Early reports on Alito not promising

I’m trying to get a little bit of an early handle on our new Supreme Court nominee. What I’ve seen hasn’t been exactly reassuring.
First thing I saw was this rather sensational item:

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.

Turns out after actually reading the entire decision that it was much more complex than indicated in the blurb and involved some technicalities. I wouldn’t say that I agree with Alito’s reasoning in the case, but it’s not as over the top as it seems.
However, then there’s this report at USA Today.

Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito since 1981 and tried cases before him on the Third Circuit, describes him as “an activist conservatist judge” who is tough on crime and narrowly construes prisoners’ and criminals’ rights. “He’s very prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his conservatism, which is, I think, as much a Rehnquist as a Scalia trait,” Lustberg says.

That’s very scary.
Lustberg, however, loses a point with me in his use of the phrase “prisoners’ and criminals’ rights.” I hope he’s not referring to the 4th Amendment there, because the 4th Amendment is not criminals’ rights, but rather citizens’ rights and the rights of the accused (both guilty and innocent). (In fact, the only part of the bill of rights that is specifically for “criminals’ rights” is part of the 8th Amendment.) It really disturbs me to hear basic core American rights and principles referred to as “criminals’ rights.”
TalkLeft has a lot more on Alito’s ‘prosecutorial’ approach.
I’m going to keep looking (and please send me anything you find about his drug war views), but I’m not hopeful.
All the more reason to concentrate on changing the lawmakers.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.