About Us


Contact Information


How You Can Make a Difference


Issues


Legislative Action Center


Links


Policy Information Center


Press
Releases


Religious Liberty


Send Me
More Information

 

 

 

Democrats Want A Judicial Activist Like Justice Ginsburg On The Supreme Court Not A Constructionist Like Judge Alito

 Joel P. Rutkowski, Ph.D., President
The American Voice Institute Of Public Policy
January 30, 2006 

 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Introduction

American Public Supports Judge Samuel A. Alito
Judge Alito  Well Qualified”  for The Supreme Court 
America Should Fear Liberal Democratic Senators
Liberal Media Continues Attack On Alito 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg The Supreme Court Justice That Truly Has Radical Views  

Remembering The Founding Principles Of This Nation
End Notes

 

Executive Summary

On January 26, 2006, refusing to allow a vote on Supreme Court nominee Alito were die hard Democratic critics. However, countering with a move designed to force a vote on the nominee by early next week were Republicans. 

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican – Tennessee) said, “It is time to establish an endpoint, “in the debate over President Bush's selection to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.” (1)

Refusing to agree to the timetable for ending debate are Senator Edward M. Kennedy (Democrat – Massachusetts) and other Democrats. He conceded, “There's some division in our caucus.”  In remarks on the Senate floor, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat – Nevada) signaled as much. For Senator Kennedy, Senator John Kerry (Democrat – Massachusetts) and others whose push for a filibuster represent a last stand,  Reid offered no support.  The Senator said, “There's been adequate time for people to debate. “ (2) 

On January 26, 2006, Democratic Senators Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia gave their support to Judge Alito.  The Senate on January 30, 2006, will vote to end debate (cloture vote). The confirmation vote will follow on January 31, 2006, if 60 votes in the 100-member Senate have been cast to end the debate.  

Judge Alito's jurisprudence has been misrepresented by some of the attacks by Democratic senators and liberal interest groups. Superbly qualified for the Supreme Court is Judge Alito. In fact, an extensive investigation of the judge's career as an attorney and judge was conducted by the American Bar Association (ABA) – a liberal organization which unanimously gave him its highest rating of “well qualified” for service on the Supreme Court.  (3) 

Back to the Top

Introduction 

During a party line vote on January 24, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably recommended Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr ‘s Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate.  All eight Democrats voted against Judge Alito while all 10 Republicans voted for him.  Before the end of the week the full Senate expects to take a final vote on Judge Alito's nomination. Also, this vote is expected to follow along party lines with one exception  Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska is the only Democrat so far to indicate his support for Judge Alito. (4) In the Senate, Republicans hold the balance of power 55- 44, with one independent. 

Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat – New York) said, “He still believes that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion, but does not want to tell the American people because he knows how unpopular that view is.” (5) 

Ranking Democrat on Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont said of the Alito nomination, “This is a nomination that I fear threatens the fundamental rights and liberties of all Americans now (and) for generations to come.“(6) 

Back to the Top

American Public Supports Judge Samuel A. Alito 

Despite a major coordinated campaign by liberal interest groups, Democrats and moderate Republicans, the American public is not convinced that the Senate should reject United States (US) Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.  For example, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey released on January 23, 2006, showed that public support for Senate confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito increased slightly to 54 percent. (7) 

Back to the Top

Judge Alito  Well Qualified”  for The Supreme Court 

Judge Alito's  jurisprudence has been misrepresented by some of the attacks by Democratic senators and liberal interest groups. Superbly qualified for the Supreme Court is Judge Alito. In fact, an extensive investigation of the judge's career as an attorney and judge was conducted by the American Bar Association (ABA) – a liberal organization which unanimously gave him to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court its highest rating of “well qualified.” (8)  Three-hundred people, including 130 federal judges and numerous attorneys who argued both winning and losing cases in the judge's court, were interviewed by the ABA.   

Even the purported controversy about Judge Alito's failure to recuse himself from a case involving the Vanguard company, which managed mutual funds he owned shares in and his membership in the obsolete  Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), which Judge Alito mentioned in a 1985 Justice Department job application, were examined. (9) 

The ABA determined Judge Alito had demonstrated “the highest standard of integrity,” when taking into full consideration both the Vanguard case and as the ABA put it, Alito's “membership in a group that was perceived in the media to have been formed to exclude diversity on the Princeton campus.”  

The ABA's report to the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “Concerns have been raised and reviewed in detail. None of those concerns rises to the level that overrides what the nominee has demonstrated in a decade and a half of public service on the Federal bench. To the contrary, Judge Alito's integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament are of the highest standing.” (10) 

However, during the hearings much of Senator Edward Kennedy's (Democrat – Massachusetts) time was spent badgering Judge Alito on the Vanguard case and his membership in CAP implying the Judge was a bigot and unethical. (11)  

Democrats that have announced that they will oppose Judge Alito include Senator Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts); Senator Patrick J. Leahy (Vermont), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee; Senator Richard J. Durbin (Illinois), the Democratic whip; and Ken Salazar (Colorado), Senator Max Baucus (Montana) and  Barbra Mikulski (Maryland). (12,13)  Senator Leahy said the Judge Alito had failed during his confirmation hearings to allay fears he would endorse such an exercise of Presidential power citing his concern over President Bush's authorization of warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. He said, “There is no reason to believe that Judge Alito will serve as an effective check and balance on government intrusion into the lives of Americans. Indeed, his record suggests otherwise.”(14)  Judge Alito's record was called “clear and ominous” on issues of executive power by Senator Kennedy, who described the confirmation battle as the “vote of a generation” for its potential long-term impact on the balance on the court. He said, “The record demonstrates that we cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle when the President is out of bounds.” (15) 

During Judge Alito's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee he demonstrated he was fully versed in Constitutional and statutory law. He was knowledgeable about constitutional history as well as diverse subject matter which federal courts deal with as well as exhibited character and integrity. 

But despite his qualifications, Democrats even as they acknowledge that his confirmation is virtually assured are more united in their desire to seek an extended debate over Judge Alito.  (16) 

Back to the Top

America Should Fear Liberal Democratic Senators 

What Americans should fear are liberal senators who believe that justices should re-create the Constitution and socially engineer society in their own image instead of interpreting the law.  For example Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat – New York) lectured Judge Alito, “'If confirmed you'll be one of nine people who collectively hold power over everyone who lives in this country.  You'll define our freedom, you'll affect our security and you'll shape our laws.   You will determine on some days where we pray and how we vote.  You'll define on other days when life begins and what our schools may teach. And you will decide from time to time who shall live and who shall die.  “ (17)  Senator Schumer's belief in the duties of a Supreme Court Justice and the function of the Supreme Court is disturbing. The desires of a few individuals out of a small group such as the Supreme Court are not what this nation's laws are to reflect but should as the Founding Fathers and Framers intended them to be the consensus of the general public.  (18)  The basic tenet of a Republic was summarized by Samuel Adams when he declared: 

“Laws they are not, which the public approbation hath not made so.” This seems to be the language of nature and common sense; for if the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them. (19) 

Since the courts have systematically usurped the legislative role the Framers of the Constitution envisioned for Congress, liberals hold the judicial branch in such high esteem such as Richard Durbin(Democrat – Illinois'). (20)  Senator Durbin said, “ In my lifetime, it's the Supreme Court, and not Congress, that integrated our public schools, allowed people of different races to marry, and established the principle that our government should respect the value of privacy of American families. These decisions are the legacy of justices who chose to expand American freedom.“ (21) 

Back to the Top

Liberal Media Continues Attack On Alito 

In the media, the attacks against the Judge Alito continued on January 23, 2006, when a New York Times editorial entitled, “Judge Alito's Radical Views,” stated, “ He has a radically broad view of the President's power, and a radically narrow view of Congress' power. He has long argued that the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. He wants to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and has a history of tilting the scales of justice against the little guy.” (22)  

It further stated that “There is every reason to believe, based on his long paper trail and the evasive answers he gave at his hearings, that Judge Alito would quickly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.” (23) 

Also it said that “Judge Alito has consistently shown a bias in favor of those in power over those who need the law to protect them. Women, racial minorities, the elderly and workers who come to court seeking justice should expect little sympathy. In the same flat bureaucratic tones he used at the hearings, he is likely to insist that the law can do nothing for them.” (24)  

And another attack by the New York Times in an editorial on January 26, 2006, was entitled, “Senators in Need of a Spine.”  The article said that Judge Alito's entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the Presidency and the limited role of Congress and will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon.  His elevation will come courtesy of a President whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government – and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead. (25) 

Contrary to the New York Times, it is not Judge Alito who is the radical but Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  However, in a New York Times editorial on May 14, 1994, entitled “Another New Justice,” The New York Times wrote in support of two liberal extreme judicial activists that have since being nominated to the Supreme Court have illegally rewritten the US Constitution through their rulings.  The editorial said that President Clinton had again chosen an able lower court judge for his second Supreme Court appointment.  (26)  Like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Chief Judge Stephen Beyer of the US Court of Appeals based in Boston was respected for integrity, good judgment and concern for justice.   

Back to the Top

Ruth Bader Ginsburg The Supreme Court Justice That Truly Has Radical Views 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg established at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1977 the Woman's Rights Project.  The Marxist claim that women's role as mothers and wives is inherently oppressive, was accepted without question by Ginsburg. 

In her book entitled Sex Bias in the U.S. code written in 1977, Ginsburg called for the elimination of any and all distinctions between men and women and demanded 800 changes to federal laws. (27)  Some of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's public record of her position on social issues from this manuscript are listed below: (28) 

  1. Eliminated must be the traditional family concept of the husband as bread-winner and the wife as homemaker.
  2. Comprehensive child care must be provided by the federal government. (Communist-style day care)
  3. Twice as much benefit to couples who live apart from each other as to a husband and wife who live together must be given by the Homestead Law.
  4. Women must be drafted into the military and assigned to combat duty when men are drafted and assigned to combat duty.
  5. To equalize the number of men and women in the armed forces, affirmative action must be applied.
  6. For sexual acts, the age of consent must be lowered to twelve years of age.
  7. Legalized must be prostitution.  Justice Ginsburg wrote: “Prostitution as a consensual act between adults is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions. “
  8. Sexually integrated must be all-boy and all-girl organizations as must all fraternities and sororities.  The names of the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts must change and their names and their purpose should become sex-integrated. 

A genderless society and the imposition of totalitarian ideals on American society is the true intention of Ruth Bader Ginsburg as has been revealed in her writings. 

A Supreme Court Justice should decide cases in a manner calculated to advance the ideologies of “human rights” and “woman's rights,” is the belief of Justice Ginsburg. She does not believe in the Constitution as well as other laws of this nation but in her own political ideology. (29) 

Justice Ginsburg has said that the Supreme Court is “becoming more open to international law perspectives,” looking to United Nations treaties and foreign courts for guidance in deciding homosexual rights, death penalty and affirmative action cases. (30)  Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association on September 21, 2005, there are “some women who might be appointed (to the Supreme Court) who would not advance human rights or women's rights.” (31)  She defended some of the justices' references to laws in other countries when making decisions during the session. Using foreign sources does not mean giving them superior status in deciding cases said the justice. She said, “I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it. I don't want to stop at a national boundary. “ (32)  Once again Justice Ginsburg demonstrates that she does not believe that the United States is a sovereign nation that is governed by the Constitution which is to be used for her enlightenment and not to promote her own political agenda.  What Americans must not forget is when this nation was founded, the Founding Fathers rebelled against Europe's system and values as well as the legal ties this country had with England. (33)  

It is unfortunate that Judge Alito's positions have been distorted by Democrats to the point that they no longer resemble his views.  To the contrary, the press, the Clinton Administration as well as some conservatives praised Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg as a moderate.   It is quite clear that liberal Democrats and Democrats in general want a  Supreme Court Justice that is a judicial activist like Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court as one can see from the US Senate Roll Call Votes 103rd Congress - 1st Session on the Nomination (To view Roll Call Votes visit: On the Nomination (Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be an associate justice ) on August 3, 1993.  Senators Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts); Patrick J. Leahy (Vermont); Max Baucus (Montana); and  Barbra Mikulski (Maryland) voted for the confirmation of Justice Ginsburg.  It was truly unfortunate for this nation that 96 senators voted for the confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg with only three Republicans voting against which were former Senators Jesse Helms of North Carolina, Don Nickles of Oklahoma, and Bob Smith of New Hampshire. 

Justices that the Democrats, liberals and some Republicans prefer decide cases on the basis of the justice's own policy preference rather than by referring and interpreting the Constitution.  And will promote the “evolution“ of the Constitution asserting judges are merely translating obsolete language into a “living” Constitution.   

The way Democrats continue to fight for the right to abortion and euthanasia, one must wonder if the D. in Democrat stands for death cult.  Counter to the interest of this nation quite clearly are the goals and beliefs embraced by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Senators Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts), Patrick J. Leahy (Vermont), Richard J. Durbin (Illinois), Dianne Feinstein (California), Barbara Boxer (California), Charles Schumer (New York), and John Kerry (Massachusetts), other liberals and (in general) Democrats.  Their agenda continues to weaken the already weak foundations of the family that, if not stopped, will damage it beyond repair if it is not already at that point.  Their policies create division, hostility, and deep distrust between men and women and Americans in general which endangers the future of this nation as well as the whole basis of Western civilization.  

Back to the Top

Remembering The Founding Principles Of This Nation 

Although, the United States may be referred to as democratic in the sense that virtually all citizens have been given a voice in political affairs, this nation technically is a Republic.  Unique is America's system of government and has far exceeded any government in history in establishing a powerful nation which respects the rights of its citizens under law to equal justice. A variety of circumstances have played a role in accounting for the success of America's system of government.   

The influence of Biblical Christianity which has given this nation's people the virtue and character necessary to control their own passions and maintain a healthy realization of the responsibility toward others is what the Founding Fathers recognized as the essential ingredient with which America has been blessed as few other nations.  It was recognized by the Founding Fathers that without the moral character rooted in Biblical Christianity, all of the other circumstances with which America has been blessed would be insufficient to maintain a long lasting Republic.  (34) 

This was pointed out by George Washington.  He said, “While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.  “ (35)

This principle was understood well by the great American educator Noah Webster.  First published in 1832, in his History of the United States, Noah Webster said, “Almost all civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian religion."  (36)  The religion which brings political freedom is not a formal exercise, not ecclesiastical dogma, and not the result of any denominational establishment explained Webster:  “No; the religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is a genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government…. It is the real source of all genuine republican principles.” (37) 

The Declaration of Independence proclaims: 

            We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. 

The Founding Fathers certainly did not mean that all men are created equal in mental or physical ability or even in their social status. Simply, what it meant is that in the sight of God all men are equal (God is no respecter of persons [Acts 10:34]) and therefore under the law deserve equal treatment.   

Most nations that have tried to establish popular systems of government have failed, throughout history, because their people have not embraced a moral code based upon the Bible.  The classic example is France at the end of the eighteenth century, the era of the French revolution.  Concerned about the “rights of man” were many Frenchmen. However, in France, where Biblical Christianity had been suppressed for so long, at the expense of others, too many men exercised their own rights. As a result French democracy turned into a mob rule. 

A nation where the majority of citizens are steeped in the virtues of Biblical Christianity is the only way the system of government that the Founders developed works.  Liberty turns into license as America's spiritual condition declines. To this nation  this is a dire warning. It is reported that Thomas Jefferson said that if the American people ever lose their virtue, they will “fall to eating each other as they did in the old country “(38) 

Constant Biblical evangelism is the only hope for a Republic. Daniel Webster the famed American orator said, “ Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens….  “(39) To keep the moral values upon which the Republic was founded is the way to keep a Republic.  It was expressed in this way by Daniel Webster: 

            If we abide by the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper, but if we or our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how suddenly a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury our glory in  profound obscurity! (40) 

Liberal Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Patrick J. Leahy, Richard J. Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Charles Schumer, most Democrats, many Republicans and justices such as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg continue to tear down the republican form of government that has created a political climate to make America a land of freedom, opportunity, and justice.  Essential for the maintenance of civilized society because of man's sinful nature is governmental authority. However, too much governmental authority or governmental authority over men's conscience and personal responsibilities or authority in the wrong hands because of man's nature can be very dangerous. And between liberty and authority, a very delicate balance is needed. 

Well aware of this were the writers of the Constitution as is evident by the following lines from the Federalist No. 51, one of James Madison's contributions to the Federalist Papers: 

What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections of human nature?  If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor in turn all controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difference lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. 

The monumental task of creating a constitutional system of government which limits government and maintains the proper balance between liberty and authority was performed by the Founding Fathers.  The hand of God was clearly visible in the event to America's generation which framed the Constitution. And even with such a remarkable Constitution, the Founders realized that a great nation could only be built upon the continued blessings of God which “exalteth a nation.” (Proverbs 14:34)  Far too many political leaders and Americans have forgotten this, resulting in the moral, spiritual, educational, and economic decline that this nation is now facing.

Back to the Top

End Notes 

  1. “Senate GOP to try to end debate, force AIito vote.  Kennedy won't rule out filibuster option; vote may be close, but result sure,” The Associated Press, January 26, 2006.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Amanda B. Carpenter, “ Does Teddy Kennedy Have Higher Ethical Standards Than the ABA?,” Human Events Online, January 17, 2006.
  4. Jesse J. Holland, “Alito Nomination Goes to Full Senate,” The Associated Press, January 24, 2006.
  5. Ibid.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Thomas Ferraro, “Most Americans back Alito for Supreme Court: poll, Reuters, January 23, 2006.
  8. Amanda B. Carpenter, “ Does Teddy Kennedy Have Higher Ethical Standards Than the ABA?,” Human Events Online, January 17, 2006.
  9. Ibid.
  10. Ibid.
  11. Ibid.
  12. Dan Balz, “More Democrats Say They Will Oppose Alito  But filibuster less Likely, Strategists Note, “ The Washington Post, January 20, 2006.
  13. Erin Kelly, “Leahy joins Baucus, Mikulski, Kennedy to oppose Alito, The USA TODAY, January 19, 2006.
  14. Dan Balz, “More Democrats Say They Will Oppose Alito But Filibuster Less Likely, Strategists Note, The Washington Post, January 20, 2006.
  15. Ibid.
  16. Dan Balz, “More Democrats Say They Will Oppose Alito But Filibuster Less Likely, Strategists Note, The Washington Post, January 20, 2006.
  17. Mike Franc, “Alito Understands Courts Limits, “Human Events Online, January 17, 2006.
  18. David Barton, “The Myth of Separation.  What is the correct relationship between Church and State?,” WallBuilder Press, 1992.
  19. Ibid.
  20. Mike Franc, “Alito Understands Courts Limits,“Human Events Online, January 17, 2006.
  21. Ibid.
  22. “Judge Alito's Radical Views,” The New York Times, January 23, 2006.
  23. Ibid.
  24. Ibid.
  25. Senators in Need of a Spine, The New York Times, January 26, 2006.
  26. “Another New Justice,” The New York Times, May 14, 1994.
  27. Phyllis Schlafly, “Justice Ginsburg would put a dress on the Lone Ranger, Townhall.com, August 18, 2003.
  28. Jim Nelson Black, When Nations Die, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1994.
  29. Jed Babbin,” J'Recuse,” The American Spectator,” September 26, 2005.
  30. Phyllis Schlafly, “Justice Ginsburg would put a dress on the Lone Ranger, Townhall.com, August 18, 2003.
  31. Nahal Toosi, “Ginsburg: 'Any Woman Will Not Do' for Job,” The Associated Press, September 21, 2005.
  32. Ibid.
  33. Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, Simon & Schuster 1994.
  34. Laurel Hicks, George T. Thompson, Michael R. Lowman, George C. Cochran; American Government And Economics; A Beka Book Publications 1984.
  35. Ibid.
  36. Ibid.
  37. Ibid.
  38. Ibid.
  39. Ibid.
  40. Ibid.

Back to the Top