Nov 14 2005
Good News On Alito
UPDATE:
Here is the story at Washington Times – and I added some links to pertinent posts at the end.
END UPDATE
Drudge is reporting in a splash headline (no link) on some good news on Alito:
Alito rejected abortion as a right; paper shows personal view… Judge Alito, 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… Developing…
I had my doubts about Alito’s bona fides because of his deference to precedent (and I am still worried he is going to cave on iminent domain) – but this news is the first tangible evidence I have seen he has the kind of perspective conservatives want on the bench.
It seems we will have the abortion showdown. Even if Alito tries to avoid any firm positions during his confirmation hearings, this writing – if it does exist – is going to be used by the left to push the democrats to go all out.
I believe a filibuster threat is now likely given this red flag will be waved in front of the liberals.
What we need more than ever is for those who went over the top on the Miers nomination to start making peace offerings, bribes, whatever it takes to moderates to garner their support. We cannot hold a filibuster off if moderates defect. We have seen what this has wrought on ANWR and budget cutting.
I know people don’t like to hear this, but being against Miers was not the issue I am talking about. Opposing Miers is fine. It was how the opposition was executed that is killing the movement. Things like refering to Bush’s intelligence regarding his selection of Miers is the issue. The personal attacks on Miers, and those not ready to pull the plug on her, left conservatives disunited and not trusting each other. Moderates took the attack as a signal as to what to expect when push comes to shove. And when I say moderates I am talking about the vast majority of conservatives who do not follow the rightwing orthodoxy to the letter. Very few people by into every aspect the conservative agenda. Most agree with the issues, it is the path to a solution where the people diverge. And believing one solution to on-demand abortions is better than another does not make anyone less conservative. But it can end up having people called moderates, RINOS, etc.
This needs to be corrected if we are going to have the battle of half century on abortion. We cannot let the concept of ‘perfect’ or unintentionally bruised feelings be the reason we stumble at this critical moment. We cannot have camps of distrust based on caricatures like RINO. RINO (not Raging RINOs!) can be said with respect or dripping with disdain – it is up to the person using the word how it ends up.
But a vote is a vote, and there is no way to stave off the filibuster with the nuclear option without sufficient votes from ‘moderates’ (which somehow now includes people like John Warner (R-VA), whom I never, ever considered a moderate). Are we going to go into this battle with a solid front based on mutual respect? Or is the insecurity and distrust and high emotion going to end in name calling and division?
Well, being an independent conservative I can only hope Republicans don’t self destruct in wave of self inflicted arcrimony. But if the recent ANWR flub (and I support drilling in ANWR all the way) is any indication, we could be in trouble. When moderate conservatives voice their priorities, using their constitutional given right to be heard, we can work with them to find a path to the goal which includes them. Its not hard. Maybe frustrating, but not hard. Or we can be snide and lose the goal all together. Response to the ANWR flub is bordering on the snide. Which feels good, but accomplishes zilch. It just stiffens the resolve to be in seperate camps sniping at each other.
John McIntyre at RealClearPolitics has this on the possibiliy of a filibuster fiight.
And Polipundit sees the tell tales of the anti-miers debacle, but I am not sure he understands what the root source is.
Captain Ed Morrisey has more on the subject of this news here.
Rarely I have seen a worse and more disingenuous twisting of words than those coming from the Washington Times reporter and headline writer. It is very clear that he did NOT express a personal disagreement with abortion.
To report that he “wrote that ‘the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion’ in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.” and that he “‘personally believe[s] very strongly’ in this legal position,” is technically true, but overall misleading and false.
Only by twisting and spinning and taking the words grossly out of context can one come to the conclusion promoted by the reporter, that Alito himself believes that abortion is a right, and that he believes this personally and strongly.
Not only were such remarks made in an attempt to ingratiate himself to a known pro-lifer and opponent of Roe (also known as ass-kissing), in context, you can see that Alito did not say what the reporter suggests he said. What he actually said was “I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.” That is, he did not say that he, Sam Alito, believes that the Constitution does not protect abortion. Instead, he said that the government has argued that the Constitution does not protect abortion. There is a world of difference between the two.
Similarly, the reporter makes a false impression in selectively taking the “personally believe very strongly” quote and connecting it to the passing abortion comment. He merely says that it was an honor and source of personal satisfaction to help to advance legal positions in which he personally believe very strongly. Nowhere in that statement does he himself connect his strong personal beliefs with abortion, or even what “the government has argued” about abortion.
Indeed, in later comments, Alito clarifies what he, himself believes are his strong beliefs, “‘I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values . . . In the field of law, I disagree strenuously with the usurpation by the judiciary of decision-making authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate,’ he added.”
Abortion is nowhere to be found in this lengthy list of issues of which he himself says he strongly believed in. Moreover, he later says, “In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment.”
This too is a telling quote by the by glaring absence of abortion in that list. The NUMBER ONE Supreme Court case to be handed down when he was in law school was none other than Roe v. Wade!!! And yet, the issue of abortion is not listed here. The only mention of abortion is in the context of the government’s position on abortion, not Alito’s own personal position.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051114-015136-2101r.htm
Alito: On Abortion Explodes the Battle
Bill Sammon’s scoop on the Washington Times fires up the battle – on the Right and on the Left – for the confirmation of Samuel Alito at the Supreme Court. in a 1985 document obtained by the newspaper, Alito wrote that “the Constitution does not prot…
Are you now, or have you ever been, a Conservative?
Filibuster here we come! We’re going to get our fight after all, and when it’s over not only will we have a new Associate Justice but we’ll be rid once and for all of the threat of 41 Senators being
Pro-lifers and conservatives really must stop seeing and hearing things that aren’t there. If folks had just looked at what was actually written, they would clearly see a guy brown-nosing and saying whatever was necessary to get a job.
Alito Downplays 1985 Abortion Statement
“He said first of all it was different then,” she said. “He said, ‘I was an advocate seeking a job, it was a political job and that was 1985. I’m now a judge, I’ve been on the circuit court for 15 years and it’s very different. I’m not an advocate, I don’t give heed to my personal views, what I do is interpret the law.'”
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/alito15.html
[…] Sissy Willis has got caught up in the tide, though she links to a post with a decidedly unchillin’ John McCain…Add the Strata-Sphere to the list: we’re living in historic times, people… […]