Alito’s Abortion Stance Revealed
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Abortion, Supreme CourtWell, it’s official. Alito is strongly against abortion and its legality.
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, wrote that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion” in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.“I personally believe very strongly” in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.
The document, which is likely to inflame liberals who oppose Judge Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, is among many that the White House will release today from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
This changes everything. Why? Because a strong majority of the US population does’t want a justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade, according to a recent Gallup poll. Here are the numbers.
–“If it becomes clear Alito would vote to reverse the abortion ruling Roe v. Wade, Americans would not want the Senate to confirm him, by 53% to 37%.â€Â?–“If most Senate Democrats oppose the nomination and decide to filibuster against Alito, 50% of Americans believe they would be justified, while 40% say they would not.â€Â?
Now, does this mean he’ll overturn it? None of us know that. But…can we take the chance?
Listen, many voters last election were one-issue voters. They felt the War on Terrorism was too important to leave in Kerry’s hands, and that’s completely fine. I’ve accepted that and moved on. But given those opinions on terror, I think it’s understandable why many people are one-issue voters when it comes to Supreme Court justices. Maintaining Roe v. Wade is vital and if I feel that there’s even an off chance that this guy could swing it, it’s worth debating about whether or not he should have lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.
This entry was posted on Monday, November 14th, 2005 and is filed under Abortion, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 14th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Justin,
If Roe v. Wade is a constitutionally sound ruling, then why all the angst?
November 14th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
The real question is, is Alito able to be impartial to Roe, not whether it is constitutionally sound. Being that he could not recuse himself from cases where there is a clear conflict of interest, my guess is we will never know.
November 14th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
The fundamental issue in choosing a Supreme Court Justice should be his/her caliber of constitutional law interpretation and has to transcend any one particular issue.
Any Supreme Court ruling, including Roe v. Wade, will stand if there is a sound foundation in its merits within the scope of constitutional law.
November 14th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
“If Roe v. Wade is a constitutionally sound ruling, then why all the angst?”
Denise,
That’s a great point. Why would it matter if Alito, or even a majority of the Supreme Court, feels that the Constitution does not protect the right to abortion? We all know that as soon as someone becomes a Supreme Court Justice, they cast their own legal analysis aside. Once on the bench, they are able to see what the objectively, metaphysically “correct” decision is, and then cast their own vote accordingly.
November 14th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
That’s just not the case though, if that were true then all decisions would be 9-0. Most definitely, it does matter what his opinion is regarding key issues like Roe, and trust me that’s not the only thing that people are starting to take issue with Alito. It’s just convenient that Alito holds the same position as those who back him. Meanwhile when Meirs was up, the administration made every effort to reinforce that she was on the conservatives side regarding this One Particular Issue.
November 14th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
Because people’s interpretations of what is constiutionally sound and what is not are extremely different. And here we get the first evidence that Alito thinks Roe v Wade is not legal, meaning unconstitutional. No matters what he says about respecting decisions that have been affirmed time and time again, if that case comes back up he would essentially have to disagree with his own feelings about the legality of the ruling, and judges VERY rarely ever do that.
And in the end it’s really about the government holding dominion over a woman’s body, which I think should always be avoided.
So yes, it’s about much more than Alito’s opinion about constitutionality, and I think you know that Denise, right? And let’s be honest, what is “constitutional” is a black or white, yes or no issue. The right knows this so they’ve couched the argument in this veil lof constitutionality. Well, if a hardline conservative President is going to appoint somebody, it’s not hard to guess (and find evidence of) which view of constitutionality that justice is going to have.
November 14th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
“Veil of constitutionality”? If the job of a Supreme Court justice is not to interpret what the constitution says, then what, pray tell, is it?
I mean, the idea that the Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the constitution hardly is a political ploy by the right, is it? Or else what does that say about the left?
I don’t see the big deal about this article. He’s right, strictly speaking the Constitution does not give anyone a right to an abortion. But plenty of people who can read and can acknowledge that, and who think that Roe v. Wade was bad jurisprudence, accept it now as a settled fact of American culture and would rather move forward than back.
We just wish they had done it properly, by constitutional amendment, which would have avoided the current stupidity, whereby the next person entrusted with the entire complexity of the laws of a great nation ruled by laws is going to be chosen, as Jane Galt’s site put it, simply to keep his hand on the abortion toggle-switch.
November 14th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Nitpick: the originator of the Abortion Toggle Switch was not the esteemed Jane Galt, but rather the very amusing albeit stalwartly conservative Glen Wishard.
November 14th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
Thanks, Paul. If I had a payroll, I’d put you on it, lol.
November 14th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
“Alito thinks Roe v Wade is not legal, meaning unconstitutional.”
I’ve read this sentence several times trying to figure it out. But in fact, to the extent that Roe has already been overturned by Casey, then Alito is absolutely correct and he has been constiutionally vindicated.
Abortion does not become de facto illegal if Roe v. Wade is overturned. It just gives states more rights to regulate or prohibit the activity within their borders, God forbid.
Ask most Americans if overturning Roe v. Wade would make all abortions, everywhere in the United States illegal and they will probably answer “yes.” They are, of course, wrong.
“And in the end it’s really about the government holding dominion over a woman’s body, which I think should always be avoided.” Do you feel the same way about crack cocaine being illegal, prostitution, suicide, speed limits, cloning…
November 15th, 2005 at 9:24 am
No, just in the red states…
Don’t be obtuse. You know what I’m talking about.
August 7th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Good job.
August 27th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
What I find most disgusting is how some people fiercely defend the “right to abortion” for late term abortions merely on the slippery slope notion that “Once late term abortions go, then it will be mid-term abortions, and then ultimately abortions altogether will go.”
The problem with that is that late-term abortions are qualitatively different from early-term abortions. Early term abortions involve a vacuum and there’s not a whole lot there to get worked up over. However, a late-term abortion actually involves yanking out the baby and killing it by snapping its neck or strangling it or whatever else kills babies.
Late-term abortions are so vile and violent that folks who support such an atrocity to protect early-term abortions are: A) are not able to understand differences and importances and think they are honestly helping or B) just plain sick.
I say that if a woman suddenly finds herself 7 months pregnant with no recolection of being pregnant for the previous 7 months, she must have the baby. She can then choose to give it up to parents that want the baby, or she can keep it. But beyond 7 months, killing the baby isn’t an option.
Personally, I wouldn’t mind mid-term abortions banned also as there are babies who doctors can save within that range.
However, abortion within the first 3 months - just after the woman realizes she’s pregnant, makes the decision to abort, scrapes money together for the abortion, and does the abortion - should probably remain untouched.
Some people will be upset about this stance, but that’s fine. A woman may be master of her body, but not when her irresponsibility tramples on the rights of others. If she wants the right to abort, she better already have her decisions planned out and ready to execute.
And, as with anything, if you aren’t prepared for the consequences of a given action, you better get prepared. Likewise, if a woman isn’t prepared for the consequences of sex, she better get prepared. Plan out what she wants. Plan contingencies and be prepared to execute them. That’s really not too much to ask when the lives of innocent babies are involved. Waiting for a month and a half to go by to start dealing with issues of “Should I have it or should I abort it” is far too late to begin the thought process on this. These things should be worked out before one gets into such a situation and enters the arena where these things may occur.
And I’m not throwing this all on women. Men share responsibility in this too. It takes two to tango, as they say. And when two people screw up and make a baby they don’t want, they need to take responsibility and properly take care of it without trampling on the baby’s rights.