THIS SUPREME COURT LEAVES BAD PRECEDENT

When the legacy of George W. Bush is measured by future generations,
Iraq in all its dimensions may well be the key factor in labeling him
one of our most misguided presidents. Historians may concentrate on
his administration's usurpation of authority and disdain for the U.S.
Constitution's balance of powers between the three branches of the
government.

Yet no effect will probably be more lasting than Bush's appointments
of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

Much has been written about the Supreme Court's turn-around decisions
this term on school desegregation, late-term abortion and campaign
financing. The pattern that struck me as the most frightening is the
court's failure to honor individual rights and access to the courts --
a trend Delawareans had already seen when Alito served as a judge on
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

He was the only one of 12 judges to favor the DuPont Co. over the head
captain in the Hotel DuPont's Green Room, who sued under the Civil
Rights Act because she was squeezed out of her job after she complained.

Barbara Sheridan won a jury verdict and eventually a cash settlement.
But Alito's lone-wolf dissent in 1995 resounded in his Supreme Court
confirmation hearings a decade later. The test Alito wanted to apply
to prove discrimination would almost have precluded anyone's being
able to sue and win.

Alito used the same specious reasoning this term in his Supreme Court
opinion throwing out the lawsuit of a female supervisor at an Alabama
tire factory who for years was paid less than her male counterparts.
The court ruled 5-4 she should have filed her complaint 180 days after
her paycheck was drawn, not when she discovered the discrepancy, even
though salaries were a closely held secret at the company. Alito and
the court overturned decades of contrary decisions by the courts and
federal agencies in favor of workers.

Alito was also part of the 5-4 majority in an even more egregious case
of the court's stepping on individual rights. An Ohio prisoner
convicted of murder filed an appeal by the deadline set by a federal
judge, who had misstated the date. The appeal came a few days after
the deadline in federal statutes. The judge was wrong, but Justice
Clarence Thomas wrote, in effect, that's just too bad and the inmate
is out of luck as the court reversed previous allowances for "unique
circumstances."

Another instance of citizens being denied their rights involved the
Alaska high school student who held up a sign at a parade reading,
"Bong Hits for Jesus." He was not on school grounds. No one could
interpret what he meant. Yet the court ruled again 5-4 that his First
Amendment protection of free speech did not apply, that the school
could discipline him because he might have been advocating the illegal
use of drugs.

Other Supreme Court decisions questioned who really has standing even
to be allowed to bring cases into federal court.

Sen. Joseph Biden, who closely questioned Alito during confirmation
hearings and voted against him (as did Sen. Thomas Carper) recently
wrote in the Miami Herald, "The court's newest members are rewriting
the Constitution according to their vision and remaking the court -
long a protector of human dignity and liberty, a tribunal before which
David and Goliath stand on equal footing - in their image. They've
already turned the court upside down - and this is only their first
term."

Last week at an Iowa barbecue Biden called Bush "brain-dead." In 18
months this country will be rid of Bush, Vice President Cheney and
their acolytes. Yet no matter who is sworn in in 2009, this country
will suffer for decades under the mean-spirited, anti-individual
philosophy of this Supreme Court.