The Alito Playbook: Decline, Distance, and Dodge
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 1/13/2006
Samuel Alito concluded his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, having done little to allay concerns voiced by opponents to his Supreme Court nomination.
Following the completion of Alito's testimony, the panel began hearing testimony from outside witnesses, including civil rights leaders, and current and retired judges.
Both the nominee's silence on critical issues and his attempts to distance himself, yet not denounce, previous hard line positions, only reinforce the view that Alito would shift the Court in a direction that would weaken fundamental rights and liberties, opponents say.
"Judge Alito seeks to downplay his life-long legal record and clearly stated legal beliefs now that he is seeking Senate confirmation as a Justice on the Supreme Court. But his assurances that he has no agenda are belied by that record. Samuel Alito's legal views would put women's hard-won rights and liberties in grave danger. He should not be confirmed," National Women's Law Center Co-President Marcia Greenberger said in a statement.
After days of questioning, many questions still remain unanswered about the nominee. The Center for American Progress, which announced its opposition to Alito Thursday, noted that the nomination came in the midst of a deepening "constitutional crisis" and that Alito was unable to allay concerns that he could play a role in restoring checks and balances.
"Instead, he declined numerous opportunities to modify or clarify his views, offering little more than platitudes affirming that the President must follow the Constitution and is not above the law," the Center said in a statement.
IndependentCourt.org, a coalition of public interest organizations, said that when he did give answers, they were "misleading and mischaracterize both his judicial record and his well-documented legal views" on such areas as a woman's right to choose, illegal wiretapping, search and seizure, and "one person, one vote."
On "one person, one vote," for example, Judge Alito wrote in a 1985 job application with the Reagan administration that "I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by my disagreement with Warren Court decisions," specifically mentioning decisions on reapportionment.
At the time Alito made his statement, IndependentCourt.org points out, nearly everyone accepted the legitimacy of the Warren Court's 20-year old rulings on reapportionment which established the principle of "one person, one vote."
However, during his hearings Alito told Senator Herb Kohl, D. Wisc., "Senator, I don't believe that I disagreed with the principle of one person, one vote in 1985. I was talking about how I got interested in constitutional law back in college, and I was certainly stimulated at that time by my consideration of the issue of one person, one vote."
IndependentCourt.org announced Friday that it would be unveiling a new television ad and national grassroots efforts to educate Americans about the Alito record.
