As all of you know, Judge Alito has been nominated...

[Stan]

Dear Friends of Freedom:

As all of you know, Judge Alito has been nominated to fill the place of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. We are currently examining his record in regard to religious liberty. I am writing to you to give you our initial review.

At the outset, it is worth noting that it is the policy of the North American Religious Liberty Association to oppose any religious tests for public office. This is for three reasons. First, there is no indication the religious affiliation of an American judge determines whether she/he is willing to protect religious freedom. Second, imposing a religious test for office is, in itself, a violation of religious freedom. Third, the teachings of Christ require that we don’t treat others in a way we ourselves would find objectionable.

Rather than adhering to a faulted religious test to determine who is suitable for the Supreme Court, we examine the record of the individual. The analysis we have done to date indicates that as a Judge Alito has a good record of upholding the free exercise of religion and his decisions on separation of church and state are unremarkable.

In FOP Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, a 1999 case, Judge Alito drafted the majority opinion finding a the New Jersey Police Department was required to accommodate Muslims who wear beards. The case was carefully written to provide the Muslims in question the best protection available under the First Amendment. He followed a similar tact in a case involving a Native American who brought a religious liberty case. In both these cases, the care he took to protect religious minorities is commendable. In addition, Judge Alito's disposition towards Saturday Sabbath accommodation in the workplace is more favorable than we routinely receive in many courts in the land. Further, his decisions on separation of church and state (Establishment Clause), appear unremarkable and follow Supreme Court precedent.

Our analysis will mature as more documents become available. Should we locate any indication of hostility to the rights of religious minorities we will inform you. This is a very key moment in the history of the Supreme Court. There is a lot riding on this nomination. Please keep the process in your prayers as we contemplate the future of our nation. If you haven’t already, I want to invite you to become a member of the North American Religious Liberty Association and join us as we stand strong for the God given right to freedom of conscience. You can join at www.religiousliberty.info or by calling (301)680-6683.

Sincerely,

James Standish

[Neil D]

ThinkProgress has some facts that need to be entered into the factor:

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]

---------------------------------------------

These opinions are necessary footnotes that factor on the character of the nominated judge. Weigh carefully..

[Dr. Shane]

Alito Stands Tall on Religious Liberties

Judge Samuel Alito Jr. was perhaps best known as a defender of religious liberty before his nomination to the Supreme Court.

In 15 years as a federal appellate judge, he consistently articulated a broad interpretation of the First Amendment clauses pertaining to religion.

He has written that the Establishment Clause does not prohibit government acknowledgement of religion, and has held that the Free Exercise Clause gives wide berth to citizens and employees against government restrictions on their religious practices.

Both supporters and opponents of his nomination agree that if confirmed, he would likely become the court’s strongest voice on religious issues.