WASHINGTON - The views that Samuel Alito expressed on reapportionment in a 20-year-old document could jeopardize his Supreme Court nomination and provoke a filibuster, a leading Democratic senator said Sunday.
"I think he's got a lot of explaining to do, and depending on how he does, I think will determine whether or not he has a problem or not," said Sen. Joseph Biden, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which plans confirmation hearings in early January...
The Warren Court, as it became known, ended public school segregation and established the election principle of one-man one-vote.
"The part that jeopardizes it (Alito's nomination) more is his quotes in there saying that he had strong disagreement with the Warren Court particularly on reapportionment - one man, one vote," Biden told "Fox News Sunday."
"The fact that he questioned abortion and the idea of quotas is one thing. The fact that he questioned the idea of the legitimacy of the reapportionment decisions of the Warren Court is even something well beyond that," Biden said.
In the document, Alito wrote, "In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause and reapportionment," he said.
Biden said the chances of a filibuster against Alito had increased because of Alito's assertions in the document.
"If he really believes that reapportionment is a questionable decision - that is, the idea of Baker v. Carr, one man, one vote - then clearly, clearly, you'll find a lot of people, including me, willing to do whatever they can to keep him off the court. ... That would include a filibuster, if need be," Biden said.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision in 1962 in Baker v. Carr, ruled that arbitrarily drawn legislative districts can be challenged in federal court.
Really, if there's anything that's "original" or "fundamental" in American law it's that government is ultimately accountable to the people, that government gains its legitimacy by the consent of the governed. If there is no ability for the governed to consent or withold their consent or then this government is illegitimate.
Alito would - or at least has in the past- favored radical, illegitimate government for the United States.
But then again, there's nothing "originalist" or "strict constructionist" about folks like Alito - or Scalia. Scalia, of course, is most famous for saying that innocence of a crime need not be a barrier to execution for that crime.
These folks are as odious as they come; they should not be admitted to the bar for moral turpitude, let alone be in a judicial position.