Skip to main content

Nominee Alito - and Australia?

The US Senate is presently "examing" the nomination by George Bush of Samuel Alito to the US Supreme Court.

If reports out of the US are correct there are many in favour of his appointment [he is very, very conservative to say the least - if not right-wing] if for no other reason that he is pro-life and all that entails. Supporters see the possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned.

On the other hand, detractors of Alito make out a compelling case for his nomination to be defeated. Read this article from AlterNet by Martha Burk [of Ms Magazine] on how Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court would most likely set back the interests of women.

We should not think that what happens in the US will not have some sort of ripple-effect in Australia. Australian courts do not follow US courts as a rule but it is the conservative nature of the Bench in Australia, and all that flows from that, which cannot be ignored. We are already seeing religious groups and vocal minority groups [think the Family First Party!] make their presence felt - to the detriment of the wider Australian community. For example, appointments to the Bench will doubtlessly come under closer scrutiny by those with vested religious or like-minded conservative interests.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I just want to use one example to point out what I think is a flaw in your logic

One of the arguments against conservative judges (though I'm not sure if this argument has been made against Alito yet) is that they would overturn affirmitive action legislation.

The more liberal members of the US Supreme Court have supported such legislation. Now isn't that pandering to a vocal minority group?

What is the role of a judge. Is it to strictly interpert the law as passed by the legislature, or is it to examine the wider social concerns of issue beyond the letter of the law? Are judges there to protect the rights of the majority or the minority?

So maybe it's less of a flaw that I'm pointing out, more of an implied shortcoming. If judges are not to favour particular minority groups, you can't pick and choose which side of the political spectrum they fall on. I know there are much more technical legal questions to be answered here, but I'm trying to look at the underlying philosophy

I ask, if Alito is not a sutible candidate, then who is? Or what do you think the qualities of a judge should be?

I do understand the point behind the Alternet article, after all why have many judges on the highest court if not to bring in varying points of view based on different life experiences into the final decision. However, for what I think is a more balanced view on Alito check out this article in Time
January 12, 2006 2:54 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reading the Chilcot Inquiry Report more closely

Most commentary on the Chilcot Inquiry Report of and associated with the Iraq War, has been "lifted" from the Executive Summary.   The Intercept has actually gone and dug into the Report, with these revelations : "THE CHILCOT REPORT, the U.K.’s official inquiry into its participation in the Iraq War, has finally been released after seven years of investigation. Its executive summary certainly makes former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who led the British push for war, look terrible. According to the report, Blair made statements about Iraq’s nonexistent chemical, biological, and nuclear programs based on “what Mr. Blair believed” rather than the intelligence he had been given. The U.K. went to war despite the fact that “diplomatic options had not been exhausted.” Blair was warned by British intelligence that terrorism would “increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti-US/anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the
Post a Comment
Read more

Robert Fisk's predictions for the Middle East in 2013

There is no gain-saying that Robert Fisk, fiercely independent and feisty to boot, is the veteran journalist and author covering the Middle East. Who doesn't he know or hasn't he met over the years in reporting from Beirut - where he lives?  In his latest op-ed piece for The Independent he lays out his predictions for the Middle East for 2013. Read the piece in full, here - well worthwhile - but an extract... "Never make predictions in the Middle East. My crystal ball broke long ago. But predicting the region has an honourable pedigree. “An Arab movement, newly-risen, is looming in the distance,” a French traveller to the Gulf and Baghdad wrote in 1883, “and a race hitherto downtrodden will presently claim its due place in the destinies of Islam.” A year earlier, a British diplomat in Jeddah confided that “it is within my knowledge... that the idea of freedom does at present agitate some minds even in Mecca...” So let’s say this for 2013: the “Arab Awakening” (the t
Post a Comment
Read more

An unpalatable truth!

Quinoa has for the last years been the "new" food on the block for foodies. Known for its health properties, foodies the world over have taken to it. Many restaurants have added it to their menu. But, as this piece " Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? " from The Guardian so clearly details, the cost to Bolivians and Peruvians - from where quinoa hails - has been substantial. "Not long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain you could only buy in wholefood shops. We struggled to pronounce it (it's keen-wa, not qui-no-a), yet it was feted by food lovers as a novel addition to the familiar ranks of couscous and rice. Dieticians clucked over quinoa approvingly because it ticked the low-fat box and fitted in with government healthy eating advice to "base your meals on starchy foods". Adventurous eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as
Post a Comment
Read more