Wayne Besen - Author, Activist, Columnist, Public Speaker

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

The Senate today easily confirmed Samuel A. Alito Jr. as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, making the conservative jurist a probable swing vote on a number of major issues, including abortion rights. The vote was 58 to 42.

One Republican voted against Alito - Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. The only Democrats to vote for Alito were Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Folks, there is no silver lining here. If the glass is half-full, it is filled with cyanide. Alito is a movement conservative. This means he does not believe in serving the American people, but his patrons that brought him to power. The only good that may come of this is now people will see that it is dangerous to elect conservatives. They are very committed to their cause, no matter how it brings down America. I predict if Roe V. Wade is overturned, there will be a huge backlash against the GOP.

This is what leading gay rights groups have to say:

HRC: "It's deeply disappointing that the Supreme Court hastaking a dangerous turn away from fairness for gay, lesbian, bisexualand transgender Americans. With extremism taking the place of moderation in the Court, it's time to let fairness take the place of extremism in Congress."

Lambda: "With this confirmation, the Supreme Court likely will shift to the right and become a less welcoming forum for many kinds of civil rights claims. However, it is important for us to remember that the court still contains a majority of justices who ruled in favor of liberty and equality for gay people in Lambda Legal's two recent Supreme Court successes that are the foundation for much of our community's progress --Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans -- and those cases remain the law of the land. (Dont they seem a tad cheery considering they are screwed?)

Stonewall Democrats: "We are disappointed in the confirmation of Judge Alito to the United States Supreme Court. This nomination was made by the White House with the advance consultation of anti-family advocates who seek to use our courts to discriminate against same-sex families. The evasive answers given by Judge Alito to the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to address concerns of privacy and equal treatment under the law, and did little to counter the claims by radical groups that Judge Alito would serve their interests after confirmation."

NGLTF: "The confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court seat of Sandra Day O'Connor is a devastating blow to individual rights, civil liberties and equal justice under law in America. (Now, this is the proper tone on this awful day of mourning)

5 Comments:

Roe v. Wade cannot be overturned by the current make-up of this court. After Alito's confirmation, the court is now 5-4 in favor of a basic abortion right, and that's with the assumption that John Roberts would be a "pro-lifer", which has hardly been established.

Pro-Choice (5): John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter.

Pro-life (4): Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts, Jr., (note that Roberts, however, unlike Alito, has stated that Roe is "settled law". Whether or not he would overturn Roe is in doubt).

The republican party doesn't really want Roe overturned, because they know it would destroy them, in the short term at least. What they want is that "carrot" which they put before uneducated evangelicals right before elections. They've been promising to overturn Roe for over 20 years. They are playing their followers for fools.
posted by Anonymous, at 1/31/2006 1:51 PM

Wayne,

First, your comment on the abortion issue is simply wrong. Even assuming, as you apparently do, that both Roberts and Alito would vote to overturn Roe, that will still leave a five-member majority in favor of its continued validity. In fact, I believe that Roberts, in particular, would not vote to overturn Roe, because it would undermine the institutional legitimacy of the courts, and transform it into a political body that renders decisions based upon electoral politics. Second, your claims regarding civil rights, etc., are entirely inaccurate and demonstrate a flagrant disregard for applicable legal principles. As you may know, judges do not render decisions based upon policy whim; they based decisions upon precedent, interpretation, and the particular facts of a case. merely because a specific decision can be categorized as "anti civil rights" does not in any manner establish that a judge is predisposed against such rights. Each case presents complex fact and nuances, and judicial decisions are predicated upon existing law and statuts, the majority of which are clear and unambiguous. Thus, your argument, which amounts to nothing more than a policy debate, is properly directed towards the legisature, which, at the state and federal level, is responsible for enacting the very laws that you advocate. You assertions are directed at the wrong branch of government and, while I agree with you on these issues, can only conclude that your statements only undermine the causes that you support.
posted by Anonymous, at 1/31/2006 2:33 PM

Chris is right--the 'pro-life' issue is a big money maker for the right; both politicians and churches. Why kill the goose etc..

Also, I think it's darkly and sadly ironic that Alito gets in just as Coretta Scott King leaves us. She was a firm supporter of GLBT rights; but at least she's 'free at last' from this wretched planet.
Gary (NJ)
posted by Anonymous, at 1/31/2006 3:05 PM

Okay, Wade we get it. Now lighten up. Don't you think telling people which tone they should or shouldn't be taking is awfully Republican of you?
posted by Anonymous, at 1/31/2006 5:27 PM

His name isn't WADE, it's Wayne. DUH! Go back to school, Mr. G.O.P.
posted by Anonymous, at 1/31/2006 5:35 PM