Questions for Judge Alito

January 11th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

Judge Alito, you said that your comment that the "constitution does not protect the right to an abortion" was made in the context of seeking a political job in the Reagan administration. With the implication that you were saying what your potential employer wanted to hear. You are now applying for a different job. Are you saying what you think we want to hear rather than what you believe?

Broken Promises: Iran and Alito

January 14th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Washington Post

Iran's move toward resuming nuclear research is likely to result in a full court hearing at the UN Security Council. Judge Samuel Alito's failure to recuse himself in the Vanguard Mutual Fund Case is getting a free pass.
Yet these cases are identical.
Under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty countries are entitled to undertake non-military nuclear research. Under the conflict of interest laws, Judge Alito had insignificant ownership in the Vanguard Fund Management Company (even though he, like me, had investments in Vanguard Mutual Funds) so was not required to recuse himself.
Nevertheless, Iran had promised France, Germany and the United Kingdom that it would not undertake any nuclear research while negotiations on Iran's Nuclear Program were under way. Similarly, Judge Alito, during his confirmation hearings for an seat on the Appeals Court promised to recuse himself from any cases involving Vanguard. He put no time limits on this promise.
Why are these two identical cases getting such different treatment?

Senators Deference to Bush

January 13th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

I agree with your editorial (Pro-Choice Senators and Judge Alito, January 13th, 2006. A22) which states that Judge Alito has tipped his hand with regard to his anti-abortion views. But there is one very high hurdle that Senators Specter, Chaffee and Collins will have to overcome if they are to vote against confirmation: that is deference to the President's wishes. This is especially strong when President and Senator share the same party affiliation.
To help overcome this hurdle, I would argue that the President has, over the past five years, forfeited his right to claim compliance with his wishes from the Senators. His actions have systematically undermined the rule of law in this country. His use of warrantless spying on Americans will I am sure be declared unconstitutional and it is so unnecessary as under current law NSA can undertake surveillance without a warrant for 72 hours. Surely that allows NSA to move swiftly and surely. Secondly his repudiation of the McCain amendment on torture in his signing statement is a direct violation of the intent of Congress. Thirdly, his failure to hold anyone, other than low level "grunts," accountable for the actions at Abu Ghraib is unconscionable.
Finally there is his appalling ignorance. Despite his years of education at Yale and Harvard, he doesn't understand the first thing about the managerial decision making process. His decision to go to war in Iraq was marred by group-think and uncertainty absorption (the removal of data about the level of confidence the CIA had in its information about weapons of mass destruction), and perhaps willful misinformation by his subordinates (It's a slam-dunk, Mr President). A well-informed leader would not have allowed this perversion of the process.  Additionally, despite a well founded understanding that torture does not produce valid information, the President insists on reserving the right to have his agents torture suspects to extract information. This is a totally unnecessary right to retain.
I believe that these actions on the part of the President release his Senatorial colleagues from the obligation to defer to his nomination by voting for confirmation of Judge Alito.