Alito: Too Extreme for Women, Too Extreme for the Supreme Court, Too Extreme for America
Alito: Too Extreme for Women, Too Extreme for the Supreme Court, Too Extreme for America
Rep. Wasserman Schultz announces opposition to Supreme Court nominee
December 8, 2005
(Washington, DC) -- Rep. Wasserman Schultz announced her opposition to Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito at a press conference today with the National Women's Law Center and Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL) and Hilda Solis (D-CA).
Rep. Wasserman Schultz, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, will detail her concerns about Judge Alito in letters to Senators Martinez and Nelson of Florida.
At the press conference her grave concerns regarding Judge Alito were outlined in the following remarks:
"I am pleased to be here with my colleagues, and I'd like to thank the NWLC for their leadership on women's justice issues over the years. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I am here today because I, too, am concerned that confirming Judge Alito to the Supreme Court will put women's rights in very real danger.
I'd like to draw your attention to Judge Alito's stance on discrimination. Consider Barbara Sheridan, once one of five head captains at a hotel restaurant. A model employee of 10 years with a history of steady promotions, strong evaluations, and raises--she'd become a supervisor. When executives decided to create a management post for the hotel's multiple restaurants, they considered five male employees, and refused to consider Sheridan. Sheridan complained of sex discrimination. She was subsequently demoted and eventually resigned from her position.
The company claimed Sheridan's performance went downhill after she was passed over for the manager's job. At trial, Sheridan argued that the supervisors made wild accusations and produced falsified records.
In the end, the jury agreed with Sheridan. But the judge overturned the jury's decision. Sheridan appealed and the 3rd Circuit Court ruled that Sheridan had presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.
Alito was the sole dissenter.
A year later, Alito ruled the same way in a similar case. This time his decision was described by the majority opinion as an attempt to "eviscerate" the use of Title VII in race discrimination cases by imposing almost impossible evidentiary burdens on plaintiffs.
Perhaps the most disappointing case was in 2000, when Alito ruled that allowing pregnant state employees to sue under the Family and Medical Leave Act when they were denied medical leave violated states' constitutional autonomy. Even the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with this opinion; The Supreme Court reversed Alito's ruling by a 6 to 3 vote.
There is no question that Judge Alito has impressive education credentials and has led a distinguished career. But allowing him to serve on the highest court in the land would knock out the foundation of the equal rights laws this country was built on and roll back centuries of progress."
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl20_schultz/Alito.html