|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Alito Stands Tall on Religious Liberties
Judge Samuel Alito Jr. was perhaps best known as a defender of religious liberty before his nomination to the Supreme Court. In 15 years as a federal appellate judge, he consistently articulated a broad interpretation of the First Amendment clauses pertaining to religion. He has written that the Establishment Clause does not prohibit government acknowledgement of religion, and has held that the Free Exercise Clause gives wide berth to citizens and employees against government restrictions on their religious practices. Both supporters and opponents of his nomination agree that if confirmed, he would likely become the court’s strongest voice on religious issues.
Story Continues Below "He is inclined to the view of the First Amendment that the government is not intended to be hostile to religion,” conservative law professor Douglas Kmiec explained to the New York Times. "It is intended to be accommodating when it can.” Kmiec should know. He was a colleague of Alito’s in the Justice Department, and is a scholar at the forefront of the legal debate on freedom of religion under the First Amendment. Liberal critics are not so pleased. Alito’s record demonstrates he is "very solicitous when it comes to protecting the right of an individual to practice his religion, but not so solicitous when of the right of people to be free of government-supported religion,” Eliot Mincberg, legal director of the People for the American Way, told the Times. Alito has not participated in what may be viewed among the hottest topics in religious liberty jurisprudence – the constitutionality of the disbursement of federal funds to religious organizations for ostensibly secular purposes. But, his lengthy record provides fodder for both sides of the debate. Summaries of his most prominent "religious liberty” decisions are listed below:
"Private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan,” Alito wrote, "is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression.” He went on to explain the consequences of this equality. "If government permits the discussion of a topic from a secular perspective,” Alito continued, "it may not shut out speech that discusses the same topic from a religious perspective.”
"Because the Department makes exemptions from its policy for secular reasons, and has not offered any substantial justification for refusing to provide similar treatment for officers who are required to wear beards for religious reasons,” Alito reasoned, "we conclude that the Department’s policy violates the First amendment.”
Alito specifically rejected the ACLU’s claim that a Nativity scene could not be displayed on government property under any circumstance. "[T]he location of the Jersey City display on public property in front of City Hall,” Alito wrote, "does not in itself provide a valid basis for holding the display to be unconstitutional.” Alito distinguished government acknowledgement from government endorsement of religion. "Government may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form,” he pointed out, "but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine.”
Editor's note:
Inside Cover Stories
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com |