Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Nov. 14, 2005/ 12 Mar-Chesvan, 5766

Nat Hentoff

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Confirmation questions for Judge Samuel Alito | Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter has noted that the president's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Samuel Alito, has said he respects long-range Supreme Court precedents. Accordingly, I offer senators of both parties on the committee some questions on cases previously decided by the Court.

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and after the fact, got Congress to agree. Among the military arrests under this suspension was that of Lamdin Milligan.

The case came to the Supreme Court, and in a landmark decision in 1866, Justice David Davis declared the imprisonment was unconstitutional because the civilian courts were still open. He ruled:

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. The Government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence."

Does Judge Alito agree, even in this war against terrorism — that the Constitution must be strictly constructed?

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Supreme Court was concerned with the case of an American citizen, Yaser Hamdi, held infinitely as an "enemy combatant" without charges, and without due process of law.

In an opinion for a majority of the Court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of American citizens."

But, in dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, convinced that the majority of the Court had not gone far enough, emphasized that this detainee should be prosecuted — or released. Scalia added, "Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis. ... Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war — and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it."

Moreover, said Justice Scalia, "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-American system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive ... Hamdi's imprisonment without criminal trial is no less unlawful than Milligan's trial by military tribunal."

Does Judge Alito agree with Justice Scalia that the majority of the Court did not meet the requirements of the Constitution in the case of Yaser Hamdi?

In a 1943 landmark case, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, the children of Jehovah's Witnesses had been expelled from the state's public schools because they refused to salute the flag since their religion forbade them to bow to any "images." And if their parents did not compel them to return to school, the parents could be prosecuted for complicity in their children's delinquency.

Writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Robert Jackson was responsible for a decision that has been regarded by some as a definition of Americanism:

"If there is a fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox politics, nationalism, religion, or any other matters, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Does Judge Alito have any reservations about Justice Jackson's constitutional reasons for sending the Jehovah's Witnesses children back to school? He decided not on religious, but on First Amendment, grounds.

The 1943 Supreme Court overruled a 1940 Supreme Court decision also on Jehovah's Witnesses children refusing to salute the flag. That earlier court decision held that the children could constitutionally be expelled from the public schools of Pennsylvania. The majority decision was written by Justice Felix Frankfurter (who dissented in the later West Virginia Board of Education ruling).

Frankfurter wrote in 1940 that the Pennsylvania flag-salute law recognized that "the ultimate foundation of a free society is the binding tie of cohesive sentiment. ... We live by symbols. The flag is the symbol of national unity, transcending all internal differences, however large, within the framework of the Constitution."

Does Judge Alito believe that Justice Frankfurter's interpretation of flag-salute law is on firmer constitutional ground than Justice Robert Jackson's?

Finally, although the unanimous 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education declared segregated public schools unconstitutional, there are now more racially segregated public schools in the nation than in 1954.

Subsequent Supreme Court decisions state that since segregation is not a result of laws, but rather of residential patterns, there is no constitutional cause of action.

Does Judge Alito agree that, in effect, Brown v. Board has largely failed, and that the Supreme Court is powerless to do anything more to desegregate the classrooms of America?

Every weekday publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and author of several books, including his current work, "The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance". Comment by clicking here.

Nat Hentoff Archives


© 2004, NEA