Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Over the next 12 days the Anti-Alito Brigade will be bringing you many of those reasons, and also some actions that you might consider to help stop this horrible nomination. The main intention of this nomination is to try and tip the balance of power away from the legislative branch and towards the President.

More importantly, Alito is an activist judge that will legislate from the bench on many of the issues that all progressives hold dear to their heart.

12 Days of Justice - Day 2

Today's focus is on ScAlito's apparent disdain for minorities' rights and his stubborn refusal to even acknowledge the existence of discrimination.

Please vist the bootrib diaryand use the information to compel your senators to quash this nomination!

This diary is for For Justice: Day 2 regarding Alito's positions on age discrimination & FMLA.

My own "copper coinage" (I have someone here to thank for that phrase): States have rights; people don't. This warped concept is as antebellum as it is evil. Don't be fooled because Alito's bright enough not to snarl; he's as wingnut as they come ... only quieter.

Anyway, please take this letter and adapt as you will. Feel free to use all or in part.

And pass it on!

People forget that redemption is tailor-made for the wretched. - Tookie Williams

please check it out and jump right in!

People forget that redemption is tailor-made for the wretched. - Tookie Williams

Dear Senator:

I was born an American.  Among all the blessings of my birth, that one has had the most powerful influence on my life.  My parents did their best to educate me in their religion, but as I grew older I came to see that it was a matter of choice.  The sacred documents of my country assured me that I was free to develop my own personal version of what God is.  I am free to join a church, to worship or not, to pray or not, to believe what I will.

The creeds of America became my religion, I share them with anyone who tries to convert me to his own version of the truth.  I have faith that all men are created equal, that we are alike even though each is different.

I am proud to belong to a nation that functions by the rule of law, with nobody above that law.  I believe in the concept of fairness, and of opportunity shared by all.  I believe that what is between my god and myself is a private matter.

The founders of the United States very deliberately gave us a democratic republic that eliminated class distinction and religion.  As Noah Webster told us in 1783  "The very idea of a system of religious principles...is totally repugnant to the spirit of christianity.  Every establishment is only a milder term for tyranny... It is an insult to humanity, a solemn mockery of all justice and common sense...."

This view has been opposed since our beginning when the Rev. John Mason warned Americans that they would "have every reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe...crush us to atoms in the wreck."

The founders shared the belief that Europe's melding of religion and government had been bad for both, so they guaranteed our basic freedoms with the Bill of Rights; separating our state from any established religion.

Religious reactionaries have been relentless in their attacks on our secular state.  In the 1820's Senator Richard M. Johnson had to defend the Post Office from accusations of sacrilege.  President Lincoln ignored demands that the Constitution be amended to declare Jesus Christ lord of the land.

Now, we are subjected to the threats of Pat Robertson and his comrades of the cross, along with the so-called `war on Christmas.'  As Esther Kaplan points out in her book  "With God on Their Side"
      "You cannot underestimate the extent to which the Christian Right feels like this is the culmination of their work.  This is the moment they've been waiting for.  Roe v Wade was the single most important factor in the rise of the Christian Right as a social movement, and the brass ring has always been to stack the Supreme Court so they can overturn that decision.  They have the Senate, they have the presidency.  This really is their moment and they are going to pull out all the stops."

Fundamentalists thrive on creating adversity, chaos and strife. Dominion is their goal, never peace.  I am deeply frightened of the extreme animosity that smolders in our country, and dread that the confirmation of Samuel Alito could be the spark that sets it off.

Inevitably, a Justice will be influenced by his private morality and religion;   but Judge Alito seems to believe it is constitutionally permissible to disregard the rights of both unbelievers and unorthodox believers.  A man such as this does not belong on the Supreme Court.

People forget that redemption is tailor-made for the wretched. - Tookie Williams

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford

But thanks for posting this.  Saw it over at Booman and it's good timing.

Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle. FDR

This diary is for For Justice: Day 3 regarding Alito's violations of
judicial ethics.

The following letter is ready to send to members of the senate
Juciciary Comittee, as well as other Senators. Feel free to adapt it
as you see fit.

Dear Senator:

Justice Alito doesn't deserve to be rewarded with an appointment to
the Supreme Court for lying to the Senate. Nor does he deserve to be
rewarded with that appointment for his repeated violations of the laws
and ethical codes that govern the conduct of federal judges.

In 1990, as a nominee seeking appointment to the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals, Justice Alito, recognized that he had inherent conflicts
of interest due to his ownership of mutual funds managed by Vanguard,
and because of his dealings with the brokerage firm, Smith Barney. He
promised that he would recuse himself from hearing any cases involving
those two companies. He also promised to recuse himself from any
cases involving his sister's law firm. Specifically, in his
questionnaire, he stated:

"I would . . . disqualify myself from any cases involving
the Vanguard companies, the brokerage firm of Smith Barney or the
First Federal Savings & Loan of Rochester, N.Y."

Yet in 1996, he participated in a case in which one of the litigants
was represented by his sister's law firm, without informing the other
parties to the case of his possible conflict of interest. In 1996, he
also heard a case in which Smith Barney was a party, without informing
the parties of his ongoing relationship with that brokerage firm. In
neither case did he disqualify himself.

In 2002, he again failed to disqualify himself from a case involving
the Vanguard companies, at a time when he held investments with
vanguard valued between $390,000 and $975,000. In the Vanguard case,
the plaintiff, a widow, challenged Justice Alito's participation
immediately upon learning of his interest in Vanguard funds, but after
the three-judge panel of which Alito was a member had dismissed her
appeal. Once again, Justice Alito failed to inform the parties to the
litigation of his potential conflict of interest. It was only after
being confronted with that inherent conflict by the plaintiff that
Justice Alito disqualified himself, albeit with great reluctance.

At first, Justice Alito blamed a computer glitch for assigning him a
case he shouldn't have heard, which begs the question why, when he saw
Vanguard was a party, he didn't immediately recuse himself as he had
previously promised he would. It's difficult to believe he simply
forgot he had an interest in Vanguard funds, after all.

Now he says said he had been "unduly restrictive" in promising the
Senate back in 1990 that he would remove himself in cases involving
Vanguard Group Inc. and Smith Barney Inc. One can argue whether the
"I changed my mind" defense invalidates a prior pledge made under oath
to the Senate. What cannot be argued however, is that his conduct in
each of these cases failed to meet the standard required under the
applicable ethical canons applicable to federal judges, the "Code of
Conduct for United States Judges" ("Code"), as well as the applicable
federal law regarding judicial disqualification , Section 455 of Title
28 of the United States Code (28 USC Sect. 455).

Canon 1 of the Code states that "A judge should participate in
establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct,
and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity
and independence of the judiciary may be preserved." The official
comment to Canon 1 spells out what this obligation entails in greater
detail:

Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends
upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges.
The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn upon their
acting without fear or favor. . . . Whether disciplinary action is
appropriate, and the degree of discipline to be imposed, should be
determined through a reasonable application of the text and should
depend on such factors as the seriousness of the violation, the intent
of the judge, whether there is a pattern of improper activity, and the
effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system.

Canon 2 provides in part: "A judge should respect and comply with the
law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." Its
commentary states:

Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by
irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all
impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be
the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept
restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary
citizen and should do so freely and willingly. . . . The test for
appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in
reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances
that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that the
judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity,
impartiality, and competence is impaired.

Clearly in this instance, Judge Alito's pattern of deception and/or
inattention regarding his possible conflicts of interest in cases that
appear before him degrades public confidence in the integrity and
independence of all federal judges, and violated his obligation to
avoid the appearance of impropriety.. First, he violated his promise
to the Senate that he would disqualify himself from cases involving
Vanguard, Smith Barney and his sister's law firm. At the very least,
that in itself bespeaks an arrogance that ill becomes a man who would
be a Supreme Court Justice.

Second, and more importantly from the standpoint of judicial ethics,
each time a case involving these parties was brought before him, he
failed to disclose his conflict of interest to the other litigants.
By keeping these conflicts hidden, he denied them the right to
challenge his participation in those cases, except for the one
instance in which where the plaintiff discovered his investments in
Vanguard on her own.

I can think of nothing that would impugn the integrity of the
judiciary more than conduct such as this by a judicial officer. To
deliberately, or through neglect, fail to disclose to litigants that a
judge may have an interest in a case causes severe damage to the
public's faith in an independent and impartial federal judiciary. How
can we trust the fairness of the decisions reached by our federal
courts when the Judges ruling in those cases are hiding their own
potential conflicts from parties to those lawsuits? How can we
believe that a potential Supreme Court Justice will act appropriately
and impartially in cases brought before him, when we know he has
deceived the Senate in his prior nomination proceeding for appointment
to the Third Circuit?

Such conduct clearly gives rise to the perception that Judge Alito's
"ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity,
impartiality, and competence is impaired. " What discipline is
appropriate for past such misbehavior by Judge Alito is not a concern
of the Senate. However, clearly, such a person, with his history of
secretive and improper conduct towards those who appear before him to
argue their cases, does not deserve elevation to a seat on the Supreme
Court, the highest judicial office in our country,.

Violations of Canons 1 and 2 of the Code, however, are not the only
ethical lapses by Judge Alito. His conduct also violates Canon of the
Code, as well as the provisions of 28 USC Sect. 455.

Canon 3 provides that

C. Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in
which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned,
including but not limited to instances in which: . . .

.(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary,
or the judge's spouse or minor child residing in the judge's
household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in
controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest
that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;

Section 455 states, in part:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United
States

shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following
circumstances: . . .

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his
spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial
interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to
the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially
affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

Some have claimed that Judge Alito had no "financial interest" in
Vanguard or Smith Barney under the wording of Canon 3 and Section
455(b)(4), because he did not own stock or other equity interests in
those two firms. They assert, therefore, that despite his prior
promise to the Senate, he had no obligation to recuse himself from
cases involving Vanguard and Smith Barney. This argument, even if
true, misses the point.

Even assuming that, technically, he did not have a "financial
interest" as that is narrowly defined in those laws, he was obligated
to disqualify himself because his impartiality in those cases could
reasonably be questioned. How do we know that? Because he said so
himself back in 1990. He promised the Senate that he would disqualify
himself specifically from any cases involving the Vanguard companies
or Smith Barney, Inc. he made it abundantly clear to the world that
he considered such cases ones where the appearance of impropriety
would arise. To try to wiggle off that pledge now by claiming that
his interest in those firms didn't meet the technical definition of a
"financial interest" is disingenuous, at best. He must have thought
his interest in those companies would cause reasonable people to
question his impartiality, or he would never have bothered to make
that promise in the first place.

In addition, his interest doesn't have to be a "financial interest"
as that is defined under Section 455 and Canon 3 so long as it is an
interest that "could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceeding." I find it hard to fathom how a six figure investment in
Vanguard funds does not qualify as an interest that could be
substantially affected by the litigation. Any case decided by the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Vanguard or Smith Barney
will be binding on all courts in the Third Circuit, and is a
persuasive precedent in other federal courts. Thus, any similar
litigation against those two firms would have a broad reaching
beneficial effect on their business by limiting the risk of similar
lawsuits in the future. To say that Judge Alito's interest would not
be substantially affected by his decision in such cases is simply
naïve. Or willfully dishonest.

Finally, I'd like to call your attention to Canon 2 C which provides:
"A judge should not hold membership in any organization that
practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex,
religion, or national origin." At the present time, I know of no
membership by Judge Alito in any organization that practices
"invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or
national origin" at present. However, we do know that he was a proud
member of such an organization in the past.

I refer specifically to his membership (as stated on his resume in
1985) in an organization called "Concerned Alumni of Princeton" or
"CAP" for short. For a description of CAP's activities prior to its
demise in 1986, I refer you to an article recently authored by Stephen
R. Dujack, a writer and former Associate Editor of the Princeton
Alumni Weekly ("PAW") from 1976-80 who frequently wrote about CAP in
PAW and The Daily Princetonian, from which the following excerpts are
taken:

From its founding in 1972 till its unlamented demise in
1986, CAP was an organization that at first openly opposed full
coeducation and the representative inclusion of minorities at
Princeton, and then when those became "settled issues," continued its
opposition to the mere presence of women and minorities at Princeton
through tactics ranging from code words to open harassment.

. . . Simultaneously, and with a blind eye to its perverse irony, CAP
campaigned for affirmative action for alumni in the administration and
faculty. CAP especially wanted affirmative action in the admissions
office for its members' kids and for those student-athletes with bad
grades and board scores.

. . . So in 2005, we know that in 1985, Alito belonged to a group
that was dedicated to pointlessly interfering with the functioning of
a university because its student body had representative numbers of
women and minorities, as required by law. A group which, for its
entire existence, used as its only tactics dissembling and dirty
tricks; the list above doesn't begin to do justice in describing the
organization's destructiveness. A lot of people were hurt in the
process. A great university was damaged.

I hope you agree with me such bigoted beliefs, and the acts
perpetrated in furtherance of them, are inimical to all that America
stands for, and that Judge Alito should explain in detail his past
association with CAP, including whether he still holds with its
discriminatory and inequitable agenda. Further, I think, this past
membership in CAP requires the Senate Judiciary Committee to
thoroughly investigate whether Judge Alito's present associations may
include membership in groups who currently practice or advocate racial
or gender discrimination.

Sincerely

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford

This diary is for Justice: Day 4 regarding the
threat that Alito's confirmation will bring to the rights of people
with disabilities.

(For the full list, please see Tampopo's diary. Yesterday's diary -- for Day 3 -- was by Steven D, and titled "For Justice: Day Three -- Alito and Judicial Ethics.")

Each of these diaries is presented for you in the format of a letter --
a letter that you can readily copy, or adapt, and then send to the
members of the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as to your own two senators, as they consider their votes for the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito.

Below the fold is my suggested letter regarding Alito's well-known record on disability rights.

By
the way, my style of writing letters to my senators Maria Cantwell and
Patty Murray and congressman Norm Dicks is to be as brief as possible.
Their staffs get an enormous volume of letters. They will not read my
lengthy explanations. They want to know where I stand, so that's
typically how I write my letters. However, I don't shoot off
one-liners. I try to supply facts and sources (as I've done below).

If
you disagree with my succinct style, please set forth your own, more
complex argument. Below, I will supply you with more resources.

Dear Senator:

Re:  Joseph Alito's Views on Disability Rights, as they pertain to his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court

It appears, from his dissent in Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania
(1991), that Judge Alito's view of discrimination against persons with
disability is so restrictive that "few if any...cases would survive
summary judgment." (ThinkProgress)

Most critically, the Bazelon Center has released an exhaustive
compendium of "'highlights of a long and troubling record' of
disability right cases [including very recent decisions] decided by
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito."

As recently as 2002, "Judge Alito ruled along with other judges on the
Third Circuit excusing local zoning boards from engaging in a process
to identify reasonable accommodations needed to provide equal access
for people with disabilities. (Lapid Laurel, L.L.C. v. Zoning Board of
Adjustment of Scotch Plains, 284 F.3d 442 (3d Cir. 2002)." (Bazelon Center's analysis via Ragged Edge Magazine)

A Web site blog that specializes in disability law -- Disability Law Blog -- also cites the Bazelon report:

See this alert,
which argues, in sum, that: "Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee to
replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, poses a
serious threat to people with disabilities. Having sat on a federal
court of appeals for 15 years, Judge Alito has a record of decisions
hostile to disability rights." The Bazelon folks give a number of
examples in the post.

I strongly urge that the full committee read the Bazelon report in
detail, and study the history of disability cases in which Judge Alito
has sided, time and time again, against the rights of people with
disabilities.

Not only does Judge Alito disregard the rights of people with
disabilities, he also appears to be "hostile" to their need for basic
rights -- signaling that he'd actively be a part of the retraction of
the agonizingly slow but steady progress for which people who suffer
from disabilities have fought for decades.

One of the hallmarks of a truly great nation is how we treat
those who are disabled. Judge Alito apparently does not share our
common vision for how we treat everyone in a nation that aspires to
greatness.

Very truly yours,

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford

So far in the 12 Days of Justice daily series you have learned that:

• Judge Samuel Alito does not respect the primary role of the Legislative branch of our government.
  By Tampopo



• Judge Alito will threaten the fundamental rights and basic legal protections for working Americans of all ages.
  By AP



• Judge Alito has violated the laws and ethical codes that govern the conduct of federal judges and was a member of the radical and discriminatory group CAP.
  By Steven D



• Judge Alito's view of discrimination against persons with disability is so restrictive that "few if any...cases would survive summary judgment."
  By susanhu

Todays diary for Day 5 will be a short and to the point explanation of Judge Alito's views concerning women and abortion rights. It will deal with his radical and demeaning views from the perspective of his positions revealed in certain abortion cases, memos, applications, and discussions of Roe v Wade.

Join me in the back alley below the fold.

---------------

In 1985 Alito made crystal clear his position concerning Roe v Wade.

Alito's name does not appear on any briefs the Reagan Solicitor General's office filed in abortion-related cases. However, just a few months before Alito wrote his DOJ application letter touting his contribution to cases in which the government argued that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," the Solicitor General's office had filed a brief in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on that very subject. The brief urged that "this Court should overrule" Roe v. Wade. The Court rejected the Solicitor General's arguments, with only two justices agreeing that Roe should be overturned.

T. R. Goldman at law.com Offers this opinion of the upcoming battle:

If Alito's jurisprudential views match those on the Thornburgh brief -- and at least in 1985, Alito indicated that they do -- then the job application provides the Judiciary Committee with the type of window into a future justice's thinking that, since the failed nomination of Robert Bork, has become almost nonexistent.

This is a nomination demanding to be "Borked" into nonexistence. But this still does not give a clear picture of his views on women's rights. Please consider taking and using any or all parts of the following letter and using it to contact your Senators concerning this nomination. Feel free to adapt and edit this letter, or you can just say how you feel about this in your own words. All we ask is that you take action before it is too late.

What does Samuel Alito think about women and abortion rights?

In Judge Alito's 1992 dissent in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Alito argued that a law requiring a woman in certain circumstances to notify her spouse before seeking an abortion did not pose an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. Alito asserted that if parental notification requirements were constitutional, as the Supreme Court had previously held, then spousal notification requirements must be permissible as well. (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).)

Alito's colleagues on the Third Circuit and a 5-4 Supreme Court majority disagreed. Writing for that Supreme Court majority, Sandra Day O'Connor firmly rejected Alito's troubling logic:

"A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children."


(Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) at 898.)

Sandra Day O'Connor was correct in rejecting Alito's view of women as subservient to men and less than equal in the eyes of the law.

In a 1985 memo Alito had advised the Reagan Administration that it should attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade. Alito urged the administration to file a friend-of-the-court brief in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and argued that this brief could promote "the goals of bringing about the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade, and in the meantime, of mitigating its effects."

Alito wanted the administration to "make clear" that it "disagree[d] with Roe v. Wade," but argued that the most effective long-term strategy of persuading the Supreme Court to overturn this groundbreaking precedent was to chip away at it slowly through extremely restrictive state laws. Overturning Roe v Wade would most certainly result in a return to the days of dangerous "illegal" abortions.

Is this the kind of nomination that sounds like a moderate? This candidate is not representative of my views, nor of mainstream America.

Alito clearly has no problem with forcing his radical ideals on women.

I strongly urge you to vote against this horrible nomination because no woman should be forced by anyone to have to resort to using a coat hanger to perform a back alley abortion. When you consider that Alito's warped views would be replacing the moderate voice of Sandra Day O'Connor there should be no doubt that Alito's nomination must be stopped.

Signed,

Some suggested contacts and petitions:

Your senators

The Judiciary Committee

Your representatives

Congress.org

Campus Progress "Stop Alito's America"

PFAW "Save the Court"

Planned Parenthood Anti-Alito Petition

Naral Anti-Alito Petition

Rolling Justice

Plan B Petition

Sending a FAX via the Web (For those of us that don't have a fax machine at home.)

Again, feel free to copy and paste any and all of the information or images you will see put up over the next couple of weeks by the Anti-Alito Brigade into Blogs and letters as we hold Alito's feet to the fire. Even if you only participate on a few of the days it can help make a difference. There are so many issues where Samuel Alito's views and allegiances are just flat out wrong for a SCOTUS nomination.

Note: Tommorrow's actions and reason's are still being worked on today. Feel free to check it out at Booman Tribune  (Just look for the "Justice" diaries) and any help or participation of any kind you can provide will be greatly appreciated. This is another action brought to you by the group that brought you "Operation Yellow Feather" which was a very successful cross blog protest. These actions are designed to help bring the "Left Blogosphere Think Tank" together on our many shared issues.

Watch for Alice's diaries on the  "separation of church and state/religious freedom" for days 6 and 7... On two different days because we want to keep them twice as separated!

Actions for: Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4

HTML code to cross post this in a txt file
Click to open, copy and paste vigorously all over the net! Please!

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford

This is my Day 6 letter in our Twelve Days For Justice series opposing Judge Alito.  It was my hope to write a sincere letter rather than a legal brief, so I did not cite any cases.  

If you want to verify his opinions here is a summary of  Alito's 3rd Circuit religion decisions provided by Professor Howard Friedman  of the University of Toledo College of Law.  This link will take you to his page of links to each case.  My letter for day 6 follows this list.  Please alter as you wish.

Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist., 386 F.3d 514 (October 15, 2004) OVERVIEW: Preliminary injunction properly ordered a school district to treat a child evangelism group like other community groups with regard to distribution of literature; group was likely to succeed on viewpoint discrimination claim under Free Speech Clause.

Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania, 381 F.3d 202 (August 20, 2004) OVERVIEW: Native American's free exercise rights were violated when he was denied a religious exemption from permit fees required because he owned two black bears. The fee regime's provisions were underinclusive and thus not generally applicable.

Fraise v. Terhune, 283 F.3d 506 (March 13, 2002) OVERVIEW: New Jersey prison policy that allowed correctional officials to designate "security threat groups" (STGs) did not violate equal protection in view of greater propensity for violence demonstrated by members of the STG.

Abramson v. William Paterson College, 260 F.3d 265, August 3, 2001, Concurrence by Alito, J. OVERVIEW: In religious discrimination suit, appellate court reversed summary judgment for the employer because the employee established a prima facie case for hostile work environment, religious discrimination, and retaliation.

ACLU-NJ v. Township of Wall, 246 F.3d 258 (April 3, 2001) OVERVIEW: Taxpayer plaintiffs failed to establish standing in their First Amendment holiday display claim where the record established that both the nativity display and the menorah at issue were donated to defendant Township.

Saxe v. State College Area Sch. Dist., 240 F.3d 200 (February 14, 2001) OVERVIEW: Public school district's student-on-student anti-harassment policy was unconstitutionally overbroad because it prohibited non-vulgar, non-sponsored student speech and did not satisfy the Tinker substantial disruption test.

C.H. v. Olivia, 226 F.3d 198 (August 28, 2000), cert. denied June 18, 2001. Dissent by Alito, J. OVERVIEW of majority opinion: Where it was not alleged that the removal of a student's poster occurred as a result of any school policy against the exhibition of religious material, judgment for school officials was remanded to allow plaintiff to amend her complaint.

FOP Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, 170 F.3d 359 (March 3, 1999) cert. denied October 4, 1999. OVERVIEW: Police department's policy, which prohibited beards, was found to be in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because it refused to make exemptions for religious reasons, even though medical exemptions were made.

ACLU NJ v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (February 16, 1999) OVERVIEW: A city's display of predominantly religious symbols in holiday display was unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause; however, addition of secular and cultural symbols diluted the display's message of endorsement of religion.

Edwards v. California Univ. of Pa., 156 F.3d 488 (August 10, 1998). cert. denied February 22, 1999. OVERVIEW: University professor did not have First Amendment right to choose classroom materials and subjects in contravention of university's dictates, and his suspension with pay did not violate procedural due process where he was not deprived of employment.

Dear Senator:

Samuel Alito wants to become the fifth Roman Catholic on our Supreme Court.  Chosen by a president who believes himself an instrument of God, Alito's ascension to the Supreme Court would jeopardize the predominance of our Constitution.

Threatened by the religious right over his nomination of Harriet Miers, President Bush  selected their preferred choice.  This nomination has been applauded by Christian fundamentalists who fear a loss of their power.

Pat Robertson said he "can see the majority shifted on the court, instead of 4 to 5 against the Lord, going 5 to 4 in His favor."  Television ads placed by religious groups hail Alito as a savior and protector against evil forces such as "The ACLU's attempt to scrub away our religious heritage."

Every decision by Judge Alito has favored the public display and proselytizing of the religious.  He has indicated in meetings with Senators that he believes the Court has gone too far in separating church and state.

I would suggest two questions for Judge Alito:  
Do you agree with Associate Justice Scalia that the Constitution permits "disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists?"

Do you agree with Thomas Jefferson's discussion of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom when he said: "The proposal to insert "Jesus Christ" was rejected by a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, The Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."

America was never a nation of Christians, though they hold the majority.  The Puritans began by outlawing religious practices of the native peoples.  Too many American Christians feel entitled to dominion over people who view the world differently.  I don't want my country to become a fundamentalist-dominated theocracy like a middle-eastern nation.

While I don't know how Judge Alito would rule in first amendment cases, I do fear that he will be unduly influenced by fanatical fundamentalists, powerful politicians, corporate masters and the Pope in his decisions.

Our Constitution deliberately avoids mention of God.  We depend upon the Supreme Court as the last bastion of hope for the protection of an individual's rights.  Please don't let it become dominated by a group of men who share a religious viewpoint.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

sincerely,

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford

People forget that redemption is tailor-made for the wretched. - Tookie Williams

People forget that redemption is tailor-made for the wretched. - Tookie Williams

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford

 Do you remember when you were a kid, and
members of the opposite sex had "cooties?"  Some boys might have
even gone so far as to post a sign like this

on the door of their hang out.

Sadly, some boys never grow up and never want to let the girls (of
African-Americans, or Hispanics, etc.) in their club.  This brings
us to today's installment of keep Alito off the Supreme Court.

In the early 70's, Alito belonged to an organization called Concerned
Alumni of Princeton(CAP).  This article from the Princeton student
paper does a good job getting some insight from alumni about CAP

http://www.dailyprincetonia n.com/archives/2005/11/18/n ews/13876.shtml

Well you say, that was a long time ago.  Even that 1985 job
application was 20 years ago.  People can change, right?

 Sure, but let's make sure that our Senators do a good job of
finding out if Alito's attitudes have actually changed.  

It was the Right's concerns that Harriet Meirs past beliefs and actions
meant that she wasn't conservative enough for them.  Perhaps,
applying the same standards will reveal that Alito is too conservative.

I propose that you encourage your Senator to do the following:

Dear Senator,

The hearings for Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court
should shed light on the judge's rather long legal history.  He
has written much and presided over many cases.

I urge you, however, to ask Judge Alito about an organization that he
voluntarily joined, the Concerned Alumni of Princeton.  This was
an organization that dedicated itself to excluded women and minorities
from attending Princeton.  It is the actions of organizations like
these that have driven the need for programs like affirmative action.

Judge Alito has even stated that he is "proud" that he has worked on
cases that argued against affirmative action.  Is that still the
case?

It seems that an excellent predictor of a person's future action is to
look at past actions.  This does not, of course, mean that people
can't change.  It does mean, that your job is to determine if
Samuel Alito has changed his views or are his ideas so set in stone,
that no matter the case, his mind is made up beforehand.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Please contact your Senators, newspapers, and everyone on Monday.
 Alito will probably play the amnesia card, as suggested by this Washington Post article.

Let's jar his memory.

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford

byBostonJoe

I volunteered to participate in "The Twelve
Days of Justice" because I believe Judge Samuel Alito is a right-wing
nut job.  It is my opinion that he will fundamentally alter the
way that we now view the U.S. Constitution so that my children will
grow up in a world that I will not recognize.  Nothing I have read
over the course of the first eight days has changed my mind.  If
anything, I am more frightened at the prospect of a
Roberts-Scalia-Thomas-Alito block controlling the court.  Here are
the diaries for days one through eight:

Day one:  The Coming Alito Attack on the Legislative Branch by tampopo.

Day two:  Alito Hates Old People and Those with Families by AP.

Day three:  Alito Is Ethically Challenged by Steven D.

Day four:  Alito Hates the Disabled by susanhu.

Day five:  Say Bye-Bye to the Right to Choose by Connecticut Man 1.

Day six:  Church and State Are Like Two Peas in a Pod by Alice.

Day seven:  Alito's a Threat to the Establishment Clause by Alice.

Day eight:  Alito Hates Girls by Teacher Toni.

This diary is created to be equally as interesting below the fold...

If you haven't been on board up until now, that's okay.  You can
easily go back through the list and catch up with the rest of us.
 We want to flood their offices with our letters in opposition to
Alito before they get started on the hearings.

Feel free to share this around the blogosphere.  My contribution
can be cut and pasted from the blockquote below.  Try mailing it,
e-mailing it, faxing it, or calling up and reading it to some poor
staffer.  Here are the contact links:

Your Senators

The Judiciary Committee

Your Representatives

Via Web FAX

Thanks to tampopo for organizing this and to everyone at the Booman
Tribune for working so hard to try to defeat this nominee and preserve
justice.

Dear Senator,

The United States Supreme Court has struggled through the decades to
live up to the promise that America is a land where "all men are
created equal."  From an early history that treated
African-Americans as property and later allowed for legal segregation,
the Court has evolved through the Civil Rights era to support equality
for all races in the eyes of the law.  We have still not met the
full promise of our founding fathers, but the Court has made
substantial progress.

In examining the judicial record and personal history of Supreme Court
nominee Samuel Alito, I am concerned that he has expressed opinions
which would set back much of the progress that has been made by the
Court in assuring the equality that should be our highest ideal.
 My concerns are shared by the 42 House members of the
Congressional Black Caucus:

"The Congressional Black Caucus, which includes 42 House members...
will announce Thursday its opposition to Alito....  'The members
of the CBC are concerned about Judge Alito's opinions, many in dissent,
in race cases where his decisions have disproportionately affected
African-Americans,' said Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., the caucus chairman.
'We are troubled by what appears to be a very conservative judicial
philosophy that seems greatly at odds with much of 20th century
constitutional jurisprudence,' Watt said." - Associated Press, December
7, 2005.

The CBC's concerns are supported by the record.  In
his dissent in Bray v. Marriott Hotels (1997),
Alito's logic actually allows lawful, race based
discrimination.  The majority decision in the case noted that
Alito would have protected racist practices by  "immuniz[ing] an
employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer's belief that it
had selected the `best' candidate was the result of conscious racial
bias."

Alito has been similarly hostile to the rights of immigrants.  In
opinions ruling against immigrants, Alito "guts the statutory standard"
and "ignores our precedent" according the majority opinion in
DIA v. Ashcroft (2003), and he contradicts  "well-recognized
rules of statutory construction" according to the majority opinion
in Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft (2004).

These troubling legal opinions are compounded by revelations about
Alito's personal background in the Daily Princetonian
(Alito '72 Joined Conservative Alumni Group - November 18, 2005):

"[I]n a 1985 job application, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito '72
 wrote that he is 'particularly proud' of his work on cases
arguing that 'racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed.... '
 Now, opponents to his nomination are using another piece of
information from those documents to suggest he is far outside the
mainstream in his political and social views: Near the end of his
'Personal Qualifications Statement' for a high-level job in Ronald
Reagan's Justice Department, Alito wrote that he was 'a member of the
Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, a conservative alumni
group....'  But Marsha Levy-Warren '73, who was a member of the
University's first coeducational class and student government vice
president, remembers things differently.... [S]he said the group
'stated explicitly that they were not in favor of coeducation and that
they weren't in favor of affirmative action. Implicitly, they were
opposed to any form of diversity on campus.' "

Our Supreme Court has evolved historically toward the original promise
that  "all men are created equal."  Nominee Alito is a step
in the wrong direction.  Vote no on his confirmation and force
President Bush to send a nominee to the court who will ensure equal
rights to American citizens without regard to their race.

Sincerely,

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford

by Tampopo

        This is the tenth letter in our ongoing campaign to voice our objections to Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.

Working on this, the lyrics to Cyndi Lauper's '84 classic song, "Girl's
Just Want to Have Fun," played in my mind. Considering Alito, these
words cried out:

"Some boys take a beautiful girl

And hide her away from the rest of the world

I want to be the one to walk in the sun

Oh girls they want to have fun"

Diaries to date:

Diary for Day 1,
Diary for Day 2,
Diary for Day 3,
Diary for Day 4,
Diary for Day 5,
Diary for Day 6,
Diary for Day 7,
Diary for Day 8,
Diary for Day 9

After the Diary for Day 12 is available, print them all and make booklets to handout from Dec. 23rd to Jan. 9.

Please feel free to amend, to adapt, to personalize this message.

Three groups to contact:

your senators, the Judiciary Committee, and your representatives

Sources: Save Our Courts, ThinkProgress, and the National Women's Law Center

Dear Senator,

In 1981 President Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme
Court, honoring his pledge to nominate a woman if given the opportunity.

If you review Justice O'Connor's work experience you will find that
upon completing her law degree at Stanford, she was unable to find a
job in a law firm. One firm offered her the position of secretary. This
was in 1952.

President Bush, speaking about his choice for the Supreme Court, said
in September, 2005, "I will pick a person who can do the job. But I am
mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country."

Now you are being asked to consider Judge O'Connor's replacement, Judge Samuel Alito.

When you examine his opinions on the Third Circuit, you will discover in the case
Sheridan v. E.I.DuPont de Nemours and Co.,

that Alito's lone dissent would have prevented a woman claiming gender
discrimination from going to trial, even though she had produced
evidence.

In another case, Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development,
Alito's opinion found that Congress lacked the power under the
Constitution to allow state employees to sue for damages when their
employers refuse to comply with the medical leave provisions of FMLA.

Besides being a challenge to the role of Congress, significant in
itself, Alito's opinion does not indicate any recognition of the
importance of the underlying reason for FMLA, i.e., to "promote the
goal of equal employment opportunity for women and men."

As the judicial hearings proceed, it is imperative that Judge Alito be
questioned skillfully and carefully in regards to gender
discrimination. Keep in mind that he has already acknowledged he will
say anything to get a job.

In 1952 Sandra Day O'Connor had no recourse when she experienced
discrimination. It would seem Judge Samuel Alito would return us to
those "good old days." I do not want to take that risk. I consider
Alito unacceptable for the Supreme Court. His nomination should be
rejected.

Sincerely,

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford

For Justice - Day 11 - Corporate Interests

by Man Eegee

Today's focus for the Twelve Days for Justice
Protest revolves around Samuel Alito's consistent advocacy for
corporate interests over workers' rights and the environment.
 Judge Alito's views are consistent with the Bush Administration's
which is proving to be a danger to our global climate and the health of
the country's job numbers.

Links to previous diaries, today's sample form letter to send to the
Senate Judiciary Committee and contact information for the Senators
below the fold...

Here are the links to the Daily Justice Diaries so far:

• Day One - Balance of Power in Government
  
• Day Two - Age Discrimination/FMLA
  
• Day Three - Judicial Ethics
  
• Day Four - Needs of the Disabled
  
• Day Five - Roe v. Wade
  
• Day Six - Separation of Church and State
  
• Day Seven - Freedom of Religion
  
• Day Eight - Old Boys Club
  
• Day Nine - Equality Under the Law
  
• Day Ten - Gender Discrimination

Continuing Action: After the Diary for Day 12 is available, print each diary and make booklets to hand out from December 23rd to January 9th.

Three groups to contact:

your senators, the Judiciary Committee, and your representatives

Send a fax via the web

Dear Senator:

I am writing today to express my
displeasure with the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of
the United States.  As I have reviewed Judge Alito's records of
past rulings, it is apparent to me that he consistently puts the needs
and interests of corporations over the rights of everyday workers in
the United States.  He has also shown blatant disrespect for the
environment, again siding with business interests.

In the case, Homar v. Gilbert,
Judge Alito argued in the minority position that a corporate entity had
the right to suspend an employee without a hearing or compensation.
 This opens the door to strong-arm tactics by corporations that
are more concerned with their financial bottom line than the rights of
their workers.

Regarding environmental concerns, I was disturbed to read that Judge
Alito cast the deciding vote in the 1997 case,
Public Interest Research Group v. Magnesium Elektron
that basically nullified the Clean Water Act by blocking a lawsuit and
fine that was filed for a violation.  It should be noted that the
Supreme Court later struck down Judge Alito's decision, finding it to
be an instance of judicial activism.

Sandra Day O'Connor, who has served the Supreme Court with great
dignity for over two decades, deserves to be replaced with a judge who
will follow in her moderate footsteps.  Case after case, Judge
Alito has proven himself to be a far-right, conservative judicial
activist with little regard for the needs of everyday workers in the
United States.  The thought of Judge Alito sitting on the bench
concerns me greatly, especially with two environmental rulings
currently on the schedule for the Supreme Court slated for February
2006.

I join my fellow Americans who are concerned for workers' rights and
the environment and urge you to vote "No" on the nomination of Samuel
Alito.  In addition, please ask President Bush to nominate a
moderate judge like Sandra Day O'Conner who will truly represent the
rights of all Americans.

Sincerely,

Feel free to modify and spice up the letter as you see fit.  The
power of the message won't be felt unless you send it to the Senators,
though.  Make your voice heard!

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford

For Justice - Day 12 - Presidential Powers
by CabinGirl

Today's focus for the Twelve Days for Justice
Protest centers on Judge Alito's views regarding presidential powers,
in light of the recent admission of George W. Bush that he has violated
the 4th Amendment by authorizing unwarranted wire-tapping on U.S.
citizens.

If you've been following along with us so far, you already know that
Judge Alito's record on the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals clearly
shows that he subscribes to a far right-wing judicial philosophy: he
holds a very narrow and harmful view of the role of the federal
government in protecting our health and safety; he believes in
restricting a women's right to obtain an abortion; he is hostile to
disability rights; he has belonged to groups supportive of gender
discrimination; and he regularly sides with big corporations against
workers and environmental protections, even when his mainstream
colleagues do not.  The nomination of a judge with such extreme
ideological views to the Supreme Court is a threat to our long-standing
constitutional rights and legal protections, one that we must do
everything in our power to oppose.

Here are the links to the previous Daily Justice Diaries:

• Day One - Balance of Power in Government
  
• Day Two - Age Discrimination/FMLA
  
• Day Three - Judicial Ethics
  
• Day Four - Needs of the Disabled
  
• Day Five - Roe v. Wade
  
• Day Six - Separation of Church and State
  
• Day Seven - Freedom of Religion
  
• Day Eight - Old Boys Club
  
• Day Nine - Equality Under the Law
  
• Day Ten - Gender Discrimination
  
• Day Eleven - Corporate Interests

Continuing Action:
After the Diary for Day 12 is available, print each diary and make booklets to hand out from December 23rd to January 9th.

Please feel free to copy or adapt the sample letter below to send to your
representatives, as well the members of the Senate Judicial Committee.

Three groups to contact:

your senators, the Judiciary Committee, and your representatives

Send a fax via the web

Dear Senator,

In 1989, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. denounced the high
court's decision that year upholding a Watergate-era law that allowed
independent counsels to investigate wrongdoing in the White House,
arguing that the decision amounted to a ''congressional pilfering" of
presidential power.

Speaking at a convention marking an anniversary of the Bill of Rights,
Alito endorsed the strong view of presidential power described by
Justice Antonin Scalia, the only member of the court to vote against
the independent counsel law, calling Scalia's opinion ''a brilliant but
very lonely dissent." Scalia argued that no president should be subject
to a prosecutor who is not also answerable to that president under the
Constitution.

Such remarks are highly alarming in light of the current constitutional
crisis faced by the United States, where the President has not only
admitted to committing an impeachable offense, but has declared his
intention to continue breaking the same law. Furthermore, President
Bush has asserted the power to hold prisoners without trial, shield
documents, and authorize aggressive interrogations without
congressional approval.  Because the President has been so openly
disdainful of the Constitution and rule of law in this country, I
question his choice of nominee for the Supreme Court.

The advice and consent clause of the Constitution gives the Senate the
vital role of asking the hard questions and, where necessary,
withholding confirmation.  Because of his radical right-wing
judicial philosophy and the damage that his confirmation could inflict
on American citizens for many years to come, I am urging you to oppose
the confirmation of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court.

Sincerely,

Guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet
Drinking Liberally in New Milford