Bush Names Samuel Alito to Supreme Court
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 10/31/2005
Judge Samuel Alito was President Bush's choice Monday to replace retiring Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor.Alito currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Civil rights groups said that Alito was a choice resulting from right wing pressure, not from what the nation wants or needs.
"America wants a mainstream nominee, not one who will turn back the clock on civil rights progress, worker protections, environmental safeguards, and our health and safety. With the nomination of Alito, all of those rights are now at risk," Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights said.
"We had hoped President Bush would nominate someone with a commitment to protecting Americans' rights and freedoms," said People For the American Way Ralph Neas. "That's what the American people want, and it's what they deserve. Unfortunately, with Judge Alito, that's not what President Bush has given us. He has chosen to divide Americans with a nominee guaranteed to cause a bitter fight."
Bush had first named John Roberts to succeed O'Connor, but upon the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Bush elevated his nomination to chief.
Harriet Miers, President Bush's next choice to replace Justice O'Connor, withdrew her nomination October 27 in the face of growing opposition from many of the president's own supporters, who had questioned her qualifications and ideology.
In this case, however, the right wing is "giddy," said the Alliance for Justice (AFJ). "With Judge Alito, President Bush has sought to appease the radical right and fuel a revolution on the Supreme Court," said AFJ President Nan Aron. "The National Law Journal reported that lawyers believe that Judge Alito is "much more of an ideologue than most of his colleagues."
President Ronald Reagan nominated O'Connor in 1981 to be the first woman on the Court. While the O'Connor nomination generated criticism from both the political left and right, during her time on the Court she proved to be a pivotal swing vote in decisions affecting civil rights, environmental protection, personal privacy, voting rights, protection against discrimination, and more.
Civil rights organizations have identified a number of 5-4 decisions in danger of being overturned if O'Connor is replaced by someone who is not a mainstream nominee, including Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) (affirmative action); Tennessee v. Lane (2004) (rights of individuals with disabilities); Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) (human rights/due process) and Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ. (2005) (Title IX).
