Wingnut dreams can come true (or, why the Miers withdrawal was not a victory):
ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980â€™s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alitoâ€™s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by â€œimmuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employerâ€™s belief that it had selected the â€˜bestâ€™ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.â€ [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alitoâ€™s dissent was so restrictive that â€œfew if anyâ€¦cases would survive summary judgment.â€ [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]
ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) â€œguarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.â€ The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]
ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]
ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alitoâ€™s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alitoâ€™s dissent â€œguts the statutory standardâ€ and â€œignores our precedent.â€ In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alitoâ€™s opinion contradicted â€œwell-recognized rules of statutory construction.â€ [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004].