Saturday, November 05, 2005

Credentials vs Values

Colbert King has a good column on the Congress use of those principles to judge Supreme Court Nominees.

I'd just like to ask a few questions.

Remember in the Spring when the Repbulicans wailed that the Democrats were going to use a religion 'litmus test' against the president's nominees?

Okay, so what are they doing with the president's nominees themselves. They weren't sure that Harriet Miers would ban abortion like their far right religion (which is only nominally 'Christian') requires, so they cut her off.

And that brings up another question.

Remember how the Republicans cried about the Democrats not allowing an up or down vote on the judicial nominees the president selected among their favored right wing appellate court justices?

It seems like they did the same thing to Ms. Miers.

Of course, probably my eyes are fooling me. They would never be so duplicitous, would they?

I love what John Waters said on Real Time November 2004 over the report that Alito supported gay rights in 1971: (paraphrased from memory): A lot can change in 35 years. In 1971, I had a girlfriend.

More news on this subject at tith:

More on Alito on the web.
  • Alito caught in 'conflicts of interest'
    Alito, who has been nominated by President Bush to the Supreme Court, owned more than $390,000 in shares of Vanguard Group mutual funds when he ruled in favor of the company as a federal appeals court judge in 2002. Alito also ruled in 1996 on a case involving Smith Barney, another firm handling his investments.

  • Alito holds little sympathy for workers in discrimination cases
  • In 1996, an overwhelming majority of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals awarded a significant victory to Barbara Sheridan, a worker at the posh Hotel du Pont in Wilmington, Del., who said she had been sexually harassed by a supervisor, denied a promotion because she was a woman, and eventually fired for protesting the alleged discrimination.

    A jury concluded that she was not entitled to the promotion but that her complaints had resulted in a hostile work environment, and awarded her approximately $30,000 in back pay. But the trial judge toppled the verdict, saying the evidence was inadequate to prove that gender was a critical factor in what had happened to Sheridan.

    The appeals court heard the case twice, and both times ruled for Sheridan. In its final ruling, by a 10-1 vote, the 3rd Circuit ruled that a plaintiff did not have to show "direct" evidence of discrimination if a jury rejected an employer's explanation of its actions as a "pretext."

    Alito was the lone dissenter. He contended that the majority had made it too difficult for an employer to win.

    The majority — eight of them Republican appointees — cited a Supreme Court decision that emphasized that "there will seldom be 'eyewitness' testimony as to the employer's mental processes." Consequently, cases of this type usually turn on circumstances and inferences, and a jury must be permitted to weigh the evidence and assess the company's intent, the majority concluded.

  • Alito Is Called 'Sensitive' to Executive Power

  • Right to Wife

  • Hearing Date for Alito Leaves Bush Disappointed

  • Bush tries to sell Americans on Alito

  • The Life of the Party? Only in the 'Grand Old' Sense.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link