カテゴリ
お知らせ トランス LGB(TIQ) HIV/AIDS 米政治 国内政治 ジェンダー・セックス バックラッシュ Books Movies Theatres TV & Radio Music Others Opinions 以前の記事
2007年 09月 2007年 08月 2007年 07月 2007年 06月 2007年 05月 2007年 04月 2007年 03月 2007年 02月 2007年 01月 2006年 12月 2006年 11月 2006年 10月 2006年 09月 2006年 08月 2006年 07月 2006年 06月 2006年 05月 2006年 04月 2006年 03月 2006年 02月 2006年 01月 2005年 12月 2005年 11月 2005年 10月 2005年 09月 2005年 08月 2005年 07月 検索
最新のトラックバック
その他のジャンル
ファン
記事ランキング
ブログジャンル
画像一覧
|
The New York Times
January 13, 2006 Editorial Pro-Choice Senators and Judge Alito There are many reasons to be concerned about the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito Jr. for the Supreme Court, but for a small group of moderate Republicans who strongly identify themselves as supporters of abortion rights, there is a special problem: if Judge Alito gets to the court, there is every reason to believe that he will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade when the opportunity comes. In 1985, when he was a 35-year-old government lawyer, Judge Alito stated that the Constitution did not protect abortion rights, and that he was "particularly proud" of his legal work arguing that the Constitution did not confer the right to an abortion. There is now ample evidence that he continues to hold that view. He refused time and again in this week's hearings to call Roe "settled law." That's a giant red flag because he did say that the one-person-one-vote cases, which he denounced in the same 1985 memo - and many other decisions - are now settled law. In sharp contrast, as Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, underscored, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing last year that Roe was settled law. There was a telling moment at the start of the Alito hearings when Senator Arlen Specter, the committee chairman, offered Judge Alito a way out. He asked whether Judge Alito believed, as some commentators do, that the Supreme Court's 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, strongly reaffirming Roe, made Roe a "super-precedent" - and therefore rendered the judge's 1985 views obsolete. But Judge Alito would not give Senator Specter, who supports abortion rights, even that small bit of comfort, saying he did not believe in super-precedents. All of that should make things hard for Senator Specter and for three moderate Republicans - Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine - who have said they will oppose any nominee committed to overturning Roe. Judge Alito's assertions that he will keep an open mind on Roe are little comfort. With nearly 70 percent of Americans saying in a recent Harris poll that they would oppose Judge Alito's confirmation if they thought he would vote against constitutional protection for abortion rights, he was not likely to say at his hearings that he would do so. Few nominees would be so brave or foolhardy. As a result, senators have to try to forecast the behavior of a nominee like Judge Alito, who comes with a clear record of opposition to abortion rights and strong support from the anti-abortion movement. The single most important thing a senator can do to support abortion rights is to vote against Supreme Court nominees who would take such rights away. Given Judge Alito's record and his testimony, it is hard to see how Senators Specter, Chafee, Snowe and Collins - or any other pro-choice senators - can call themselves strong advocates of abortion rights if they support him. January 13, 2006 Judge Alito, From Many Angles (6 Letters) To the Editor: Re "Judge Alito, in His Own Words" (editorial, Jan. 12): I almost always agree with your editorial positions, but I disagree with your assessment of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. I did not see a right-wing ideologue. Sure, I would prefer a more liberal candidate, but it is unrealistic to expect that this president would nominate someone completely to the liking of liberals. Under current political circumstances, it should be enough that Judge Alito is intellectually and judicially qualified. His position on Roe v. Wade is the only one he can take in today's atmosphere, and I accept his pledge to give weight to precedent and keep an open mind. He has said that no one, not even the president, is above the law, and that should be acceptable. His explanations about failing to recuse himself in the case involving Vanguard companies and about his relationship to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a conservative group, are plausible. We should not assume that he is lying. No one can predict how Judge Alito will perform on the bench, but I take comfort in the fact that he is smart and experienced. Ezra Cohen Deal, N.J., Jan. 12, 2006 • To the Editor: Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. is very erudite on many issues concerning his record, but not on subjects that might indicate his true opinions. He has excellent recall on many cases he has passed judgment on, but he cannot remember why he joined a conservative Princeton alumni group. When questions are put to him that might indicate his direction on issues that concern the basic rights of the American people, he hedges. Judge Alito might be more dangerous on the Supreme Court than either Justice Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. Fernando Feliociano Brisbane, Calif., Jan. 12, 2006 • To the Editor: I am a little too young to have known Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. as an undergraduate at Princeton. (I graduated in 1976.) But I have no difficulty remembering the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which he joined. Its members vehemently opposed the admission of anyone to Princeton who was not white, male, heterosexual; some opposed those who weren't Christian. Any support CAP may have given the Reserve Officers Training Corps program was incidental. CAP's primary agenda was crystal clear. Had Judge Alito joined the Communist Party in his youth, I do not think senators would be satisfied with a professed inability to recall it. No one who joined CAP could have been unaware of its discriminatory platform. By joining, Judge Alito was endorsing it. I would now like to know if and when he repudiated it. I would like proof. Margaret B. Ruttenberg Newton, Mass., Jan. 12, 2006 • To the Editor: "Judge Alito, in His Own Words" (editorial, Jan. 12) joins other critics in complaining that Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. has tended to favor "big corporations" against "the 'little guy.' " Could it be possible that in most of the cases Judge Alito heard, the law was on the side of the corporation? Would you really be more comfortable if he had instinctively backed the little guy, no matter what the facts of the case were? The portrayal of large corporations as evil incarnate and of "little guys" as innocent victims may be sound leftist theology, but I would expect more of a Supreme Court justice. Frederick Van Veen Kennebunkport, Me., Jan. 12, 2006 • To the Editor: Re "O'Connor Casts a Long Shadow on the Nominee" (front page, Jan. 12): It appears that both sides of the political line are praising Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's tenure on the Supreme Court, agreeing that she should be the benchmark for the next Supreme Court justice. However, there does not seem to be much discussion about the fact that Justice O'Connor has decided to retire during this administration, knowing full well the judicial agenda of the administration. Shouldn't Justice O'Connor's action be enough to convince the Senate and the country that she has confidence in the president's choice to replace her? If she didn't, I would have expected her to delay her retirement, barring any further decline in her husband's health. Andrew J. Csicsila Chicago, Jan. 12, 2006 • To the Editor: "Fairness in the Alito Hearings" (editorial, Jan. 11) unjustly criticizes Senator Arlen Specter. As Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Specter has conducted the hearings in a way that creates a level playing field for the candidate. Your editorial criticizes him for calling federal judges to testify. But the Code of Conduct for judges makes a specific allowance when "a judge's judicial experience provides special expertise in the area." And these judges, with no political agenda, are best suited to testify about Judge Alito's jurisprudence because of their familiarity with him. There are precedents for such testimony. Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger testified for Judge Robert H. Bork; District Judge Walter E. Craig testified for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist; District Court Judge Jack Tanner testified for Justice Clarence Thomas. In the context of criticizing senators from both parties for announcing how they would vote, Senator Specter urged senators to withhold judgment until hearing Judge Alito's testimony. You are right to emphasize fairness. About the only thing Democrats and Republicans agree on is that Senator Specter has been fair in discharging his duties as chairman. William H. Reynolds Washington, Jan. 11, 2006 The writer is chief of staff for Senator Arlen Specter. NY Times Editorial: Judge Alito, in His Own Words
by alfayoko2005
| 2006-01-13 14:23
|
ファン申請 |
||