Senators Clinton and Harkin's speeches opposing Alito nomination.

AtomicKitten

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-18-07 08:30 PM
Original message

Senators Clinton and Harkin's speeches opposing Alito nomination.

from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/27/18811/4140

Accolades to Sens. Clinton and Harkin Hotlist
Fri Jan 27, 2006

One thing that Senate Democrats have sorely lacked during the Alito nomination is a narrative or overarching reason explaining the necessity to reject Judge Alito's nomination. I want to call Kossacks' attention to the floor statements of Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) opposing the Alito nomination. The two Senators' floor statements take a good stab at establishing that narrative. Below the fold are excerpts of Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Harkin's speeches.

First is Sen. Clinton's floor statement opposing Judge Alito:

Today I read American history is that the key to American progress has been the ever-expanding circle of freedom and opportunity. That has been the common thread through all periods of our history -- greater rights and greater responsibilities of citizenship and equality.

Each time we have made strides forward, there have been vocal voices of opposition. There have been those who have wanted to go back. At those moments of profound importance to our country, the Federal courts have been the guardians of our liberties, have stood on the side of greater freedom and opportunity.

We all know the famous cases cited as representing this forward march of progress: Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down the notion of separate but equal; Baker v. Carr, which invalidated discriminatory State voting apportionment schemes and paved the way for the concept of one man, one vote; Griswold v. Connecticut, which recognized a right to privacy in the Constitution; Roe v. Wade, which established that women have a right to choose.

We need judges who will maintain that forward progress. Despite his distinguished academic credentials, Judge Alito has not shown himself to be that kind of judge. He does not have the dedication to civil rights or women's rights or the right to privacy that I believe we need in the next Supreme Court Justice.

Time and again, when given the choice, he has voted to narrow the circle, to restrict the rights Americans hold dear. Now is not the time to go backward.

Without the progress we have made in the past 230 years, without that expansion of the circle of equality and freedom and opportunity, I certainly would not be standing here, nor would a number of my colleagues. There would be no opportunities for women in public life.

But mine is hardly the only example. Voting rights would be restricted. Equal opportunities in education and in the workplace would not exist. And none of us would have a constitutional right to privacy. Simply put, our Nation would not be what it is today.

Our greatest strength has always been our commitment, generation after generation, with some fits and starts, to enlarging the circle of rights and equality. That great American commitment has made us a beacon of freedom around the world. This nomination could well be the tipping point against constitutionally based freedoms and protections we cherish as individuals and as a nation. I fear Judge Alito will roll back decades of progress and roll over when confronted with an administration too willing to flaunt the rules and looking for a rubberstamp. The stakes could not be higher. ...

... I also view this nomination through the prism of the Justice that Judge Alito will replace. I have not always agreed with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But she has shown, throughout her career of distinguished service to the Court that one Justice makes a big difference. One Justice can protect our constitutional rights. Justice O'Connor is a true conservative, a mainstream jurist. She appreciated the advancements we have made as a society because she lived them. Anyone who has ever read her autobiography about this little cowgirl growing up on a ranch in Arizona, going off to school, eventually going to Stanford Law School, graduating near the top of her class and being unable to find a job simply because she was a woman does not only intellectually understand why our history is about moving forward and removing the obstacles to God-given human potential, she feels it. She understands it.

Time and time again, she showed she appreciated the advancements we have made as a society. She has fought to ensure they continue. Her vote was often the defining vote on which key civil liberties and rights rested. She exercised it with care and independent judgment.

Any fair reading, in my view, of Judge Alito's record does not demonstrate that same independence of judgment, nor does it illustrate a grasp, either intellectual or emotional, of the day-to-day struggles that tens of millions of Americans face.

Good work, Sen. Clinton. You make New Yorkers and Democrats proud with that floor statement.

And below is Sen. Harkin's floor statement opposing Judge Alito's nomination:

The issues that come before the Supreme Court are not abstract legal concepts; rather, they involve the very values that define who we are as a nation. They ask us to think about what kind of society we want to be. I believe strongly that we want to be a society which strives for justice, protects the powerless, provides meaningful protections to workers, and allows those who have suffered discrimination to seek recourse and affirm their rights in Federal court.

I believe that a nominee to the Supreme Court needs more than just excellent legal qualifications. He or she must possess a true passion for justice, an understanding that the law cannot be viewed with cool, analytical dispassion, but with the acknowledgement of its role in molding a fairer and more just society. ...

One of the things I found most troubling about Judge Alito was his statement that one of the factors that motivated him to study constitutional law was his disagreements with the Warren Court decisions in the areas of criminal procedures and voting rights. Frankly, I find this to be a stunning admission. I know there are many who often decry the decisions of the Warren Court as inappropriate liberal judicial activism.

I strongly disagree with that characterization. So many of the decisions of the Warren Court, beginning with the 1954 unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education--that decision that separate is not equal--are not just liberal values, they are American values--American values that each person's vote should have the same weight; that legislative districts should contain equal population; that the freedom to marry a person of another race is a fundamental civil right; the decision that broadcasters are required to provide programming that serves the public interest and to provide for a diversity of viewpoints; the decision that illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial; the decision that poor people are entitled to have lawyers in criminal cases; the decision that the wearing of symbols of protest is protected speech; the decision that suspects have the right to remain silent; the decision that you have a right to an attorney; the decision that you have the right to be informed of these protections and the charges against you.

These were all Warren Court decisions, and these decisions, far from evidencing an extreme view of the Constitution, are decisions that the vast majority in this country believe are fair and correct and give meaning to our Constitution's promise of individual liberty and dignity.

Yet Judge Alito chose to cite his disagreement with these very decisions as his motivation for studying law. He chose to cite his disagreements with these decisions as his reason for working to narrow or overturn the rulings in the Reagan Justice Department.

I find this very troubling. I cannot help but wonder what other laws Justice Alito might seek to narrow if he is granted lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court.

Another law that gives meaning to our Constitution's promise of liberty and dignity is the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fifteen years ago--now approaching 16--I championed the ADA, as it is now known, because I had seen discrimination against the disabled firsthand, growing up with my brother Frank who was deaf. Throughout his life, Frank experienced active discrimination at the hands of both private individuals and the government, and this served to limit the choices before him. ...

In case after case on the Third Circuit, Judge Alito seems to have been immune to the real-life struggles of the people in the cases before him. It is like: "This is the legal theory. Don't bother me with the facts. Don't bother me with what is actually happening. There is some legal theory out there that I believe in, and somehow this legal theory trumps, overcomes the real-life travails of ordinary people." As I said--immune to the real-life struggles. The fact that the police strip-searched a 10-year-old girl, the fact that a mentally disabled worker was sexually assaulted, the fact that a farm family was threatened at gunpoint by U.S. Marshals without any resistance during an eviction process--all of this failed to sway him that these ordinary Americans even deserve to be able to present their cases against the Government. It failed to persuade the judge that they should even be allowed to present their cases against the Government. This is real life, real people, and real situations. But, no, Judge Alito had some other philosophy, some other theory that overcame this.

In the past few days, I have heard a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle express alarm or dismay that so many Democratic Senators have expressed their opposition to this nominee. In light of the record that I just outlined, I find it alarming that more Senators on the Republican side have not expressed their opposition to this nominee. I thought it was my friends on the other side who so loudly proclaimed individual liberty, individual dignity of the person. Yet Judge Alito dismisses this under some rubric of a judicial philosophy or some theory that he has. ...

In closing, the new Supreme Court Justice will have a tremendous impact on our society. The decisions before the Court will determine whether we are true to our fundamental national values of fairness and justice and dignity for all. ... For these reasons, I strongly oppose his nomination.

Wow. Excellent job, Sen. Harkin.