Ed. The “Borking” of Judge Alito takes shape.
New York Times DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 – A coalition of liberal groups is preparing a national television advertising campaign against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. that seeks to move the debate over his selection beyond abortion rights and focus instead on subjects like police searches and employment discrimination, several leaders of the coalition said.
The possibility that Judge Alito could vote to narrow abortion rights has dominated discussion among both supporters and opponents of his nomination. But Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice and one of the leaders of the coalition, said a poll commissioned by her organization showed the potential to attack Judge Alito on aspects of his record that had received less attention.
In addition to the alliance, a liberal legal group that focuses on judicial nominations, the coalition includes the abortion rights groups Naral Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, as well as People for the American Way, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Sierra Club.
Last week, the alliance released results of a poll that highlighted elements of the judge’s record unrelated to abortion that the liberal groups say could have greater resonance with moderate voters.
Among the issues raised by the poll was Judge Alito’s support as a lawyer in the Reagan administration for an employer’s right to fire someone who had AIDS. Another issue was a judicial opinion he wrote supporting a police strip-search of a suspected drug dealer’s female companion and her 10-year-old daughter. Others included his votes as a judge against employment discrimination suits and an opinion overturning part of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Ed. The “Borking” of Judge Alito takes shape.
…more
Judge Alito’s willingness to declare legislation unconstitutional and reverse Congress (as he has done in the past) is a legitimate topic for inquiry and investigation that should not be mislabeled “borking”. The US Congress has a constitutional duty to advise and consent; it is not a Soviet Style Chamber of People’s Deputies designed to rubber stamp the decisions of a dictatorial executive.
Attorney Lauren K. Sanders writes: “As the Senate prepares to review a Supreme Court nominee, it should not overlook an issue that should be of great concern to both Democratic and Republican Senators: preserving Congressâ??s power. Three of Congressâ??s most significant powers â?? the power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, to spend money for the â??general Welfare,â?? and to enforce the 14th Amendment (which incorporates the Bill of Rights) â?? remain under serious attack. Congress ignores those threats at its peril.
Although the threats generally come from conservative judges, they threaten both liberal and conservative causes. The Commerce Clause is the basis for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and federal laws against child pornography. Congress has used the 14th Amendment to justify laws protecting voting rights and religious practices. Laws as diverse as those requiring universities to allow military recruiting, requiring public libraries to use internet filters to protect children, and banning discrimination in federally funded programs are based on the spending power.
From 1937 to 1995, the Supreme Court generally deferred to Congress on the need for federal legislation. Then, in a series of Supreme Court starting in 1995, the Court struck down several federal statutes as beyond Congressâ??s power. These include all or part of the Gun Free School Zones Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Violence Against Women Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the employment discrimination provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Court also largely eliminated Congressâ??s power to make states liable for violating federal law, holding that they cannot be sued or required to pay damages for violating federal overtime or patent laws â?? or most other laws.”
http://www.acsblog.org/federalism-1613-guest-blogger-the-judicial-threat-to-congressional-power-.html
The NYT is signalling not to let abortion be the mainstay of opposition to the Alito nomination, yet the center of the Democratic resistance remains NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Abortion is big buisiness and these groups won’t countenance anyone who might restrict the profits without a fight. The other groups hope to find some common ground with American voters, but it remains to be seen if the Democratic opposition can break its captivity to the the pro-abortion lobby.
If the Democrats can, there might be some reasonable discussion about the other issues you mention. If they can’t (more likely, IMO), then the other issues become a smokescreen for keeping abortion unrestricted. Then the strategy has to shift to Borking Alito. Note that nothing in this scenario presumes the Democrats will accede to a higher standard of advice and consent. If they did the strategizing would be unnecessary. I would like to be surprised and proven wrong but I don’t think I will be.