🚀 go-pugleaf

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=274629

Ten Things President Bush Doesn't Want You To Know About Scalia and
Thomas

December 20, 2004

SCALIA OPPOSES EFFORTS TO DESEGREGATE SCHOOLS: In his concurrence on
Freeman v. Pitts, Scalia indicated he would favor stripping the
authority of Federal courts to regulate school desegregation, "even
for those schools that remain significantly segregated." [Freeman v
Pitts 1992]

THOMAS FAVORS STATE-SPONSORED RELIGION: Thomas has "advanced the
position" that constitutionally mandated church/state separation
applies "to the federal government, but not to individual states � a
position that would allow Virginia, for example, to declare a state
religion." He would allow individual states to "adopt particular
religions and use tax money to proselytize for them." [Elk Grove v.
Newdow, 2004]

SCALIA SUPPORTS SEX DISCRIMINATION: Scalia dissented from the Court's
7-to-1 decision that rejected the Virginia Military Institute's
male-only admissions policy. He called the male-only admissions
standard at the school a "well-rooted" tradition. [U.S. v. Virginia,
1996]

THOMAS WOULD ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO EFFECTIVELY WAIVE DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS: In last term's confrontation over detainees in the war on
terror, eight of the nine Justices squarely rejected the Bush
administration's sweeping claim that it could detain citizens
indefinitely as enemy combatants based merely on the executive
branch's assertion of enemy combatant status.  "Only Thomas supported
the Bush administration's position."  He claimed "due process requires
nothing more than a good-faith executive determination." [Rasul v.
Bush, 2004]

SCALIA AND THOMAS OPPOSE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE: The Family and
Medical Leave Act "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid
leave to care for a loved one." Last year, the Court upheld the law,
but Scalia and Thomas voted to strike it down, arguing that Congress
exceeded its power in passing the law. [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003]

SCALIA AND THOMAS SUPPORT EXECUTING THE MENTALLY RETARDED: Scalia and
Thomas dissented from the Court's 6-3 ruling that executing mentally
retarded convicts constituted "cruel and unusual punishment." [Atkins
v. Virginia, 2002]

SCALIA AND THOMAS SUPPORT BRUTALITY AGAINST PRISONERS: A recent case
considered a Louisiana inmate who "was shackled and then punched and
kicked by two prison guards while a supervisor looked on." The beating
left the inmate "with a swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked
dental plate." The Court ruled the inmate's treatment violated the
Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, but
Scalia and Thomas dissented, arguing "the Eighth Amendment was not
violated by the 'insignificant' harm the inmate suffered." In another
case last year, Scalia and Thomas dissented from a 6-3 decision to ban
the Alabama practice of chaining prisoners to outdoor ''hitching
posts'' and abandoning them for hours without food, water, or a chance
to use the bathroom. [Hudson v. McMillan, 1992; Hope v. Pelzer, 2002]

SCALIA AND THOMAS SUPPORT CRIMINALIZING CONSENSUAL SEX: Scalia and
Thomas dissented from the Court's 6-3 decision to strike down a Texas
state "sodomy" law, "banning private consensual sex between adults of
the same sex" and approvingly cited the execution of homosexuals
during colonial times. Scalia lashed into the decision for pandering
to the "so-called homosexual agenda." [Lawrence v. Texas, 2003]

SCALIA AND THOMAS OPPOSE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF
POLLUTERS: Scalia and Thomas voted to strip the EPA "of the authority
to prevent damaging air pollution by industries when state agencies
improperly fail to do so." They dissented from the Court's decision
that the EPA could make polluting companies use the "best available
control technology" to limit pollution when they built new facilities.
[Alaska v. EPA, 2004]

SCALIA AND THOMAS WOULD ALLOW STATES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE
DISABLED: After a Tennessee man was arrested for failure to appear in
court because he was unwilling to crawl or be carried up the stairs to
his second-story courtroom, Scalia and Thomas argued the state was
right to arrest him because the Americans with Disabilities Act could
only be enforced at the federal level. [Tennessee v. Lane, 2004]

� Center for American Progress
1333 H Street, NW
10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-682-1611