As Judge Samuel Alito’s January judiciary committee questioning slowly approaches, some Americans may begin to take it for granted that he will be appointed to the Supreme Court. He may well be appointed as a justice unless someone from the Democratic party can stand up and rightly attack Alito for his laundry list of unappealing characteristics.
Samuel Alito believes that women should be required to notify their spouses before having an abortion; he has written praise of himself for contributing to cases that argued “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.” We have no guarantees that he would honor the precedent set by Roe v. Wade if appointed.
Alito once wrote in a job application, “I am and always have been a conservative.” Judges are not supposed to have views that put them on either side of the party line. Judges are expected to fairly apply the constitution to real world situations, and political or religious viewpoints should never be a factor in judicial decision making. Alito’s personal definition of his own political leanings makes the judge unfit for the Supreme Court.
Alito is, like Miers, an old friend of President Bush. Alito might have more judicial experience than Miers, but hiring your friends to run the country is still not a good idea. The fact that words such as “cronyism” have entered our lexicon to describe Bush’s recent appointments betrays the foolishness of this move.
This week, Sen. Ken Salazar, a Democrat from Colorado, said in an interview that there is still a small chance that Democrats might filibuster the Alito hearing. Comparing Judge Alito to the what a Supreme Court judge should be, it is apparent that a filibuster may be the best choice.
Judge’s conservatism conflicts with needed objectivity
Daily Emerald
November 21, 2005
0
More to Discover