much weight. Since Alito worked for the adminstration that came up with them and strongly recommended them, the big question is if he will be the first Supreme Court justice to do so.

He really tap danced around the answer to that question by Kennedy. The next Senator in line basically did not ask Alito questions but instead chose to make a speech on his behalf.

In effect, people had better start praying for a two party split between the executive and legislative branches because Alito seems to be a guy who is unwilling to put on any brakes when it comes to executive power.