Pardon the redundancy, but Sen. Schumer has outdone himself (via Taranto).
This morning I went and visited Rosa Parks in the Capitol Rotunda to pay my respects.
Being in the presence of Ms. Parks was awe-inspiring. This was a woman who changed history with one thin dime. She paid her fare and took her rightful seat on the bus and America was never the same again.
Like Rosa Parks, Judge Alito will be able to change history by virtue of where he sits. The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place.
Judge Alito’s visit to Rosa Parks this morning was appropriate. His record, as I’m sure Rosa Parks would agree, is much more important.
As I argued here, Rosa Parks’s claim to fame is her embodiment of the principle that people, not just bus riders, should be treated without regard to their race. I’m sure Judge Alito believes that. I’m also sure Sen. Schumer doesn’t.
“As I argued here, Rosa Parks’s claim to fame is her embodiment of the principle that people, not just bus riders, should be treated without regard to their race. I’m sure Judge Alito believes that.”
What makes you say that?
“Scalito” isn’t coming in with rave reviews on civil rights.
>>>” judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Alito has a disturbing record in cases involving discrimination based on race, disability and gender. Under his judicial philosophy, victims would face near-impossible burdens to prove their discrimination. One Third Circuit majority opinion, criticizing a dissent from Alito, noted that his approach would immunize employers who had a “conscious racial bias” when hiring employees.
Alito also subscribes to a “states’ rights” approach that undercuts the ability of federally elected representatives to enact laws that protect civil rights, an approach that leaves women vulnerable. For example, Alito has argued that the U.S. Congress cannot apply laws such as the Family and Medical Leave Act to state government employees, allowing state governments to deny employees such leave.”
http://www.legalmomentum.org/news/ib/05_march/presletter.shtml
As more of “Scalito’s” paper trail is revealed, I wonder how many more red flags are going to pop up?
–Cobra
All the info I see is that Alito SUPPORTS affirmative action (yes it’s just second hand info, but its all we have).
(scroll down to entry 44)
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1770
On abortion and gun control, Alito is without a doubt conservative. But on affirmative action, he’s basically an unknown. Does being conservative on abortion and gun control mean one will be conservative on other issues (like affirmative action)?
Let’s see. Cobra, who supports discrimination in Detroit against minority immigrants to benefit majority blacks, is concerned about Alito regarding civil rights. I’m betting he’s not worried that Alito might uphold skin color preferences. That settles it for me.
“Does being conservative on abortion and gun control mean one will be conservative on other issues (like affirmative action)?”
Well, usually, but not always.
…I’m sure that answer was very helpful.
If it can be shown that Alito tilts toward racial and gender preferences, then anti-preference groups such as the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) should once again rise up and oppose him, as they did with Miers.
Enough of the Sandra Day O’Con-job styled vacillation on AA. We need to have a Court with the backbone to end this blatant discrimination once and for all.
Cobra,
You forgot to mention that your reference is from the web page of Legal Momentum, the new name of NOW Legal Defense and Education fund.
Now that is certainly an unbiased source.
Richard writes:
>>>”You forgot to mention that your reference is from the web page of Legal Momentum, the new name of NOW Legal Defense and Education fund.
Now that is certainly an unbiased source.”
Fair enough. Let’s look at the accounts from Wikipedia:
>>>”A dissenting opinion in Sheridan v. Dupont, 74 F.3d 1439 (3d Cir. 1996)(en banc). [24]. Alito would have required a plaintiff to meet a higher standard of evidence to survive a motion for summary judgement in a sex discrimination case, agreeing with a ruling by the 5th Circuit. Alito earlier wrote the majority opinion when the case was heard before a three-judge panel, [25] expressing a preference for the 5th Circuit’s reasoning, but ruling according to 3rd Circuit precedent.
A dissenting opinion in Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 110 F.3d 986 (3d Cir. 1997), [26] arguing that, when a Marriott housekeeping manager sued Marriott over being allegedly denied promotion on the basis of race, summary judgment in favor of the defendant was appropriate because the plaintiff had not presented enough evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that every one of the reasons Mariott offered for having promoted someone else was a mere pretext. The majority responded that Alito would have protected racist employers by
Cobra,
How come you failed to inform us of this opinion of Judge Alito that was also from Wikipedia?
A majority opinion in Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003), [23] granting a writ of habeas corpus to a black state prisoner after state courts had refused to consider the testimony of a witness who stated that a juror had uttered derogatory remarks about blacks during an encounter in the courthouse after the conclusion of the trial.
Could it be because it fails to conform to your biases? Far be if from me to denigrate Wikipedia, but it would not be anyone
“Wikipedia states that Alito has written more than 700 opinions. By judiciously picking and choosing a few of his opinions are you accurately portraying his judicial philosophy or are you simply attempting to demonize him?”
How are the proponents of Judge Alito promoting him? are they accurately portraying his jurisprudence?
How are the proponents of Judge Alito promoting him? are they accurately portraying his jurisprudence?
I fail to see your point. There isn’t any deception on the part of his supporters. They are happy with his conservative judicial philosophy and state so openly. The fact that you don
“I fail to see your point. There isn’t any deception on the part of his supporters.”
The point is that his promoters don’t point to ANY cases of the guy. I’ve heard a generic statement that he supports a restrained judiciary. But his FMLA decision is counter to that, being overruled Rehnquist!
“If there is any hypocrisy here it is not on the part of the Republicans. ”
Its not hypocritical to believe that someone is fine for the position of a circuit judge, where they follow the supreme court, and not fine for the supreme court, where they follow only their own self-restraint. This is quite a basic fact of our legal structure, and we should be wary of the commentary that comes from people who don’t realize this.
So far, all I’ve seen quoted here against him are characterizations of his position by those who disagree with him. Except the third-hand rumor. And we are supposed to put stock in these things, why?….
“So far, all I’ve seen quoted here against him are characterizations of his position by those who disagree with him. ”
One of those who has disagreed with him is the late justice rehnquist. Who disagreed him on his views of the FMLA.
But why put stock in that?
Actus,
Its not hypocritical to believe that someone is fine for the position of a circuit judge, where they follow the supreme court, and not fine for the supreme court, where they follow only their own self-restraint. This is quite a basic fact of our legal structure, and we should be wary of the commentary that comes from people who don’t realize this.
Just which part of unanimously confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals don
actus,
One of those who has disagreed with him is the late justice rehnquist. Who disagreed him on his views of the FMLA.
But why put stock in that?
Well, is it relevant that three sitting members of the Court also disagreed with Rehnquist in Hibbs? You’re not seriously suggesting that a candidate for the Supremes who is him/herself currently a sitting appellate justice must have agreed with every ultimate decision on every case that got appealed further up the line, are you?
“If you really believe that all an Appeals Court justice does is
“So far, all I’ve seen quoted here against him are characterizations of his position by those who disagree with him.” One of those who has disagreed with him is the late justice rehnquist. Who disagreed him on his views of the FMLA. But why put stock in that?
Was Rehnquist quoted here? No. Was Rehnquist’s characterization of Alito’s position (if any) quoted here? No.
Why did you respond, then, as you did? Did you not understand what I wrote? Were you just trying to change the subject? Didn’t you understand what the subject was?
More importantly, should I really be wasting time responding to you?
Never mind: that last question was rhetorical. :-)
‘Was Rehnquist quoted here? No. Was Rehnquist’s characterization of Alito’s position (if any) quoted here? No.’
the post above your original one mentioned Alito’s FMLA decision being overruled by rehnquist.
But even in case you weren’t reading that, I was trying to add — again — to your knowledge of the appointee. So now, when you decide not to take stock in what people who disagree with him say, you realize you are not taking stock in what rehnquist said.
actus,
I suggest visiting Ann Althouse’s blog, scrolling down what’s by now probably a long way, and reading her account of the arguments involved in the FMLA case. It’s interesting, but complicated.