Skip to main content

Nominee Alito - and Australia?

The US Senate is presently "examing" the nomination by George Bush of Samuel Alito to the US Supreme Court.

If reports out of the US are correct there are many in favour of his appointment [he is very, very conservative to say the least - if not right-wing] if for no other reason that he is pro-life and all that entails. Supporters see the possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned.

On the other hand, detractors of Alito make out a compelling case for his nomination to be defeated. Read this article from AlterNet by Martha Burk [of Ms Magazine] on how Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court would most likely set back the interests of women.

We should not think that what happens in the US will not have some sort of ripple-effect in Australia. Australian courts do not follow US courts as a rule but it is the conservative nature of the Bench in Australia, and all that flows from that, which cannot be ignored. We are already seeing religious groups and vocal minority groups [think the Family First Party!] make their presence felt - to the detriment of the wider Australian community. For example, appointments to the Bench will doubtlessly come under closer scrutiny by those with vested religious or like-minded conservative interests.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I just want to use one example to point out what I think is a flaw in your logic

One of the arguments against conservative judges (though I'm not sure if this argument has been made against Alito yet) is that they would overturn affirmitive action legislation.

The more liberal members of the US Supreme Court have supported such legislation. Now isn't that pandering to a vocal minority group?

What is the role of a judge. Is it to strictly interpert the law as passed by the legislature, or is it to examine the wider social concerns of issue beyond the letter of the law? Are judges there to protect the rights of the majority or the minority?

So maybe it's less of a flaw that I'm pointing out, more of an implied shortcoming. If judges are not to favour particular minority groups, you can't pick and choose which side of the political spectrum they fall on. I know there are much more technical legal questions to be answered here, but I'm trying to look at the underlying philosophy

I ask, if Alito is not a sutible candidate, then who is? Or what do you think the qualities of a judge should be?

I do understand the point behind the Alternet article, after all why have many judges on the highest court if not to bring in varying points of view based on different life experiences into the final decision. However, for what I think is a more balanced view on Alito check out this article in Time
January 12, 2006 2:54 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Robert Fisk's predictions for the Middle East in 2013

There is no gain-saying that Robert Fisk, fiercely independent and feisty to boot, is the veteran journalist and author covering the Middle East. Who doesn't he know or hasn't he met over the years in reporting from Beirut - where he lives?  In his latest op-ed piece for The Independent he lays out his predictions for the Middle East for 2013. Read the piece in full, here - well worthwhile - but an extract... "Never make predictions in the Middle East. My crystal ball broke long ago. But predicting the region has an honourable pedigree. “An Arab movement, newly-risen, is looming in the distance,” a French traveller to the Gulf and Baghdad wrote in 1883, “and a race hitherto downtrodden will presently claim its due place in the destinies of Islam.” A year earlier, a British diplomat in Jeddah confided that “it is within my knowledge... that the idea of freedom does at present agitate some minds even in Mecca...” So let’s say this for 2013: the “Arab Awakening” (the t...
Post a Comment
Read more

The NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) goes on hold.....because of one non-Treaty member (Israel)

Isn't there something radically wrong here?    Israel, a non-signatory to the NPT has, evidently, been the cause for those countries that are Treaty members, notably Canada, the US and the UK, after 4 weeks of negotiation, effectively blocking off any meaningful progress in ensuring the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.    IPS reports ..... "After nearly four weeks of negotiations, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference ended in a predictable outcome: a text overwhelmingly reflecting the views and interests of the nuclear-armed states and some of their nuclear-dependent allies. “The process to develop the draft Review Conference outcome document was anti-democratic and nontransparent,” Ray Acheson, director, Reaching Critical Will, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), told IPS. “This Review Conference has demonstrated beyond any doubt that continuing to rely on the nuclear-armed states or their nuclear-de...
Post a Comment
Read more

#1 Prize for a bizarre story.....and lying!

No comment called for in this piece from CommonDreams: Another young black man: The strange sad case of 21-year-old Chavis Carter. Police in Jonesboro, Arkansas  stopped  him and two friends, found some marijuana, searched put Carter, then put him handcuffed  behind his back  into their patrol car, where they say he  shot himself  in the head with a gun they failed to find. The FBI is investigating. Police Chief Michael Yates, who stands behind his officers' story,  says in an interview  that the death is "definitely bizarre and defies logic at first glance." You think?
Post a Comment
Read more