Also see below:     
Conservatives Split ahead of Alito Hearing    [
The New York Times | Judging Samuel Alito    [

    Democrats Ready to Go After Alito
    By Charles Babington
    The Washington Post

    Monday 09 January 2006

High court nominee's memos opposing abortion likely to be focal points at hearings.

    Senate Democrats are expected to attack Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. on multiple fronts at the confirmation hearing that opens at noon today, but their strongest ammunition is likely to come from the nominee's own hand.

    Alito wrote two memos in 1985 that rocked political circles when they were made public last November. In one, an application for a promotion in the Reagan administration, Alito wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." He said he was proud to fight for such causes in which "I personally believe very strongly," and he cited his membership in a conservative Princeton alumni group that has been widely criticized for opposing efforts to bring more women and minorities to that university.

    The other memo outlined a strategy for attacking the landmark 1973 court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, asking: "What can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?"

    Alito and his supporters have sought to put some distance between him and the memos, and Republicans predict he will survive this week's grilling and be confirmed to succeed centrist Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a step that could shift the court notably to the right. But Judiciary Committee Democrats say they will press him to explain his writings, and they warn that peril may lie in his fully embracing them or trying to disavow them.

    "He indicates in his job application his view about what the Constitution guarantees in terms of, for example, women and the issue on abortion," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the committee's most senior member, said yesterday on ABC's "This Week." "We haven't had a statement like that since Robert Bork," the outspoken conservative who was rejected for a Supreme Court seat in 1987.

    Kennedy described the now-disbanded group, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, as "anti-black, anti-disabled and anti-women," but he said Alito in 1985 "took a sense of pride in belonging to" it. Alito has said recently he does not recall participating in the group. Democrats say that is an example of evasions they will aggressively challenge.

    Another committee Democrat, Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Alito in 1985 unequivocally stated "that the Constitution does not provide for a right to an abortion. The worst thing that could happen with Judge Alito is if he tries to duck the question" at the hearing. Unlike recently confirmed Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Schumer said, Alito has expressed his personal and legal views on abortion so clearly that he cannot refuse to discuss them with senators by contending he must remain unbiased in case the Supreme Court revisits the issue.

    After Alito met in November with Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Specter told reporters that the nominee said the 1985 memos expressed his personal views or an advocate's work for the government, and do not necessarily indicate how he might rule on the Supreme Court.

    The committee's 10 Republicans and eight Democrats will start questioning Alito tomorrow, as today's schedule is devoted to opening statements by the senators and the nominee. Besides abortion, issues likely to dominate the week include:

    Alito's credibility. At the 1990 confirmation hearing for his seat on a federal appeals court, Alito told senators he would not rule in cases involving the Vanguard Group Inc. or Smith Barney Inc., firms that have handled some of his investments. However, he ruled in a 1996 case involving Smith Barney, and a 2002 case involving Vanguard.

    Democrats agree that Alito did not profit from the cases, but they have complained about his explanations. Concerning Vanguard, Alito has said he was not required to recuse himself because there was no conflict of interest; the 1990 promise applied only to his first few years on the bench; and a courthouse computer program failed to alert him to the possible need to step aside.

    Kennedy cited Vanguard, the Princeton alumni group and other matters in an op-ed piece, headlined "Alito's Credibility Problem," in Saturday's Washington Post. Yesterday, on "This Week," Judiciary Committee member Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) defended the nominee, saying, "I don't think there's a credibility problem at all."

    Executive powers. Many liberal groups say Alito's rulings and writings have shown too much deference to the executive branches of state and federal governments. In a 2000 speech, Alito embraced the theory of "the unitary executive," which imbues the presidency with expansive powers. In 1986, as deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, he advocated having the president issue statements about the meaning of statutes when he signs them into law, a move that some consider a violation of the separation of powers.

    Specter, who plans to hold hearings into President Bush's expanded use of the National Security Agency for domestic spying, said yesterday on CBS's "Face the Nation" that the question of presidential power "will be very, very important" at Alito's hearing.

    Commerce and gun control. Alito wrote in a 1996 dissent that Congress did not have the power under the Constitution's commerce clause to pass a law banning possession of machine guns, arguing that there was no evidence the mere possession of such weapons affected interstate commerce.

    "He was one of the very few [appellate court judges] to say that the federal government can't regulate machine guns," Schumer said yesterday. The federal government "has regulated machine guns since the days of John Dillinger in 1936."

    Go to Original

    Conservatives Split ahead of Alito Hearing
    By Kimberly Hefling
    The Associated Press

    Sunday 08 January 2006

    Philadelphia - On the eve of Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, conservatives gathered Sunday for a rally in his support in the state where he is an appellate judge.

    Organizers said the "Justice Sunday III" event was an opportunity to defend religious liberty and educate conservatives about the need to reform the federal courts.

    Among those expected to attend were Sen. Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvanian who is the No. 3 Senate Republican, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, and the Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.

    AIDS activists, liberal groups and other religious leaders organized a protest, maintaining that the sponsors of Justice Sunday back a dangerous mixing of church and state and support an agenda that threatens civil rights.

    Conservatives have generally supported Alito but liberals fear he is too conservative and could undermine abortion rights, a pivotal issue before the Supreme Court.

    Philadelphia is the hometown of Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, and it is where Alito sits on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    "Justice Sunday III" was slated for Greater Exodus Baptist Church. Its pastor, the Rev. Herbert Lusk, drew the ire of separation-of-church-and-state activists when he endorsed President Bush from the pulpit during the 2000 Republican National Convention here. The church's charitable arm was awarded nearly $1 million in federal money in 2002 to help low-income Philadelphians with mortgages and Bush spoke at the church in 2004.

    Thousands attended the first two Justice Sunday events last year in Louisville, Ky., and Nashville, Tenn., which took place before a threatened filibuster showdown in the Senate and the confirmation hearings for now-Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

    Go to Original

    Judging Samuel Alito
    The New York Times | Editorial

    Sunday 08 January 2006

    Judicial nominations are not always motivated by ideology, but the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito certainly was. President Bush's previous choice to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, was hounded into withdrawing by the far right, primarily because she appeared to hold moderate views on a variety of legal issues. President Bush placated Ms. Miers's conservative critics by nominating Judge Alito, who has long been one of their favorites.

    Judge Alito's confirmation hearings begin tomorrow. He may be able to use them to reassure the Senate that he will be respectful of rights that Americans cherish, but he has a lengthy and often troubling record he will have to explain away. As a government lawyer, he worked to overturn Roe v. Wade. He has disturbing beliefs on presidential power - a critical issue for the country right now. He has worked to sharply curtail Congress's power to pass laws and protect Americans. He may not even believe in "one person one vote."

    The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around Judge Alito's confirmation. But the public is skeptical. In a new Harris poll, just 34 percent of those surveyed said they thought he should be confirmed, while 31 percent said he should not, and 34 percent were unsure. Nearly 70 percent said they would oppose Judge Alito's nomination if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal - which it appears he might well do.

    If President Bush had chosen a pragmatic, mainstream conservative like Justice O'Connor to fill the seat, these confirmation hearings would be a breeze. But now, the Senate has a duty to delve into the many areas in which Judge Alito's record suggests he is an extremist, including:

    Abortion: Judge Alito has not only opposed Roe v. Wade, he has also worked to overturn it. When he applied for a promotion in the Reagan administration in 1985, he wrote that he was "particularly proud" of his legal arguments "that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." In meetings with senators, Judge Alito has talked about his respect for Roe, but he has said nothing to discourage his supporters on the religious right who back him because they believe he will vote to overturn it. The American people have a right to know, unambiguously, where Judge Alito stands on Roe.

    Presidential Power: The continuing domestic wiretapping scandal shows that the Bush administration has a dangerous view of its own powers, and the Supreme Court is the most important check on such excesses. But Judge Alito has some disturbing views about handing the president even more power. He has argued that courts interpreting statutes should consider the president's intent when he signed the law to be just as important as Congress's intent in writing and passing the law. It is a radical suggestion that indicates he has an imperial view of presidential power.

    Congressional Power: While Judge Alito seems intent on expanding the president's power, he has called for sharply reducing the power of Congress. In United States v. Rybar, he wrote a now-infamous dissent arguing that Congress exceeded its power in passing a law that banned machine guns. As a Reagan administration lawyer, he argued that Congress did not have the power to pass the Truth in Mileage Act to protect consumers from odometer fraud.

    One Person One Vote: Judge Alito said in his 1985 application that he had become interested in constitutional law as a student partly because of his opposition to the Warren court's reapportionment rulings, which created the "one person one vote" standard. He seems to still have believed as a 35-year-old lawyer that these cases, which made legislative districts much more fair, came out the wrong way.

    There are other areas - including civil rights, sex discrimination, the environment and criminal law - where Judge Alito's record appears extreme. The Senate should question him closely on all of them.

    The Senate should also explore Judge Alito's honesty. According to a senator he met with, he tried to dismiss his statement about the Constitution's not protecting abortion as merely part of a job application, which suggests he will bend the truth when it suits his purposes. Judge Alito has said he does not recall being in an ultraconservative group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which opposed co-education and affirmative action. That is odd, since he boasted of his membership in that same 1985 job application. The tortuous history of his promise to Congress to recuse himself in cases involving the Vanguard companies, which he ultimately failed to do, should also be explored.

    Judge Alito's nomination is often presented as an abortion rights showdown, but it is much more than that. Those who care about the broad range of rights and liberties that Americans now have, and about honesty in government, should tune into the hearings starting tomorrow - and call their senators with their reactions to what they hear.