We need at least one decision that encapsulates what's wrong with
Alito's view of the law, unites the maximum voters against him, and
divides the potential opposition.
And that case is Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic
Development, the decision where Alito ruled that the Family and
Medical Leave Act did not apply to millions of state employees across
the country. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/3rd/003140.html
This was a decision that was overturned by the Supreme Court, in a
decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/11/3/91248/1044
Fighting Alito: Why Chittister is the Key Case
By Nathan Newman
Politically, the pressures on parents in balancing work and family is
overwhelming.
That Alito would attack a common sense law like the Family and Medical
Leave Act in the name of "states rights" will seem to most such voters
as pure rightwing ideology.
And it can be painted as exactly the judicial activism, the
"legislating from the bench" that Bush claimed his judges would not
engage in.
If we want to encapsulate what the "federalism revolution" means, what
the "Constitution in Exile" means for average families, it is this:
ordinary laws enacted by democratic majorities will randomly be struck
down in the name of rightwing ideology.
It's worth thinking about why Renhquist, the original architect of the
federalism legal revolution, decided to uphold the Family and Medical
Leave Act when it came before the Supreme Court.
A pretty fair analysis is that, aside from the legal arguments,
Rehnquist recognized that a decision against the Family Leave law
would create such a backlash that it might endanger the whole legal
movement in the long term.
__________________________________________________________
Harry
.
|
