MICHAEL CARMICHAEL

archived: 8 - 14 Jan, 2006         Back                 Next

UPDATED:  January 10, 2006                       

                        AGAINST ALITO 

In the past few months, President George Bush has made three appointments to the Supreme Court. He has withdrawn two, and one was confirmed.  

When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement, Bush nominated John Roberts. However, Bush withdrew Roberts’ nomination after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Then, Bush re-nominated Roberts for the post of Chief Justice, and he was eventually confirmed.  

To replace O’Connor, Bush then nominated Harriet Miers. But, when the radical religious right threatened to abandon Bush over this nominee, he withdrew her nomination and nominated the deeply conservative jurist, Samuel Alito, instead.  

Following this shameless sequence of events, Pat Robertson confirmed his enthusiasm for Sam Alito by stating that his nomination was the equivalent of a, “grand slam home-run.” 

After assessing Alito’s record in politics and the law, there is no mystery why Pat Robertson would be so enthusiastic. Sam Alito is an extremely conservative jurist who will swing the center of gravity on the Supreme Court deeply into right field. 

While virtually every civil rights, progressive and liberal organization in America is against Alito, over two hundred extremist and right-wing organizations support him. 

Recently, I had the opportunity to represent Democrats Abroad, an integral component of the Democratic National Committee, by appearing on the BBC News programme, Hardtalk, in a debate with Manuel Miranda over the Alito nomination.  

Mr. Miranda has been described as the primary architect of the withdrawal of Harriet Miers’ nomination. He is the founder and organizer of the Third Branch Conference, an organization devoted to the nomination of deeply conservative judges to the federal bench.  

Before changing its name to the Third Branch Conference, the organization was called the National Coalition to End Judicial Filibustering. It is the contention of Manuel Miranda and his supporters that the nomination process for federal judges should not involve unrestricted parliamentary debate.  

I found Mr. Miranda to be a calm, informed, intelligent and articulate spokesman for his deeply conservative viewpoint. He defended Samuel Alito admirably describing him as a conservative jurist who had mellowed over time. More interestingly, Mr. Miranda said that Sam Alito’s opinions were identical to the opinions of, “85% of the American people.” When I pointed out that the support for the Alito nomination was plummeting after falling from 47% in November to 35% in December, Mr. Miranda smiled and said that the outcome was decided and that Alito would get 63 votes on the floor of the Senate.  

If this fact is true, it means that a radical conservative like Sam Alito could not be comfortably confirmed without the open collaboration of at least eight or nine Democratic members of the Senate. Today, I suggest that any Democratic Senator collaborating in the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito should face extremely stiff competition in their next primary. 

Judge Alito has a horrible record on civil rights, racial and ethnic discrimination, women’s rights, the environment, states’ rights and consumers’ rights. Alito is opposed to Roe v. Wade. He is in favour of unwarranted wiretaps, corporations that pollute the environment, masculine supremacy and the growth of the powers of the state and the executive branch of government. 

Alito’s America would: compel women to clear abortions with their husbands; remove legal obstacles to racial, ethnic and sexual discrimination; allow the pollution of the environment; permit unauthorized wiretaps and mail-openings and favour corporate and state powers over the rights of ordinary American citizens. 

Is this the sort of judge that Americans want on the Supreme Court? I doubt it.  

It gets worse. In 1990, when Sam Alito was appointed to the federal bench, he provided a statement on his conflicts of interest. In doing so, he promised to recuse himself in cases involving companies in which he had a financial interest. However, in two cases, Alito did not recuse himself. Both cases were decided in favour of the companies in which he held interests, and he voted in their favour. 

After these lapses of ethics came to light, Alito was compelled to write a letter to Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, explaining his position. While openly admitting that he had voted in two cases involving companies he listed in his conflict of interest statement, Alito argued that his votes did not violate the law. In his letter to Specter, Alito said nothing about the appearance of these conflicted votes nor the propriety of his ethical lapses. These are questions that will be addressed by the Senate. 

For the reasons cited above, a rapidly growing constellation of opponents have united to stop Alito. Members of the Senate are openly discussing the possibility of launching a filibuster to block his confirmation. 

When Majority Leader, Bill Frist, threatened to adopt the “nuclear option,” eliminating the possibility of a filibuster, a Gang of Fourteen (14 ) Senators were formed who are committed to stopping filibusters before they get started.  

It takes sixty votes to invoke cloture, the parliamentary manoeuvre to stop the filibuster. The Gang of 14 includes Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, but in December he expressed serious doubts about Alito.  

In a direct confrontation with Frist, Byrd stated, “Senators have the right to talk, the right to filibuster.” It is now public knowledge that other members of the Senate are openly considering launching a filibuster to stop this extremist judge. 

The Alito nomination has now reached the Judicary Committee, and it was scheduled to go to the Senate floor for a vote on the 18th of January. However, late last week, the Democrats announced that they would delay the floor vote on Alito for at least one week. 

The nomination of Samuel Alito is crucial. If he succeeds in gaining his seat on the Supreme Court, he will shift the center of American jurisprudence to the far right. The civil and human rights of American citizens will be compromised for decades to come.  

Now is the time for the Democratic Party to unite in opposition to this feckless nomination by its reckless and deeply desperate president. 

Byrd and Frist Go At It Some More
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1980

__________________

NEXT - STEVEN JONAS

Last Update: 03/23/2006