Posted on 01/12/2006 10:57:34 AM PST by napscoordinator
Liberal Former Alito Clerk: Don't "F" Alito By opposing Alito, my fellow liberals and I run the real danger of shooting ourselves in our own left foot. Jan 12, 2006 by Susan Sullivan ( bio | archive )
At Most efforts at evaluating the nomination of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court have fallen along predictable party lines. By opposing the nomination however, my fellow liberals and I run the real danger of shooting ourselves in our own left foot.
I was one of Judge Alito's law clerks from 1990-1991, the year the Casey decision was decided. I consider myself a social progressive. I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU and a liberal pro-choice advocate who supports abortion rights. I favor gun control, support gay marriage and oppose the death penalty. I also don't have a problem if you want to take "God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. In short, no one is likely to mistake me for a conservative any time soon. Yet, I support the nomination of Judge Alito, because I know from having worked closely with him, that he is not a political ideologue and is not intent on advancing a conservative political agenda.
As a liberal, what scares me is not the prospect of having Sam Alito on the Supreme Court; what scares me is the way my fellow liberal Democrats are behaving in response to the nomination. I’m appalled and embarrassed by the fear mongering, the personal attacks and what I see as an irresponsible and misleading distortion of his real judicial record as well as his character. Now the threat of a filibuster lurks, and Senator Kennedy’s tirade about documents being concealed seems like little more than a pretext to justify such a threat.
In light of the Alito feeding frenzy, I feel compelled as a liberal and a former clerk to speak out and attempt to offer a different perspective to perhaps stem, or at least counter, what I see as a short-sighted, ill-considered and counter-productive attack strategy, made, sadly, by the very same liberal groups whose mission and philosophy I ordinarily support and embrace. I did not want to be part of the spin, but I don’t know how to stop it except to say what I know and hope some will listen.
In all candor, I expect that if I did not know Judge Alito, I may have responded to the nomination with the same distrust, fear and suspicion with which I usually respond to everything the Bush administration does, so I understand the genesis of the attacks by my fellow liberals. However, having worked closely with Judge Alito, I know that he is not a political ideologue intent on advancing a conservative political agenda. If he were, we would not have the decisions in which he reached or supported "liberal" outcomes. These include pro-choice decisions that affirmed and applied Roe v. Wade, as well as cases favoring plaintiffs bringing discrimination suits, cases that ruled in favor of criminal defendants, or a case that expanded a women's rights to seek political asylum on the basis of gender. These are just not the results you would expect to see if he were a conservative ideologue.
In my experience, having worked closely with him, Judge Alito never allowed his personal or political opinions to dictate the outcome in any case irrespective of its subject matter. On the contrary, he approached every case, including Casey, thoughtfully and carefully. He was always open to discussion and argument and always willing to listen and consider all relevant points of view. Judge Alito heard thousands of cases and wrote hundreds of opinions. Cherry picking “sensational” cases is at best unhelpful. Over-simplifying and mischaracterizing his record serves no one. Making unfounded personal attacks to insinuate he is racist or sexist is not only personally offensive to me as one who knows him, it denigrates the entire proceeding.
At this point, Democrats should be playing chess, not checkers. The threat of a filibuster is not only premature, it's short-sighted. Consider this: Democrats' attempts to filibuster Alito prove successful, because some Republicans are reluctant to change the long-standing rules of the Senate. Consequently, Alito's nomination fails. Check! In his place, President Bush then nominates a true conservative ideologue. We Democrats would most certainly and desperately want to filibuster such a choice but would be unable to do so because now those same Republicans who were reluctant to change the rules beforehand, would be frustrated by what they would see as Democrats' serial filibustering, and so they would now exercise the "constitutional" option and change the rules. No filibuster and we liberals end up with a super conservative justice on the court. Check mate! Now that's the really scary outcome.
I believe we need to tread carefully, temper our partisan distrust and think carefully before reflexively voicing outrage. Otherwise, we may actually undermine our own best "liberal" interests as well as the interests of everyone else. If you really want a Supreme Court justice who will approach each case carefully, thoughtfully and will reach a decision irrespective of his own personal or political agenda, please don’t “F” Judge Alito.
Susan Sullivan is an attorney in San Francisco. She was Judge Alito's law clerk in 1990-1991, the year in which Planned Parenthood v. Casey was decided.
Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com
If she were truly "honest" and "thinking," she wouldn't favor gun bans.
This author confirms that Alito is not conservative enough... How about JRB?
http://www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm
There is hope for both, then. From their personal experience, in at least two cases (Judge Alito and you), they now know that all conservatives are not knuckledragging monsters.
You are spot on. This article only proposes that the "conservative that I know" is OK but all other conservatives are evil. It's the same mentally that leads people to conclude that all doctors are money grubbing quacks except for my doctor who is really a good guy. I doubt she learned much about people's beliefs if this reflects her thinking about Judge Alito vis a vis conservatives in general.
I'd rather if Suzie had just kept her mouth shut.
A liberal agrees with Alito's nomination, and one as flaming as this?
It depresses and concerns me.
Then again, maybe she's just an idiot. Not to hard to believe that given her leftist "credentials".
If Alito is more conservative that SDO, then it is a victory for conservatives.
The question yet to be answered is how big is the victory.
He's a really funny guy - probably one of the few who doesn't push the liberal agenda and has respect for opposing viewpoints. One afternoon we all weren't busy, and he asked what I would be up to this weekend. I answered that being a good conservative, I'd be out "kicking puppies, starving children and trying to deprive at least two minority groups of their civil rights." The mega-liberal standing next to him looked at me like I crawled out of a piece of cheese; he, on the other hand, laughed like hell.
Susan Sullivan is upset because she personally knows for a fact that they are telling lies about Alito, but when the next guy/gal comes along that she does not personally know she will go right back to believing the lies they tell.
Someone should post this over at DU...
quefstar wrote: "I'm not so sure that years from now we will look back at this week as a victory for conservatism."
It all depends on your definition of conservatism. If it means stacking the SCOTUS with ideologues who will vote their ideology versus following the law, this could indeed be a bad week for conservatives. On the other hand, if you believe conservatism means following the clear intent of law, especially the US Constitution, this week is a big win!
I found it telling that in one of Alito's answers, he couched his following and reliance on stare decisis with, to paraphrase, the idea that you don't KNOW what new arguments will be made in support of a matter before the Court.
I find it telling that Democrats are all over the idea that stare decisis must be followed, and yet they never remember the most glaring injustice of it: Plessy v. Ferguson. The Supreme Court had to say in essence in Brown (1954) that Plessy was wrong, flat wrong, and they were not obliged to use Plessy as precedent.
I'm of the mind that while the 4th Amendment guarantees us privacy in our persons and homes via the reasonable search provision, I cannot fathom how the Constitution protects the right to abortion. Plus the fact that the country is now turning away from this "unrestricted abortion" notion being pushed by the hard liberals. Even in San Francisco, there is a serious ad campaign on BART Trains stating that we have gone too far in allowing abortion. And even the Birkenstock Berkeley Beanheads haven't defaced the signs (which is saying something),
The typical articulate incoherence one expects from the liberal mind. 2+2=5, in polysyllables.
"These include pro-choice decisions that affirmed and applied Roe v. Wade, as well as cases favoring plaintiffs bringing discrimination suits, cases that ruled in favor of criminal defendants, or a case that expanded a women's rights to seek political asylum on the basis of gender. These are just not the results you would expect to see if he were a conservative ideologue."
sounds more like she doesn't understand conservatives.
she got a glimpse of one working with Alito obviously, liked what she saw, yet still refuses to see the light.
a conservative ideologue does not include oppressing others.
Maybe she's young yet -- this may be an opportunity for her to see what her liberal friends are really like.
Carolyn
you have to recognize that while serving on a lower court the Judge had to respect the prior opinions of the Supreme Court whether he considered them wrong or not. While on the Surpreme Court he will no longer be bound by that. I still expect him to want to change things back to where they should be.
Now we just continue praying that the liberal justices will be removed from the court.
I didn't want a "consistent conservative" on the court. I wanted a consistent judicial conservative on the Court who would interpret the law as written, not as he thinks it should be. Whether that gives a "liberal" or "conservative" result is not something about which a judge should care. Justice Scalia found flag burning to be protected speech. I didn't agree with the result, and he personally hated that result, but I was satisfied because he didn't let his personal views affect his legal analysis.
Great point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.