Attacking Alito – Part II
By Denise Best | Related entries in Blogging, In The NewsLooks like we’re in store for some fast and furious mud-slinging as the Alito confirmation hearings are set to begin next week.
The battle over the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. turned personal Wednesday with the announcement of new commercials that sharply escalated liberal attacks on him, moving beyond his legal views to attack his character and credibility instead.
The commercials come less than a week before confirmation hearings begin Monday. Steve Schmidt, a White House spokesman handling the nomination, called the commercials “dishonest” and “a desperation tactic.”
Separately, the American Bar Association on Wednesday rated Judge Alito “well qualified” for the court, its highest rating, as expected. His supporters hailed the rating. Liberal groups said their complaint was his judicial philosophy, not his professional qualifications.
A commercial by one of the liberal groups, MoveOn.org Political Action, depicts Judge Alito as an actor receiving makeup and coaching.
Now, if it weren’t for the fervent fear of Roe v. Wade being overturned, would we really be seeing this degree of making a nomination “personal?”
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 5th, 2006 and is filed under Blogging, In The News. 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.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Probably not, and I’m not excusing these spots, but the latest Harris Interactive poll shows that if Alito were to overturn Roe v. Wade, 69% of the respondents would not be in favor of him being on the SCOTUS. That’s an incredibly high number, and I think it should be taking into consideration.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
if it weren’t for the fervent fear of Roe v. Wade being overturned, would we really be seeing this degree of making a nomination “personal?�
Your point being? Women shouldn’t be worried about having their fundamental rights snatched away by some sleazy right-winger?
Does anything you say ever make sense? I respect Justin, but I’m not sure what you’re doing here, Denise. Your posts are invariably brainless and offensive.
January 5th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Dadahead,
Roe v. Wade needs to stand the test of constitutionality.
The question of whether or not the ruling is valid must rest upon adherence to legal standards, not upon whom happens to be sitting in the Supreme Court chambers.
The concern regarding Alito’s nomination should be determining his ability to interpret and apply constitutional law principles.
The rabidness with which the pro-choice groups have proceeded, as illustrated by the ads that will run against Alito, portray more fear than anything else.
Fear is a weak position from which to seek approval and should not be the prime substantiator for championing a particular ruling.
As to the other portion of your reply …
Please keep in mind that just because an opinion may differ from your own, its worth is not diminshed.
The purpose of posting is to generate discussion, engage debate, and learn from one another’s perspectives.
What do you believe posting should involve?
January 5th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Denise,
I agree that Roe should stand the test of constitutionality. It has for thirty years, how long do we need to keep testing it. And your opinion that Alito will look at it fairly is a little more than ridiculous. There has been a clear attempt by this administration to stack the court with anti abortionists. Do you think that this is in an attempt to keep Roe alive? Furthermore, isn’t it a little silly to think that only the people on the left would dare to discredit an honest and worthy candidate for SCOTUS. Think back to the work of the anti-abortion folks during the Clinton years, although technology allows for much more exchange of ideas, they were out there fervently pushing their cause too. This coming from the point of view that I think Alito should and will get appointed.
January 5th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Denise: All I can really say is that Alito and millions of unborn babies should thank God that organizations like MoveOn.org and hostile abortion-lovers like Dadahead are championing his defeat. You really don’t need friends when you’ve got enemies like these. Go MoveOn, Go. Ask the Prez.
January 5th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
It appears that someone can’t tolerate the opinions of others.
Personally, I find all of the posters and most of the commenters here to be thought provoking…
Sometimes it even causes me to think about things I’d rather just ignore. I may not change my mind, but at least I’ve taken the time to understand their point of view.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Dadahead…come on…really. Denise and I don’t agree on a lot of things. You may not like what she has to say, but this is a place where both sides are welcome. That’s the only way you’re going to bring some honesty to these debates instead of the echo chambers you currently have on both sides.
But yes Denise, I do think you’re being a little disingenious about this whole “constitutionality” thing. The Republicans want Roe v. Wade overturned. Up to 70% of Americans do not. So then, if this is truly a representative democracy, then why are we even having this debate? It seems to me to be a settled issue that a very vocal minority is trying to stir up with passion and money.
I for one think Alito is still a wild card, and I hope he offers something more in the hearings because right now I don’t trust him fully. Roberts I had no problem with, given his record. But Alito…nope.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Denise,
I agree that Roe should have to withstand Consititutional scrutiny. I also agree with the reasoning established in the Roe opinion and the more important decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They are admittidly the product of very smart lawyers that found a way to jam fundamental fairness into the language of the Constitutinon, a document that at its inception was anything but.
Perhaps attacking Roe/Casey in the courts has only proven the falliability of the Constitution and that real resolve for this long, long battle is in this country’s state legislatures, which have the ability to amend the Constitution. Hell, perhaps we should even consider calling a Constitutional Convention to draft an ammendment.
Either way, had the ERA passed in the 70s, I think it is highly unlikely we’d find ourselves at this point today. The Constitution was flawed at its inception, without amendments slavery would still be well-within its language. Constitutional ammendments shouldn’t be approached flippantly as a solution for any and all perplexing political problems, but for long-running seemingly unresolvable battles like this, it’s a logical solution to finally bring our nation’s supreme governing document in line with our evolved society that fully recognizes women’s rights…or does it?.
The reality is that this is a case where the tyranny of the majority, and the majority’s legally-unsound, but religiously-charged arguments against abortion would never allow it. This is very much an area where minority rights need protection. When it comes to fundamental rights and fairness it doesn’t matter if 99% of the country support it or 1%. When we listen to the majority in this county we sometimes end up with color-coded drinking fountatins.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Denise,
I agree that Roe should have to withstand Consititutional scrutiny. I suppose the pro-choice attacks on Alito are indeed out of fear, the fear that someone may get on the court who uses the inherent flaws in the Constitution to promote an agenda of denying rights to American citizens.
Perhaps attacking Roe/Casey in the courts has only proven the falliability of the Constitution and that real resolve for this long, long battle is in this country’s state legislatures, which have the ability to amend the Constitution to bring it in-line with prevailing social views toward women , ehich have evolved a little since 1776.
This is very much an area where minority rights need protection. When it comes to fundamental rights and fairness it doesn’t matter if 99% of the country support it or 1%. When we listen to the majority in this county we sometimes end up with color-coded drinking fountatins.
If the right re-thought this, I’d think they’d realize they should be praying FOR activist judges. To overturn 30 years of S.Ct. precedent would truly be activism not seen since the Warren Court in Brown. Of course, that was a case of the court enforcing what the Constitution was amended to say after the Civil War. Maybe like desegregation we should amend the Constitutino and pray that 90 years later someone notices.
January 5th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Meghan,
Great perspective in your reply and a number of good points presented in regards to the fallibilties that may be inherent in the Constitution.
We need to keep in mind though that the logic imbued in the Constituion’s constructs is a far more sturdy base upon which to determine the role of government in these areas than the tactics used by organizations such as Move On.org.
January 5th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Abortion is a tricky issue and I don’t claim to be as well versed in all the legal theory as some of the other posters, but what’s the harm if RvW is overturned? The issue will go back to where it belongs: the Congress and the States.
If people are so adamant that a woman should have the right to abort a baby, amend the constitution so it specifically grants it.
January 5th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Justin,
One of my concerns regarding the handling of the Alito nomination to date is the almost exclusive attention being applied to the question …
“Will he vote to reverse Roe v. Wade?”
There’s a lot more at stake with the Court’s rulings than just Roe v. Wade and the emphasis needs to be upon the nominee’s ability to handle constitutional law issues and interpretations overall – not upon one question alone.
Doesn’t it concern you that with such an inordinate amount of attention and pressure upon this one issue that other, more fundamental concerns, will not receive the treatment deserved?
January 5th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Denise, ask the American public any other question and see if they respond so strongly.
Sorry, but it IS about that.
January 6th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Justin writes: “Up to 70% of Americans do not. So then, if this is truly a representative democracy, then why are we even having this debate?”
I’m fairly certain that this “constitutionality-by-polling” isn’t the way to go and was a far cry from what the founders envisioned. In fact, such a philosophy would have resulted in no desegregation of the schools, school prayers, creationism taught in public schools – liberal horror of horrors!!!
Overturning Roe v. Wade won’t get rid of abortion (unfortunately), only in Utah. It is the Supreme Courts job to completely ignore democracy — that is the politicians’ field, not judges.
January 6th, 2006 at 11:29 am
One important thing to keep in mind about the Harris poll is the difference between outlawing abortion and overturning Roe v. Wade. The question was:
“If you thought that Judge Alito, if confirmed, would vote to make abortions illegal, would you favor or oppose his confirmation?”
The question was not “If you thought that Judge Alito, if confirmed, would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, would you favor or oppose his confirmation?”
I would oppose Alito if I thought he’d outlaw abortion, but I have no problem with overturning Roe v. Wade. So, although I don’t support Roe v. Wade, I would have been one of those 68% who said they would oppose Alito if he were to outlaw abortion.
January 6th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Brian,
isn’t that a given that if Roe does get overturned, that in some communities Abortion will be made illegal? Hell, the Christian Right managed to get Intelligent Design through in some communities.