« Blue Morning, Blue Day, Won't You See Things My Way? | Main | Unhinged -- Right Here!! »
November 14, 2005
"I Personally Believe..."
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.
Posted by Eric at November 14, 2005 11:22 AM
Comments
let the borking begin.
Posted by: ben Wurtmann at November 14, 2005 12:11 PM
Eric --
You must have missed the WH's very cogent explanation about this non-issue.
Alito wrote those remarks while with the SG in 1985 when applying for a DAAG post. But he didn't get the job, see. He got the job 2 years later.
Moreover, these comments were made six years before he became a federal judge. And in the past 15 years, his record reflects modesty, a deep respect for precedent, and judicial restraint.
So don't you see, Eric, he didn't get the job at the time he applied and he later became an appellate judge who followed Supreme Court case-law.
That means the statements in his 1985 application became inoperative. I-N-O-P-E-R-A-T-I-V-E.
Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket . . . yeah.
Posted by: snead16 at November 14, 2005 6:25 PM
When Judge Alito finds himself pregnant, I will take his views on abortion seriously. Until that miracle occurs, I can only say: yes, abortion is the killing of human life which I consider sacred; I would personally only consider abortion if my life were greatly endangered by the pregnancy or the fetus was grossly deformed with no hope of a meaningful existence; and more to the point, I would never presume to dictate to another woman what her personal decision on abortion should be, and that decision is none of Judge Alito's business.
Anne Russell
Posted by: anne russell at November 15, 2005 11:43 AM
No doubt Ms Russell will agree that we need not respect her views on lynching until such time as she is black.
Posted by: Stuart at November 15, 2005 11:52 AM
Actually, Ms. Randall surely has coherent thoughts about lynching, regardless of her race, unless we are to assume that only Blacks are or were ever lynched. Is Stuart so sure of his implied analogy?
Posted by: Wendall at November 15, 2005 4:07 PM
I worry more about his disagreement with reapportionment.
Does he believe in one person, one vote, or not?
TK
Posted by: Terry Karney at November 15, 2005 4:31 PM
It's even worse than that, Wendell. To be analogous, anti-lynching laws would have to deny an important right to blacks alone. It's true, as you noted, that the opportunity to be mutilated and killed by angry mobs was not unique to blacks, but more importantly, it's not a "right" that anyone would want in the first place.
Posted by: Beth at November 15, 2005 4:51 PM