Dum Vivimus Servimus

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Samuel Alito’s America

Someone asked my concerns about Alito. These are some of them in addition to the Republicans view the W ignored that advice part of the advice and consent clause.

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]

2 Comments:

  • I'm not sure that the "advice" part of advice and consent was intended to be taken quite as literally as you're taking it. The Appointments Clause of the Constitution contemplates three actions:

    1. nomination (by the president);
    2. advice and consent (by the Senate); and,
    3. appointment (by the President).

    "Advice and Consent", the way I've seen it explained, is simply the confirmation process. In fact, delegates to the Constitutional Congress expressed concerns that "If the Senate had a formal prenomination advisory role, the Senate leaders and the President might well be tempted to make a deal that would serve their parochial interests and then be insulated from all but pro forma scrutiny."

    If you'd like a link to the entire essay, let me know.

    Also, I think that your talking points may be a little oversimplified. Rather than address each one individually (because it would take all day to link to the moutains of articles I've seen over the past few days), I'm going to toss out a completely different case..."Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell."

    Hustler ran a satirical advertisement which stated that Jerry Falwell lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued for libel and slander and won. Hustler appealed to the Supreme Court on 1st Amendment grounds. SCOTUS found, unanimously, in Hustler's favor.

    Does that mean that SCOTUS condoned porn? Does it mean that they agreed, from a moral or ethical standpoint, with Hustler on the content of the ad? No. Just means that court found that prior precedent protected this specific ad.

    My point is that decisions can be made that, although morally reprehensible to you (or me or anyone else), can be easily justified based on an interpretation of law or Supreme Court prescedent. One more interesting item I saw from the NYT:

    "The Supreme Court rejected the position set out by Judge Alito in a dissent in an abortion case. But in at least three other cases, it adopted the position advanced in his dissent.

    Frank B. Cross, a law professor at the University of Texas who has compiled a database tracking how the Supreme Court reviews appellate decisions, said: "This is the highest of anyone in the database. It shows that when his court took an important and controversial case and got it wrong, from the perspective of the Supreme Court, he identified that and dissented. Indeed, his dissent may have been part of what got the Supreme Court's attention."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/03/politics/politicsspecial1/03legal.html?hp&ex=1131080400&en=06d8abaea7152c38&ei=5094&partner=homepage

    (You're really going to have to teach me a better way of doing these links).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:16 AM  

  • I understand the advice and consent point but when your own party leaders say what they did it looks bad for you. Additionally, tradition has been that at least a meeting or two with the majority leader is sound practice and part of the tradition for major nominations.

    My concern is with the bias this candidate has shown in his views. Judicial activism happens from both the left and right. My concern is that this nominee will do just that. Additionally, his views that governemt should not interfer in anything except moral matters of his choosing.

    I love this quote. "Referred to as "Scalito" for his philosophical resemblance to Justice Antonin Scalia, federal appeals court Judge Alito is a clear opponent of reproductive freedom, protections for workers, and other individual rights."

    I staunchly support individual freedom. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion. I think there is an implied privacy implication in each. However, I feel governemnt can and should promote the common good.

    I fear this nominee views are the other way around.

    By Blogger ClayGunter, at 11:16 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home