Dan Inouye's Statement on Alito:

[joemurphy]

<http://inouye.senate.gov/>

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye today delivered the following statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate on the nomination of The Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court:
“Mr. President, at this moment in our history, our country faces a spectrum of challenges broader than any we have ever faced before, both at home and abroad. However great the storm we face today, I am confident that our nation, founded on the architecture of our Constitution, will prevail. The checks and balances it establishes among Congress, President, and Courts are the true arsenal of freedom. In the end, these checks and balances, in the hands of the American people, will prove greater than any assault on the precious freedoms and liberties our forefathers fought to establish.
“For the officials of our federal government, the protection of the institutions of our American democracy is a duty that both transcends and supersedes all others – especially for members of our Supreme Court who must interpret the Constitution of our nation as a living foundation for the freedom and liberty of our people. From confiding the power of the federal government in three co-equal but separate branches of government, to guaranteeing the civil liberties that bless our nation, the Constitution enshrines principles that are as relevant today as they were when it was first penned, centuries ago.
“These cherished principles are the backbone of our nation, and they comprise the final yardstick for taking the mettle of any man or woman who would aspire to our nation’s highest court. I have studied the full record of President Bush’s nominee, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and carefully measured it against the sworn duties of the Supreme Court. Regretfully, I conclude that Judge Alito falls short.
“From his writings on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to his public speeches, I discern a man who would fundamentally rewrite the interpretation of our Constitution and leave in doubt the legacy of freedom it was meant to preserve. For many, this will mean his record on civil rights, reproductive choice, or the death penalty. Let there be no mistake: I share these concerns, and I have spent my life fighting for these rights. For me, however, the greatest area of doubt lies in Judge Alito’s consistent preference for expanding the power of the President by relaxing the checks and balances the Constitution places on the Executive branch of government.
“In 1989 and 2000, Judge Alito gave speeches to the Federalist Society in which he embraced an obscure legal doctrine called the ‘unitary executive theory.’ This so-called ‘unitary executive theory’ places the President almost above the law. Under this theory, independent counsel appointed to investigate Presidential misdeeds would be unconstitutional. Similarly, the theory holds that enforcement agencies independent of the President, such as the Securities Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board, would also be unconstitutional because they are not under the President’s control. The theory also justifies a President who would overstep Acts of Congress and the Constitution when acting as Commander in Chief.
“How Judge Alito might actually apply this ‘unitary executive theory’ on the Supreme Court is, of course, an open question. Separated by a span of 11 years, however, his own speeches in 1989 and 2000, suggest that Judge Alito’s views on the powers of the President are long-held and strong.
“A memo he generated early in his career with the Reagan Administration amplifies this impression. In that memo, Judge Alito wrote on a President’s authority to modify an Act of Congress by making a ‘signing statement’ – a written document issued by a President on signing an Act of Congress into law. In the memo, Judge Alito wrote, that ‘the President’s understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress.’ This statement suggests that Judge Alito believes the President has a role in the legislative process not contemplated under the Constitution’s exclusive grant of legislative power to the Congress.
“Judge Alito’s writings and speeches show how he personally believes that the Congress should have less power to check and balance the President. His judicial opinions, issued in his official capacity as a judge on the Third Circuit, demonstrate a parallel conviction that the Congress should have less authority in general.
“In United States v. Rybar, Judge Alito wrote a minority opinion asserting that the Congress had no authority to pass laws to regulate machine guns. The majority opinion criticized Judge Alito’s narrow and restrictive view of Congressional authority.
“In Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, Judge Alito ruled that the Congress had no authority to allow State employees to sue for damages under the Family Medical Leave Act. Judge Alito’s restrictive view on Congress’s authority was later invalidated by the Supreme Court when it considered the same issue in a later case.
“Our Supreme Court shoulders the solemn task of discovering how the Constitution applies to the unique problems of the day. Through dialogue, study, and diligent inquiry, the Justices bring to bear the collected experiences of the nation, and forge justice from the Constitution by tempering its words with human compassion, wisdom, and integrity. Judge Alito’s record suggests that he holds his personal beliefs on expanding the President’s power so strongly that they might come before the call of justice. Accordingly, I have concluded that I must oppose his nomination.”

[Benhurst]

1. Yet Alito's disgraceful nomination wasn't worth a filibuster?