|
For Immediate Release
January 5, 2006
Contact: Damien LaVera - 202-863-8148
One Million Americans Tell Senator Specter to Reject Judge Alito
Washington, DC - Amid concerns about Supreme Court Nominee Samuel
Alito's credibility and commitment to protecting Americans'
individual rights and freedoms, a petition signed by more than one
million Americans is being delivered today to Pennsylvania Republican
Senator and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter. The
petition comes on the same day that Democratic National Committee
Chairman Howard Dean published an op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
outlining the reasons Alito should not be on the Supreme Court.
"The American people are sending Republicans in Washington a clear
message," said DNC Spokesman Damien LaVera. "With corruption
scandals engulfing Republican lawmakers across America and the
President's secret plan to spy on American citizens on American soil
dominating the headlines, this is hardly the time to give a radical
judge with a tin ear on ethics a lifetime appointment to the Supreme
Court.
"Judge Alito's support for excessive government powers, his failure
to recuse himself from cases in which he has a clear conflict of
interest, his attacks on the Family and Medical Leave Act protections,
his willingness to excuse the grossest form of workplace sexual
harassment based on technicalities, and his defense of unscrupulous
prosecutors who construct all-white juries to try black defendants show
that Judge Alito has no place on the Supreme Court. Senators Specter and
Santorum should listen to the people of Pennsylvania and reject this
nomination."
Alito Refused to Recuse Himself Despite Clear Conflict of Interest.
According to the Boston Globe, Judge Alito held $390,000 worth of
Vanguard mutual funds during the time he ruled for the company in a
civil case before him. The chief administrative judge for the circuit
reviewed the case and vacated Judge Alito's decision. Judge Alito
complained vigorously, and has since failed to offer a credible
explanation about why he broke his promise to recuse himself from the
case.
Alito Dissented in 10-1 Decision on Gender Discrimination. Alito was
the lone dissenter in a 10-1 decision of the full Third Circuit Court of
Appeals in a case concerning gender discrimination, Sheridan v. E.I.
DuPont de Nemours and Co. In this case, Alito's opinion would have
prevented a woman claiming gender discrimination from getting a jury
trial, despite the fact she had evidence that her employer's claim that
it had legitimate grounds to deny her a promotion was a pretext for the
employer's allegedly discriminatory measures.
Alito Denied Claims of Egregious Sexual Harassment. In Robinson v. City
of Pittsburgh, Judge Alito wrote for a three-judge panel denying a
female police officer's sexual harassment claims, despite the egregious
actions of her supervisor, which allegedly consisted of "unhooking her
bra, snapping her bra strap, touching her hair and ears, telling her
'you stink pretty,' making comments about the size of her breasts,
blowing her a kiss, asking her out for a drink, touching her leg under a
table, putting his hands around her waist, dropping his keys down the
back of her shirt and attempting to retrieve them, and describing the
position in which he and Robinson would have sex if they were to do
so."
Alito Wanted to Impose Huge Evidentiary Burden in Employee
Discrimination Cases. In his dissent in Bray v. Marriot, Alito argued
for an evidentiary burden on victims of employment discrimination that,
according to the majority, would have "eviscerated" legal protections
provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The majority opinion also
stated that Alito's position would protect employers from discrimination
suits when an employer chooses a "best" candidate based on "conscious
racial bias" - that is, by failing to even consider members of a
protected class.
Alito Allowed Strip-Search of Ten-Year Old Girl. Judge Alito ruled in
Doe v. Groody that the strip-search by police of a ten-year-old girl and
her mother, despite the fact that the warrant under which they were
operating only called for the search of a man and his home, did not
violate the girl's constitutional rights.
Alito Hostile to Family and Medical Leave Act Protections. Alito has
sought to restrict Congress' authority to protect Americans in the
name of federalism and "states' rights." In Chittester v.
Department of Community and Economic Development, he wrote an opinion
holding that the 11th Amendment precluded state employees from suing for
damages to enforce their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act,
a decision that was effectively reversed at least as to family leave by
a 6-3 Supreme Court majority in Nevada Department of Human Resources v.
Hibbs in 2003.
Alito Supported Harsh Penalties Against Immigrants. In Ki Se Lee v.
Ashcroft, Alito argued in a dissent that an immigrant's filing of a
false tax return should be considered an aggravated felony requiring
removal, which the majority explained was simply "speculation" and
contradicted "well-recognized rules of statutory construction."
###
Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee,
www.democrats.org. This communication is not authorized by any
candidate or candidate's committee.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
