|
Alito
nomination endangers civil-rights legacy
By Eva Paterson, Kimberly Thomas Rapp
San Francisco Chronicle
Thursday, December 1, 2005
Fifty
years ago today, Rosa Parks' refusal to bow to injustice provided
the impetus for a civil-rights movement that would breathe life
into the constitutional promise of equal rights for all Americans.
Yet,
even as we celebrate her courageous stand, we face the possibility
of the confirmation of a U.S. Supreme Court nominee who would
turn the clock back on our hard-won civil rights. Samuel A. Alito's
record demonstrates that, if confirmed, he will prove a friend
to those seeking to reverse civil-rights protections.
Alito's
nomination represents the culmination of a 30-year effort by legal
forces to reverse the advancements of Mrs. Parks and millions
of others. While sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, Judge Alito exhibited disdain for ordinary citizens
who look to our legal system for redress from discrimination in
employment and in our courts of law. For example, in one particularly
telling dissent -- Glass vs. Philadelphia Electric Company --
he argued that allowing a plaintiff to present evidence of racial
harassment to a jury in an effort to explain negative comments
from superiors in his personnel file might cause "substantial
unfair prejudice" to the very employer who was alleged to
have discriminated.
In
Riley vs. Taylor, Alito belittled the argument that an all-white
jury would have an unfair impact on sentencing an African-American
defendant by comparing statistical evidence about the prosecution's
exclusion of blacks from juries in capital cases to an explanation
of why a disproportionate number of recent U.S. presidents have
been left-handed. When his decision was reversed by the full Third
Circuit Court, the majority criticized Alito's decision, noting
"to suggest any comparability to the striking of jurors based
on their race is to minimize the history of discrimination against
prospective black jurors and black defendants."
It
is possible that Alito's hostility to victims of discrimination
stems from his disagreement with our government's historic efforts
to provide redress for some of the harm caused by centuries of
sanctioned racism, particularly against African Americans. In
his 1985 application for a senior Justice Department position,
Alito wrote, "In college, I developed a deep interest in
constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with
[the decisions of the Supreme Court during the 1950s and 1960s],
particularly in the areas of ... reapportionment."
The
"reapportionment" with which Alito disagrees is the
Supreme Court's 1964 decision that resulted in the fundamental
concept of "one person, one vote." In that case, the
court prohibited the then-common practice of drawing congressional
districts in a way that diluted the influence of people of color
by scattering minority voters among numerous districts, essentially
drowning them in a sea of white votes. The Supreme Court thought
this improper, explaining that Article I, Section 2 of the U.S.
Constitution demands that "as nearly as is practicable one
man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much
as another's." According to Alito's own statements, he disagrees
particularly with this holding.
Across
the spectrum -- from voting rights to criminal justice to race
discrimination in employment, education and public accommodations
-- the replacement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with Alito will
indeed put our rights in danger. It is a risk that our nation
simply cannot afford to take. We must not allow judicial nominees
promoted by the radical right-wing to bury the advancements of
the last 50 years. The civil-rights movement ignited by Rosa Parks'
act of courage on a Montgomery bus created gains that are integral
to our democracy today. These cherished rights are the result
of the personal sacrifices of countless individuals, the wisdom
of our elected representatives and the fairness of our courts.
As we mourn Parks' death, we honor her by working to ensure that
her legacy lives on.
Eva
Paterson is president of the Equal Justice Society. Kimberly Thomas
Rapp is its director of law and public policy.
Page
B - 9
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/12/01/EDG5TG04S91.DTL
|
