Jonny on the Alito Hearings
Very briefly, here is my opinion on Samuel Alito. I've been watching the hearing as closely as I can. In fact, I have C-SPAN on right now (or did when I was writing this). I have no doubt in my mind that Alito is a qualified judge. I believe he does have intellectual capacity to make him a good Supreme Court Justice. I really think the personal testmonies today helped him out a great deal. It's not a question of his intellect for me. This guy is not a jackass--he's not as inept as the individual who nominated him. This might scare you and it might not. Alito's positive traits end there, however.
I don't believe that we'll see regression in workers, womens, homosexual (what little these guys have), or minority rights as a result of Alito getting confirmed (and he will get confirmed). It is a fear of many people like me that Alito will overturn Roe v. Wade namely. I don't believe this will happen, I don't believe the American people will stand for it, and I don't think that the Supreme Court has the political power (even with Alito confirmed) to do that. Anyway, I think I answered the major question right there, so you can stop reading if you wish.
Alito is incredibly conservative it appears. Based on that alone I'm assuming most of the bleeding hearts (including me) are afraid to support him. I mean, George W. Bush appointed him, so it is an appropriate fear. Before moving on, let me say that there are many things on the record about his personal politics that should frighten anyone: his view on Roe v. Wade as not settled law and his Concerned Alumni of Princeton membership. These items are not indicative of why Alito, personally isn't qualified, rather they are indicative of why radically conservative individuals shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. But as we all know, keeping Scalia and Thomas in mind, there is room for extremists in this country. And Mr. Alito will make a fine partner to those right-wing hacks.
The reason that I don't support Alito really comes down to something much simpler than his membership of PAC (an organization that he was vaguely involved with that advocated keeping blacks, gays, and women out of Princeton), his Roe v. Wade statements (that were troubling, mind you), or his Vanguard case (which he eventually deferred to another court). To be frank: he supports established powers heavily. He continues to perpetuate the status quo. He supports corporations to the working men. He supports police and government power over individual power. In fact, one of the witnesses (Goodwin Liu) noted that the vast majority of the time, Alito has sided with the government.
Here are a few examples:
- There was a case where Alito ruled that police should use whatever means necessary (in blatant Fourth Amendment contradiction) in stopping and containing suspects. In this case, a police officer shot a fleeing eighth-grader in the head, killing him, as he attempted to escape the scene where he stole a women's purse. Alito defended the police's murder here.
- There was another case where Alito argued that police could strip-search a ten-year-old girl without a warrant.
- There was another case where Alito ruled that it was O.K. for the FBI to put cameras in citizens homes all day as long as they wouldn't keep them on all day. Now, some argue that it is important to give police the appropriate power to stop crime. I'm not one of those people. In this argument, I'm on the side of freedom versus security. Here's a little bit that I wrote recently on this subject on a forum, so please mind the context:
"I'm definitely a person who pushes for freedom over security. I believe in policing the police, so to speak. I don't believe in absolute police power and I do not believe that most of the power that the President seeks and gets is necessary in protecting national security. Nor should anyone else.
That being said, I think it's interesting to note that if the topic were changed to and the argument was for equality versus the type of freedom that one would associate with capitalism. (If the thread titled was something like "Freedom vs. Equality.") You would find the "conservatives" or whomever that are fighting against freedom in this argument, fighting for freedom in this financial argument that I've developed. And those of us who defend freedom versus national security in this argument, would be fighting, tooth and nail, for equality in the other. So, it's just interesting to note that various sides of the political spectrum can defend both freedom and argue against it.
I'm definitely a supporter of civil rights versus national security. And in the event that I would support security, I don't believe it would be a gross violation of civil liberties. For example, as opposed to providing the Bin Ladens tickets to leave the U.S. after 9/11 (like the Bush Administration did), I would support government officials questioning them. And I do not believe that the President should be given the kind of unchecked power that has sparked the NSA debate. I believe that the President should operate within his Constitutional power to protect the nation; frankly, the CIA and simply using it as a tool is an example of too much executive power. I would support further limiting the power of the CIA."
Anyway, back to Alito and why I pray he isn't confrimed. His view of the executive branch or his interpretation of the Constitution is very radical. It seems to me that he supports an imperial, all-powerful executive branch ("unitary" power was the term he used). In one statement, he said that doesn't think the Attorney General should be tried for illegal wiretaps. Illegal. That's the keyword.
I'm just frustrated with this whole situation. Alito is really doing a convincing job of telling the world he's a great judge. And the Democratic Senators are doing a terrible job of convincing the world that he's an archconservative. Alito's performance is stunning, and Ted Kennedy's is not. That's what it comes down to.
Basically, he's not a slimeball, that's too simple of a criticism--I think he's dodged some questions about Roe v. Wade, the Vanguard incident, and PAC that he shouldn't have. He is, however, an ideologue. As his record proves, his personal politics are definitely in mind when he rules on cases. He does not independently interpret the law or the Constitution. I don't believe he will regress civil rights. I don't believe there has been any significant regress in civil rights since 1965 that was sparked by the legislative or judicial branches (political "mood" has been altered by a certain Ronald Reagan, however).
That being said, I don't believe that Alito is going to be the straw the breaks the camel's back. But what he will do is help to continue to halt civil rights progress or at least slow it down. And he will continue to push for the maintenance of the status quo. And that's why I don't support him. He is a radical conservative, and we shouldn't expect any less from a radical administration. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
I don't believe that we'll see regression in workers, womens, homosexual (what little these guys have), or minority rights as a result of Alito getting confirmed (and he will get confirmed). It is a fear of many people like me that Alito will overturn Roe v. Wade namely. I don't believe this will happen, I don't believe the American people will stand for it, and I don't think that the Supreme Court has the political power (even with Alito confirmed) to do that. Anyway, I think I answered the major question right there, so you can stop reading if you wish.
Alito is incredibly conservative it appears. Based on that alone I'm assuming most of the bleeding hearts (including me) are afraid to support him. I mean, George W. Bush appointed him, so it is an appropriate fear. Before moving on, let me say that there are many things on the record about his personal politics that should frighten anyone: his view on Roe v. Wade as not settled law and his Concerned Alumni of Princeton membership. These items are not indicative of why Alito, personally isn't qualified, rather they are indicative of why radically conservative individuals shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. But as we all know, keeping Scalia and Thomas in mind, there is room for extremists in this country. And Mr. Alito will make a fine partner to those right-wing hacks.
The reason that I don't support Alito really comes down to something much simpler than his membership of PAC (an organization that he was vaguely involved with that advocated keeping blacks, gays, and women out of Princeton), his Roe v. Wade statements (that were troubling, mind you), or his Vanguard case (which he eventually deferred to another court). To be frank: he supports established powers heavily. He continues to perpetuate the status quo. He supports corporations to the working men. He supports police and government power over individual power. In fact, one of the witnesses (Goodwin Liu) noted that the vast majority of the time, Alito has sided with the government.
Here are a few examples:
- There was a case where Alito ruled that police should use whatever means necessary (in blatant Fourth Amendment contradiction) in stopping and containing suspects. In this case, a police officer shot a fleeing eighth-grader in the head, killing him, as he attempted to escape the scene where he stole a women's purse. Alito defended the police's murder here.
- There was another case where Alito argued that police could strip-search a ten-year-old girl without a warrant.
- There was another case where Alito ruled that it was O.K. for the FBI to put cameras in citizens homes all day as long as they wouldn't keep them on all day. Now, some argue that it is important to give police the appropriate power to stop crime. I'm not one of those people. In this argument, I'm on the side of freedom versus security. Here's a little bit that I wrote recently on this subject on a forum, so please mind the context:
"I'm definitely a person who pushes for freedom over security. I believe in policing the police, so to speak. I don't believe in absolute police power and I do not believe that most of the power that the President seeks and gets is necessary in protecting national security. Nor should anyone else.
That being said, I think it's interesting to note that if the topic were changed to and the argument was for equality versus the type of freedom that one would associate with capitalism. (If the thread titled was something like "Freedom vs. Equality.") You would find the "conservatives" or whomever that are fighting against freedom in this argument, fighting for freedom in this financial argument that I've developed. And those of us who defend freedom versus national security in this argument, would be fighting, tooth and nail, for equality in the other. So, it's just interesting to note that various sides of the political spectrum can defend both freedom and argue against it.
I'm definitely a supporter of civil rights versus national security. And in the event that I would support security, I don't believe it would be a gross violation of civil liberties. For example, as opposed to providing the Bin Ladens tickets to leave the U.S. after 9/11 (like the Bush Administration did), I would support government officials questioning them. And I do not believe that the President should be given the kind of unchecked power that has sparked the NSA debate. I believe that the President should operate within his Constitutional power to protect the nation; frankly, the CIA and simply using it as a tool is an example of too much executive power. I would support further limiting the power of the CIA."
Anyway, back to Alito and why I pray he isn't confrimed. His view of the executive branch or his interpretation of the Constitution is very radical. It seems to me that he supports an imperial, all-powerful executive branch ("unitary" power was the term he used). In one statement, he said that doesn't think the Attorney General should be tried for illegal wiretaps. Illegal. That's the keyword.
I'm just frustrated with this whole situation. Alito is really doing a convincing job of telling the world he's a great judge. And the Democratic Senators are doing a terrible job of convincing the world that he's an archconservative. Alito's performance is stunning, and Ted Kennedy's is not. That's what it comes down to.
Basically, he's not a slimeball, that's too simple of a criticism--I think he's dodged some questions about Roe v. Wade, the Vanguard incident, and PAC that he shouldn't have. He is, however, an ideologue. As his record proves, his personal politics are definitely in mind when he rules on cases. He does not independently interpret the law or the Constitution. I don't believe he will regress civil rights. I don't believe there has been any significant regress in civil rights since 1965 that was sparked by the legislative or judicial branches (political "mood" has been altered by a certain Ronald Reagan, however).
That being said, I don't believe that Alito is going to be the straw the breaks the camel's back. But what he will do is help to continue to halt civil rights progress or at least slow it down. And he will continue to push for the maintenance of the status quo. And that's why I don't support him. He is a radical conservative, and we shouldn't expect any less from a radical administration. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.