Skip

Alito's Roe v. Wade comments
December 23, 2005 7:22 AM   Subscribe

NewsFilter: Supreme Court nominee Alito advocated overturning Roe v. Wade in 1985 DOJ Memo. The National Archives have just released a new collection of records pertaining to Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. One document in particular (pdf) will likely draw considerable fire during his nomination hearings.
posted by justkevin (22 comments total)

 
Well this should do a good job of getting people to forget about Iraq, domestic spying, and a host of other problems, all while making the President look even better to the fundamentalists.

*sigh*

This whole thing bothers me to no end, because it's so utterly pointless. There's no effective method to ban abortion in the middle and upper-classes. The only question is whether or not abortion will be safe and legal for the poor.

It's just a cynical ploy by a party that doesn't believe it can win on the merit of its ideas.
posted by I Love Tacos at 7:34 AM on December 23, 2005


The argument will be that the term "we" as in "we disagree with Roe v. Wade" means the government, not Mr. Alito, that he was again writing on behalf of someone else and this statement is not necessarily an indication of his personal viewpoint. This argument, will of course, be utter shite. If Alito goes down, it may very well be because of Roe, but the Senators will say it is something else, like viewpoints over spying on US citizens. (By the way, what took this story so long to make it to the blue, it has been around for hours?)
posted by caddis at 7:52 AM on December 23, 2005


Republicans love activist judges.
posted by bardic at 7:56 AM on December 23, 2005


I'm sure this will create controversy, but Roberts had the same issue and it didn't derail his nomination.

In any event, Roe should remain relatively intact for now, unless another justice who supports the decision retires soon.
posted by brain_drain at 7:57 AM on December 23, 2005


Oh, fuck, let them overturn Roe.

Please.

It's a bad decision. And if it's overturned, it'll destroy the Republican Party, as it splits between the rational Republicans and the fundies.
posted by orthogonality at 8:04 AM on December 23, 2005


The argument will be that the term "we" as in "we disagree with Roe v. Wade" means the government, not Mr. Alito, that he was again writing on behalf of someone else and this statement is not necessarily an indication of his personal viewpoint.

True-- but his personal opinion on abortion is less important to his nomination than his legal opinion concerning Roe v. Wade as precedent. Justice Roberts was given a clear green light in part because he characterized Roe v. Wade as settled law during his confirmation. This document suggests Alito believes otherwise.

(By the way, what took this story so long to make it to the blue, it has been around for hours?)


I didn't post it until I found the cited document and gave it a quick read. I don't know why no one beat me to it. Maybe the holidays?
posted by justkevin at 8:07 AM on December 23, 2005


I can see the spin already, "This isn't my opinion, just the opinion of the Reagan Administration", yada yada yada.

Let's put the blame where it belongs...on the ignorant population. Examine this poll on Polling Report: 54% of Americans want Alito confirmed, but 61% of Americans want him to uphold Roe v. Wade. The logical problem? Either respondents don't realize Alito WANTS to overturn Roe v. Wade, they don't understand what Roe v. Wade is, or they don't understand what "to uphold" means.
posted by rzklkng at 8:11 AM on December 23, 2005


So scholars of the federal judiciary, I ask you: will Alito be confirmed? What's the outlook for Sammy as of this moment?
posted by killdevil at 8:13 AM on December 23, 2005


caddis writes "(By the way, what took this story so long to make it to the blue, it has been around for hours?)"


Eh, I saw it but couldn't be arsed. MeFi is too predictable sometimes.

Besides, there are two more interesting stories i wqs thinking of posting, one on leadership among cows, and one on the Ohio Patriot act, which will allow Ohio cops to arrest people without any probable cause of any crime.
posted by orthogonality at 8:13 AM on December 23, 2005


This bodes very badly for Alito, especially given how beleagured the Bush White House is now. Which is fine, I don't want Roe v. Wade overturned even if it, as ortho notes, would shred the Republican party. It would cause tremendous harm and heartache all over the nation and would result in back alley abortions and teenagers dying in hotel rooms from poorly performed procedures.

Alito is, from what I can understand, nearly reptilian.
posted by fenriq at 8:29 AM on December 23, 2005


fenriq writes "would result in back alley abortions and teenagers dying"

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots...."
posted by orthogonality at 8:31 AM on December 23, 2005


"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots babies?...."
posted by odinsdream at 8:41 AM on December 23, 2005


Guy's a right nutter.

The Dems have been pretty in flexing their filibuster muscle lately, witness ANWAR and the Patriot Act expiration (although it was extended for 6 months just recently). I expect to see this guy fail misurably.
posted by delmoi at 8:43 AM on December 23, 2005


It's a bad decision. And if it's overturned, it'll destroy the Republican Party, as it splits between the rational Republicans and the fundies.

Right, because, that's all that matters.
posted by delmoi at 8:44 AM on December 23, 2005


"Oh, fuck, let them overturn Roe.

Please.

It's a bad decision. And if it's overturned, it'll destroy the Republican Party, as it splits between the rational Republicans and the fundies.
posted by orthogonality at 11:04 AM EST on December 23 [!]"

.!
posted by ParisParamus at 8:44 AM on December 23, 2005


PATRIOT is now only extended until February 3. Republican house members needed to look tough at the expense of national security, as is their wont.
posted by bardic at 8:47 AM on December 23, 2005


If you ban abortion, crime will skyrocket.

Eat tacos every day.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:48 AM on December 23, 2005


No matter what happens there's never going to be any way to prevent the moneyed from hopping a flight to Europe to "have the problem taken care of." The decisions will, as always, affect those who can't afford to "vote with their feet."
posted by clevershark at 8:57 AM on December 23, 2005


In his 1985 application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Ed Meese, he said "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" and that he believed very strongly in this legal position.
posted by caddis at 9:06 AM on December 23, 2005


Interesting caddis!
In his 1985 application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Ed Meese, he said "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" and that he believed very strongly in this legal position.
If he tries to walk away from that application, he lied to get the job. Excellent!
posted by rzklkng at 9:40 AM on December 23, 2005


"If you ban abortion, crime will skyrocket."

In roughly 15-18 years, that is. It will only be clear in hindsight, and then of course everyone will have forgotten who did the ban.
posted by zoogleplex at 10:11 AM on December 23, 2005


Let roe be over turned, then we can put more poor in prison.
posted by IronWolve at 2:32 PM on December 23, 2005


« Older Pork! Pork! Pork!   |   You want a War on Christmas? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post