To the Editor:
In response to Nathan Woodhull’s piece in the November 10 issue of The Polytechnic, and as someone who works in a legal related field, I felt it was incumbent for me to respond.
While I am proud of the College Democrats to liven up the political debate which is sure to affect the rights of American citizens for years to come, I am disappointed that Woodhull and the College Democrats have taken it upon themselves to advance an opinion without taking enough time to fully research the issues at hand.
In a recent editorial, Woodhull mischaracterized several of Supreme Court Nominee Alito’s decisions that were both related to procedure and his interpretation of the law. In particular, he stated that Judge Alito advanced a position in which women would be required “to seek the permission of their husbands in order to make decisions about their own bodies.” In fact, in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, one of the issues was whether or not the requirement that a woman inform her husband about her decision to seek an abortion except in very narrow circumstances is an undue burden or not. One should recognize that seeking permission from a spouse and notifying a spouse are two entirely different things. One’s opinion on Judge Alito’s position on this requirement may vary; Woodhull, however, should inform his readers what the actual issues were in the case. The position that Alito’s decision reduces women to male property is sensationalistic at best, and nearly makes the leap into intellectual dishonesty.
Furthermore, in United States v. Rybar, Judge Alito wrote a dissent to discuss his interpretation of the Supreme Court precedent established in United States v. Lopez—a decision which dictated that school zones are not interstate commerce. Alito makes no mention of Rybar’s second amendment arguments but addresses the limitations of the Congress’s power with regard to the commerce clause and respects the Supreme Court’s precedent in Lopez. Further, Alito states that the states are well within their rights to ban machine guns but, questions whether or not the precedent established by Lopez would prohibit Congress utilizing the commerce clause to do so. One would recognize that Alito’s dissent has more to do with federalism and more specifically respecting precedent than respecting the will of Congress. A Supreme Court nominee should be someone who respects the independence of the judiciary, which is essential to the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution, and is well versed in constitutional law.
Whether or not the confirmation of Judge Alito would bring about a change for the worse is certainly a matter of healthy debate. One can easily see that the actual issues are far more complex than the summary presented by Woodhull. If he wishes to enter the debate, he should form his opinion after reading the decisions for themselves and present a more accurate representation of Judge Alito’s record.
Hunter Lonsberry
ALUM ’00
