Different River

”You can never step in the same river twice.” –Heraclitus

Many liberal commentators and organzations (like MoveOn.org, as noted previously) are criticizing Samuel Alito for allegedly wanting “to strip basic protections from workers, women, minorities and the disabled in favor of unchecked power for corporations and special interests.”

Of course, the opposite is true, as noted by this article. A sample:

In his 15 years on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito has compiled a reputation for safeguarding the rights of blacks, religious minorities, and persecuted women that would be the envy of any left-winger.

As a federal appeals judge, Alito ruled in favor of Ronald A. Williams, a black man serving life in prison for first-degree murder, who had discovered evidence that one of his jurors was racially prejudiced and lied about this during the screening process. Since this evidence only came to light after Williams’ conviction, Alito gave him a new day in court.

He also showed concern for homosexuals in a 2004 case filed against New Jersey’s Shore Regional High School Board of Education. Alito ruled the high school had failed in its duty to provide a student an adequate education by failing to protect him from years of brutal harassment, in which bullies regularly belittled his “perceived effeminacy,” slurring his assumed sexuality. Alito sent a clear message that he would have zero tolerance for any school district that looked the other way while students vicious bullied one of their own, even if that hazing were conducted on the basis of homosexuality (real or imagined); gay kids have a right to education, too.

However, Alito’s most notable ruling came in the groundbreaking case of Fatin v. INS, which specifically established the rights of women who refused to wear traditional Islamic dress, such as the burqa, in their homelands. Alito determined, for the first time, that women who have reason to believe they would be persecuted for not abiding by medieval Koranic dress codes could be granted asylum in the United States. One law review article commented, “Fatin v. INS was a stepping stone for Iranian women. It finally showed an international awareness of repression on the basis of gender persecution.” Unlike liberal jurists, though, he set the bar high enough that “persecution” means “threats to life, confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe that they constitute a threat to life or freedom.

He has, in other venues, shown appreciation for the rights of Muslims – Sunni Muslims, specifically (a fact that should not be lost on our leftist friends, who counsel Bush to establish cordial relations with Sunnis in Iraq). Alito rebuked a police department for forcing Muslim officers to shave their beards, which violated their religious consciences.

In fact, Alito has a stellar record on Freedom of Religion in general, even siding against the ACLU’s full-time grinches in a Nativity scene case, ACLU v. Schundler. He likewise ruled Christian afterschool clubs should be able to set up tables at school events, and religious students should be able to express their faith openly, in their words and artwork.