Blue Mass Group has an excellent post about how easy it is to compile a list of rulings for a judge to make them appear to be an extremist. They look at the lists provided by liberal activist groups to paint Alito as a right wing nut, then give their own list of other rulings by Alito that would have made it look the opposite (cases where he ruled, for instance, that a school district had to pay for a student to attend another school because they were negligent in not preventing his classmates from engaging in anti-gay bullying of the student; where he ruled that a trial court must consider evidence of racial bias in a jury; where he held a public housing authority in contempt for overcharging low-income tenants for utilities, etc). Then they write:
I could go on and on, but you get the idea - this list doesn't paint quite the same picture as those other lists. Now, does this prove that Alito is in fact a closet super-liberal who will unexpectedly break to the left if he is confirmed? Of course not - we can most likely expect Alito to be a pretty reliable conservative on the Supreme Court (though I have no doubt that he, like every other Justice in the history of the Supreme Court, will from time to time surprise and disappoint those who backed his nomination). All that this - or any of the other "lists" floating around - can prove is that Alito has been a judge for a long time; that he has decided a lot of tough cases that could have gone either way; and that you should be very careful about reading too much into selective "case summaries" proffered by interest groups with an agenda.
Preach on, brother. This hits the nail precisely on the head.
- Log in to post comments
I have been very sceptical of Alito and remain so to a certain degree but I find the cases mentioned by Blue Mass compelling. The other thing that lends me to believe he may in fact be a reasonable addition to the Supreme Court is his seeming belief in states rights. Having recently transplanted from Michigan to Oregon, a state being repeatedly challenged by the current administration in the White House I have an increasing appreciation for this stance. My adopted home has a number of progressive laws that I like which the administration objects to and wishes to challenge. They have managed to get a ruling against our medical marijuana law - the most restrictive of any state with such laws. They are moving to challenge our death with dignity act - I still don't understand how, who's the injured party? Back in Michigan we didn't seem to have nearly the same issues with the feds trying to infringe on our rights as a state so I had never realy understood just how ridiculous the feds infringements could be. I had some very serious fears of an Alito nomination before - more than I ever had with Roberts but that just goes to show how deceiveing appearances can be. All in all I am realy, realy looking forward to the confirmation hearings. I have a feeling they will be both more entertaining and educational than the Roberts hearings were.
The term "states' rights" was a code word used by segregationists to argue that the states should be able to limit the civil rights of people, that the Constitution restricts only the federal governement's actions in that respect. It is a tainted expression to anyone over a certain age.
As I have understood the term it regards a states right to make it's own laws outside the paramaters defined by the US constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am just irritated that the Feds think they have the right to say that I don't have a right to euthanasia drugs if I am in the throughs of a debilitating illness or have been grievously injured and wish to end my life without my only option being the withdrawl of medical care. Yet this is what Bush and his "administration" wish to do. The people of Oregon voted on this measure which passed with overwhelming support from Oregon's citizens - now the feds wish to infringe on the right of the state of Oregon to pass such a law. That is how I am defining states rights - and as I understand it those who say Alito is for states rights mean the same thing.
The Oregon assisted suicide case is exactly why I don't take the right's cries of "judicial activism" seriously. They usually use the phrase to mean "unlected judges overruling the will of the people". Yet here is a state referendum passed not once, but twice, by the people of Oregon. And the same people who blather on about judicial activism ran straight into court to get an "unelected judge" to overturn the will of the people. Their problem is not with judges overruling popular laws, it's with judges overruling laws that they happen to like, regardless of the will of the people. "Judicial activism" is a meaningless catchphrase that doesn't mean anything like what those who use it claim it means.