Reply #21: Bullshit [View All]

[Nederland]

Scalia was a well known conservative who had voiced opinions that denounced affirmative action, privacy and environment laws. Read the record of his confirmation hearings here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh99-1064/sh99-1064.pdf

In particular you should read what Eleanor Smeal had to say about him starting on page 176:

<snip>

I am delivering this testimony on behalf of the National Organization for Women and the National Women's Political Caucus. As the president of the National Organization for Women, I am representing the largest feminist organization in the United States, that is interested in eliminating sex discrimination in many different areas.

The National Women's Political Caucus is the largest organization of its kind. It is a bipartisan organization, determined to eliminate sex discrimination in the political arena.

Our testimony is based upon a review of some 120 law cases that Judge Scalia wrote at the circuit court level. Of course, the bulk of these cases are in the area of administrative law, so we have to only review those cases that cover, on point, those issues that we are very, very concerned with.

Because the court record was very brief—he has only been on that court 4 years—we would also turn to his writings and journals, and we also turned to his speeches for his opinions in the areas of constitutional law.

There are three significant areas that concern us, and for the reason that we stand today to oppose his nomination as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Those three areas are affirmative action; his hostility toward the enforcement of the remedial antidiscrimination laws passed by Congress; and his philosophy on individual constitutional rights.

Let me move quickly to the areas—and, of course, 3 minutes will not give me adequate time to review his writings and his work. But let me move quickly to the area of affirmative action. He has been quite clear in what he thinks of affirmative action. To quote: "I have grave doubts about the wisdom of where we are going in affirmative action and in equal protection generally." He goes on to say: "I frankly find this area an embarrassment to teach."

He says that, "There are examples abound to support my suggestion that this area is full of pretense or self-delusion."

He essentially takes the position of being a foe of affirmative action. I do not think an objective person could read his writings and come up with any other conclusion. In fact, he has a concept that as the son of Sicilian immigrants, he shares no burden to repay a debt to a group his ancestors, he believed, never wronged. I wanted to call attention to his quotes in this area because at a personal level I find it very difficult to sit here in opposition to the nomination of the first Italian-American. I am a person who believes in breaking down barriers and am the daughter of Italian-American immigrants. But my experience has led me to the exact opposite conclusion. I believe it is necessary to have affirmative action.

I am also very, very concerned with his use of the law and the cases. He seeks to strike down or to most limitedly interpret both race and sex discrimination laws, and he seeks to give the most narrow interpretation on remedies.

For example, on the 9-to-0 decision in sexual harassment that was just handed down, he would have been the lone voice against it, saying sexual harassment does not fall under the sex discrimination restraints laws of title VII.

<snip>


He was opposed by the AFL-CIO too.