From a New York Times editorial, 1/23/06:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/opinion/23mon1.html
Judge Alito's Radical Views
If Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings lacked drama, apart
from his wife's bizarrely over-covered crying jag, it is because they
confirmed the obvious.
Judge Alito is exactly the kind of legal thinker President Bush wants
on the Supreme Court.
He has a radically broad view of the president's power, and a
radically narrow view of Congress's power.
He has long argued that the Constitution does not protect abortion
rights.
He wants to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and
has a history of tilting the scales of justice against the little guy.
As senators prepare to vote on the nomination, they should ask
themselves only one question:
will replacing Sandra Day O'Connor with Judge Alito be a step forward
for the nation, or a step backward?
Instead of Justice O'Connor's pragmatic centrism, which has kept
American law on a steady and well-respected path, Judge Alito is
likely to bring a movement conservative's approach to his role and to
the Constitution.
Judge Alito may be a fine man, but he is not the kind of justice the
country needs right now.
Senators from both parties should oppose his nomination.
It is likely that Judge Alito was chosen for his extreme views on
presidential power.
The Supreme Court, with Justice O'Connor's support, has played a key
role in standing up to the Bush administration's radical view of its
power, notably that it can hold, indefinitely and without trial,
anyone the president declares an "unlawful enemy combatant."
Judge Alito would no doubt try to change the court's approach.
He has supported the fringe "unitary executive" theory, which would
give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw
off the checks and balances built into the Constitution.
He has also put forth the outlandish idea that if the president makes
a statement when he signs a bill into law, a court interpreting the
law should give his intent the same weight it gives to Congress's
intent in writing and approving the law.
Judge Alito would also work to reduce Congress's power in other ways.
In a troubling dissent, he argued that Congress exceeded its authority
when it passed a law banning machine guns, and as a government lawyer
he insisted Congress did not have the power to protect car buyers from
falsified odometers.
There is every reason to believe, based on his long paper trail and
the evasive answers he gave at his hearings, that Judge Alito would
quickly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
So it is hard to see how Senators Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe and
Susan Collins, all Republicans, could square support for Judge Alito
with their commitment to abortion rights.
Judge Alito has consistently shown a bias in favor of those in power
over those who need the law to protect them.
Women, racial minorities, the elderly and workers who come to court
seeking justice should expect little sympathy.
In the same flat bureaucratic tones he used at the hearings, he is
likely to insist that the law can do nothing for them.
The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around
this nomination.
But there is no reason to believe that Judge Alito is any more popular
than the president who nominated him.
Outside a small but vocal group of hard-core conservatives, America
has greeted the nomination with a shrug - and counted on its senators
to make the right decision.
The real risk for senators lies not in opposing Judge Alito, but in
voting for him.
If the far right takes over the Supreme Court, American law and life
could change dramatically.
If that happens, many senators who voted for Judge Alito will no doubt
come to regret that they did not insist that Justice O'Connor's seat
be filled with someone who shared her cautious, centrist approach to
the law.
___________________________________________________________
Harry
.
|
