The Squamata Report: Associate Justice Nominee Sam Alito

Monday, October 31, 2005

Associate Justice Nominee Sam Alito

A bright new day!

My comments have been rather harsh reguarding the President lately, because I felt he had forgotten all that we, as Conservatives, stand for. We need the fight to change Senate rule 22 and we need to remain steadfast in the face of vicious baseless attacks by the Liberals in our government. I had started to lose faith in him and his ability to remain headstrong in the fight against Liberalism. Then, following the withdrawal of Miers, Bush did something miraculous!

Monday morning I awoke to the sound of birds chirping happily outside my window. When I got out of bed, the room seemed bright and the sweet fragrance of roses danced in the air. I walked into the livingroom and noticed that everything was in it's place. The sense of well-being dwelled peacefully in my soul. It was as if the world's troubles had somehow been set right and I was sure that if I were hit by a cement truck, I would emerge un-scathed. I wondered, "What could be the cause of such blissfulness?" So I sat down at my desk and clicked on the 'Drudge Report' link in my browser. Lo, and behold, there it was, the reason I had such a wonderful feeling, Bush had made his nomination to replace the fence sitting O'Connor.

Bush said of his new nominee....
"He's scholarly, fair-minded and principled and these qualities will serve him well on the highest court in the land. His record reveals a thoughtful judge who considers the legal merits carefully and applies the law in a principled fashion. He has a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society. He understands judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people."
His name.......
Samuel Anthony Alito Jr.

Justice Alito is everything a Supreme Court nominee should be and so much more.
He was born to two Italian school teachers, Samuel and Rose Alito on April 1st 1950, in Trenton, New Jersey; the birth place of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a man many have compared him to by calling him 'Scalito'.

As a youth in Princeton University, his yearbook said he would "eventually warm a seat on the Supreme Court." How very prophetic!

He earned his B.A. at Princeton in 1972, and went on to serve as editor of the law journal at Yale where he earned his J.D. in 1975. He served as a Captain in the Army Reserves in 1972, during the Vietnam war. In 1985 he married a beautiful young lady, a Law Librarian, from Oklahoma named Martha-Ann Bomgardner. They and their son and daughter live in Caldwell, New Jersey.

As Assistant to the Solicitor General, Alito argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court. His friends said of him, " He is a studious, diligent, scholarly judge with a first-rate mind and a deadpan sense of humor, a neutral arbiter who does not let personal beliefs affect his legal judgments."
He was appointed to the 3rd Circuit Appellate Court in 1990 by President G.H. Bush. During his conformation hearings, Senator Ted 'Set 'em up and knock 'em down' Kennedy said that Alito had a 'very distinguished record". he was confirmed unanimously two months later on April 27th.

He has been a law teacher at Senton University and was awarded the Saint Thomas More Medal in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the field of law. As a strict Constructionalist and defender of the Constitution's original intent, he has an impeccable record. He dissented in a 2-1 decision in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case of 1991, where he voted to uphold the Pennsylvania law requiring women to notify their husbands, except in the case of spousal abuse, before having an abortion. Despite his hard work on the case, the Supreme Court struck down the law a year later.

If he is confirmed he will be the eleventh Catholic justice to serve on the highest court in the land. Joining the list that includes, Roger Taney, Edward White, Joseph McKenna, Pierce Butler, Frank Murphy, William J. Brennan, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice John Roberts. Some Liberals have already cried foul at Bush's nomination of him because he is both Catholic and Italian. Saying that he looks like a mobster and that Bush is packing the court with Catholics!

Regardless of the mindless rants and temper tantrums by, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Ted 'I drowned my girlfriend and got away with it' Kennedy, justice Alito WILL be confirmed. The beauty of it is that almost immediately Alito's 90 year old mother, Rose, single handedly assured us of a fight over Senate rule 22 by saying to the press, " Of course he's against abortion!"

So let the war begin. We are ready Mr. Bush! Thank you for nominating someone to the Supreme Court, with such great qualifications. We know it will be a tough fight, but we will stand ready. As Conservatives we let the President know we were willing to fight by balking when he nominated Mires. We were ready to stand and fight even our Commander in Chief to accomplish our goals, and we will stand even more steadfastly beside him to fight for Alito's confirmation, and to protect the strict constructionalist view of the Constitution.

Here is a synopsis of his record by Wikipedia~
1976 - 1977 - Law clerk for Leonard I. Garth of the Third Circuit.
1977 - 1981 - Assistant United States Attorney, District of New Jersey.
1981 - 1985 - Assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee.
1985 - 1987 - Deputy Assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese.
1987 - 1990 - United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
1990 - 2005 - Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1999 - 2004 - Adjunct Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey.

Click here Read his dissent in the Planned Parenthood v Casey case at Patterico's Pontifications

2 Comments:

Unknown said...: Thanks for the kind words of encouragement Mama. Yes, prayer does work!; 11/02/2005
Anonymous said...: Samuel Alito's Track Record Threatens Women's Rights
January 2006

Family and Medical Leave
Reproductive Rights
Sex and Race Discrimination in the Workplace
Personal Privacy
Sexual Harassment
Gun Control and Rights of Congress
Anti-Harassment Policies
Affirmative Action
Equal Access to Education
Violence against Women
There are thousands of cases and documents involving Judge Alito and new information continues to be unveiled. These writings establish that Alito's judicial philosophy would turn back women's rights and reverse our progress toward equality.

FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE:

Judge Alito wrote the Third Circuit decision that Congress did not have the power to require state governments to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act. Three years later, in an opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist (Hibbs v. Nevada), the Supreme Court took the opposite position, upholding the right of Congress to require state and local governments to follow FMLA, referring specifically to the impact on women. Chittister v Department of Community and Economic Development, Alito opinion.

Women across the country, worked for over a decade to enact a Family and Medical Leave law. If the Supreme Court had followed Judge Alito's reasoning, Congress would not have been able to require state and local governments to extend Family and Medical Leave benefits to their employees. Rehnquist and O'Connor were the deciding votes on that case, and replacing them with Roberts and Alito could reverse that decision and leave millions of state and local employees without FMLA protections.

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS:

On abortion: As a justice department attorney, Alito wrote a memo laying out his proposal for the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade, showing himself to be an advocate and potential architect of a Roe reversal. In 1991, going farther than any other judge on his circuit, Judge Alito argued that, under his interpretation of the Constitution, a state can require women to notify their husbands before they are allowed to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Alito dissent.

On birth control: In the same memo, Alito stated as fact that "certain methods of birth control are 'abortifacients,' i.e., that they do not prevent fertilization but terminate the development of the fetus after conception..." Conservatives have long argued that the IUD and birth control pills are abortifacients and should be outlawed.

A woman's fundamental right to determine when and whether to bear children, including the right to birth control and abortion, will be in real trouble if we replace Sandra Day O'Connor with a Supreme Court justice who demonstrates such obvious hostility to our rights. Judge Alito would likely be the 5th vote to reverse Roe v. Wade, because his dissent in Casey shows that he is willing to stand alone in attacking a woman's right to reproductive choice.

SEX AND RACE DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE:

Women fought to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1991 which, for the first time, gave women the right to a jury trial in sex discrimination and sexual harassment cases under Title VII. Our goal was to remove absolute power from judges in these employment discrimination cases, and let juries decide. Judge Alito's opinions consistently demonstrate that he would make it easier for judges to dismiss cases before they ever get to a jury, and would erect procedural hurdles for plaintiffs seeking justice in employment cases. Sheridan v. DuPont (dissent, sex discrimination), Bray v. Marriott Hotels (dissent, race discrimination).

Even with the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it is expensive and difficult for a woman or person of color to bring a successful employment discrimination case to court. In several strong dissents (including the two above), Judge Alito advocated making it even easier for conservative judges to dismiss these cases before they ever get to a jury. His opinions set up higher and higher hurdles for victims to meet before they could even get a chance to prove their case to a jury.

PERSONAL PRIVACY:

Judge Alito argued to uphold a police strip search of a woman and her ten year old daughter who were at home when the police executed a search warrant, even though the warrant specified a search of the premises and one named person, a male. Alito unbelievably said that the police could have reasonably assumed that the warrant gave them the right to search other people. Doe v. Groody, dissent.

If Judge Alito's position had won the day, police would have unfettered freedom to reinterpret (translate: ignore) the terms of search warrants. The fourth amendment guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and police should not be free to disregard the specific terms of a search warrant. Allowing a strip search of a woman and 10-year-old girl who weren't even named in the warrant demonstrates a deep disregard for their privacy rights and bodily integrity.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Lawsuits were brought by NOW and NAACP in the 1970's to integrate the Pittsburgh police department by sex and race. A decade later, after a consent decree required the hiring of female officers, sexual harassment became a way of letting them know they weren't welcome. In Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, a female officer's direct supervisor engaged in two years of harassment (including unhooking her bra, snapping her bra strap, making comments about the size of her breasts, dropping his keys down the back of her shirt and trying to retrieve them, etc.) yet Alito's opinion dismissed most of her claims, including every claim of retaliation, allowed the trial judge to instruct the jury to disregard some of the evidence, and affirmed the judge's refused to admit a City of Pittsburgh report regarding the same supervisor's treatment of another female officer during that time.

Alito's opinion in the Pittsburgh police department sexual harassment case shows that he just "doesn't get it" about sexual harassment — and the fact that harassment is often used to drive away women who are in male-dominated professions. Despite the pervasiveness of the harassment, and the many counts in the complaint, he only found in the female officer's favor on a single issue.

GUN CONTROL AND RIGHTS OF CONGRESS:

Judge Alito, in a heavily criticized dissent, said that Congress did not have the power to pass a law restricting the transfer or possession of machine guns. He argued that Congress should have made a stronger case that there is a clear link between machine guns, crime and interstate commerce. Other judges responded to his position by saying that Congress has no obligation to play "Show and Tell" for the courts. United States v. Rybar, dissent.

This case challenged the right of Congress to pass laws that protect communities and ban obviously dangerous weapons. Alito's dissent makes it clear that he would join with Supreme Court justices like Scalia and Thomas who regularly vote to overturn acts of Congress that protect individuals, communities and the environment. Note: This attitude towards Congressional authority has a direct impact on women. Remember that the Supreme Court overturned a key section of the Violence Against Women Act on the basis that there was not a sufficient connection with interstate commerce.

ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICIES:

A Pennsylvania school district's anti-harassment policy defined harassment as "Verbal or physical conduct based on…race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other personal characteristics." A suit was brought on behalf of two students, arguing that the policy violated their first amendment right of freedom of speech because their Christian beliefs compelled them to speak out against homosexuality. Judge Alito agreed with them, and struck down the policy on first amendment grounds saying that this kind of speech did not "pose a realistic threat of substantial disruption" in the schools. Saxe v. State College Area School District.

It defies common sense to argue that harassment of students, particularly on the basis of their sexual orientation, would not pose a "realistic threat of disruption" - not only disruption at school but especially to the lives of the students being harassed. It is completely reasonable for a school to prevent harassment of its students while they're in school, and this is another example of Alito rejecting efforts to protect individuals from harassment and discrimination, whether at school or on the job.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

In his 1985 application for a Justice Department job, Alito said he was "particularly proud of [his]contributions as a government lawyer to cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed." This is code language for opposing affirmative action programs. In the Solicitor General's office, he co-authored three briefs attacking affirmative action programs, sometimes in sweeping terms. Local Number 93 v. City of Cleveland, Local 28 v. EEOC, Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education. As a Judge on the Third Circuit he joined a ruling striking down a school district's affirmative action plan. Taxman v. Board of Education

Affirmative Action outreach programs have been essential to the progress of women and people of color in the workplace and in higher education. Alito's strong opposition to including those who have been excluded in the past is deeply troubling, and brings to mind his support of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group which sought to impose an quota to limit the admission of women to Princeton. If he is confirmed to replace Justice O'Conner, Alito will shift the current 5-4 balance on the court regarding affirmative action.

EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION

Alito has rejected constitutional and civil rights protections against sexual harassment in schools - an especially pernicious form of sex discrimination. In D.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical School, Judge Alito voted that student who were sexually harassed and abused by fellow students (including repeated forced sexual acts) do not have a civil rights claim (42 U.S.C 1983) because the state did not have any special duty to care for them. A dissenting judge argued, "we owe immature school children attending public school who are seriously injured as a result of a policy of deliberate indifference to their danger no less a remedy than we are willing to provide to incarcerated criminals." This is another example of Alito's inclination to interpret civil rights statutes very narrowly, depriving individuals of legal protections and of their day in court.

Protecting students from sexual harassment is an essential component of equal educational opportunity for women, and the Supreme Court is closely divided on this issue, having held in a 5-4 decision that Title IX, the federal law protecting women from discrimination in education, also protects women from sexual harassment by other students in school in cases where school officials had notice of the harassment (Davis v. Monroe). While Alito has not directly ruled on any published Title IX case, his vote in the D.R. case, along with his limited view of other federal sex discrimination laws, means that he would likely change the Court's balance — and reverse Title IX provisions that protect young women from sex discrimination, including sexual harassment at school.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito wrote a Third Circuit dissent in support of the Pennsylvania requirement that a woman notify her husband before she could obtain a legal abortion. He was unsympathetic to evidence presented by plaintiffs that abortion notification could trigger battering and other forms of spousal abuse in abusive relationships. His response was dismissive: "The plaintiffs...do not appear to have offered any evidence showing how many (or indeed that any actual women) would be affected by this asserted imperfection in the statute."

Later, the Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, struck down the provision as unconstitutional, specifically noting the evidence of the widespread problem of family violence. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected both the notification requirement and Alito's premise that a husband should be permitted to exercise this level of control over his wife. O'Connor wrote: "A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children." Alito's callous dismissal of family violence victims (and questioning whether any even exist) demonstrate a fundamental disregard for the scope and the nature of violence against women, and would likely be reflected in his rulings on other issues, such as the Violence Against Women Act.; 1/26/2006