Jonathon Turley comes out against Sam Alito, and he comes out hard:
Despite my agreement with Alito on many issues, I believe that he would be a dangerous addition to the court in already dangerous times for our constitutional system. Alito’s cases reveal an almost reflexive vote in favor of government, a preference based not on some overriding principle but an overriding party.
In my years as an academic and a litigator, I have rarely seen the equal of Alito’s bias in favor of the government. To put it bluntly, when it comes to reviewing government abuse, Samuel Alito is an empty robe.
***Likewise, Alito authored another memo that argued strongly in favor of giving immunity to officials who violate the rights of citizens — a position long rejected by the federal courts.
As he did as a Reagan administration attorney, Judge Alito often adopts standards so low that any government excuse can overcome any government abuse.
***An independent judiciary means little if our judges are not independently minded. In criminal, immigration and other cases, Alito is one of the government’s most predictable votes on the federal bench. Though his supporters have attempted to portray this as merely a principle of judicial deference, it is a raw form of judicial bias.
The Alito vote might prove to be the single most important decision on the future of our constitutional system for decades to come. While I generally defer to presidents in their choices for the court, Samuel Alito is the wrong nominee at the wrong time for this country.
Again, if there is a basis for opposing Alito, I would think this would be it, and not the absurd attempts to portray Roe v. Wade as good law. The complaints listed by Turley are but a sample of his rulings, and they are troubling. Despite the fact that Alito is clearly qualified to be on the Supreme Court, I don’t know if I could vote for him were I a Senator. In fact, I would probably have to say I would vote against the man, the more I learn.
*** Update ***
Stuart Taylor has an interesting take.
*** Update ***
*** Update ***
Hugh Hewitt says, in essence, I am all wet:
This is a curious, and ultimately reflexively anti-majoritarian position given that “the government” is simply the accumlation of the laws proposed, refined and eventually passed by a bicameral legislature and signed into law by the executive, operated by a largely career civil service of more than a million overseen by a few thousand political appointees the most important of whom must pass through Senate confirmation, watched over by a judiciary that is diverse and jealous of its powers. Reflexively pro-governemnt is the same as “reflexively pro separation-of-powers and checks and balances.”
A preference for the laws and actions of the government –except in those cases where government treads on established Constitutional rights– is a preference for the politics of the many as opposed to what Justice Scalia had branded the “democratic vote of nine unelected judges,” nine justices who are pretty much products of the elites. Those nine change slowly over time in response to political tides. Bill Clinton got two. Now W is getting his second. I hope he gets a third and a fourth, and not because of a cavalier attitude towards civil liberties, but beecause of a deep regard for self-government under the sturdy dictates of the Constitution, not made-up decrees driven by elite opinion as to what is “just” and “good.”
I like elections.
Example: Would Alito be more or less likely to vote with the majority in Kelo? No more reflexively pro-government opinion can be found than Kelo’s blank check to the condeming authority, but Alito is much, much more likely in my view to be with the dissent than the majority. Is John pro-Kelo, or is he, like I suspect Alito is, anti-government in that case?
Read Hugh’s whole post. Hugh is correct on my opinions regarding Kelo, and, I hope to goodness, Alito’s position on issues such as Kelo. I do, however find some of his opinions (and we must be clear- I am not a lawyer, so most every opinion I have read is actually a distillation of his opinions by another source and subject to the biases of those authors) to be curiously slanted towards granting additional government authority. I don’t think there was anything in the hearings that would disabuse me of that notion.
Hugh touches on something else:
Unless John and the like-minded are proposing a set of rules which dictate that they will always win, they ought to recognize the great wisdom in the many and not encourage senators to posture rather than acknowledge that presidential elections have consequences. I am happy that the GOP did not throw such tantrums when Bill Clinton sent forward his nominees. The disturbing trend of obstructionism in ever instance displayed by the Senate Democrats is far more troubling than one justice’s alleged “reflexive vote” for the government.
Hugh probably would agree with this piece from earlier, and I will have to cede that pointless obstructionism, particularly for show, is to be avoided. As to whether or not I have come out against Alito, I think Hugh has me pegged wrong- my position on Alito has been one of reliable and fixed vacillation. One minute I think Alito is little more than a right-wing statist, other moments I think he is merely someone who I probably would not agree with on much, but who I see no real reason to vote against. And you thought Kerry was a flip-flopper?
In general, though, I do agree with Hugh- Alito is qualified, and Senators should not be urged towards shows of obstructionism. I have the luxury of not being a Senator, but I probably shouldn’t encourage the behavior. I know I do not agree with Alito on a number of issues, but I really can not muster the strength to oppose him. He seems like a decent man who is supremely qualified for the job, and I don’t see how my possible political disagreements disqualify him.
Which gets us back to the point of this post to begin with- the Democrats could possibly have made a case that resonated- had they tried. Instead, they decided to show some leg to the NARAL crowd by pretending Roe v. Wade is the only issue that Alito will ever look at, they engaged in a little recreational race-baiting with the CAP nonsense, and they tried to play absurd games with the Vanguard non-issue.
In the end, Hugh is right. Elections do mean things. If Alito decides cases solely on the merits of the case and possesses the temperament my conservative friends state he has, I doubt that Alito will be as good as some Republicans think he will be and he most certainly will not be as bad as many Democrats claim he will be. And if we don’t like it- well, we can vote accordingly in 2008 and again in 2012.
William Young
Despite the fact that Alito is clearly qualified to be on the Supreme Court, I don’t know if I could vote for him were I a Senator. In fact, I would probably have to say I would vote against the man, the more I learn.
This is the kind of commentary that just disturbs me to no end, because it is fundamentally illogical and rooted only in a person’s political bias. He’s qualified to the point where he’s ineligible because of his qualifications?
!?!?!
It almost sounds like a reasoned, informed opinion about something, but is little more than unqualified gibberish.
The Other Steve
Look. I’m pretty open-minded, and frankly I’ve maintained that I think Alito deserves a chance for a hearing, and only then will I make up my mind on whether he should be confirmed.
At this point, based on his evasive answers, and his clear penchant for Judicial Activism, with some just fucking bizarre dissenting opinions with even more evasive answers.
I don’t think he is qualified.
We’ll see. The Republicans certainly aren’t helping things by refusing to ask him good questions and instead using their time to give us lectures on how evil liberals are.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well said, John. From what I know about Roe, and that isn’t much, I do get the impression that it stands on weak grounds. Even thought I think abortion should be legal, I do believe in strongly based judicial decisions.
Alito seems to give government the benefit of the doubt in all of his cases. That is not something I am comfortable with, especially not in these current times.
Geek, Esq.
The problem with really smart lawyers like Alito is that they can mask any agenda in legalistic terms and come up with a theory that justifies their votes. Bork, for instance, could have done that. But he instead was honest and pretty much revealed himself to be an ideologue more than a jurist.
Scalito has already shown a disturbing propensity to tell people what they want to hear.
Geek, Esq.
To clarify, Roberts struck me as a straight-shooter. Alito gives the opposite impression.
Steve
It’s not like an anti-government bias would be any better than a pro-government bias, but the country does work better when the branches of government push back against one another. If the Supreme Court gives the Executive Branch a blank check, that’s not going to take us anywhere good – even if you might happen to love the decisions President Bush is making at this particular moment in time.
By the same token, Congress has to function as an independent body from the Presidency – whether or not it happens to be controlled by a different party. It’s the way the system of checks and balances was designed to work, and it prevents us from ever going too far off the tracks.
I agree that Alito is a rubber stamp and that his confirmation would be particularly dangerous at this moment in history.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Uhh considering that our government is out of control, yes it would.
Mr Furious
John, why is there any “maybe,” “could,” or “probably” left in your statements? Even taking Alito himself aside, has your party (and this President) given you ANY reason to trust them in the last couple years, especially in matters of the judiciary?
Are you the same guy who has been posting about NSA, torture and a Republican machine run amok?
I’m not asking you to vote Dem (yet), but come on.
It’s not “Friday Beer Blogging” any more, put the bottle down…
Blue Neponset
I got the same vibe, Geek. I felt better after the Roberts hearings because he seemed like he revered the law and wouldn’t do anything irreverant to it. Alito seems like he is trying to convince people he doesn’t have an agenda.
Thomas
Shorter generic pro-Alito piece: You will have many years of family fun with your new and very non-partisan Samuel Alito if you follow these rules–(voice trails off into internal monologue) tell them–no don’t you can’t–you must–tell the liberals–no you promised…
Steve
That really wasn’t the most helpful comment of the day.
If a judge rules against the government because the government is abusing its powers, that is not a “bias,” it is called a correct decision. If a judge repeatedly rules against the government because the government is repeatedly abusing its powers, that is not a “bias” either.
An “anti-government bias” would be where a judge is predisposed to rule against governmental action whether or not the government is doing anything wrong.
A Supreme Court Justice is on the bench for decades. It would be foolish to appoint one with an anti-government bias just because you believe George Bush needs to be reined in at this moment in time, because the next President may be one who does things the right way and whose policies ought to survive Supreme Court review. By the same token, it is foolish to rubberstamp a judge who believes in unrestrained Executive power even if you trust the current Executive.
Brian
Alito is doing a very good job in these eharings, and is not being evasive, nor showing that he’s a judicial activist. He’s been giving very direct answers to questions, and if anything, the Democratic senators are demonstrating how inept, confused, and unprofessional they can be.
Alito is bulletproof, and will get confirmed. Turley’s point is well-taken, but Alito is but one of 9 judges. I’d be curious if the concern that Turley states was ever stated for other current justices who turned out to be not so predictable in their rulings, like Breyer.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I want a judge that is skeptical of government at all times.
Government, by it’s very nature, will abuse it’s power.
The Other Steve
I gotta agree.
I get the impression from Alito, and certainly listening to his answers that many of his dissenting opinions were just a lark for him.
On one of the cases that got brought up, Alito kept referring to the fact that his dissent didn’t matter because the other judges all voted in the affirmative. So it was like with his dissent he was just trying to score some political point.
That says to me he doesn’t take the law seriously.
But that also says to me… the real question then is… When it matters, will you grow up and take it seriously?
That’s what I think we need to know here. Roberts made it clear that he respected the law. Alito, not so much.
The Other Steve
LOL!
Thanks DougJ! You made my day. :-)
jg
A pro-government conservative? On earth? WTF?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Info about Unitary Executive:
Source
Lines
Lets get one thing clear, Alito isn’t Pro-Government, he’s Pro-Republican Government. I believe this guy would be a pit bull in a black robe if the power shifts to the Democrats and Independents.
Brian
I don’t know why you think I’m DougJ. I’ve seen that comment before, and I don’t understand it.
Glad I could make your day though. Just trying to make a serious person out of you, but no luck. Comments of yours will start with “he’s a judicial activist”, and later will be “he’s chimpy’s ass-licker”. All from the same infertile mind.
Brian
For anyone who thinks Alito’s an “activist”, why is it so bad that there’s a “Republican activist” in the SC to match Ginsburg as the “Democratic activist”? What’s the difference? Was Ginsburg not as definitively political in her hearings, and she still got confirmed?
jg
There shouldn’t be any activists. You shouldn’t be cheering that the activists are now balanced out. You can’t run around saying how bad the dems are then do what they did.
Blue Neponset
Activism is activism. If any judge approaches a court case as a means to an end, he/she doesn’t belong on the Supreme Court, IMO.
Brian
I can’t disagree, but the consistency of the “activist Alito” message has to be countered, if only from a Devil’s Advocate position. Ginsburg was accepted and confirmed, despite her beliefs, and she has proven to be a very good justice, even if her positions are predictable. If Alito’s the same, can’t he be similarly accepted?
I think that there not being any activists on the SC is an ideal, it is one that’s been hopelessly undermined and politicized by both parties. But, even so, we still have justices that reside in that court who were supposed activists, or at least supposedly reliable in the views, then turned out to be anything but. Alito may be the same. He may be reliable in some way, but that doesn’t disqualify him for the SC, nor does it taint him accurately as an activist.
Al Maviva
Roberts seemed responsive but was a really charming artful dodger. His actual answers were non-answers for the most part. They played pretty well to lay people, as my wife noted, you simply can’t argue with pretty eyes, right? And overall I thought it was a good appellate attorney type of performance – if you were going to vote against him, you had to be either predisposed to do so, or do so based on the “briefs,” his written records. But I couldn’t draw any inferences about how he’d vote on live issues based on the hearings.
Alito on the other hand is actually answering questions on the merits. Yeah Geek, he’s hiding behind technical legalisms and complex doctrines, something those really smart guys would probably call “the law”. I’m not in that club of giant-brained lawyers with three clerkships, an SG’s Office stint and a warmly burnished resume, but I knows it when I sees it, and he’s putting on an intellectual fireworks display, at least when Joe Biden lets him get a word in edgewise. But don’t take my word for it. Take Dahlia Lithwick’s word for it. Her pull quote – as an Ivy League educated attorney and veteran Supreme Court watcher:
H/t Volokhs.
This was the choice that Democrats faced in watching Harriet Miers go down. Do you prefer a blunt and results-oriented person who thinks about the law as a way to get things done? Or do you want a technocrat who has a deeply philosophical and methodical approach to interpreting the law, who might do some damage to your interpretive arguments in the long run? I’d rather have a methodical deep thinker, even if I disagree with him on 9/10ths of the highly controversial questions. I’m okay with losing on an issue if there’s still potential recourse through the legislature, and if the court has provided a solid rationale for why I lose. The integrity and the method underlying the law are really important, especially if you are in a position of having to advise clients on prospective hehavior. Thus I prefer Breyer’s work over Kennedy’s, in spite of the fact Kennedy is more likely to deliver me results I appreciate. To twist Holmes’ words around a bit, in the long run of the life of the law, usually it’s more important that a case be decided in the right way, than it be decided right. I suspect Alito’s methods will turn out to be similar to Breyer’s and Scalia’s text-driven work, even if Alito makes values choices diametrically opposed to Breyers wherever opportunities for judicial preferences present themselves.
jg
You’re giving a variation on ‘Clinton did it too’. You say Ginsbug was an activist that turned out not to be insane but maybe she just wasn’t an activist. Maybe that just what was said to generate opposition. Maybe its being said now to deflect from Alito’s ‘activism’. Who knows, who cares? Its really not relevant since their activism extends in two different directions so there’s no way you’ll sell a liberal on Alito by saying Ginsburg was an activist too. The opposite wouldn’t work either. As a citizen I look at dem acivists and see someone working for the constitution and the people. I look at repub activists as those who serve the executive branch and big business. saying their both activists doesn’t put them on equal grounds IMO.
Steve
In what sense was Ginsburg a judicial activist on the DC Circuit? The entire reason she was recommended by Orrin Hatch is that she had established a record as a judicial moderate. In-depth studies of her record as an appellate judge showed she voted more often with Republican nominees than with Democratic ones. After-the-fact spin doctors would love for you to ignore all that and conclude she was a judicial activist merely because she used to be with the ACLU, etc.
In the case of Alito, while some of the criticism stems from things he wrote before he was a judge, the problem is that his track record as a judge also backs up the concern that he has this unholy attraction to unlimited executive power.
The revisionist history surrounding the Ginsburg nomination is just nuts and I’m hardly surprised to see a major purveyor of GOP talking points bring it up, but it has no validity.
Stormy70
They are a co-equal branch of government. Are they going to be sketical of themselves, too. Or are you only referring to the Executive branch of government?
Brian
We have 4 SC justices that can relaibly be considered “liberal”: Souter, Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg. Three others can be reliably considered “conservative”: Scalia and Thomas. Two can be considered “middle-of-the-road”: Kennedy and O’Connor. And one is too early to tell: Roberts.
Does anyone seriously challenge this? As for Ginsburg, she was politically aligned with, yes, the ACLU, along with similar organizations like NOW. She has every right to align herself with these groups, but it’s not unreasonable to think this betrays certain beliefs that might color her decisions, no? She was chosen by Clinton, after being whittled down from other candidates like Babbitt and Cuomo. She was selected as a “female Thurgood Marshall”, and being Jewish didn’t hurt, either. Imagine Bush nominating a “female Antonin Scalia”!! The Kossacks would go thru the roof!
My history of Ginsburg is no more “revisionist” than any misreading of Alito’s opinions to support his being trounced as a candidate. He’s no Bork, that’s for sure, and it will be demonstrated, I believe, that he is completely worthy of acceptance and confirmation.
The Dem’s are not helping their cause this week with their inept and incoherent challenges of Alito. If you’re going to oppose a candidate, at least do so intelligently. Since the Dem’s cannot, Alito looks even better.
Steve
Brian, you said not one word to back up your contention that Ginsburg was nominated as a “Democratic activist.” In fact, you didn’t address a single point I made.
I also have absolutely no idea what you meant by saying Ginsburg was selected as a “female Thurgood Marshall.” Perhaps you could elaborate on that.
Mr Furious
Al, nice post. I haven’t watched one second of the hearings, so I can’t really agree or disagree with you on Alito’s answers, but I will agree on Lithwick. I think she is excellent. And if she says he’s answering and the Dems are swinging wildly and missing, I’m tempted to believe it.
OCSteve
Ginsburg was most certainly seen as a liberal in 1993. The media then and today insist on calling her a moderate, but consider her credentials as presented in 1993:
In the 60’s she litigated cases for the NJ ACLU.
In 71 she worked on Reed v Reed for the ACLU which went to SCOTUS.
In 72 she was made the first director of the Women’s Rights Project for the ACLU.
She was ACLU General Counsel the rest of the 70’s and on its BOD the latter half.
She was on the DC Circuit from 80 on with plenty of cases to scrutinize.
In short, there was decades of material for Republican’s to point to and shout ‘liberal’ and ‘outside the mainstream’. She was far left, period.
Also, in replacing White (he was against abortion rights and affirmative action) with her there is no doubt that Clinton was moving the entire court to the left.
Yet she had a smooth confirmation hearing, her refusal to answer specific questions was accepted, and she was confirmed 96-3 because Republicans believed that the President was entitled to select the nominee he wanted and ‘consent’ meant consenting that the nominee was qualified.
Can you claim the Dems have acted that responsibly in these last 2 rounds? Who is revising history?
Steve
You completely ignored the point that she voted more with the Republican appointees on the DC Circuit than with the Democratic ones. A 13-year moderate track record on the second-most important court in the land.
Republicans blocked over sixty of Clinton’s judicial nominees – far more than the Democrats ever dreamed of blocking under Bush – so don’t try and feed me this bullshit about how Republicans believed Clinton was entitled to his choice of nominees.
Brian
Steve,
I am not writing a book here, so don’t insist that I footnote evey comment of mine for your reference. If you think Ginsburg did not have an activist background, as I demonstrated she did, then fine. I won’t try and disabuse you of that notion.
As for the “female Thurgood Marshall”, read George Stephanopolous’s memoir, where he talks about it. Don’t ask me to reference it for you, because I won’t. I’m not making stuff up, nor am I reciting talking points.
Alito, like him or not, is not showing much evidence to me of being an “activist”, which is the label leveled at him here. Ginsburg’s a done deal. But Alito is still going thru the process, and I see no evidence that he is a right-wing activist judge. What really pisses you off about the guy?
You might reserve your umbrage for your senators, who are showing a shocking lack of depth and knowledge in these hearings, and will only serve to better Alito’s chances of confirmation.
The Other Steve
No, it was because Clinton asked their advice before making the nomination.
Something to think about in the future, instead of appointing people who are divisive for the pure joy of it.
Brian
If you’re going to play this game, we can play it. Do we really want to crunch the numbers? If so, let’s get into percentages, which will likely show that, in terms of percentages, that the Republicans approved more of Clinton’s nominees. “60” is not meaningful, unless compared against the total number of nominees presented.
Anyhow, the ones that truly matter are the SCOTUS nominees, are they not? Let’s not kid ourselves here. When you look at SCOTUS nominees, the Democrats have been incredibly belligerent and sadistic toward GOP nominees.
But now the jig is up. The game is different now. This guy will get confirmed, as the President, like him or not, is entitled to have confirmed.
Brian
Divisve? According to whom? Chuck Schumer? Teddy Kennedy? You?
Are you all “the mainstream” we keep hearing about?
Steve
I would be happy to drill down to whatever level of detail you find acceptable.
Your turn. Show me where anything approaching 20% of Bush’s nominees were blocked.
Your argument that the Republicans believed Clinton was entitled to his choice for the Supreme Court, but that he wasn’t entitled to his choices for the less important lower courts, is completely contrary to logic. If the President is “entitled to his nominee,” you could argue whether or not an exception might be made for the super-important Supreme Court, but you certainly can’t argue that he’s entitled only to his choice for the Supreme Court and nothing else.
What you’re doing is nothing different from what all partisans, myself included, are guilty of from time to time. What happened in the past happened for any number of reasons, but you can always spin it to claim that your own party acted solely out of some deep-seated moral principle. It just so happens that in this case, it’s very easy to prove that the alleged principle that “the President is entitled to his nominee, as long as they’re qualified” is not something the Clinton-era Republicans actually believed.
OCSteve
Baloney.
Clinton’s overriding concern was that the nominee not get shot down. He needed a success after a series of failed executive branch nominations – his biggest concern was that his own party then in control of the Senate would support the nominee (Hmm – shades of Miers).
His first choice was Cuomo. Then there were dozens of others. Others included his friend Richard Arnold and even the First Lady. Republicans were presented with the short list – and agreed Ginsburg was well qualified.
That is George Stephanopolous as Brian noted.
She worked for decades supporting and litigating women’s rights and affirmative action. She was nominated to replace a justice who was a certain anti-Roe vote and a certain anti-AA vote. There was no doubt whatsoever that she was poised to move the court left – none. Republican’s agreed she was well qualified and gave her a pass on the ideology.
That is the bottom line.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I’m refering to the other two branches of government.
Are you honestly suggesting that the Executive and the Legislature aren’t skeptical of the Judiciary?
Do you really want to make such a bullshit claim? Do you?
Didn’t think so.
As for Clinton’s SC nominees, BOTH were suggested by CONSERVATIVE Republicans.
That is why his nominees slided through. Democrats, or god forbid even liberal Democrats, did not suggest Alito.
Clinton had conscious nominees, Bush hasn’t.
Alito is all about granting Bush unfettered Executive power in the WoT.
For that reason alone he needs to be stopped.
The Other Steve
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Your further paragraph does nothing but agree with my point.
If you want a nomination to sail through, don’t go out of your way to find someone divisive. And Brian, if you don’t know what divisive means go look it up in a dictionary.
Yes. I am part of the mainstream.
Jess
RE: Ginsburg,
I’m always puzzled and amused when conservatives hold up involvement with the ACLU as smoking-gun proof of someone being an extreme lefty. The mission of the ACLU–protecting the average citizen from abuses of power–actually has far more in common with the libertarian philosophy than a socialist view, and its record of defending the civil rights of any individual or group, without bias and regardless of their position on the political spectrum, makes the ACLU as a whole a committed moderate organization in my book. What better background for a Supreme Court judge?
The Disenfranchised Voter
The ACLU is a basically libertarian organization. You’re right Jess.
The thing is, most of these modern day Republicans hate any organization that protects Americans civil liberties.
Mumon
I am in (unusual) agreement with you. I even wrote my Senators on that point: forget abortion. The defense of wiretapping is repugnant.
The folks in the government are our employees, not our masters.
Sojourner
Since when are equal rights for women and minorities “liberal” positions? Most moderates on both sides of the aisle support equal rights.
For heaven’s sake, Brian. Are you really against equality for everyone? Do you really believe that white males should have special rights?
Charlie (Colorado)
What? Isn’t that about the same as saying that just because the other team has a pitcher, it doesn’t mean our team needs power pitching too.
SDOH
Alito is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, but this should be a necessary rather than sufficient condition of appointment.
More than 9 people are qualified to sit on the Court. Over 100 judges/lawyers/academics are as smart, well-versed in the law, display good judgment etc. as those who currently sit on that bench. This is quite an achievement, not a slam on the current Justices.
In my ideal, a qualified candidate would always be nominated. The Senate confirmation would revolve around why this qualified candidate, rather than another, should be appointed. The discussion would invariably turn on the legal issues that have importance in the day. Nobody’s integrity would be impugned, nobody’s wife would cry. This line of inquiry would have the benefit of allowing the electorate a limited check on the judiciary (something of great interest to a democracy), rather than simply focusing a national spotlight on a search for personal inadequacies (something of very little interest to a democracy.)
Second, I’m libertarian/conservative, and I believe that checks and balances existing between government branches constitutionally compelled to share power provides a greater protection of individual liberty than does checks between parties permitted to consolidate governmental power.
The question, for me, is this: How should we divide power?
Because I would like to promote inter-branch separation of powers, I would promote a questioning ethic that encourages party disunity. By keeping it Republican v. Democrat, the only real check is whether the party who won the presidency also won the Senate (regardless of how they did in the House or the States.)
(cross-posted on volokh.)
JeremyR
The ACLU is not a libertarian organization, it was founded by a communist. And it’s not for civil rights, it’s only for certain civil rights (leftist leaning ones, though in some cases, like drugs, it does agree with libertarian philosophy). I don’t think I’ve ever seen the ACLU support gun rights cases. It’s also anti-Christian. Other religions are okay, especially Islam, but it targets Christians.
bains
During the Roberts nomination I asked my folks what they thought. Mom had an interesting comment – she thought Roberts passionless – detached and and unanimated about issues that concerned my mom – and therefore ought not be confirmed. Because I was asking in good faith, I left it alone. And yet there was something very striking… very disturbing, in her feelings.
Much like your feelings John. You think he’s qualified, yet you wouldnt confirm him… I suspect because hes not passionate about issues that concern YOU Mr. Cole. What a fine precedent you would (and the Democrats have already) set.
Qualifications matter not…
Idealogocial purity (myopic as it is) is paramount.
ZombyWoof
I don’t trust the guy…
McAristotle
Look there’s a double standard.
Alito was a member of some alumni group 20 years ago and he’s a ‘closet bigot’. Ginsburg actually worked for the ACLU but that’s OK.
And the ACLU has put more effort into blocking intelligent design than it has removing the Illiad (Greek Gods!) from schools. Its got some anti-Christian bias in there. I see them taking down crosses but not say destroying Native American Animist sites.
—————-
Affirmitive action doesn’t always mean everyone is equal.
Asians are not a minority anymore, remember?
According to affirmative action, a first generation Vietnamese migrant working nights to raise funds for college needs higher marks than Bill Cosby’s son (deceased).
An Asian migrant and a Latino migrant get different treatment – even if they have the same exact circumstance.
That’s a gifted school in San Francisco, that tried to restrict the number of Chinese and Indians allowed in for ‘affirmitive action’ and got that policy reversed in a lawsuit.
Its not about equality, its about doing favours to politically active racial groups.
And strangely enough, Chinese and Indians have more upward mobility than other migrant groups. I guess knowing the government ain’t going to raise you up is a good incentive no to wait…
The Other Steve
WOOHOO! We’re off into moonbat land.
This is why I cannot trust the Republican party. When push comes to shove, they come up with some of the most bizarre conspiracy theories you can possibly imagine.
Yes, that’s right… An Organization which defends the Constitution’s Bill of Rights… is secretly Communist.
News flash: Communists don’t believe in the Bill of Rights.
The Other Steve
Let’s turn that around.
being a member of a bigoted alumini group 20 years ago, is OK. Actually working for the ACLU makes you a Communist.
Talk about a double standard.
Mike G in Corvallis
“In my years as an academic and a litigator, I have rarely seen the equal of Alito’s bias in favor of the government”
Seems to me that,apart from casting aspersions on his personal character, the Democrats are trying to paint Alito as a scary extremist because he might not show absolute devotion to stare decisis.
Um … Is stare decisis anything other than “bias in favor of the government”?
Conservative Jedi
OK, it’s really simple: I will point out the discrepancies:
1. “In the recently disclosed National Security Agency operation, he has claimed the right to order surveillance that may be a crime under federal law.”
–It MAY be a crime. I will point out that we have three equal branches of govt. In times of war and danger to our nation, the president rightfully has expanded powers. ONLY the president may control the components of war.
2. “Likewise, Alito authored another memo that argued strongly in favor of giving immunity to officials who violate the rights of citizens — a position long rejected by the federal courts.”
–This concerned the Attorney General of the United States, who had argued (as had previous administrations) that the AG should be immune to prosecution and civil lawsuits as a matter of practice. He was an attorney writing a memo for a client, who was the US govt.
3. “For example, in Doe v. Groody, Alito wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that police officers could strip-search a mother and her 10-year-old daughter, despite the fact that neither was named in the search warrant nor suspected of crimes. The majority opinion was authored by fellow Republican and conservative Judge Michael Chertoff (now serving as secretary of Homeland Security). Chertoff criticized Alito’s views as threatening to “transform the judicial officer into little more than the cliché ‘rubber stamp.’ ”
–also well covered. It was a crack house, and there was a search warrant. For the protection of everyone at the scene, it is routine to perform these types of searches. I mean it was a CRACK HOUSE. OF COURSE the cops will search everyone at the CRACK HOUSE. Drug raids are very dangerous… or did no one tell Kennedy. BTW, they DID find drugs on the little girl.
Speaking of Teddy Kennedy.. off topic I know, but couldn’t resist… Don’t you just wish a little bit that alito would start a response with: “Well senator, at least I’m not a murderer..” If it had been you or me driving that car, we would have done 9 – 15 in prison..
Ok, I am no lawyer, and not even exceptionally bright. If I can figure out some of these truths as self evident, then why not flyover country Dems?
Jess
Here is the mission statement of the ACLU:
Do those of you on the right really want to frame the ACLU as an exclusively liberal organization? Are you suggesting that the right has no interest in individual rights?
(Remember that the ACLU has defended the rights of those on the extreme right as well, including Rush Limbaugh (sp?) and the KKK. Do your own research–don’t just swallow whatever bs your party dishes out.)
Bruce Moomaw
As Orrin Hatch noted in his autobiography, the only reason the GOP DIDN’T throw Hewitt’s “tantrums” about Clinton’s Court nominees was that Hatch told Clinton flatly that the GOP would block any Supreme Court nominees by Clinton except Breyer and Ginsburg, and Clinton accordingly nominated Breyer and Ginsburg. I don’t recall Bush similarly contacting the Democrats for such permission.
As for Roberts and Alito standing for “self-government”: please. They have both firmly favored overwhelmingly limiting the rights of citizens to be given any opportunity to sue government officials (see Dahlia Lithwick’s “Humble Fie” piece in the Sept. 2 “Slate” for Roberts’ views on the subject), and they favor allowing the elected President overwhelming power over the similarly elected Congress. (Where the attitude of current “conservatives” toward limiting the right of US citizens to sue their government is concerned, note also the already-existing right-wing Court majority’s extraordinary redefinition of the 11th Amendment — whose wording clearly just prohibits citizens of one state from suing another state’s government — to say that it frequently forbids citizens to sue their OWN state’s government. The court majority, to quote Rehnquist’s explicit statement, knowingly and wholly rewrote the meaning of the Amendment to agree with its own views of of proper governmental power. Talk about shameless judicial activism! — and in a sinister cause. See E.J. Dionne’s Feb. 23, 2001 Wash. Post column, “The Overreaching Court”, for the details.)
As Dave Wiegel said to caution other conservatives in their dealings with Hugh Hewitt: “When you gaze too deeply into the Kool-Aid, the Kool-Aid gazes into you.”
Tom
The only way to take activism away from judicial proceedings, to eliminate the political from what should be supremely non-political, is to require unanimity in judicial rulings. Appeals courts should consist of at least three but no more than nine justices. The decisions of these panels, if the law is the law, need to be unanimous. If the law does not allow the best and brightest the legal profession has to offer to reach unanimity, then the law is not sufficiently settled or defined. The only reason for disagreement would necessarily be political. This being so, the matter should be remanded to the political branches of government for decision. No judge should have a “judicial philosophy” which “guides” his/her decisions. The philosophy of any particular law is decided in the legislature. If these legal eagles and their so-called “judical philosophies” cannot come to a unanimous decision, then the matter needs to be hammered on the anvil of debate, purified in the fire of rhetoric, and enlightened by public scrutiny. It is the ‘People’s’ houses, the legislatures, where our lives and fealties are bargained and bartered, and if we don’t like the deal, “Throw the bums out”. If judges cannot agree on what the law means, if the brightest legal minds differ on its import or application, how can ‘We The People’ be a nation of laws, and not of men. If the law is so convoluted as to require a multiplicity of interpretation, send it back to its place of birth for corrective surgery. Let the peoples’ voice be heard in the decisions of their lives. If this were to be so, the debate ongoing in Congress and the nation would disappear.
TheConfusedOne
OK for those who are arguing about Ginsburg and the ACLU how about we look at some “mainstream” positions she held before her confirmation. Our friends over at Volokh have the details.
Imagine what hay would be made out of nominee who took the opposite positions on those issues.
The Disenfranchised Voter
See Jess. I told you most Republicans hate any organization that protects American Civil Liberties.
The anit-Christian meme is always esposed by out-of-touch Christians Theocrats. The type who think the 10 Commandments should be placed in public schools and on courthouse steps.
Larry
Disen. Voter: “Clinton had conscious nominees, Bush hasn’t.” Per Lithwick, Alito may be the only one who is “conscious”. The clueless, bloviating Sens are bored and boring us to death.
Re ACLU mission statement: Second Amendment is conspicuous by its absence.
deb
The ACLU was established by a Communist… Roger Baldwin.
The ACLU’s founder, Roger Baldwin, stated: “We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself… We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal.” (Source: Trial and Error, by Geo. Grant)
Following are some of the stated goals of the ACLU, from its own published Policy Issues:
the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211);
the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as “free speech” (Policy 4);
the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210);
the promotion of homosexuality (Policy 264);
the opposition of rating of music and movies (Policy 18);
opposition against parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262);
opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263);
opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262);
opposition of parental choice in children’s education (Policy 80)
— not to mention the defense and promotion of euthanasia, polygamy, government control of church institutions, gun control, tax-funded abortion, birth limitation, etc. (Policies 263, 133, 402, 47, 261, 323, 271, 91, 85).
The Second Amendment isn’t listed because they ‘support disarmament’, an unarmed people cannot prevent tyranny.
Coincidentally, a lot of the above ACLU policies match the Communist stated objectives listed in ‘The Naked Communist’ published in 1959. Actually when you read the list it is quite amazing.
deb
“Stalin once said, “America is like a healthy body, and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we (communists) can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.” Consider that quote as you examine the goals:
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of communist affiliation and regardless of whether items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet Satellites
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of communist domination.
7. Grant recognition to Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Allow all Soviet Satellites individual representation in the U.N.
9. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
10. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
11. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
12. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
13. Use technical decisions of the court to weaken basic American institutions by claiming they violate civil rights.
14. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in the textbooks.
15. Gain control of all student newspapers.
16. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under communist attack.
17. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
18. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
19. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless art forms.”
20. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
21. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
22. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
23. Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy”.
24. Infiltrate the churches and replace Biblical religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch”.
25. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state”.
26. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a world-wide basis.
27. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
28. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the communist apparatus.
29. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
30. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
31. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions and big business.
32. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
33. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents.
34. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
35. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
BrianOfAtlanta
The ACLU’s stance on the second amendment can be found at:
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
Basically, it boils down to:
Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.
Some amendments are more equal than other amendments.
Steve S
Looks like the John Birchers have come to join us.
The Disenfranchised Voter
well deb, I want to thank you for posting because your sheer insanity will only drive people towards the ACLU and Brian you’re either mistaken or your lying because the ACLU views the right to bear arms as a collective right.
Taken from your very own link:
Aaron Nixon
I must say, I see a lot of Republican this & Democrat that.
Of all the things that made this country great so many years ago, it’s sad that people hold onto this bias.
The only thing that will save this country in the future is variety of parties, ideals & ideas. Presently our government *for* the people has been against the people, it has removed our rights, fought to remove our freedoms and in the worst of ways, as Americans we like it, we ask for more.
We don’t want the responsibility of raising our children, we don’t want to be told that it’s our fault that terrorism exists in our country, we want to hide our secrets because doing the right thing is too much an inconvenience.
At best we are a weak country and nearing collapse.
The appearance of this garbage into our supreme court is only partial proof.
Until we grow up and take responsibility for our actions both locally, nationally & globally we will continue in this downward spiral that can only be slowed so much.
Anyway, my apologies for leaving the topic, I don’t post often (Probably not at all on this site yet). And it disgusts me to see such ignorant bias based on such a simple thing as party orientation. Republicans and Democrats aren’t the only people in America. Christianity isn’t the only religion in America. Moral rights and justices don’t only exist for one party or another, one religion or another, one sexual orientation or another. Equality is equality, you need to remove the bias.
P.S. This reply isn’t towards the author (Hope I didn’t offend). I very much appreciated reading your open-minded review.