Alito — Not Fit for the Court
by Pamela LeaveyThe Boston Globe published a strong opinion against Samuel Alito today — Alito is “Not fit for the court.” Just a reminder on that note, if you haven’t called your Senators, please do. If you have not signed the Petition at SaveTheCourt.org, please do. Raise your voices!!!
SAMUEL ALITO tells a moving and very American personal story about the path his immigrant father took to raise a son who would one day be poised to sit on the US Supreme Court. But Judge Alito’s judicial philosophy, his written record of court decisions, and his unconvincing, sometimes evasive, answers in his nomination hearings far outweigh the personal appeal. He should not be sent to the Supreme Court, where he could reverse the progress this nation has made toward lifting precisely the kinds of barriers his father struggled to overcome.
In four days of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alito appeared contained and well informed. But Americans who were concerned about his views on presidential power, privacy, and minority rights heard little to have those fears allayed.Alito declared his overarching constitutional philosophy of originalism: a strict adherence to the actual written text. In deciding court opinions, he said, ”We should look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption.” Given that, at the time of its adoption, women could not vote and slaves were considered three-fifths of a person, such a philosophy is outdated, to say the least.
On the right to a legal abortion, Alito said he would keep an open mind and repeatedly talked about respect for precedent. But Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, perhaps not overly helpful, got Alito to agree that if the court ”makes a mistake” and reaches a ruling that is ”repugnant,” precedent need not have much weight at all.
On executive powers, Alito distanced himself somewhat from a radical approach he once seemed to embrace, telling the committee that the president is not above the law. But in the current dispute about secret domestic wiretapping, President Bush’s supporters insist the law is on his side. MORE
Filed under: Democrats, In The News, Republicans, Senate | Get Permalink or trackback |
I’ve read so many excellent arguments against Alito. This is a good article as well. Thanks, Pamela! I have of course called not only my senators (not sure that did much good seeing that way Cornyn was fawning over Alito at the hearings) but other senators, too.
But speaking of Alito and senators, Pamela, there are some inappropriate and offensive comments on tedkennedy.com that I think should be removed, if you could contact whoever you contact…? Thanks. Some people are sick.
NT4K
I’ll send Crystal an email. Thanks.
And yes very good editorial from the Globe.
“Alito declared his overarching constitutional philosophy of originalism: a strict adherence to the actual written textAlito declared his overarching constitutional philosophy of originalism: a strict adherence to the actual written text.”
The right wing claims a support for the Constitution when it suits them, but is quick to ignore it in other areas, such as in allowing greater power to the President and Commander in Chief than supported by the authors of the Constitution, and in showing a lack of support for civil liberties.
Ron,
When we actually have something that DID have Intelligent Design, they don’t get it…. Or they want to pretend so they can make it THEIR design.
Oh, the STUPIDITY !
The Risks of Rejecting Alito
Much has been written about the possibility of the “nuclear option” in battling an attempted filibuster of a Supreme Court nomination by Senate Democrats i.e. the banning of the practice altogether. Risk of losing that tool isn’t th…
The Boston Globe really embarrassed itself with this editorial.
The author of this editorial was either ignorant or horribly deceptive… “Given that, at the time of its adoption, women could not vote and slaves were considered three-fifths of a person, such a philosophy is outdated, to say the least.” That’s crazy— OF COURSE Alito’s comments account for AMENDMENTS to the Constititution, which he would likewise seek to give original meaning to. And incidentally, the 3/5 person portion of the Constition was a compromise– the anti-slavery north wanted slaves to count for ZERO because the slaves would be counted towards the South’s share of Representatives in the House even though blacks could not vote.
Libertarian Republican
You just embarassed yourself with your bigoted statements.
Okay, Pamela, since you are an expert on bigotry, perhaps you could move beyond a bland ad hominem attack and explain exactly why my statements are “bigoted.”
Actually Libertarina Republican has a point. It is possible for people to interpret the Constitution based upon original meaning and also include the Amendments.
I don’t think he was being bigotted in the comment on some wanting the slaves to be counted as zero. It is a historical fact that many did want to count slaves as zero and this was a compromise made.
My real problem is as stated above–those who claim to go back to the original meaning of the Constitution tend to do so in certain areas but not others. For example, Alito would seem to allow more power to the President than intended.
This explanation of the Three-Fifth Compromise from Wikipedia will further explain my comments earlier… still waiting on a retraction from Pamela.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
Since slaves could not vote, the benefit of counting any portion of the slave population for the purposes of apportionment fell to the slave-holding class. In other words, counting slaves as full persons would have increased the political power of the slave-holding states in the House of Representatives, which would presumably be to the further detriment of the slaves themselves.
Libertarian Republican
If I said something off the cuff, I apologize… Honestly I am in the midst of solving some computer issues, and don’t have time to argue with libertarian republicans at this time.
I’ll also add that I stand by my opinion which is the same as the Boston Globe’s – Alito is not fit for the Supreme Court. I believe that is the consensus of the majority of Democrats, so you are wasting your time here if you want to come along and bash the Boston Globe or the position of Democrats on Alito.
Ah, I never think that discussing politics with others who disagree with me is a waste of time… Anyways, I’m off to the Kennedy Center to commemorate that great American hero, Martin Luther King, Jr.
Libertarian Republican
it’s not a waste of time – it’s something I don’t have time for at this time. Enjoy your day.