"Appellate courts are rubber stamps": Alito

To The Editor of Newsday:

On the first day of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings Samuel Alito, in responding to Sen. Biden’s question, said the reason discrimination cases reach appellate courts is that they are weak. According to Alito, the strong cases settle at the trial level, the questionable cases settle also, but for less money, and the weak cases are dismissed by the trial court, and those are the ones that reach the appellate courts. The reason Alito concludes they are weak? Because they have been dismissed at the trial level, thereby setting the stage for appeal. Conclusion: Because only the “weak” discrimination cases reach the appellate courts, those cases deserve to be dismissed. In other words, according to Alito, it is the job of the appellate court routinely to affirm the trial court’s dismissal of discrimination cases.

This shabby reasoning speaks for itself. If decisions of the trial courts are routinely affirmed, then there should be no need for appellate courts. The reason appellate courts exist, in reality, is that district courts sometimes make mistakes — but not in Samuel Alito’s world view.

No Senator followed up on this or on many other important issues regarding this candidate. It is imperative that the nominee be brought back before the Judiciary Committee for further questioning by real lawyers. I urge the Judiciary Committee to recall Samuel Alito in order to get to the root of his lazy approach to decision-making and to determine conclusively whether he is the royalist — or fascist — he appears to be.

I urge all Senators to filibuster this candidate and to prevent any full-Senate vote unless and until his philosophy and personal history — including his membership in the Federalist Society — are fully and honestly disclosed.

William E. Betz

0 replies on “"Appellate courts are rubber stamps": Alito”

Now there’s some highly dubious logic for you.

Firstly, YES, discrimination cases are reaching the appellate courts primarily because they are weak. Alito is right.

In these cases, it’s an opportunity for the party bringing the appeal to the court to explain how their case is NOT weak, it’s a second chance to make the case to another body.

Your “conclusion” bears no resemblance to reality. You’ve completely made it up out of wholecloth.

If the case makes it to appeal and is found to be worthy, and not “weak” then some action may be taken on it. If the party just represents the “weak” case the same way, it’s more than likely that the case will be found “weak” again.

You are “concluding” that somehow the case gets “stronger” merely by the act of paying the fees to file an appeal. It does not. It’s not the courts job to find more “strength” in the case, it’s the job of the party filing the appeal to convince the appellate court that the case is not actually “weak”.

Your reasoning is what’s shabby, not Alito’s.

No Senator followed up on this because it’s a truism of the appellate court system in discrimination cases. For a Senator to try and belabor this point would have resulted in Alito making them look like a fool.

Your call for filibuster, if some foolish Senators try to mount one will only result in the Democrats being driven from minority opposition party to the status of minority inconsequential party.

Get real, fighting for fighting’s sake isn’t getting your party anywhere. Especially when you keep bringing up non-issues as if they were earth-shattering revelations.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.