Am I Missing Something?
Regarding Samuel Alito? Maybe there's some legal bit that's hidden from my layman's eyes, but his record is not hitting panic buttons in my liberal brain. In fact, the press I'm reading shows a justice who is thoughtful, fair, temperate, and who shows respect for the law. Yes, there's been decisions I don't agree with, but there's been no grandstanding, or "activism" or antics of any kind. He seems like a good guy.
I think the nation could use a little respect for the law right now. Maybe one of my readers can explain to my why I shouldn't be in favor of this pick?
posted by
HRH Courtney, Queen of Everything
@
9:34 PM
2 Comments:
I don't think Alito is a reckless neocon who will try to enact some fundamentalist regime from the bench; you're right on that mark. Alito is not there to make laws, he's there to interpret them.
And therein lies the danger: the Constitution of the United States is deliberately worded vaguely to allow for flexiblity, and is therefore subject to the worldview of its interpreters. Conservative judges like Scalia and Alito insist on interpreting the Constitution as the founding fathers would have, allowing for no variance due to little things like, say, the reality of an evolving society. This is why ScAlito would overturn Miranda rights, allow torture in interrogation, insist on a husband's approval for a woman to get an abortion: because that's how the founding fathers would have done it.
If that's not scary enough, consider the following. The original wording of the Declaration of Independence was "life, liberty, and property", and the Bill of Rights was orignally drawn up by a bunch of rich white men to "protect the affluent minority from the empoverished majority", and realize that that is the worldview of men like Alito and Scalia.
1. He will not affirm his deference to precedent, such as Roe v. Wade, which means anything will go with him.
2. He is a Federalist, which is a code word for judicial activism under the cover of restraint. All the MI SC Justices who are ruining our state are Federalists, as are Scalia and Thomas. They overturn precedent over precedent, making the law conform to their views.
3. He thinks restraint means deferring to other branches of govt. Checks and balances do not mean that the cts defer, it means that they uphold the constitution.
I'll stop there. He is a very, very dangerous type of justice, and his record is almost exclusively pro-big business and anti-little guy.
Post a Comment
<< Home