Washington Times: Alito rejected abortion as a right

[tritsofme]

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.

In direct, unambiguous language, the young career lawyer who served as assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee, demonstrated his conservative bona fides as he sought to become a political appointee in the Reagan administration.

"I am and always have been a conservative," he wrote in an attachment to the noncareer appointment form that he sent to the Presidential Personnel Office. "I am a lifelong registered Republican."

<SNIP>
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051114-015136-2101r.htm

This guy is a nutjob.

[thefloyd]

1. Hmmmm

Funny how Bushco has become cooperative on the Alito front. Looks very Rovian

[CityDem]

2. Filibuster anyone?

I am sure Alito will claim he was touting his convervative positions in order to secure a job in the Reagan administration. If the dems in the senate buy this, we are all screwed.

[Democat]

7. Even if they don't buy it, will they be willing to stand up and fight?

They havn't shown much willingness so far. Look how easily Roberts got in and look how nice they've been about Alito so far.

The current elected Democrats are too weak to be effective.

[Spinzonner]

8. SO he will say whatever is necessary to get a position he wants ?

Then what's changed ?

[Jim__]

14. If he lied on his application, that's sufficient to disqualify him.

This was one of the problems Bork had. In his writings, he was against things like Civil Rights. Bork claimed that he had since changed his mind and now believed in Civil Rights law.

But, if Alito doesn't want to stand by his previous statement; he has to say he changed his mind. To me, that means he's a little slow to understand things and can only see the implications of a decision after it's been implemented. In short, his mind is not quick enough to qualify him for the Supreme Court.

[TahitiNut]

31. Absolutely.

I'd have a VERY difficult time supporting any politician who doesn't pull out ALL the stops to block Alito's confirmation.

Filibuster -> Nuclear Option -> Shut Down Congress

If that's what it takes, so be it.

[Erika]

3. Does Alioto recommend 100 lashes on the backs of women

as their punishment against theocratic government rules if they choose abortion?

Why doesn't the GOP Radicals just come out and say women are chattel?

[DaveColorado]

4. Pat Robertson and Dobson got what they wanted

[norml]

5. They'll do anything to distract from the charges they're facing

even torpedo their own nominee.

I guess firing their base and changing the subject is more important.

[Democat]

6. He is the worst kind of activist judge and he has a political agenda

This judge works for the Republican party and will rule for them when asked to. He is an activist with an agenda.

Democrats must filibuster after educating the public about his extremism.

Democrats are being too nice and they are acting like they've learned nothing from the 2004 election.

[enough]

9. kick

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. Does anyone else think it's interesting that the Wash Times is...

...writing this article? Questions:

1. Are they trying to reinforce and solidify the support of the Fundie RWers?

...or....

2. Are they trying to undercut support for Alito by reinforcing and solidifying his growing opposition?

[Catfight]

11. It's not 'inflaming' liberals, it inflames ANYONE that had a generation

before us fight and die for women's rights. There was a REASON women wanted SAFE LEGAL means to terminate a pregnancy, because women DESERVE to be in charge of their own bodies! Bush drew the line in the sand on this Alito and we will unite as HUMANS against OPPRESSION of white male dominance, Alito and the war are both bad bush policy.
Women will not sit in the back of the bus or have back ally pregnancy terminations.

[hippiechick]

12. RIGHT TO PRIVACY, people

That's what the original Roe argument was - it wasn't about the issue of abortion itself.

We have to hit them on ... if Roe is overturned, it will mean that Gov't can make ANY medical decisions for you (Terry Schiavo anyon ?)... and to make the wingers quake, when an extremely liberal "left wing" Administration is in office, they will legislate certain types of medical care for everyone.

They have to be able to see how such a decision will come back to bite them in the ass, down the road.

[Ontheinternets]

13. Kick

[MarkTwain]

15. HEY BIDEN!... Senator Asshole from MBNA....

.... if THIS doesn't give you reason to now AT LEAST consider a filibuster, then as we have seen you have not frequently just traveled to the dark side - you have now taken full and complete deed to part of its real estate.

Key-Rist. If this doesn't stop this nomination, then nothing will, friends.

[MarkTwain]

16. HAH! this is being covered all over the MSM...

... this morning, including the right leaning ABC Radio Network.

A tag on the report is paraphrased as: " A leading Republican is saying that Alito's views from 20 years ago should not be construed as to how he will vote today on SCOTUS. "

Ahhhh, I just love the smell of bullshit in the morning.

[0007]

17. Alito stand on women's rights inflames this person to the bending end.

I've had it, if they confirm this screwball.

[depakid]

18. The Dems punt on this one at their peril

This guy's already been proven to be unethical by ruling on an appellate case he had a financial interest in.

If they roll over given that evidence (which ought to disqualify ANYONE) then they pretty well throw away a HUGE chance to nationalize the election over corruption- in addition to extremism.

Not only that, but they further alienate their base- and discourage those who are on the voting/non-voting cusp from thinking it's worthwhile to get involved.

Bottom line- they blow this one- if the "leadership" can't get everyone in line and put their ducks in a row, they deserve to stay a minority party.

[Hyernel]

19. I would agree...

As a Constitutional matter, abortion would not be considered a "Right' on par with other fundamental Rights enumerated in the Constitution.

But I would, however, consider that Privacy is a protected Right, as well as the closely related: Choice.

Abortion isn't a right....it's just legal...because free Americans have the Constitutionally protected right to self-determination and protected Privacy.

Hyernel

[purduejake]

20. The article uses the term "abortion proponents."

Damn liberal media.

[Megahurtz]

21. Get him OUT! n/t

[Spathi]

22. fillibuster

Ya before we wouldn't have fillibustered, but now we must!

[Spathi]

23. Chief Justice Roberts real views

WHEN ALITO IS SWORN IN, CAN I START REFERRING TO THE SUPREME COURT AS THE "NATIONAL REVIEW" COURT?
From the Washington Times, quoting Alito:
"When I first became interested in government and politics during the 1960s, the greatest influences on my views were the writings of William F. Buckley Jr., the National Review, and Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign," he said.
This, you may recall, appeared in an August WT piece on John Roberts, now chief justice:
To prepare Mr. Smith for a speech before conservative groups, Judge Roberts said in a Feb. 16, 1982, memo that he reviewed all the issues of National Review, Conservative Digest and Human Events since Mr. Reagan's inauguration -- as well as policy papers put out by the Heritage Foundation "and sundry other tracts."
At NR's 50th anniversary dinner, it was revealed (I believe for the first time publicly) that the cool, discerning Chief Roberts is a long-time NR subscriber.
--------------------------------------------------

This was revealed in the national review's corner. It appears the new chief justice is much more conservative than he had seemed when he tricked all the democrats into voting for him. If Alito us confirmed that means we'll now have four originalists on the court. This will be the ultimate victory for the right wing.

We must fillibuster

[Norquist Nemesis]

24. Who ever claimed a "Right to an Abortion"???

Well, they can't say this guy is not an ideologue anymore! He's not arguing an error in the SC decision founded in a right to privacy. He just cuts to the chase!

It's about a right to privacy which allows a woman to choose.

[Spathi]

25. go

ya that article was about the chief. The article this morning though in the Wash Times on Alito though let's us see his true views on abortion and affirmative action.

[Spathi]

26. here we go

I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government argued that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," he said.

[EndElectoral]

27. Interesting quote below by Alito

"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government argued that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," he said.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. Alito looks worse day by day (doctrinaire, reversed, conflict of interest)

[Spathi]

29. fillibuster is a no-brainer with Alito

Well we know where Alito stands completely now. I thought he was more of a mainstream conservative, but after the release of those memos in the Washington Times it's clear he's closer to the Preyer & JRB mold. The memos released from the Reagan library were for a job application. It showed he was a life-long republican who gave money to many campaigns. It showed he was very strongly opposed to the LEGAL, not personal, view that abortion and affirmative action should be legal. I'm not like some here who say this is the most extreme candidate- he simply is not. But he is on the far right, and deserves to be filibustered. If he is allowed on the court the Stare Decisis that has upheld so many of the Warren courts decisions will be overturned. Once they are overturned there is no going back, and we will be forced to use the constitution to make law. This is very bad because many of the decisions that were made were somewhat activists however, they are very important to our civil rights and a woman’s right to choose and need to be upheld. A filibuster is a no-brainer here.

[MissMarple]

33. It certainly looks like he is a partisan ideologue.

The Republicans must ask themselves that if (when) the party's focus shifts will they be stuck with him or will he just change his spots?

And there is no way the dominionists and Christian reconstructionists like James Dobson, Richard Land, and James Kennedy would support this guy's nomination if he wasn't firmly in their corner.

[PATRICK]

30. They want to play off

Dems as pro-abortion going into 2006 in a righteous futile attempt to block Alito. They win either way, preferably both ways.

Already, irrespective of any position on Alito they are going after the abortion issue. Tempting for the Dems to bow to the knife, let the GOP have Alito and quickly get rid of abortion(if they do!) and reverse the advantage in their favor(which is never an automatic in the Unfree Press). It will be part of along long period of being able to point fingers at entrenched GOP appointees for reasons for not getting things done perfectly, and in their wishful dreams, a constant thorn in the GOP side until they dwindle into a distinct legislative minority. A long term, grueling, painfully unjust and uncertain strategy that could be another "win" part of the GOP strategy. Any surrender to a lie is.

Blocked from reframing the issues. Scoring points remembered by GOP spin.
No power to stop the votes except possible delay. Ranks can be broken more easily in our party. More acceptable GOP candidates will keep getting nominated with the same judicial results but much more appearance of legitimacy and approval by the Dems and the people. The blunt "No Bush judges" would be one course, but nothing has been built into the illegitimacy and record of Bush on any issue yet to ally this approach as a consistent stand. Trying to find something besides abortion is pre-empted by Bush's strategy of directly, now, making it an issue. So much that no one is even looking at possible crony status, though this has to be dynastic disappointment to the Bush team. They may even have to sweat a bit during the next SCOTUS favor deliberation.


Yes this is a tough one, but one that should not merely be met with a shrug and submission to surrendering the right to choose and the right to privacy and all the horrendous law changes people are not aware of. This is the price one pays for choosing the wrong general attitude and submitting to Bush legitimacy on too too many things right from a fraudulent election. As usual, in order for the party not to pay the price, lives and rights and the nation bleed away.

Well, if we are so smart and right what to do? Dig. Make clear and unbending demands of the process and not merely dream up clever questions for a Bush rope a doper. Ideological judges unbending to the majority on issues or unresponsive to confirmation process can legitimately, no, necessarily, be met with automatic partisan rejection to educate the public that this is a fair or balanced addition to the court. The quality of all Bush appointees can legitimately, by now, be called into question. Those that were rejected and those with horrid performance who do not represent the general quality of either wing or party or the talent pool. It could be protest vote or shutting down selectively of cooperation with non-lethal branches of legislation or all appointments not vital to the maintenance of the public welfare. Hard to come up with wider ideas when the front lines are abandoned. I imagine some of them I listed are pretty bad.

[populistdriven]

32. If the Dems fight and The Repukes win it is a HUGE win for Dems in 06

The public will view by huge margins that the Repukes have waaay too much power and control.

Now the question is: is trading RvW for an Impeachment of * worth it?

Plus every local State race will be a RvW race. That is a race Dems will win.

It is not a choice we will ever face but an interesting one to consider.

[DanCa]

34. Does this really surprise anyone?

That why the conservatives choose him to go on the bench for Dubya.
I just wish the slow bleed over the pro lifer bull crap would stop. It's really stressful and not good for the country.

[autorank]

35. Talk about the "welfare state"...welfare for lawyers.

" Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Lila Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund, the McKnight Foundation,"--this is the trifecta of right wing money.


What's up with this? Do these right wing foundations endorse Scooter's strange fetish.

It's beyond strange, it's down right pornographic!

GREAT POST!

[agnosticjew]

36. Isn't he entitled to an opinion?

He is after all a conservative so why is this such a shock? What did you really expect? "Oh yeah, sure I'm a conservative but the Liberals want me to love abortion so I'm all for it."

There is no constitutional right to abortion, just like there's no constitutional requirement that people have children. People are free to make choices, and some choices have consequences. I think the super-abortion proponents here are more interested in freedom from consequence rather than freedom of choice. We all have that.