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.
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
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