Samuel Alito & The Environment
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 11. 2.05
Samuel Alito Jr. is George W. Bush's new Supreme Court nominee. Grist Magazine has an interesting piece on what is known about judge Alito's positions on the environment: "He's been dubbed "Scalito" for having a judicial philosophy closely akin to that of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia [...] That comparison alone is enough to raise the hackles of enviros, many of whom see Scalia as a right-wing ideologue more staunchly opposed to environmental regulation -- and federal-level authority in general -- than any other justice on the Supreme Court. And at 55 years of age, some 14 years younger than Scalia, Alito would be in a position to influence environmental jurisprudence for decades to come."
When examining the whole of Alito's record, however, environmentalists found little that was encouraging. "Here's our initial assessment of his record: some good, but more bad and ugly," Glenn Sugameli, Earthjustice senior legislative counsel, told Muckraker. "We're extremely concerned that Alito has repeatedly sought to restrict Congress' authority to allow Americans to protect their rights in court, and to enact laws that protect our health and environment. His record in these cases is more hostile to congressional authority than the current Supreme Court majority." [...]Alito's extensive track record on the court isn't entirely devoid of pro-environment decisions. Take, for instance, the 1995 ruling on Pennsylvania Coal Association v. Bruce Babbitt, in which Alito rejected an industry challenge to the toughening of an environmental law on coal mining. Or the 1997 ruling on Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Carol Browner, in which he joined a consensus in denying industry's efforts to skirt pollution rules under the Clean Air Act.
Critics, though, say such instances are rare. Alito appears to have favored environmental protections "mainly in the face of unanimous agreement and overwhelming evidence against polluters," said Doug Kendall, executive director of the Community Rights Counsel, a D.C.-based public-interest law firm that defends environmental laws against constitutional challenges.
Read the whole thing: ::The Sum of Alito Fears
The job of the SC is not to protect the environment. In loose terms, the job of the SC is to interpret and enforce the US Constitution.
Chris
http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/
That's nice theory, Christopher, but if it was true in practice, people on all sides would be a lot less worried.
I'm in my fifth year of law school. I know the power of judges, especially in a Common Law system like in the US.
Five years of law school, eh?
Okay.
While I'm curious as to how the "power of judges" is a relevant concern (since the question is whether Judge A. is the right pick, not whether having judges with such power is right), my sense of Alito, from practicing law in his Circuit, is that he does enough to frustrate people on both sides of the law - liberals and conservatives, communitarians and libertarians - as to be a thoughtful judge. That's a good sign, at least from the prospective of one practicing law.
"While I'm curious as to how the "power of judges" is a relevant concern"
What was said is: "The job of the SC is not to protect the environment. In loose terms, the job of the SC is to interpret and enforce the US Constitution."
My reply was to that; if their only job was strictly to "interpret and enforce" the constitution, it would make much less of a difference who the judge is and what his/her positions on things are. But since in a Common Law system judges have great practical (if not theorical) powers - especially at the SCOTUS level because of stare decisis - and are often finding themselves playing legislator (esp. with issues that politicians are afraid to touch), it makes one hell of a difference.
There's a lot of make believe in political spheres in the US (most of it for the public's benefit, of course), pretending that judges are not politicized. When a judge writes something they agree with, he's just enforcing the law, when they don't agree, he's an activist judge. It's pretty ridiculous.
Personally, I much prefer the Civil Law system where the elected legislative branch flies higher and unelected judges are much less powerful.