Jeff Sessions in Alito Confirmation Hearings


On Civil Rights: 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

On Government Reform: Supreme Court exceeds its authority and needs reining in

SEN. SESSIONS: I asked Chief Justice Roberts about activism by the court, overreaching by the court, and he felt that this overreaching created a danger that it could undermine respect for law in our country. Do you share that view?

ALITO: I agree that overreaching by the courts can undermine respect for law. Nobody elects us. Our job is to interpret the Constitution, it has a meaning, and you apply it to the situations that come up.

SESSIONS: I feel that the court on some very important issues is exceeding its authority. People are calling on me and those of us in Congress to do something about it.

ALITO: I think your policy views are much more legitimate than the policy views of the judiciary because members of Congress are elected for the purpose of formulating and implementing public policy and members of the judiciary are appointed for the purpose of interpreting and applying the law.

Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings Jan 11, 2006

On Welfare & Poverty: Eminent domain for private development is Court over-reach

SEN. SESSIONS: The Supreme Court's Kelo [decision deals with the] property that people own.

ALITO: Kelo involves the power to take property for public use through eminent domain. What occurred in that case was the taking of the homes of people of modest means for the purpose of building a large commercial facility that was thought by the city to be beneficial to the economic welfare of the city. People live in homes and they have a sentimental attachment to them. The neighborhood means something to them. And taking their home away and giving them money in return, even if they get fair market value for the home, is still an enormous loss for people.

SESSIONS: The Constitution said you could take property for public use. The court felt that was too restrictive, basically, and a majority just changed it to say you could take property for a public purpose, which includes some private redevelopment. See, that's not founded in the Constitution. That's an overreach, in my opinion.

Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings Jan 11, 2006

The above quotations are from Samuel Alito, Senate confirmation hearings for his Supreme Court nomination, January 2006 (plus commentary).
Click here for a profile of Jeff Sessions.
Jeff Sessions on other issues:
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare
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!)