"The members of the CBC are concerned about Judge Alito's opinions, many in dissent, in race cases where his decisions have disproportionately affected African-Americans," said Rep. Mel Watt, D- N.C., the caucus chairman. [Ed.: I am going to assume that Rep. Watt means "disproportionately affected blacks in a negative manner," not just "disproportionately affected"].If this is true, according to the CBC, Judge Alito's opinions are so outside of the mainstream that they "seem greatly at odds with much of 20th century constitutional jurisprudence," yet his views would be in the majority on many divisive issues if he were on the Supreme Court today (which is, after all, why they are opposing him). Does this mean that when Judge Alito is on the Supremes, the views of Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Stevens (and O'Connor when she voted with them) will then be seen by the CBC as greatly at odds with 21st century constitutional jurisprudence?
"We are troubled by what appears to be a very conservative judicial philosophy that seems greatly at odds with much of 20th century constitutional jurisprudence," Watt said (emphasis added).
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Sun to Rise in East; Also, CBC to Oppose Alito
No surprise here: Congressional Black Caucus to Oppose Alito. From the article:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Original material copyright 2005-2006 El Blogero. All rights reserved. Contact El Blogero.
No comments:
Post a Comment