Lawyers' Comm. Board Members Submit Testimony to Judiciary (oppose Alito)

[Wordie]

Lawyers' Committee Board Members Submit Testimony to Judiciary Committee in Opposition to Samuel Alito Nomination

1/20/2006 12:30:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Kim Alton of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 202-662-8600

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Board Members of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law ("Lawyers' Committee") reiterated their opposition to Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court in written testimony submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The testimony notes that since last week's confirmation hearing, "(w)hat has been added to the public record about Judge Alito does not reduce or mitigate the concerns that motivate our opposition to his confirmation."

"Judge Alito's responses to the questions raised during the confirmation hearing failed to dispel our previously stated concerns in the areas of affirmative action, employment discrimination, and Judge Alito's association with the group Concerned Alumni of Princeton," said Barbara R. Arnwine, Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee.

We urge Senators who value the protection of civil rights, and effective measures for the full participation of people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, to vote against cloture and to vote in opposition to the nomination of Judge Alito.

The full text of the Lawyers' Committee's Testimony and Statement of Concern can be found at http://www.lawyerscommittee.org

------

The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights legal organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to provide legal services to address racial discrimination.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

The Lawyers' Committee also made the following statement:
The Board Members of the Lawyers' Committee fear that if Judge Alito is confirmed, his addition to the Supreme Court will come to be regarded as a turning point, diminishing our nation's dedication to overcoming its tragic legacy of racial injustice.

The article also provides the following examples as reasons for their opposition to Alito:

-Affirmative Action/Diversity:
* Judge Alito failed to affirm that he believes diversity is a compelling governmental interest
* Judge Alito never mentioned during his testimony the importance of race-conscious measures in attempting to address this nation's shameful history of racial discrimination.

-Employment Discrimination
* Judge Alito has never written an employment discrimination opinion in favor of an African American on the merits of their race claim (during 15 years on the bench and participation in thousands of cases) He cited of 5 cases where he was supposedly supportive of race-based claims; research has revealed that the five cases do not support his argument and those of his supporters.

-Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP)
* Judge Alito tried to disassociate himself from the controversial alumni group that spoke against university admission of women and minorities. Senators continue to perceive a credibility gap in his responses. His claim that he did not remember joining the group and attempt to justify his membership on the basis of a protest to Princeton's ROTC policy were not convincing.

[mom cat]

1. And Alito's position supporting wireless wiretapping.

Wordie (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-20-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. They need to see this: Alito backed immunity for Nixon-era wiretapper!!!
To make matters worse, according to a memo released Dec. 23, Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Sam Alito, backed immunity in 1984 for a Nixon-era official accused of illegal wiretapping. With Alito breezing through his confirmation hearings so far, Bush will have an easier time getting favorable decisions from the high court.

http://www.utahstatesman.com/media/paper243/news/2006/0...



From:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2054499#2054534

[Wordie]

2. This is the issue that will make the difference, imho.

Can we have confidence that Alito, whose answers regarding the constitutionality of these sorts of actions were nonexistant (he wouldn't answer, saying that constitutional questions on these issues might come before him as a SC Justice), would not vote to uphold the constitutionality of the wiretaps? We cannot. His record suggests that he would see these acts as constitutional. He MUST be stopped! We cannot allow a Judge on the court who would allow the Bush endangerment of our civil liberties. If there is ANY doubt that he might do so, he must be voted down!

[mom cat]

3. I fully agree. this is the core issue. Thanks wordie.