For Samuel Alito the rule of law trumps the US Constitution and that's a problem

Last night I had the special treat of discussing the Samuel Alito hearings with Normal Siegel at the New Democratic Majority monthly meeting.

Normal Siegel is a constitutional lawyer, former head of NYC ACLU and one of the true progressive liberals left in the political landscape here in New York City (and maybe the country). He ran (and lost) for Public Advocate of New York City in the last elections with the support of NDM, DFNYC and other grassroots organizations.

We spent almost 2 hours discussing these hearings and the implications of Samuel Alito becoming a justice of the supreme court.

The task of wading through the nominees 15 years of documents and records is absolutely daunting, but for the hard-core researchers, you can go to the National Archives :

http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/

That's why I have to thank People for the American Way for the amazing work of collecting, collating and analyzing at their Save the Court website the nominees paper trail.

I have though been more focused on the public discourse around Alito; especially in light of what has been bothering me since the Robert's hearings. Both Robert and now Alito claim they will respect the rule of law and legal precendents first and foremost. I have been having problems articulating why I find these statements problematic until Siegel's presentation last night.

(1) Does this mean then that he would not review the rulings that have made the patenting of DNA legal and have turned the human genome into a commodity to be owned by multinational genomic corporations?

DNA Patent Database
http://dnapatents.georgetown.edu/

DNA Patents Create Monopolies on Living Organisms
From the Council for Responsible Genetics
http://www.actionbioscience.org/genomic/crg.html

(2) Let's say a majority of "red" states are successful at passing laws that restrict abortion to the point of making it impossible for poor women and sexually-mature minors to exercise their reproductive autonomy. Does this mean that he would use that as base for a judicial review under stare decisis and, in effect, overturn Roe vs. Wade?

New law could mean death penalty for doctors
http://www.pphouston.org/site/News2?id=9640

Bill would ban abortion in Indiana
Lawmaker would want to appeal law to the Supreme Court.
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/13565202.htm

More on this. I have to take the kids to another class. Which brings me to a tangent : How can citizens in this country be involved in the political process if these hearings are held during normal working and school hours? Our political and governmental system is designed for people not be engaged, not to have easy access to the decision process.

It's a challenge for new media pioneers like us bloggers (who were excoriated by a member of the Judicial Committee today but for whom I do not have a name). We need to figure out how to use this technology to augment the political process virally into people's work and school structures.

I have some ideas; but I really have to go now.

Blog you later.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | |