Recent letters have characterized Nathan Woodhull’s opinion article on Supreme Court nominee Alito as inaccurate with respect to the cases discussed. However, those letters have mischaracterized the original column and the rulings that Alito issued. Spousal notification may differ from permission in law, but not in practice. Husbands who attempt to avoid certification of notification make it extremely difficult for women to secure abortions. This was the finding of the Supreme Court as well, which ruled that spousal notification was an undue burden on women, and thus was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court and 3rd Circuit Court overturned the provision that his dissent supported. Further, the suggestion that this position is a pro-abortion one is not even entirely accurate. The College Democrats do not support most forms of abortions, excepting cases of rape, incest, and medical danger to the mother. We do not, however, see making abortion illegal as an effective method of addressing the issue; that is another column in itself. It is also worth noting that Alito’s record and recently revealed memos and job applications show that he has every intention of making these forms of abortion illegal as well.

With respect to the issue of illegal machine gun ownership, Alito’s argument was neither a simple matter of federalism, nor widely supported. Rather, it was judicial activism in the form of a strange interpretation of congressional statute. Alito knew that it was not within his purview to attack states’ rights to ban machine gun sales, but realized that dissenting on the Commerce Clause would accomplish much of the same effect. Further, the justices described Alito’s argument as not giving the “deference that the judiciary owes to its two coordinate branches of government, a basic tenet of the constitutional separation of powers.” In addition, in the last 15 years, there have been over 20 rulings upholding the ban on machine gun ownership, putting Alito’s opinion well outside the mainstream.

The comment on discrimination indeed referred to Bray v. Marriott Hotels, and it is true that Alito ruled there was not enough evidence to bring the case to trial. Even so, he sought to place an extreme burden of evidence on victims of racial discrimination that would effectively prevent them from bringing almost all suits to trial. The majority ruled that Alito’s dissent, if made law, would shield companies from lawsuits, even when they purposely and admittedly made hiring decisions with a racial bias.

Moreover, the responses did not address Alito’s disturbing opinions and rulings that would have severely watered down the privacy-guaranteeing requirement of search warrants. These warrants prevented employees from suing for damages under the Family and Medical Leave Act that allowed gender discrimination at work, and that permitted racial discrimination in jury selection.

Kyle Gracey