Friday, January 13, 2006
Alito Nomination
Right up front I reveal my bias: I do not want to see Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. I believe he will try to overturn the Roe b. Wade decision. I believe that in interpreting the Constitution he will come down on the side of corporations rather than working people, on the side of business rather than environment, and so on. He is, by his own admission, a conservative Republican.
I can go on and tell you why I don't like the conservative Republican philosophy, but that's a subject for another post. My real concern is that this man, Samuel Alito, has in the past expressed himself clearly as anti-choice, annti-equal rights for women, anti-one person, one vote, etc. Not only do most Democrats in the Senate oppose such views, but many Republicans do also. However, all of the pro-choice, pro-civil rights, pro-working people Republicans plan to vote in favor of confirming this very conservative man as a supreme court justice.
I think that Judge Alito's views are opposed by at least sixty percent of Americans. I know, in spite of the cant uttered by some of his supporters in the Senate, that a "strict" construction of the constitution is just as subject to the personal views of the judge making the interpretation as a "loose" construction. A strict construction of the constitution does not (or does) find a right to a heart transplant, for example. The phrase "heart transplant" or "organ transplant" or "blood transfusion" does not appear anywhere in the document. Hence, an organ transplant or a blood transfusion is not a constitutionally protected right. However, the constitution does contain language that says that rights not enumerated in the document are reserved to the states or to the people. A strict constructionist who is not a Jehovah's Witness could find that organ transplants and other life-saving medical procedures are among the "rights not enumerated" that belong to the people or the states. Judge Alito and his right-wing supporters can prattle on and on about not basing a judgment on a desired outcome, but they are hypocrites. They can use the exact language of the constitution to argue that there is or is not an explicit right to an abortion. Since they abhor abortion for religious reasons, just as Jehovah's Witnesses abhor blood transfusions, they find a way concluding that the constitution does not provide a right to an abortion (or a blood transfusion).
The framers of our constitution provided that the Senate shall confirm an appointment to the Supreme Court by a simple majority vote. On the other hand, they stipulated that a solemn treaty requires a 2/3 vote for ratification. The reason is that a treaty ranks just below the constitution itself in legal precedence and supercedes any ordinary law enacted by Congress or a state legislature. They did not foresee that the Supreme Court would inherit the power to judge the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress or state legislatures. They thought it would be the responsibility of the President to veto such laws. It came as a great surprise when the Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshal, asserted that right in the early 1800's in the case of Marbury v. Madison. I am convinced that if the framers of the Constitution had anticipated the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the document, they would certainly have stipulated a 2/3 vote for confirming any justice to the Court.
The present incumbent shows how laughable it is that the President would be an impartial judge of the constitutionality of any piece of legislation, or that he would exercise prudent care to select justices who are truly impartial.
I can go on and tell you why I don't like the conservative Republican philosophy, but that's a subject for another post. My real concern is that this man, Samuel Alito, has in the past expressed himself clearly as anti-choice, annti-equal rights for women, anti-one person, one vote, etc. Not only do most Democrats in the Senate oppose such views, but many Republicans do also. However, all of the pro-choice, pro-civil rights, pro-working people Republicans plan to vote in favor of confirming this very conservative man as a supreme court justice.
I think that Judge Alito's views are opposed by at least sixty percent of Americans. I know, in spite of the cant uttered by some of his supporters in the Senate, that a "strict" construction of the constitution is just as subject to the personal views of the judge making the interpretation as a "loose" construction. A strict construction of the constitution does not (or does) find a right to a heart transplant, for example. The phrase "heart transplant" or "organ transplant" or "blood transfusion" does not appear anywhere in the document. Hence, an organ transplant or a blood transfusion is not a constitutionally protected right. However, the constitution does contain language that says that rights not enumerated in the document are reserved to the states or to the people. A strict constructionist who is not a Jehovah's Witness could find that organ transplants and other life-saving medical procedures are among the "rights not enumerated" that belong to the people or the states. Judge Alito and his right-wing supporters can prattle on and on about not basing a judgment on a desired outcome, but they are hypocrites. They can use the exact language of the constitution to argue that there is or is not an explicit right to an abortion. Since they abhor abortion for religious reasons, just as Jehovah's Witnesses abhor blood transfusions, they find a way concluding that the constitution does not provide a right to an abortion (or a blood transfusion).
The framers of our constitution provided that the Senate shall confirm an appointment to the Supreme Court by a simple majority vote. On the other hand, they stipulated that a solemn treaty requires a 2/3 vote for ratification. The reason is that a treaty ranks just below the constitution itself in legal precedence and supercedes any ordinary law enacted by Congress or a state legislature. They did not foresee that the Supreme Court would inherit the power to judge the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress or state legislatures. They thought it would be the responsibility of the President to veto such laws. It came as a great surprise when the Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshal, asserted that right in the early 1800's in the case of Marbury v. Madison. I am convinced that if the framers of the Constitution had anticipated the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the document, they would certainly have stipulated a 2/3 vote for confirming any justice to the Court.
The present incumbent shows how laughable it is that the President would be an impartial judge of the constitutionality of any piece of legislation, or that he would exercise prudent care to select justices who are truly impartial.
