Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. George W. Bush 2005)
Over-reaching by Court undermines respect for law
SEN. SESSIONS: I asked Chief Justice Roberts about activism by the court, overreaching by the court, and he felt that this overreaching created a danger that it could undermine respect for law in our country. Do you share that view?
ALITO: I agree
that overreaching by the courts can undermine respect for law. Nobody elects us. Our job is to interpret the Constitution, it has a meaning, and you apply it to the situations that come up.
SESSIONS: I feel that the court on some very important issues
is exceeding its authority. People are calling on me and those of us in Congress to do something about it.
ALITO: I think your policy views are much more legitimate than the policy views of the judiciary because members of Congress are elected for the
purpose of formulating and implementing public policy and members of the judiciary are appointed for the purpose of interpreting and applying the law.
No one is above the law and no one is beneath the law
SEN. GRASSLEY: Judge Alito, in your opening statement you said -- and I hope I quote you accurately -- "No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law, and no person in this country is beneath the law."
You didn't go into detail about what you meant. I think it's quite clear above the law. But give us that diverse opinion, above the law versus beneath the law.
ALITO: Every person has equal rights under the law in this country, and that involves includes people have no money, that includes people who do not hold any higher or prestigious position, it includes people who are citizens and people who are not citiz
Supports one-person-one-vote within a deviation of 10%
GRASSLEY: You've been criticized for being hostile to voting rights based upon a 1985 statement regarding the electoral reapportionment, that is how districts are drawn. They suggested that you're hostile to the principle of one person, one vote. Nowhere
in your '85 statement did you write that you ever disagreed with the principle of one person, one vote. Did you?
ALITO: I never disagreed with that principle, Senator. My father's work with the N.J. legislature [attempted to] bring it into compliance
with the one person, one vote standard. These provisions, however, because they tried to respect county and municipal lines, resulted in population deviations of under 10 percent, but those deviations were much higher than the ones that the Supreme Court
said would be tolerated. It seemed to me an instance of taking a good principle, which is one person, one vote, and taking it to extremes, requiring that districts be exactly equal in population, which did not seem to me to be a sensible idea.
Supports stare decisis--following prior precedents
I think the doctrine of stare decisis is a very important doctrine. It's a fundamental part of our legal system. It's the principle that courts in general should follow their past precedents. And it's important for a variety of reasons. It's
important because it limits the power of the judiciary. And it's important because it reflects the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions.
Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings
Jan 10, 2006
Executive power issues are not often resolved by the court
The President has to follow the Constitution and the laws. And, in fact, one of the most solemn responsibilities of the President--and it's set out expressly in the Constitution--is that the President is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed
and that means the Constitution. It means statutes. It means treaties. It means all of the laws of the US. But what I am saying is that sometimes issues of executive power arise, and they have to be analyzed under the framework that Justice [Robert]
Jackson set out. And you do get cases that are in this twilight zone, and they have to be decided when they come up based on the specifics of the situation. You'd have to look at the specifics of the situation.
These are the gravest sort of constitutional questions that come up. And very often there they don't make their way to the judiciary or they're not resolved by the judiciary; they're resolved by the other branches of the government.
Constitution is a living thing, with unchanging principles
The Constitution is a living thing in the sense that matters--that it sets up a framework of government and a protection of fundamental rights that we have lived under very successfully for 200 years. And the genius of it is that it is not terribly
specific on certain things. Some things are very specific, but it sets out some general principles and then leaves it for each generation to apply those to the particular factual situations that come up. The liberty component of the Fifth Amendment
and the 14th Amendment embody the deeply rooted traditions of a country. Those traditions and those rights apply to new factual situations that come up. As times change, new factual situations come up, and the principles have to be applied to those
situations.
The principles don't change. The Constitution itself doesn't change. But the factual situations change. And, as new situations come up, the principles and the rights have to be applied to them.
Alito says, "Federal judges have the duty to interpret the Constitution and the laws faithfully and fairly, to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and to do these things with care and with restraint,
always keeping in mind the limited role that the courts play in our constitutional system."
Source: Peter Baker, Washington Post
Nov 1, 2005
Supremacy of elected branches over judicial usurpation
I believe very strongly in the supremacy of the elected branches of government. I disagree strenuously with the usurpation by the judiciary of decision-making authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate.
The [Reagan] Administration has already made major strides toward reversing this trend through its judicial appointments, litigation, and public debate, and it is my hope that even greater advances can be achieved during the second term.
Source: Alito's application for Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Nov 15, 1985
Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform.
Click here for policy papers on Government Reform.
