Jeff Sessions:
Banning the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional
On the Pledge of Allegiance case, the 9th Circuit, which includes 40 percent of the people in the United States, ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court sort of sidestepped the fundamental issue and sent that back to a
lower court [on issues of the plaintiff's standing], where the case was won. They've concluded, and the 9th Circuit law remains in effect, so that 40 percent of the population of the United States really are not able, if you follow that opinion,
to render the Pledge of Allegiance. Yet, we have chaplains and "In God we trust" in the Senate chamber and those kind of issues.
I don't believe that that is founded in the Constitution. I think the American people do not. And they are asking some real questions of us. That's an overreach, in my opinion.
Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings
Jan 11, 2006
Mike DeWine:
Disturbed by "free speech zones" in public arena
Lately I believe that we're seeing a disturbing trend. In many cases governments have sought to restrict speech in the public arena. In many towns and cities across the country, individuals are prohibited from placing political signs on their own
property. They're told what size they can put out. They're told the times they can put it out, the dates they can put it out, etc. In many public places, individuals have been forced to hold up signs or protest and been confined to free speech zones, far
away from the event that they wish to protest. These individuals doing nothing more many times than just standing there with a sign. These sorts of restrictions concern me because they limit the ability of individuals not only to speak but also to be
heard in public places, people who want to talk about politics, religion or any other matter of public concern. I think we need to be careful as a society before we limit what people can say and where they can say it.
Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings
Jan 11, 2006
Sam Brownback:
Robustly religious public square better than naked square
SEN. BROWNBACK: You wrote in ACLU v. Schundler, concerning religious displays erected by Jersey City on the plaza of city hall. You upheld the constitutionality of [including symbols from numerous religions]. Are these types of displays constitutionally
permissible?
ALITO: Including both religious and secular symbols was not a violation.
BROWNBACK: What I hear in your opinions is you would rather have a robust public square than a naked public square; that you think there is room for these sorts
of displays in the public square.
ALITO: That was exactly what Jersey City had decided in that case.
BROWNBACK: We've had this 40 years of cases, I really hope we can have a public square that celebrates and not that's got to be completely naked.
[What about] C.H. v. Olivia?
ALITO: This case involved a student who wanted to read the story of Jacob and Esau to the class. And the teacher said no. And we found that was a violation of treating religious speech equally with secular speech.
Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings
Jan 11, 2006
Samuel Alito:
Overturning separate-but-equal OK despite 60-year precedent
SEN. BROWNBACK: Did the Supreme Court get Plessy v. Ferguson wrong? [the "separate but equal" decision]
ALITO: Plessy was certainly wrong.
BROWNBACK: Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy, after Plessy had stood on the books since 1896.
It was depended upon by a number of people for a long period of time. You've got it sitting on the books for 60 years, twice the length of time of Roe v. Wade. You've got these number of cases that considered Plessy and upheld Plessy. Now, stare decisis
would say in the Brown case you should uphold Plessy. Is that correct?
ALITO: It certainly would be a factor that you would consider in determining whether to overrule it.
BROWNBACK: But obviously, Brown overturned it, and thank goodness it did.
Correct?
ALITO: The court got it spectacularly wrong in Plessy. And it took a long time for that erroneous decision to be overruled. Separate facilities, even if they were identical, could never give people equal treatment under the law.
Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings
Jan 11, 2006
Samuel Alito:
Treat religious speech equally with secular speech
SEN. BROWNBACK: You wrote in ACLU v. Schundler, concerning religious displays erected by Jersey City on the plaza of city hall. You upheld the constitutionality of [including symbols from numerous religions]. Are these types of displays constitutionally
permissible?
ALITO: Including both religious and secular symbols was not a violation.
BROWNBACK: What I hear in your opinions is you would rather have a robust public square than a naked public square; that you think there is room for these sorts
of displays in the public square.
ALITO: That was exactly what Jersey City had decided in that case.
BROWNBACK: We've had this 40 years of cases, I really hope we can have a public square that celebrates and not that's got to be completely naked.
[What about] C.H. v. Olivia?
ALITO: This case involved a student who wanted to read the story of Jacob and Esau to the class. And the teacher said no. And we found that was a violation of treating religious speech equally with secular speech.
Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings
Jan 11, 2006
Samuel Alito:
Racial profiling violates the 4th Amendment
SEN. HATCH: In U.S. v. Kithcart, you held that the Fourth Amendment does not allow police to target drivers because of the color of their skin; is that right?
ALITO: That's right. That was essentially a case of racial profiling.
And I wrote an opinion holding that that was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
HATCH: That was even after a police officer received a report that two black men in a black sports car had committed three robberies.
And she pulled over the first black man in a black sports car she saw. But you ruled for the defendant and against racial profiling in that case.
ALITO:
That's correct, Senator.
HATCH: Just to mention a few of these cases that show that you're going to do what's right, regardless.
Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings
Jan 11, 2006
Samuel Alito:
I joined CAP to defend ROTC, not to keep out minorities
SEN. KENNEDY: You indicated in 1985 that you were a member of the Concerned Alumni at Princeton. You called CAP a "conservative alumni group." CAP published a 1983 essay stating, "Everywhere one turns, blacks & Hispanics are demanding jobs simply because
they're black & Hispanic."
ALITO: I disagree with that. I would never endorse it.
KENNEDY: A letter from CAP mailed in 1984-this is the year before you put CAP on your application-to every living alumni, so I assume you received it-which declared:
"Princeton is no longer the university you knew it to be." As evidence, it cited that admission rates for African-Americans and Hispanics were on the rise. This letter was the subject of a Jan. 1985 Wall Street Journal editorial. This would be right
about the time that you joined the organization.
ALITO: I do not recall knowing any of these things about the organization. What I do recall as an issue that bothered me was the idea of that it was beneath Princeton to have an ROTC unit on campus.
Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings
Jan 11, 2006
Ted Kennedy:
Alito joined CAP when CAP's racism was in the news
SEN. KENNEDY: You indicated in 1985 that you were a member of the Concerned Alumni at Princeton. You called CAP a "conservative alumni group." CAP published a 1983 essay stating, "Everywhere one turns, blacks & Hispanics are demanding jobs simply because
they're black & Hispanic."
ALITO: I disagree with that. I would never endorse it.
KENNEDY: A letter from CAP mailed in 1984-this is the year before you put CAP on your application-to every living alumni, so I assume you received it-which declared:
"Princeton is no longer the university you knew it to be." As evidence, it cited that admission rates for African-Americans and Hispanics were on the rise. This letter was the subject of a Jan. 1985 Wall Street Journal editorial. This would be right
about the time that you joined the organization.
ALITO: I do not recall knowing any of these things about the organization. What I do recall as an issue that bothered me was the idea of that it was beneath Princeton to have an ROTC unit on campus.
Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings
Jan 11, 2006
Samuel Alito:
Privacy is a question of interpretation of the Constitution
There is no express reference to privacy in the Constitution. But it is protected by the 4th Amendment and in certain circumstances by the 1st Amendment and in certain circumstances by the 5th and the 14th Amendments. It's a question of interpretation
rather than simply looking at what is in the text of the document. Griswold talked about emanations and penumbras. It has later been understood by the Supreme Court as being based on the protection of liberty under the 5th Amendment & the 14th Amendment.
Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings
Jan 10, 2006
Samuel Alito:
The Constitution protects a right to privacy
I do agree that the Constitution protects a right to privacy. And it protects the right to privacy in a number of ways. The Fourth Amendment certainly speaks to the right of privacy.
People have a right to privacy in their homes and in their papers and in their persons. And the standard for whether something is a search is whether there's an invasion of a right to privacy, a legitimate expectation of privacy.
Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings
Jan 10, 2006
Samuel Alito:
The President has to comply with statutes that are passed
The government would have to come forward with its theory as to why the actions that were taken were lawful. If someone has been the subject of illegal law enforcement activities, they should have a day in court.
And that's what the courts are there for, to protect the rights of individuals against the government or anyone else who violates their rights. And they have to be absolutely independent and treat everybody equally.
Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings
Jan 10, 2006
The above quotations are from Samuel Alito, Senate confirmation hearings for his Supreme Court nomination, January 2006 (plus commentary).
Click here for definitions & background information on Civil Rights.
Click here for more quotes by Sam Alito on Civil Rights.
Click here for more quotes by George W. Bush on Civil Rights.
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org! Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!)