Democrats Step Up Attacks On Alito

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Senior Democrats stepped up their attacks on US
President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court pick, judge Samuel Alito, charging Alito with being a right-wing conservative ideologue.
“Before we even begin examining Judge Alitos record, a natural cause for concern is that he was picked to placate a group of vocal and hard right activists who have been lobbying for him for many years,” said US Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat.
Nomination hearings often are seen as pro forma exercises in rubberstamping a president’s choice, but that will not be the case with Alito, Schumer said.
“There are too many questions still to be answered, too many doubts still to be alleviated, to say that this nomination is a slam dunk.”
He continued: “In case after case after case, Judge Alito gives the impression of applying meticulous legal reasoning, but each time he happens to reach the most conservative result,” said Schumer.
“Judge Alito seems to find a way to rule on the side of business over the consumer; on the side of the employer over the employee; and often against civil rights, against workers rights, against women’s rights,” the New York Democrat said.

Nomination hearings as “pro forma exercises in rubberstamping?” To people who haven’t been paying attention to the judicial appointment process for the last decade or so. Has the reporter who wrote this article never heard of Clarence Thomas? Robert Bork? The furor surrounding the President’s first-term, lower court nominations?
Jeez, get the facts straight.

As for Schumer’s charge of Alito playing favorites in his rulings, let me go back to something John Roberts said in response to a question from Sen. Durbin doing his appointment hearings:

I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?
And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but, as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy’s going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy’s going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.
The oath that a judge takes is not that, I’ll look out for particular interests, I’ll be on the side of particular interests. The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. And that’s what I would do.

Given what I know about Alito I expect that he feels similarly. If the law states that an employee should win over an employer then he will in front of Alito. But if the employer should win, then the employer will win. Alito rules on the law, not ideology, and I would challenge any of his critics saying otherwise to bring forth evidence.
Not that Alito’s adherence to law over ideology will matter a bit to someone like Schumer, who apparently believes that a judge’s job is to shape law to fit a certain ideology be it leftist, rightist or moderate.