Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Alito's Enviro Past

By Amanda Griscom Little, Grist.org. Posted November 2, 2005.


Environmentalists are joining many progressives and Democrats in crying foul over Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
Advertisement

Enviro advocates in D.C. have spent the last two days digging through Samuel Alito's extensive paper trail for clues as to how he might vote on environmental cases were he confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

A staunchly conservative judge who's served on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for 15 years, Alito was nominated by President Bush yesterday to fill the slot being vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor. He's already a hit with Republican senators as well as Bush's right-wing base, which squelched the candidacy of Harriet Miers.

Environmentalists, meanwhile, are joining many progressives and Democrats in crying foul over the nomination.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stepped right up yesterday to criticize Alito as a "controversial nominee who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative." He's been dubbed "Scalito" for having a judicial philosophy closely akin to that of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who shares with the nominee a Roman Catholic, Italian-American background.

That comparison alone is enough to raise the hackles of enviros, many of whom see Scalia as a right-wing ideologue more staunchly opposed to environmental regulation -- and federal-level authority in general -- than any other justice on the Supreme Court. And at 55 years of age, some 14 years younger than Scalia, Alito would be in a position to influence environmental jurisprudence for decades to come.

Bush, trying desperately to bounce back after a week of crushing blows to his presidency, gushed over his nominee, whom he described as having "extraordinary breadth of experience ... more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years." The prez even tried to frame Alito as a pro-environment pick who "moved aggressively against white-collar and environmental crimes, and drug trafficking and organized crime and violation of civil rights" as a U.S. attorney for New Jersey in the late '80s.

When examining the whole of Alito's record, however, environmentalists found little that was encouraging. "Here's our initial assessment of his record: some good, but more bad and ugly," Glenn Sugameli, Earthjustice senior legislative counsel, said. "We're extremely concerned that Alito has repeatedly sought to restrict Congress' authority to allow Americans to protect their rights in court, and to enact laws that protect our health and environment. His record in these cases is more hostile to congressional authority than the current Supreme Court majority."

Sugameli cites the example of Public Interest Research Group v. Magnesium Elektron, a 1997 case in which Alito cast the deciding vote in a 2-1 ruling that not only blocked certain rights of citizens to sue polluters under the Clean Water Act, but threw out a $2.6 million fine against Magnesium Elektron for violating the act. The decision was effectively reversed two and a half years later by a Supreme Court ruling in which Scalia was one of two dissenting votes.

Alito's extensive track record on the court isn't entirely devoid of pro-environment decisions. Take, for instance, the 1995 ruling on Pennsylvania Coal Association v. Bruce Babbitt, in which Alito rejected an industry challenge to the toughening of an environmental law on coal mining. Or the 1997 ruling on Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Carol Browner, in which he joined a consensus in denying industry's efforts to skirt pollution rules under the Clean Air Act.


Digg!

Amanda Griscom Little writes the Muckraker column for Grist Magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
And then you had to go and ruin it ...
Posted by: thomaslknapp on Nov 2, 2005 1:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every "environmentalist" criticism I've seen so far of Alito's record brings up the "machine gun" ruling.

Yes, the Constitution has a commerce clause. It also has a number of AMENDMENTS, one of which explicitly and without exception protects the right to keep and bear arms. Since it is an AMENDMENT, it trumps any previous constitutional text which may conflict with it, including the interstate commerce clause.

The idea that declining to apply the interstate commerce clause to a matter which is a) not interstate, b) not commerce and c) removed from that clause's purview by amendment would somehow weaken Congress's ability to regulate matters which are a) interstate, b) commerce and c) not removed from the clause's purview by amendment is absurd.

It's sad to see the environmental community risk estranging America's 70 million gun owners by trying to smuggle a victim disarmament agenda into the environmental agenda. Please forego the gun-grabbing rhetoric. It's not just wrong and stupid, it hurts the cause.

Regards,
Thomas L. Knapp

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guns and environment could be a bit more united
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 2, 2005 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Other than the fact that one doesn't need a machine gun to enjoy outdoor sports hunting, I'm surprised but not too surprised that the environmental groups and the gun lobbying groups aren't united where it counts. Without a decent environment, people can't enjoy their outdoor hunting in rural America.

The problem is that the gun lobbyists are so obsessed with maximizing their bottomline any way they can by cashing in on "tort reform" and "free trade". Sure, the NRA has done its job of luring folks like myself into its membership because they admired my eagerness to practice archery back in the 90s though I finally resigned last year after finally getting fed up with their political campaigning on issues in addition to guns such as abortion, Iraq, "free trade", union busting, deregulation, etc ... But the NRA has made itself look as if it's not a money grubber by framing the issues and giving it a populist appeal all the while hiding their money grubbing intents. No wonder they refuse to help out on projects such as passing legislation that actually holding gun theives accountable or for that matter teaming up with environmentalists to help keep the forests from destruction which explains why Ted Nugent once made a pathetic remark about saying that killing the environment will prevent invasion of bears, mountain lions, coyotes, etc ... from invading homes in the suburbs.

The environmental groups, of course, are not a whole lot better. I get a flier from an environmental group, usually before an election, asking me to contribute, say, $50 with a less convincing tone, just to keep their cause alive and in addition another petition/letter that usually goes "Tell President Bush to stop killing the environment." Now, of course like myself, most folks in my neighborhood and red-state America will correctly judge these environmental groups to be delusional because Bush isn't going to care how many petitions get stacked against his desk. Moreoever, because most will wonder what that money we contribute will actually do, the environmental groups will be mistaken as bigger special interests.

As far as the nominee goes, well, don't expect the Democrats to do much about it either as they'll probably go easy on Alito as they did with Roberts but with a different purpose such as bowing down to the rightwing media and polls on somehow losing the Hispanic vote if he ain't confirmed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]