Senate Hearings Begin Tomorrow on Alito Nomination

The controversy currently raging around the Bush administration’s use of domestic spying is just one of many symptoms of the growing risk to Americans’ civil liberties posed by the war on terror. A recent debate over the use of torture which a few years ago would have been considered politically and morally untenable, has prevented the passage of legislation to ban “cruel” and “inhuman” treatment of detainees. The administration is also working this month to secure reauthorization of the Patriot Act, a piece of legislation that greatly weakens the importance of warrants in police proceedings and gives the government unprecedented access to the private records of individuals. In short, it is a dangerous time in America for personal freedom.

Next week the Senate will begin confirmation hearings on Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court. At this crucial juncture for the future of civil liberties in America, the President has selected a nominee who’s approach to constitutional interpretation is informed not by evenhanded legal scholarship, but rather by a conservative political ideology. A careful examination of Mr. Alito’s 15 year judicial record yields one undeniable common thread: on every significant issue, when a conclusion was not obviously mandated by Supreme Court precedent, the result has been conservative. When given the chance, Mr. Alito has consistently voted to push the law to the right. In several cases these opinions, had they not been overruled by his judicial peers, would have resulted in extreme and unacceptable results.

Mr. Alito’s record on workers’ rights is deplorable; time and time again his decisions to protect corporations and employers have been outvoted or overruled. Alito has consistently ruled to limit the rights of American workers who feel they have been victims of discrimination. In Bray v. Marriott Hotels, Judge Alito unsuccessfully tried to keep a worker’s claim of race discrimination from being heard by the jury. The overruling majority’s opinion asserted that, under Alito’s interpretation, anti-discrimination statues “would be eviscerated.” In a similar decision on sexual harassment, Sheraton v. E.I. Dupont, Alito was outvoted 10 to 1.

In 1997 Alito also attempted to limit the rights of individuals to sue corporations for producing toxic emissions, established by congress in the Clean Water Act. In that decision he argued that Congress lacked the authority to protect the environment through such lawsuits. His reasoning was later overturned by the Supreme Court.

The case of Doe v. Groody is a particularly troubling example of Mr. Alito’s disregard for individual liberties. In that case, Alito opined that police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they strip searched a mother and her ten year old daughter – who were not criminal suspects – while executing a warrant that only authorized the search of targeted suspects. Even the Bush Administration’s Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has asserted that Alito’s theory regarding warrants would turn the process into “little more than the cliché ‘rubber stamp.’”

Judge Alito’s conservative agenda does not represent the will of a majority of the American people. His nomination was a divisive and irresponsible act by a President with a history of division and irresponsibility, and it comes at a critical time in this nation’s history. Alito’s nomination hearings this week will test our Senators’ resolve to protect our civil liberties. It will be a great day for the United States if he is unequivocally rejected, and if the Bush administration puts in his place a moderate, responsible judge who can be trusted to protect the rights of Americans during a time in which our protections seem exceptionally fragile.