Alito: The Constitution Does Not Protect a Right to Abortion.

  1. From the Wash Times:

    http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...5136-2101r.htm

    "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. "

    "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.

    This ought to make alot of news on Monday. . .

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 14, '05
    •  
  2. 16 Comments

  3. by   fergus51
    Probably will. I really don't get the need to return to pre Roe days...
  4. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from fergus51
    Probably will. I really don't get the need to return to pre Roe days...
    Because the initial reasoning behind Roe vs. Wade was wrong. Let it go back to the states, where it belongs.

    Ah, but that is another long story.

    steph
  5. by   fergus51
    Quote from stevielynn
    Because the initial reasoning behind Roe vs. Wade was wrong. Let it go back to the states, where it belongs.
    steph
    Nothing personal here, but I don't buy that as the reason for wanting it overturned. People who want Roe overturned don't feel that way because of state's rights, they don't agree with legal abortion. That's the real issue. Oh well, I live in California and I know it isn't going to ever be made illegal here thank God.
  6. by   VivaLasViejas
    Uh-oh, here we go...........

    All I'm going to add to this debate is this: IMO, Roe v. Wade is a lot like Iraq.....we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. However, we did, and now we've got to deal with it as it IS instead of how we wish it was.

    As a very wise man once said, you can wish in one hand and **** in the other.....and see which gets filled first.:stone
  7. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from fergus51
    Nothing personal here, but I don't buy that as the reason for wanting it overturned. People who want Roe overturned don't feel that way because of state's rights, they don't agree with legal abortion. That's the real issue.
    Excellent point. This argument isn't about States Rights in as much as it is about legal abortion.

    I personally think aborion shouldn't be any business of the State.

    But in anycase, Roe V Wade is bad law.

    One fine pickle we are in.
  8. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from mjlrn97

    As a very wise man once said, you can wish in one hand and **** in the other.....and see which gets filled first.:stone

    And who WAS that wise man?????


    steph
  9. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    Excellent point. This argument isn't about States Rights in as much as it is about legal abortion.

    I personally think aborion shouldn't be any business of the State.

    But in anycase, Roe V Wade is bad law.

    One fine pickle we are in.
    One fine pickle indeed . . .. .as Roe vs. Wade is definitely bad law.

    steph
  10. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Actually, I didn't post this for a debate on abortion as much as an observation that, after decades of playing the stealth candidate game, the Senate is about to go through confirmation hearings of a conservative pick w/ a guy whose opinion about roe v. wade is now without doubt.

    It ought to be interesting to hear all the spin.

    Of course, he won't say anything. And they'll be people trying to 'read' tea leaves on all side.

    But I think the concept of a filibuster takes on more life: the pro-choice side cannot sit back and allow him to take the court now, without a serious fight, like they did w/ Roberts. (whether it's a fight they can win or not.)

    It kind of forces the hand.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  11. by   grannynurse FNP student
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    Excellent point. This argument isn't about States Rights in as much as it is about legal abortion.

    I personally think aborion shouldn't be any business of the State.

    But in anycase, Roe V Wade is bad law.

    One fine pickle we are in.

    Question: Why is Roe v Wade a bad law?

    By the way, it is not a law but a case that was eventually heard before the Supreme Court. If you disagree with the Court's findings in this case, then take issue with that. Please do not label a case a law, when it clearly was not.

    Grannynurse
  12. by   Roy Fokker
    Timothy ~ Hmmm, I see what you're saying. What, in your honest opinion, do you think is going to happen?

    Quote from grannynurse FNP student
    Question: Why is Roe v Wade a bad law?

    By the way, it is not a law but a case that was eventually heard before the Supreme Court. If you disagree with the Court's findings in this case, then take issue with that. Please do not label a case a law, when it clearly was not.

    Grannynurse
    Poor choice of words. Mea Culpa

    Justice Blackmun himself worded the decision, said that Roe was based on "the right to privacy" - which is no where in the Constitution. I like privacy - I like it a lot - but it isn't there in the Constitution! Roe was decided as law based on a penumbra of what was in the Constitution, not what was in the Constitution. Hence my disagreement with it.

    Also see Xth Amendment.

    Let me clarrify myself here: It's a good *outcome*, at the expense of bad law. What we have now is a nation so desperate to get what it wants that we are ignoring due process. The Constitution has been twisted just about into meaninglessness, just so we could get our petty outcomes without having to go through that nasty legislative or constitutional amendment process.

    This is where I think laws like Roe and Kelo hurt us the most.

    I also think that Conservatives who look at judicial appointments through the lenses of overturning Roe v. Wade are decieving themselves. While Roe essentially legalized abortion, it also gave the States domain over how it is handled.

    If Roe ever were to be overturned, that would not eradicate abortion, as Conservatives and pro-life groups believe. It would simply revert the decision over legalizing abortion back to the states. While undoubtedly, some states would prohibit abortion, other states would maintain it's legality.

    I say again: I am in favour of over turning Roe. I am NOT in favour of criminalizing abortion.

    I for one, am more concerned with Kelo V. New London.
    Last edit by Roy Fokker on Nov 14, '05
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    Why did Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the other nominees refuse to state their opinion? I know, dumb question! BUT don't we the people have the right to know? We try to guess anyway/

    http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...01-521.ZO.html

    http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1497/


    http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0128-21.htm
    ...In 2002, the Supreme Court, in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, declared that it is not only proper for a judicial candidate to express his views on disputed legal issues - the First Amendment guarantees him the right to do so. In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, and joined by then-Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, the Court concluded that a Minnesota canon of judicial conduct which prohibited a candidate for judicial office from announcing his position on abortion rights and other controversial issues violated his right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
    The Minnesota decision yields three fundamental constitutional principles:
    First, a judicial nominee has a First Amendment right to express his specific legal views on controversial issues even if they are likely to come before him should he be confirmed.

    Second, a necessary corollary of the nominee's right to express his views is the right of the people and their representatives in the Senate to know them. This right entitles the people to know not only a nominee's judicial philosophy or general legal views, but, according to the Court in the Minnesota case, how those views are "exemplified by application to a particular issue of construction likely to come before [the] court - for example, whether a particular statute runs afoul of any provision of the Constitution."

    Third, and most important, in the absence of specific answers to senators' questions about a nominee's views, his confirmation would be a violation of the Constitution's Article II requirement that the Senate exercise its "Advice and Consent" function in an informed manner. This implication from the Court's Minnesota decision, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained in her dissent, is clear: "[B]y the court's reasoning, the reticence of prospective and current federal judicial nominees dishonors Article II, for it deprives the President and the Senate of information that might aid or advance the decision to nominate or confirm."...
  14. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    Why did Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the other nominees refuse to state their opinion? I know, dumb question! BUT don't we the people have the right to know? We try to guess anyway/
    Silly question, just like Alito, everybody knew Ginsberg and Breyer's opinion on abortion and most other issues. The semantics dance of nomination is a political game and that's it.

    But they (Ginsberg and Breyer) got over 85 votes - in a closely divided Senate. Ginsberg got 96 votes and Breyer received 87 votes.

    It's hypocritical for Dems to boldly state (Kerry and Gore both stated their candidates would pass an abortion 'litmus' test) that their candidates always have a litmus test for these issues and then flail like a sheet on a clothesline in a hurricane when the Reps put up someone that obviously passes a litmus test.

    (But as an observation, it's hypocritical but successful. 7 of 9 (Roberts, O'Connor/Alito, Stevens, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Souter) current Cabal members were Rep nominees but 3 of the 7 (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter) failed to live up to expectations because the Rep Presidents that nominated them were trying to win this one sided game about litmus tests.)

    Only Clinton's 2 choices were Dem choices: Ginsberg and Breyer.

    Here's a secret: Alito will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. The sooner the better. The sooner this issue no longer hijacks our high Cabal, the sooner the nominations process can not be so skewed as a result.

    There's no way turning abortion back to the States will end abortion. Maybe in 1 or two states, but abortion is going to be the Law for some time to come. But at least w/ Roe overturned, it'll be Law as a result of legislation from the state legislatures and not the bench.

    And just think: there are 3 more years for Bush to have a crack at vote #5 against Roe. Do you think that candidate will pass a 'litmus' test?

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Jan 29, '06

close