My local rag, the
Times Herald-Record, recently published
an editorial stating that Samuel Alito should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Besides using the inane phrase "elections have consequences", it downplays the favoritism that Alito shows for the executive branch and flat-out says that he views the three branches of government as being equal. I give you my response below:
I must strongly disagree with the Record's editorial stating that Samuel Alito should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. The editorial declares that Alito believes that the three branches of government are equal, but he has demonstrated in the past that he will say what his potential employers want to hear.
Can we truly believe that the man who invented the term "unitary executive" believes the President is not above the judiciary? Can we truly accept that the man who conceived of a "signing statement" to allow the President to give his own definition to legislation views the Executive branch as being on the same level as the Legislative? Alito's record has shown that he believes that the President can decide which laws do not apply to him; in his mind, this is not "above the law", but rather how the law should work. This is the same conclusion drawn by White House counsel when justifying torture, extraordinary rendition, bypassing FISA in order to spy on Americans and locking people up without bringing charges against them.
Elections have consequences. The shredding of the Constitution should not be one of them.