Oppose Cloture on Alito Nomination

Recipient: Senator

Dear Senator:

On behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), we strongly urge you to vote against cloture on the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Alito’s record is very troubling on matters of civil rights, civil liberties, and fundamental freedoms, and for this reason, LCCR vigorously opposes his confirmation.* Invoking cloture and prematurely cutting off debate would unfairly deny the American people their right to fully understand Judge Alito’s record and to communicate with Senators. Because Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, the stakes are simply far too high to rush the process.

In short, we are extremely troubled by the following aspects of Judge Alito’s record:

Judge Alito’s “Disagreement” with Supreme Court Rulings on Reapportionment. In 1985, Judge Alito noted that he had disagreed with the Warren Court’s rulings on legislative reapportionment. Because those rulings first articulated the principle of “one person, one vote,” and led to major progress in securing equal voting rights for all Americans, his statement is extremely troubling.

Judge Alito’s Narrow Reading of Anti-Discrimination and Other Worker Protection Laws. Judge Alito’s record raises concerns about whether he would vigorously uphold our nation’s civil rights and labor laws. His decisions in such cases show a pattern of narrowly interpreting such laws, placing greater burdens on civil rights plaintiffs to prove discrimination and making it harder for Congress to protect workers. His record is
clearly to the right of his colleagues on the Third Circuit, and to the right of where most Americans stand on matters of discrimination and workers’ rights.

Judge Alito’s Willingness to Undercut Fundamental Privacy and Due Process Rights. In cases involving criminal justice matters such as the Fourth Amendment, habeas corpus, and the right to effective assistance of counsel, Judge Alito has shown an excessive tendency to defer to police and prosecutors. This deference frequently comes at the expense of the constitutional rights of individual Americans, and it raises concerns about whether Judge Alito would help enable governmental abuses of power.

Judge Alito’s Troubling Record on Immigration Law. Judge Alito’s record in appeals of asylum and deportation orders reveals an abnormally high tendency to let adverse* Some organizations in the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights have not opposed Judge Samuel Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and lower court rulings stand. An analysis by The Washington Post found that Judge Alito has sided with immigrants in only one out of every eight cases he has handled, which sets him apart even from most Republican-appointed judges. Judge Alito’s record is more problematic in light of the growing criticism, by numerous federal judges from both parties, of BIA and administrative immigration judge rulings.

Judge Alito’s Restrictive View of the Establishment Clause. Judge Alito takes an overly narrow view of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, a view that sets him apart from Justice O’Connor and the majority of her colleagues on the Supreme Court. His record – along with his stated disagreement with the Supreme Court’s most noteworthy rulings in this area – raises concerns that he would not fully protect the religious liberties of a very diverse America.

Judge Alito’s Efforts to Limit Congressional Authority in Favor of “States’ Rights.” Judge Alito’s record shows he is likely to favor “states’ rights” over the rights of ordinary Americans.
He has engaged in an excessively narrow reading of the Commerce Clause and an overly broad reading of state sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment, leading to decisions that go even farther than the current Supreme Court in undercutting Congress’ ability to protect Americans.

Conclusion. Given the above concerns with Judge Alito’s record, and given the fact that decades of progress on civil and human rights rest in the balance, we must urge you to oppose any effort to limit debate on the Senate floor over his confirmation. We greatly appreciate your consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact LCCR Deputy Director Nancy Zirkin at (202) 263-2880 or LCCR Counsel Rob Randhava at (202) 466-6058. We look forward to working with you.

Sincerely,

Dr. Dorothy I. Height
Chairperson

Wade Henderson
Executive Director

*Some organizations in the Leadership confirmation to the Supreme Court.