Alito’s Open Mind
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Abortion, Supreme CourtOn the topic of abortion, Alito has skillfully addressed critic’s concerns. I still think it’s going to be a party line vote because nobody on the Dem side wants to take a chance with this guy,
Personally, he still concerns me. Having an open mind is not the same as respecting precedent and everybody knows it. I trusted Roberts. I don’t trust Alito.
More from ABC News:
Court nominee Samuel Alito said Tuesday he would deal with the issue of abortion with an open mind as a justice, though he defended his 1991 judicial vote saying women seeking abortions must notify their husbands.In the second day of Senate hearings, Alito also said no president or court is above the law even in time of war as he addressed questions on presidential powers. The federal judge also faced tough questions about his decisions during 15 years on an appeals court and about his writings on wiretaps.
President Bush’s choice for the high court said his Reagan-era writings opposing abortion reflected an attorney representing a client’s interests and, if confirmed and faced with an abortion case, “I would approach the question with an open mind.”
And yes, the Casey case still bothers me quite a bit. As painful as it is for some men, respecting a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body is far more important than notifying the father. I’ve written more about this case and others here, here and here.
By the way, I understand that some of you think there are more things to judge a SCOTUS nominee on besides Roe v. Wade, and I don’t disagree. However, every single potential justice, since that landmark decision was handed down, has been subject to this litmus test, so can we stop debating that this is THE most important issue facing the court since there’s decades upon decades of historical precedent to suggest it is THE most important issue?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 10th, 2006 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.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
That is only true if you view a fetus as equivalent to a gall bladder. If you view the fetus as being more than just tissue inside the mother, then it makes perfect sense that the father should be notified of an abortion. The fetus might not be IN his body, but it is certainly OF his body.
Much of the abortion debate hinges on perceptions of the fetus. Whether you believe a fetus to be just a collection of cells or whether you believe a fetus to be an individual human being greatly affects what arguments seem reasonable and what arguments seem ridiculous.
Add 30 years of anger to the inherrent disconnect of perception between the two sides, and it’s no wonder that very few people even discuss the constitutional merits of Roe v. Wade.
When Alito says he’ll have an open mind, I assume he means an open mind towards the constitutional merits of the case. We can already be sure that he is personally pro-life and it is highly unlikely that he would suddenly stop viewing the fetus as a full human being. Yet I am skeptical that he would approach the case with an honestly open mind. After all, it doesn’t take a mental acrobat to poke a lot of holes in Roe v. Wade. I doubt Alito would much resist, if he truly is pro-life.
January 10th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
I disagree Alan. I look at the fetus as being more than just tissue, but the mother has to carry the child to term. That’s her body. I understand that part of it is of the father’s body too, but this is one of those cases where we can’t go back. And by the way, laws like these are made for the 1%. I understand the arguments against, but if you create a way for a man to even hold the slightest dominion over a woman’s body, their civil rights aren’t equal to those of the man’s.
I agree, and this is what troubles me. I believe that Scalia said something similar and so did Thomas. And frankly, I don’t even really know what he means by having an open mind. That just sounds like code for “Well, I won’t overturn it RIGHT away.”
January 11th, 2006 at 12:11 am
Justin — Have you accidentally ingested some toxin that has hurdled you into the fringes of pro-death ideological retardation? Please man, get a grip.
You write:
“I disagree Alan. I look at the fetus as being more than just tissue, but the mother has to carry the child to term. That’s her body. I understand that part of it is of the father’s body too, but this is one of those cases where we can’t go back. And by the way, laws like these are made for the 1%. I understand the arguments against, but if you create a way for a man to even hold the slightest dominion over a woman’s body, their civil rights aren’t equal to those of the man’s.”
Okay, I said that bullshit once when I was trying to get laid by this hippie chick in Lawrence, Kansas. No seriously, almost verbatim - and lets just say I had more than the “slightest dominion over a woman’s body” and it was a full on exercise of both our “civil rights.”
I digress, Alan — many normal people chose not to participate in the femi-Nazi paranoia that Justin is showcasing — these normal people tend understand that marriage is mutual submission and sacrifice for the creation and well-being of a family. This “dominionâ€Â? (apparently created by notification, let alone consent) is a farce.
Justin, this where secular humanism ultimately leaves one — rambling on about “dominions” in the context of marriage. Please, go to fucking church.
January 11th, 2006 at 12:28 am
Jeezus…I’d respond to these points, but there really isn’t anything to respond to except mean-spirited salvos.
Listen DP, let me just reiterate that commenting on this site is a privilege, not a right. And if you can’t discuss the issues with a sense of dignity and respect, then go somewhere else. Just because this is a blog doesn’t mean you can treat people like this.
Amazing…
January 11th, 2006 at 1:50 am
Reason No. 671 for overturning Roe and removing abortion from the arena of constitutional protection & debate: It makes people lose their sence of humor.
I apologize Justin if I offended you. It wasn’t my intent. In my past comments, equally as obnoxious & offensive, you haven’t seemed to be easily offended. I’ll be more careful in the future.
Please don’t ban me from Donklephant. It is my favorite blog to comment on & I even voted for it for best blog of the year.
January 16th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
An open mind means that he has not decided that abortion is legal or illegal in all cases. Does anyone think that abortion is legal or illegal in all cases?
July 29th, 2006 at 5:52 am
I think abortion should be stopped totally by the govt. and exceptions should be made in certain cases such in cases where the life of the mother is in peril, etc.