[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 160 (Wednesday, December 14, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2520-E2521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CLEAVER EXPLAINS CIVIL RIGHTS--BASED OPPOSITION TO ALTO CONFIRMATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 14, 2005

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the most thoughtful 
Members to join us in recent years is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Cleaver) who as a former Mayor of Kansas City makes very significant 
contributions to the work of our Committee on Financial Services, which 
has jurisdiction over urban affairs.
  The gentleman from Missouri is also a civil rights leader, and as a 
minister is very much in the tradition of those in that profession who 
have provided moral leadership in the long and continuing fight against 
racism and its effects. Recently, in the Kansas City, Missouri 
newspaper, The Call, in the issue for the week of December 9th-December 
15th, our colleague laid out in a very persuasive and reasoned fashion 
the objections to the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court 
that arise from his record on civil rights. I believe that this very 
useful analysis makes a significant contribution to the national debate 
on this question and I ask that it be printed here.

                    [From The Call, Dec. 9-15, 2005]

                    Alito: A Threat To Civil Rights

        (By Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, 5th Congressional District)

       Kansas City, MO.--In a almost every news stqryabout 
     President Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, 
     the subject of Roe v. Wade, the Court's 1973 decision 
     guaranteeing women the right to choose to have abortions has 
     been the focus. Unfortunately, minorities are not receiving 
     ``much information on Alito's awful'' attitudes on issues of 
     civil rights. In fact, a November 14 edition Newsweek, which 
     carned a seven page story on Alito, did not bother to discuss 
     civil rights.
       One case that sheds badly needed light on Alito disgraceful 
     civil rights record involved Beryl Bray; an Africa American 
     housekeeping, manager at a Park Ridge, N.J. Marriott Hotel. 
     Ms. Bray appealed to a trio of federal judge's that she had 
     been turned down on a promotion in the Marriott operation 
     because she'' was black. Two judges wrote that enough 
     evidence had been presented to, justify a jury trial. You 
     guessed it, Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.
       He downplayed the whole matter by writing that the hotel 
     had simply made ``minor-inconsistencies'' in how they handled 
     hirings; Alito went further in, saying that it would be 
     unfair to allow ``disgruntled employees to impose the cost of 
     trial of employers who, although they have not acted with the 
     intent to discriminate, may have treated their employees 
     unfairly.''
       The two judges with a different view of the case felt so 
     strongly about their evidence that they broke. With tradition 
     and actually criticized Alito's written opinion. According to 
     this fellow judges in Bray v. Marriott hotels, Alito's 
     position would have ``eviscerated'' legal protection under 
     Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The majority said that 
     Alito's position would protect employers from suit even in 
     situation where ``the employer's belief that it had selected 
     the ``best'' candidate ``was the result of conscious racial 
     bias.'''
       In a 2001 racial discrimination case, Alito, cast the 
     deciding vote and wrote the opinion in a 2-1 ruling that 
     rejected claims by African American defendant who had been 
     convicted of feloy murder by an all-white jury from which 
     black jurors had been impermissible struck because of their 
     race.
       The full Third Circuit reversed this ruling, and the 
     majority specifically criticized Alito for having compared 
     statistical evidence about the prosecution's exclusion of 
     blacks from juries in capital cases to an explanation of why 
     a disproportionate number of recent U.S. Presidents have been 
     left-handed: Judge Dolores Slovitar, in Riley v. Taylor wrote 
     that Alito overlooked the obvious fact that there is no 
     provision in the Constitution that protects persons from 
     discrimination based on whether they are right handed or 
     left-handed. To compare the striking of jurors based their 
     race is to minimize the history of discrimination against 
     prospective, black jurors and black defendants.
       My colleague, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, a former 
     head of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and 
     a distinguished constitutional scholar in her own right, told 
     me that Alito, in her opinion is dangerous to civil rights.
       Ms. Norton has studied Alito's, opinions and has led the 
     Congressional Black Caucus in its opposition to the extremely 
     conservative judge. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-

[[Page E2521]]

     Mass.) has stated through a spokeswoman that: ??? when it 
     comes down to it, he's on the wrong side of civil rights.'' I 
     strongly agree with the Senator. I reviewing the opinions of 
     Alito, even with my law laity status, I have concluded beyond 
     logical challenge, that this nominee has repeatedly made 
     difficult for those claiming to have been victims of 
     discrimination to prove it or to even get a trial.
       Should Alito receive Senate confirmation, he will replace 
     retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who often cast the 
     critical swing vote that protected civil rights. Alito's 
     addition to the Court means that it will clearly move to the 
     right. With affirmative action, Voting Rights Act 
     reauthorization and other issues likely to be considered by 
     the Supreme Court, it would behoove minorities and people of 
     good will to seek additional information, should they desire 
     such, and in the opinion of the 60's soul group Charles 
     Wright and the Watts 103 Street Rhythm Band, ``Express 
     Yourself!''

                          ____________________