Monday, October 31, 2005

Alito - Not So Good

If there is going to be a fight over Alito, count me in. He is no constructionist and I like my right not to be strip searched too much to support this guy.

In Doe v. Groody, As the lone dissenter, Alito tries to rewrite the 4th amendment, and finds it quite acceptable to strip search a mother and her 10 year old daughter even though a warrant issued by a judge was only for the search of a male suspect and his home. He felt that our fourth amendment rights are not violated as long as an officer thinks it may be prudent, regardless of probable cause. He states "[I]t is a sad fact that drug dealers sometimes use children to carry out their business and to avoid prosecution." It is also a sad fact that, according to Alito, that none of us have 4th amendment rights based on actions of criminals. For a judge to be so flippant on our constitutional rights be be secure in person and possesion tells me that he is anything but a constructionist.

In Nevada v. Hibbs, Alito struck down the Family Leave Act which affords us the right to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for maternity leave or to tend to a sick family member. His decision was overruled by the Supreme Court.

Bray v. Marriott Hotels, Alito, again the lone dissenter, felt that for a an employment discrimination case should not go forward unless the plaintiff can not only prove objectively that an employer was discriminating based on race, but the plaintiff must also prove the employer "believed" that they were discriminating. Proving the mental thoughts of someone else is nearly impossible to do, and would have basically voided the law.

Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, Alito's dissent wanted to place a burden so restrictive on proving disability discrimination that the result would to have basically voided the law entirely.

Sheridan V I.E. Dupont (100 F.2d 1061 1993) Judge Alito was the lone dissenter out of 13 judges. If Alito had his way, title VII, the sexual discrimination law, would have been vacated by shifting the burdon from the defendant to the plaintiff even after the plaintiff had proven a prima facia case. The Supreme Court states that if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant most likely discriminated due to gender, it becomes the defendants burden to prove they did not. Alito would have voided the Supreme Courts ruling (even if it is a higher court) and legislated from the bench by nullifying title VII.

1 comment:

MaxedOutMama said...

Thanks for the case links, Dingo!