Sunday, November 06, 2005

This was my favorite part of Meet the Press

Sen. Coburn (R-OK) Admits Alito Legislated From The Bench:
RUSSERT: Do you believe Congress has the right to restrict the sale and transfer of machine guns or do you think that Judge Alito is correct that Congress should not be interfering in that?

SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK): No, I think we probably have the right to do it. But I don’t think a judge has the right. That brings us back to the whole point. Those aren’t decisions judges should be making. Those are decisions legislatures should be making. That’s how we’ve gotten off on this track that we allowed judges to start deciding the law, new law, rather than interpret the law that the Congress — what should have napped this case is this is an area that’s up for debate and needs to go back to Congress. And if Congress decides that, then it should be there.

RUSSERT: So Judge Alito was wrong?

COBURN: Sure.

RUSSERT: And he was legislating?

COBURN: Sure.
Judge Alito is an activist judge. Even conservative nutjobs think so.

And let it be noted that I said that first, and I was out there early on Harriet Miers's unqualifiedness, though her ultimate downfall was her ambiguous conservatism.

The case in question was Rybar, discussed a few days ago.

A few days ago, ThinkProgress looked at some of the things that higher courts or the judges he dissented with said about Alito and his decisions. Not nice:
[Judge Alito’s] position would immunize 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. . . . Title VII would be eviscerated if our analysis were to halt where [Judge Alito’s] dissent suggests.” (Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997) (Judge Theodore McKee)

In
a death penalty case we discussed earlier,

“[Judge Alito’s] attempt to analogize the statistical evidence of the use of peremptory challenges to strike black jurors to the percent of left-handed presidents requires some comment. [Judge Alito] has overlooked the obvious fact that there is no provision in the Constitution that protects persons from discrimination based on whether they are right-handed or left-handed. To suggest any comparability to the striking of jurors based on their race is to minimize the history of discrimination against prospective black jurors and black defendants . . . .” (Riley v. Taylor, 2001) (Judge Dolores Sloviter)

This is what I've found in looking at his rulings, too. He minimizes the history of discrimination against Africa-Americans, as well as women, and pretty much anyone else who come in at a disadvantage.

I said it before, and I hope he carries this phrase with him 'til the stars fall from the sky: "
When people come into his court with an inherent societal disadvantage, they tend to come out with that same disadvantage."

And that's why I hope he isn't confirmed. That's bad judging. It's not even about judicial philosophy, it's about worldiness.