home

Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers

By Jeralyn, Section Sam Alito
Posted on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 11:40:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Justice Department released 470 pages of documents about Judge Sam Alito to reporters Monday on highly techical legal issues -- and gave them three hours to read them

Despite the lack of time to fully digest them, as the New York Times reports, at least one thing was abundantly clear:

In several of the memorandums, however, Mr. Alito makes a series of arguments espousing a broad view of law enforcement authority and a skeptical view of proposals to protect individuals from legal investigations.

The Washington Post reports the memos show Alito was hostile to foreigner's rights:

As a senior lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department, Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued that immigrants who enter the United States illegally and foreigners living outside their countries are not entitled to the constitutional rights afforded to Americans.

Abortion is not the critical issue in Alito's nomination. Freedom and the right to life for the already born is more important.

< The Barbarism of Singapore | Tuesday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers | 14 comments (14 topical)
    Re: Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    Being a citizen is what entitles you to American rights. And I see that the "illegal" part of "illegal alien" continues to baffle TL.

    Re: Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    a) Tell that to Jose Padilla. b) Being under American jurisdiction is what entitles you to American rights. Maybe not to "privileges" like a driver's license, but the right to speak without being arrested? The right to be left alone unless the police have cause to search or detain you? Hell yeah. It's the same principle that lets you gamble in Monaco or drive without a speed restriction on the Autobahn - when you're in those places, you're under their jurisdiction. People who entered the country illegally can be detained and deported for it, by law, without violating any rights. That doesn't mean that people who look like they might be here illegally can be arrested on some pretext so they can have their immigration status checked, nor does it mean that police can start violating the constitutional rights of people they don't know to be 'illegal aliens" just to see if they have the right papers. I see the "human" part of "human rights" continues to baffle some commentors.

    Re: Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I don't see "citizen" in there anywhere. Nor "enemy combatant" for that matter. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Hmm. No use of the word "citizen" there, either. Of course, that didn't stop the government from taking over the continent and locking up and nearly wiping out the natives, or from condoning slavery, so maybe you're right, Mr. Robertson. That is, if you wish to identify yourself with the slavers and the genocidal empire-builders, of course. Proud moments in American history, eh?

    Re: Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    Matt - the Padilla case troubles me, a lot. He should have been charged immediately instead of being held for the 2+ years he was held. However, it doesn't really have anything to do with my point. As to the quote from the Declaration of Independence, that's not part of US law. But thanks for playing

    Re: Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers (none / 0) (#5)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    Section 1 of the 14th. Amendment says:
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    The use of the word "person" rather than "citizen" is quite deliberate.

    Re: Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers (none / 0) (#6)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    When Ginsburg or Stevens retires (or maybe it'll be Souter next; who knows?), civil rights would be better protected by the nomination of a well-known civil libertarian named Janice Rogers Brown. I am pleased to see the Left make an issue of this. It will make Ms. Brown's elevation simpler.

    Re: Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    Due process of the law is also clear Al. meaning, if you enter here illegally, you get your due process when they deport you.

    Re: Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    Also, Al - which event was the 14th Amendment written in the context of? I'll give you a hint - it wasn't one that had anything to do with immigration.

    Re: Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    Al, I'm certainly no constitutional scholar, but the word "person(s)" is used three times in section 1, you highlighted only two. It would seem to me that the first usage of the word in the section defines its meaning for the section: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..." disclaimer: I've done no research on this. If this word has been defined differently by a bunch of whip-smart constitutional scholar lawyer black-robe types unbeknownst to me, then I'll shut up and go away.

    Re: Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    Actually, upon rereading it again about a dozen times, I'm starting to think Al's interpretation might well be right...I'll shut up and go away now.

    Re: Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    What hasn't been dealt with in this thread is the fact that scalito also want's to limit American citizen's rights.

    Re: Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers (none / 0) (#12)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    JR at 5:23: True, but irrelevant. While a person is under the jurisdiction of the US, he/she enjoys "the equal protection of the laws". JR at 5:30: Also irrelevant. If the authors of the 14th. Amendment, which was written shortly after the end of the Civil War, had in mind specifically black people (which is what I think you're alluding to), they would have said so. Instead they said "persons", and it is the law today. As Sarcastic has realized, the first use of "persons" is to define what a citizen is: A citizen is a person, but a person is more than a citizen. It is all the more significant that the text refers specifically to "persons" in general, immediately after defining "citizen".

    Re: Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    suo, I'm very impressed with your willingness to admit you might have been wrong. No snark, I'm impressed and hope I keep those standards too.

    Re: Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    From Judge Alito's questionnaire: b. Describe: ii. your typical former clients and the areas, if any, in which you have specialized. Alito's response: While practicing, all of my “clients” were federal agencies, officers, or employees. With the exception of time spent as an Assistant United States Attorney doing principally criminal work, my practice has been highly diversified. So, he has only worked for the US government. How in the world can he claim that his practice has been highly diversified? It is no surprise to me that he favors expanding police powers. He has never been on the other side of the fence. I believe, based on his past decisions as an appellate judge and his previous positions within the Federal government that he is biased. This is only my opinion. Can someone tell me what I am missing?

    Alito Supported Expansion of Police Powers | 14 comments (14 topical)