What If Alito Had Been A Liberal?
An easy way to determine if you're being a partisan hack or biased apologist for your side of the fight is to stand the situation on its head and see how you would react if the shoe were on the other foot, a technique unfortunately infrequently practiced by our media and politicians. I understand how difficult and painful this is for neocons, so I'll try to make it easy for them here.
Let's say in the 1990s Clinton had nominated a very liberal but experienced judge to the Supreme Court and among the questions about his past were:
-- In college he joined an ultra-left group called Students for a Socialist America. Fifteen years after graduation, he used this affiliation on his resume in an attempt to get a job with a leftist organization. Today he claims that he doesn't remember any such affiliation or using it on his resume and, besides, he was 'only' a grass-green kid of 35 at the time. What would be your reaction, Mr. and Mrs. Neocon; would you find this explanation credible?
-- Although he has been a steadfast supporter of abortion rights throughout his life and has consistently, in several government jobs and from the bench, issued opinions contrary to anti-abortion groups, today he maintains that he could fairly judge abortion cases that may come before the high court. Would O'Reilly and Rush buy that logic?
-- An examination of his record of decisions in more than a decade as a federal judge reveal that he overwhelmingly decided in favor of the liberal position in his cases and dissenting opinions from the majority position. Would Orrin Hatch and Jeff Sessions merely say that Clinton should be allowed to have whatever appointee he wants and that, because of his experience on the bench, they know he'll be 'fair' to their side as a Supreme Court Justice?
-- In case after case, he has opposed the government wiretapping or conducting surveillance of American citizens, even in extreme situations of national security; he has consistently upheld the right of the individual to bankrupt corporations through lawsuits, even if the corporation was not directly at fault in the matter; he has advocated rights for Americans not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, leading even some of his allies to call him an 'activist judge.' Throughout his career, in every important decision, he has advanced his ideological philosophy at the expense of the law. Would Red Staters sit back and feel comfortable giving this man a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land?
-- Finally, in glaring conflicts of interest, he has decided cases in favor of a company in which he had a substantial financial investment, and for his sister, who appeared before him as a defense attorney. Today he claims that the reaason the company and his sister were left off his list of recusable cases for many years was either an 'oversight' or 'a computer glitch.' Would Sean Hannity and Joe Scarborough mildly accept that a man who had hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in a company wouldn't be aware of that fact, and wouldn't recognize his own sister in a courtroom?
Yet, this is what the Republicans are trying to sell in reverse. That Samuel Alito is a fair-minded and impartial man who would not bring his ultra-right ideology, and his less-than-sterling ethical sense, to the high court.
The question is: Who do they think they're kidding?
-----------------------------------
Fact and Fiction on Alito
From The Progress Report, Jan. 12, 2006:
SUPREME COURT
The Alito Myths
Senators in yesterday's Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito were spinning myths about the type of nominee they would like to have, failingto recognize the actual man standing before them. But don't let the conservative senators fool you -- their statements that Alito will practice judicial restraint, will not have an agenda, and will decide each case on an individual basis if appointed to the Supreme Court don't hold water. Throughout his career,Alito has pushed a right-wing agenda and "could prove [to be] more conservative than Antonin Scalia" if approved to the Supreme Court.
CLAIM -- ALITO HAS SHOWN JUDICIAL RESTRAINT: Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH): "Judges are not members of Congress, they're not state legislators, governors, norpresidents. Their job is not to pass laws, implement regulations, nor to make policy. ... And, Judge, from what I've seen so far, you don't need much reminding on this score." Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA): "I'm hopeful that his commitment to judicial restraint and to confining decisions to the law and theConstitution will shine through in this hearing."
FACT -- ALITO HAS A HISTORY OF LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH: While on the federal bench, Alito has been more than willing to actively overstep judicial boundaries and overturn existing laws. Lawrence Lustberg, a criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito since 1981, described him as "an activist conservatist judge." In 1996, Alito was the sole dissenter in U.S. v. Rybar, arguing that Congress had no power under the Commerce Clause to ban fully automatic machine guns and demanding that "Congress be required to make findings showing a link between the regulation and its effect on interstate commerce, or that Congress or the president document such a link with empirical evidence." The majority sharply disagreed with Alito: "We know of no authority to support such a demand on Congress," which would require the federal government to "play Show and Tell with the federal courts." Even Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) had to admit that Alito"was legislating" in this case. Additionally, in the 2000 case Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, Alito used his judicial position to "prevent the federal government from enforcing civil rights protections" by ruling that Congress overstepped its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore had no power to require state employers tocomply with the Family Medical Leave Act.
CLAIM -- ALITO HAS PUT HIS PERSONAL VIEWS ASIDE: Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ): "Thus,even in your early 20s, it appears you were focused on the law as an independent pursuit, rather than using law to influence political ends."
FACT -- ALITO HAS PUSHED A CONSERVATIVE AGENDA: Alito's conservative politics -- going back to his days in the right-wing Concerned Alumni of Princeton group --have appeared throughout his career. While applying for a job in the Reagan administration in 1985, Alito wrote that "the Constitution does not protect aright to an abortion" and while in the Solicitor General's office, he was able to "help advance legal positions in which [he] personally believe[s] verystrongly." These assertions were Alito's personal views, not the views of his employer. While working in the Reagan administration, Alito strategically advised his employers how to push a right-wing agenda through the courts. In 1985, as an assistant solicitor general, Alito "urged the Justice Department to defend incremental state restrictions on abortion as part of a long-term strategy 'to advance... the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade, and in the meantime, of mitigating its effects.'" Similarly, in 1984, Alito wrote that theU.S. attorney general "should be shielded from being sued for approving illegal,warrantless wiretaps on the grounds of national security." But, he knew that1984 was not the right time to win his case and argued waiting for a "case involving a less controversial official and a less controversial era."
CLAIM -- ALITO HAS DECIDED EACH CASE ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS: Alito: "I had the good fortune to begin my legal career as a law clerk for a judge who really epitomized open-mindedness and fairness. ... He taught all of his law clerks that every case has to be decided on an individual basis."
FACT -- ALITO'S DECISIONS HAVE BEEN 'ALMOST UNIFORMLY CONSERVATIVE': Legal scholar Cass Sunstein noted that Alito's 41 dissents as an appeals court judge "are almost uniformly conservative. In the overwhelming majority of cases, hehas urged a more conservative position than that of his colleagues." Knight Ridder also found a clear pattern in a review of Alito's 311 published opinionson the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals: He has "seldom sided with a criminal defendant, a foreign national facing deportation, an employee alleging discrimination or consumers suing big businesses." Similarly, the Alito Project at the Yale Law School determined that while on the bench, Alito "has sought tomove the law to achieve the broad philosophical purposes articulated in the memorandum he submitted in November 1985 as part of his application to become Deputy Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel."
--------------------------------------------------
Resume & Job Application Blunders
With misspellings, etc. preserved.
"I am most proud of the fact that I have never been convicted of a crime."
"Family: One husband and three chillin."
"I am not tired down by a family and can work anywhere in the world."
"My two divices were not my fault! I encountered badmen."
"All my references say of me he is comptent and seldom wrogn."
"My name is Joshua, but I was not named after the Joshua of the Bible. I was named after my Grandpa Frank's dog..."
"...put some shizzle in your bizzle, put a real Kewl Dude on your staff -- hire me!"
"In college, I was known as 'The Man' by my fellow students."
"As a Candy Stripper, I handled blood and urine samples and wiped bottoms and held doctors hands, so I saw medical practices from the other side of the rainbow."
"Sales is my life! I eat, sleep and eliminate sales!"
"I'm young but I've been tested on fire."
"The bottom line -- I will return you're work in dollars."
"B4 U Dside, pleas reed my resumay all the way 2 the end. I have a fastenating storie 2 tell."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment