Anti-Alito Blogs

[Czolgosz]

<http://prochoicecatholic.blogspot.com/>
<http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/03/alitos-colleagues/>
<http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/>
<http://www.saveroe.com/node/2197>
<http://hughesforamerica.typepad.com/hughes_for_america/2005/11/why_alito_must_.html>
<http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/732883824?ltl=1136931872>

Add the ones you read.

[hang a left]

1. Here is an activism source

ACTFORCHANGE ACTIVISM UPDATE: January 10, 2006

You are receiving this newsletter because you have previously
taken action on ActForChange in support of progressive values.


IN THIS BULLETIN:

** FEATURED ACTION **

Tell Senator Feinstein: Alito Unfit For Supreme Court -- Reject Him

For years, Sandra Day O'Connor served as an important voice of
moderation on the Supreme Court. While no progressive, her balanced
and independent view of the law served our country well. If Samuel
Alito takes her place, it's a safe bet that our nation's highest court
will take a sharp turn to the right.

Tell Senator Feinstein -- We need a principled and moderate judge to
replace Justice O'Connor, not a water-carrier for the extreme right:
http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=20186&afccode=n19txt

Alito's hostility to Roe v. Wade -- the landmark ruling establishing a
woman's right to make her own medical decisions -- is well documented.
He has written that "the Constitution does not guarantee a right to an
abortion" and openly advocated the position that the government should
"chip away" at the Roe v. Wade decision.

****
You can also call Senator Feinstein via the Capitol switchboard at
202/224-3121 or 202/225-3121 and ask that Alito be rejected. If
you're a Working Assets customer, the call is free! Not a customer?
Click here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/ej8w0J13RG0RmF08lB0Eo
***

Alito's views on our rights to privacy represent another
disqualification for a seat on the Supreme Court. He has advocated the
theory of the "unitary executive" with broad powers, which would
clearly include allowing the President to wiretap domestic
conversations without the warrants required by laws. He's also argued
that the Attorney General should not be held liable for breaking the
law in eavesdropping on Americans. Are any of our fundamental rights
safe if Alito is confirmed?

Ask Senator Feinstein to reject Alito -- both in the Judiciary
Committee, and in the full Senate:
http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=20186&afccode=n19txt

It's no wonder the radical right is ecstatic that President Bush bowed
to their demands, ditched Harriet Miers, and picked Samuel Alito. On
nearly every front -- privacy, reproductive rights, corporate
responsibility, environmental regulation, and others -- Alito would
clearly steer the Supreme Court in radical new conservative
directions. It's up to us to stop him -- so take action today!!

****
There's a radically conservative side to Samuel Alito -- one he would
probably prefer to keep hidden. Click here to find out what Alito's
hiding under his robes:
http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/ssalito.html
****

Tell Senator Feinstein: Reject Alito
http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=20186&afccode=n19txt


Then, please forward this newsletter to everyone you know in California
to help spread the word about this important campaign!


THANK YOU for working to build a better world,

Will Easton
Manager, ActForChange.com / Working Assets

[Czolgosz]

2. Thanks and here's a link to the Planned Parenthood Anti-Alito site

<http://www.my-vote-counts.com/free/supremecourtlap.htm>

[Czolgosz]

3. Don't miss the ACLU's great analysis, In summary, the ACLU calls attention

to Alito's history of restricting civil rights and civil liberties:

* Wrote a dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey arguing that a state’s spousal notification requirement did not unduly burden a woman’s right to privacy, a position later rejected by the Supreme Court;
* Joined a dissent arguing that a student-led prayer at a high school graduation ceremony did not violate the Establishment Clause;
* Wrote several dissents arguing for tighter standards for plaintiffs seeking trial on their race, gender and disability discrimination claims;
* Dissented from a decision ruling that the strip search of a suspect’s wife and ten-year-old daughter exceeded the scope of the search warrant and was therefore unconstitutional;
* Rejected a death row inmate’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim where the trial counsel had failed to uncover substantial mitigating evidence – a decision later reversed by the Supreme Court;
* Dissented from an en banc ruling in a death penalty case arguing that the prosecution had unconstitutionally used its peremptory challenges to exclude all the black prospective jurors;
* Wrote a dissent arguing that a policy prohibiting all prisoners in long-term segregation from possessing newspapers, magazines or photographs unless they were religious or legal did not violate the First Amendment;
* Wrote a dissent arguing that a policy prohibiting all prisoners in long-term segregation from possessing newspapers, magazines or photographs unless they were religious or legal did not violate the First Amendment; and most conspicuously
* Taken an exceedingly narrow view of congressional power under the Commerce Clause, including both holding that Congress had exceeded its power under the Fourteenth Amendment by requiring the states to provide time off for sick employees under the Family and Medical Leave Act and arguing in dissent that Congress had exceeded its power by making it a federal crime to possess a machine gun.

Here's a link: <http://www.aclu.com/scotus/2005/23387res20060109.html>