A Call To Action - Judge Samuel Alito
by Caroline Vernon
Progressive Action for the Common Good
www.qcprogressiveaction.org

Calling all Progressive Activists....

Judge Samuel Alito threatens individual rights and hides his far right views—he is not in the mainstream of American jurisprudence.


Call on Senate Democrats ASAP to stand together and block Judge Alito’s confirmation with every means at their disposal!

Call Senator Harkin, Senator Durbin, and Senator Obama at:
1-800-426-8073

Senator Grassley is on the Senate Judiciary Committee so please be sure to also let him know that you oppose Samuel Alito's confirmation to the US Supreme Court.
 
Send emails through their websites:

obama.senate.gov/contact/, durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.htm,
harkin.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm,
http://grassley.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Or send postal letters to:

SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC,  20510

Progressive Action for the Common Good and other organizations such as QC NOW, ACLU, NAACP, QC Federation of Labor, Democracy for the Quad Cities, and Churches United Justice Issues Committee are organizing a letter writing campaign. Please assist us in our efforts by writing a letter to the Editor of your local newspaper as well as the Des Moines Register, The NY Times, and Newsweek.

Send Letters to: letters@qconline.com, letters@rcreader.com, opinions@qctimes.com, letters@dmregister.com, letters@nytimes.com, letters@newsweek.com

Or click here to use a feature on the Democratic Party website that provides you with most of your local newspapers.
Here is more information for your review:

Judge Alito has regularly ruled against civil rights and civil liberties claims. For example, Judge Alito:

Wrote a dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey arguing that a state's spousal notification requirement did not unduly burden a woman's right to privacy, a position later rejected by the Supreme Court;

Joined a dissent arguing that a student-led prayer at a high school graduation ceremony did not violate the Establishment Clause;

Wrote several dissents arguing for tighter standards for plaintiffs seeking trial on their race, gender and disability discrimination claims;

Dissented from a decision ruling that the strip search of a suspect's wife and ten-year-old daughter exceeded the scope of the search warrant and was therefore unconstitutional;

Rejected a death row inmate's ineffective assistance of counsel claim where the trial counsel had failed to uncover substantial mitigating evidence — a decision later reversed by the Supreme Court; Dissented from an /en banc/ ruling in a death penalty case arguing that the prosecution had unconstitutionally used its peremptory challenges to exclude all the black prospective jurors;

Wrote a dissent arguing that a policy prohibiting all prisoners in long-term segregation from possessing newspapers, magazines or photographs unless they were religious or legal did not violate the First Amendment.

It is, of course, impossible to summarize a fifteen-year judicial career in a few bullet points. But it is also fair to say that these highlighted decisions illustrate a broader pattern of judicial decision-making. By and large, Judge Alito's opinions make it more difficult for plaintiffs alleging discrimination to prevail, easier for the government to lend its support to religion, and harder to challenge questionable tactics by the police and prosecution.

Judge Alito has also taken a narrow view of congressional power in two noteworthy cases. First, Judge Alito held that Congress had exceeded its power under the Fourteenth Amendment by requiring the states to provide time off for sick employees under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Several years later, the Supreme Court rejected a similar claim in upholding a parallel provision of the FMLA. Second, Judge Alito argued in dissent that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause by making it a federal crime to possess a machine gun. This narrow view of the Commerce Clause could have implications in future civil rights cases.

I encourage you to read the ACLU's full report at:

http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/23308res20060103.html

Thanks for all you do!!!!!