In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

“The Constitution Does Not Protect the Right to Abortion”

Jill

–Guess who.

In his own words, written during the Reagan administration:

-“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.”

-“I am and always have been a conservative and an adherent to the same philosophical views that I believe are central to this administration.”

-He believed “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.”

-Alito said he drew inspiration from the “writings of William F. Buckley, Jr., The National Review and Barry Goldwater’s 1964 campaign.”

-“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.”

Posted in Uncategorized

23 thoughts on “The Constitution Does Not Protect the Right to Abortion”

  1. …and then he went on to rule in at least one case that partial-birth abortion is constitutional. Liberals are going to keep striking out if the best they can do is distort 20-year old statements from a time when Alito wasn’t even on the bench.

    Two more points:
    1. The liberal push to make this all about abortion and Roe is not going to be relevant because even if Alito’s confirmed, there are still at least five solid votes to uphold Roe. Possibly six, depending on how the Chief goes.
    2. Trying to disqualify nominees on ideological grounds is going to come back to haunt Democrats. You guys borked Bork and smeared Thomas, and Republicans still turned the other cheek for Ginsburg and Breyer (even though the former had come out in favor of some pretty far-out policies and was the former counsel to the ACLU). Now the most qualified candidate in generations (Roberts) still can’t get through the Senate without 22 Dems voting against, and the ideological hit job on Alito is still ongoing. How deferential do you think Republicans are going to feel the next time a Dem President gets to make a SCOTUS nomination?

  2. …and then he went on to rule in at least one case that partial-birth abortion is constitutional.

    He made it clear, though, that he was bound by Supreme Court precedent in that case. There was literally no reasonable way that he could have ruled otherwise.

  3. The problem with your 2nd point, Jon, is that Clinton undercut any potential Republican opposition to Ginsburg and Breyer by consulteing with then-Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch prior to making the nominations. Bush consulted zero Democratic senators on either the Roberts or the Alito nominations.

    Also, don’t kid yourself about how qualified Roberts was/is. Roberts only had two years of judicial experience prior to his nomination.

  4. “…Ginsburg and Breyer by consulteing with then-Judiciary Committee chairman…”

    That should be consulting. Proofreading is good.

  5. Bush consulted zero Democratic senators on either the Roberts or the Alito nominations.

    Nonsense. Keep ’em coming, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

  6. Under Roe v Wade, the Constitution technically doesn’t protect the right to a third trimester abortion absent a threat to the life or the health of the woman. So Alito’s statement is at least partially accurate. And I think it’s safe to say that the Constitution is silent on the whole three trimester scheme, unless there’s something I’m missing.

  7. I wonder what “Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause and reapportionment” is he referring to? Perhaps Baker vs. Carr (1962)? Engel vs. Vitale (1962)?

  8. What is the point of arguing over what the Constitution protects and doesn’t?

    I’ve had idiots tell me the Second Amendment doesn’t protect a person’s right to own and wield firearms.

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Oh, I’m sorry. I must be wrong. When this was penned, they actually recognized the National Guard as a militia; that’s what they must’ve meant–except that no National Guard existed at the time.

  9. ”I am and always have been a conservative and an adherent to the same philosophical views that I believe are central to this administration.”

    What’s wrong with Bush nominating a conservative to SCOTUS? Clinton nominated Ginsburg and Breyer, two liberals. It seems kind of logical that Bush would nominate a conservative, since he is a conservative himself.

    And I think it’s safe to say that the Constitution is silent on the whole three trimester scheme, unless there’s something I’m missing.

    The Constitution is silent on the entire issue of abortion. It never mentions abortion at all.

  10. He’s right. But there’s still stare decisis. I suspect Alito would vote to uphold Roe to say that a ban on abortion is unconstitutional but that various state restrictions on abortion are legislatively allowable under the Constitution. This seems like proper legal reading.

  11. interesting that the folks who claim we need to limit government are the ones who insist on legislation that increases government interference and control of personal issues.

  12. Having read the US constitution, I can’t seem to remember abortion or even a right to privacy being mentioned. I believe that women should be able to have abortions but lets face it, the constitutional angle is bloody weak.

  13. Hey, if you want this rightwing anti-Roe v. Wade court-packing scheme to go through, so government gets to dictate the size of your families, dudes, go for it.

    Others prefer a right to privacy, keeping the feds out of the bedroom, thanks just the same. And will vote for judges who respect the same.

  14. Jon C–from the article you cite:

    Democrats assert that two recent presidents — Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan — did what they want Bush to do [talk about specific nominees]. Republicans say the Democrats misinterpret those cases and argue that nowhere does the Constitution require a president to share such information in advance with anyone in the Senate. The next days and weeks will test Bush’s and the Democrats’ willingness to come together.

    Yesterday’s meeting was more intimate than many that Bush conducts with members of Congress. Held in a study off the Oval Office, the group talked for an hour, although much of the discussion involved process and not potential nominees. “No one came into the meeting with lists,” a Senate aide said.

    At one point, the Democrats offered the names of three Hispanic federal judges and suggested that they could win broad Senate support . The three are Sonia Sotomayor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, who was named a district judge by President George H.W. Bush and elevated to the appeals court by Clinton; Edward Charles Prado of the 5th Circuit, nominated to be a district judge by Reagan and named to the appeals court by President George W. Bush; and U.S. District Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa of McAllen, Tex., nominated by Reagan.

    Emphaiss added, and the point being that Bush never talked to anyone in the senate about Alito. Bush blindsided everyone with this nomination. The day before the announcement, people were still talking about lessig, who I doubt anyone would be opposing this strongly. Maybe he has a right to do so, even if it isn’t 100% advisable. But let’s not pretend that that isn’t what he did.

  15. Emphaiss added, and the point being that Bush never talked to anyone in the senate about Alito. Bush blindsided everyone with this nomination.

    Well, now we’re moving the goalposts. Random liberal’s original claim was that Bush never conferred with any Democratic Senator about Alito or Roberts. At least we can all agree that claim is demonstrably false.

    I don’t know why you’re saying Alito’s nomination “blindsided everyone.” It came as no suprise to me; Alito’s name had come up as a possible candidate ever since O’Connor announced her retirement. SCOTUSblog put up a “candidate profile” on him as early as June 6. Here’s a story that RedState.org had three days before the Alito nomination was announced:

    Multiple sources are telling RedState that Samuel A. Alito, Jr. of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will be named by the President at the next associate justice of the United States Supreme Court as early as Monday.

    “The situation is still in flux,” says one source, “but not very much.” Says another, “The White House Counsel’s Office is not doing too good at keeping this a secret.”

    Still another source says, “Luttig and Alito were the fall backs to Miers. They have both been vetted. Alito seems more palatable. There is no need to drag this out, he’s been vetted a million times.”

    And yet another source tells me that he is convinced Alito is the nominee barring some last minute unforeseen issue. All signs are pointing to Judge Alito right now…

    Emphasis supplied. Both Luttig and Alito had been vetted and were under active consideration. Of course, no one except the Senators with whom Bush met and Bush himself can say with certainty, but it seems highly likely that Alito’s name came up during their consultations.

  16. I should have been more careful with what I said. What I meant was that, unlike what Clinton did with the Ginsburg and Breyer nominations, Bush did not come to Senate Democratic leadership and ask for a list of potential nominees that at least the Democratic leadership could support. We can argue over whether or not a president should work that hard/bend that far backward to placate opposition leadership, but you can’t imply that Dems are acting in bad faith by vehemently opposing simply because Republicans did not do the same ten years ago. The situations are not comparable.

  17. Having read the US constitution, I can’t seem to remember abortion or even a right to privacy being mentioned. I believe that women should be able to have abortions but lets face it, the constitutional angle is bloody weak.

    Well, there is the Ninth Amendment — but no one pays attention to that anymore.

  19. He never mentioned Alito by name., therefore he did not talk to Dem leadership about Alito. What he did talk to dem leadership about was “what qualities a candidate should have” How is it possible to talk about someone, without mentioning who they are?

    And by ‘blindsided’, I meant that it looked as if he was going to have to pick a consensus candidate after the Miers disaster, but instead, he picked the most conservative of all the options listed on those sites regarding potential nominees.

    So yes, he talked to Congress about supreme court nominations. He did not talk to congress about the Alito nomination, until after the fact. There is a world of difference between the two.

  20. What I am getting really sick of seeing is the “He did it to me so I can do it to him” thought process. When have 2 wrongs ever made a right? Just because the Repub’s did it to the Dem’s or the Dem’s did it to the Repub’s doesn’t mean we should continue this childish cycle. Who did it to whom first shouldn’t be the main focus here.

    The fact is, abortion is a hot topic because it involves the rights of 51% of the national population. If there were a chance all men would have to have vasectomies once a woman were appointed to SCOTUS, I’m sure you’d be upset, too. But you know what? Being forced into a vasectomy still isn’t as huge a hindrance on personal choice and self determination as controlling a woman’s ovaries, eggs, uterus, blood flow and/or birthing options are. I honestly don’t think an equatable analogy even exists that could possibly put men in as much danger as an illegal abortion can.

    I also 2nd what ol cranky said:

    interesting that the folks who claim we need to limit government are the ones who insist on legislation that increases government interference and control of personal issues.

  21. I have grave concerns with the idea that Alito believes the Court is subordinated to the “elected branches of government”. This undermines fundamental balances of power and representation in government, and would in effect finalize once and for all the tyranny of the majority.

    The separation of powers is a bunk ideal if one side decides never to use their powers as a check on the other branches of government. He is an unacceptable nominee precisely on the grounds of what he sees the role of the court being (that is to say, a rubber stamp yes-man for corporations and Congerss). One can argue that his personal feelings about are irrelevant, and that may well be true except in one important aspect: in what instances he would or would not favor granting certiorari. If he feels the judiciary should in its very nature be deferential to the legislature and executive, then he should not be on the court.

  23. And by ‘blindsided’, I meant that it looked as if he was going to have to pick a consensus candidate after the Miers disaster, but instead, he picked the most conservative of all the options listed on those sites regarding potential nominees.

    Are you kidding me? Right off the top of my head, I can name Edith Jones, Emilio Garza, Miguel Estrada, Janice Brown, and even Michael Luttig as candidates who are generally viewed, rightly or wrongly, as more “conservative” than Alito and who would probably have garnered more opposition. Bush was specifically looking for an eminently qualified conservative, but not an ideological fire-breather, which is why he’s reported to have said “Find me another Roberts” after the Chief’s confirmation.

Comments are currently closed.