And Thus It Begins: The Attacks Begin On Alito
This is a special treat for our regular readers. We’re trying to make sure we each post something each day. Today was busy, and with the time constraints, we made a decision to pool our talents in one post addressing the recent moves by the Left against Judge Samuel Alito. Sabrina did a fine job early Monday morning pointing out the Alliance for Justice’s first salvo. They opted to go after him on issues other than abortion.
But, as it is typical of the Left, they opted not to follow that lead. And on the heels of Bill Sammon’s outstanding scoop earlier today about his personal views on Roe v. Wade, the liberals have redoubled their efforts in attacking Alito on that subject. The Alliance for Justice did not want to make this the focus of their assault on Pres. Bush’s most recent nominee, but the liberals in the Senate seem to keep missing these memos.
As reported in the New York Times today, the Alliance for Justice would like to avoid this issue. A recent poll conducted by them show that "many Americans would oppose Alito if they thought he would overturn Roe v. Wade." His record regarding Roe is hardly definitive. He has only dealt with a case or two on the subject; the most notorious one for him being Casey. And they’re trying to hang the man over his participation in that case. In Sammon’s piece today, it was revealed that his personal view is that he dislikes Roe.
But that is his personal view. Like Luttig, Roberts, and Brown, Alito abhors judicial activism. He hates the fact that judges have, in effect, legislated from the bench, and that is actually his main grievance with Roe. He feels, like Roberts did, that the court not only acted improperly in rendering the decision, but also that there was little jurisprudence involved in determining Roe. Justice Blackmun spent a fair majority of his opinion going over the history of abortion, but when it came to nailing down his decision based within the law, there was little that anyone could point to.
And that was the reason many a legal scholars–conservative and liberal, alike–were left scratching their heads at the opinion. Yes, Judge Alito personally disagrees with Roe, but he has stated, as did Chief Justice Roberts, that it was "settled law," meaning that he would abide by stare decisis; the previous precedent of the court. There is nothing wrong with this stance. In fact, it’s quite healthy. It takes the justices deciding whether they will revisit a case de novo (with fresh eyes), and that is what must be done with Roe. Would more originalists on the court prompt the court in this particular direction? Possibly.
But it’s a possibility that must be looked at. If both sides of the ideological spectrum are still scratching their heads over Roe, and the incremental precedents set in it’s wake, then why not take a new look at the issue? The answer is quite simple, and I quoted it above. "Many Americans would oppose Alito..." Not a majority, just many. In this nation we live by a democracy. That being "majority rules." Those that stand firmly on the side of Roe, and this includes the politicians that defend Roe incessantly, don’t want America to have a say on this issue. They’re afraid they’d lose too much in such a move.
And they’re right to worry. Should the issue of abortion be put up to a national vote–whether directly through ballot initiatives, or through a state’s legislature–I’d be willing to bet that a good majority of the nation would reject abortion. I could speculate on the states that would more than likely approve of abortion, but it’s pure speculation. But the point is that the people who stand opposed to Alito really care about one issue. That’s abortion. The Alliance for Justice made a smart move in trying to move the debate away from Alito’s views on abortion.
It is the Democrats that pulled them back in this direction. The reason, I am sure, is because their offices are being deluged by pro-abortion people raising a stink about Alito on the topic. They are driving the debate, and this is the same group of leftists moonbats that are attempting to hijack the Democrat party. They do not like Alito based on one issue, and they refuse to look at any others. Abortion for the Left is a sacrament that they have protected for over thirty years. They scream up and down that it is a right, that it is a woman’s "reproductive right to choose." As we pointed out just a few weeks ago, it ceases to be "reproductive" the moment you decide to end the child’s life in the womb.
All Alito stated in 1985 (this is the record that Bill Sammon dug up and put in his column today) was that there was no right for abortion anywhere within the Constitution. He’s correct. "Abortion"–inherent or otherwise–is not within the Constitution. There are protections in place that could grant the act it’s protection were an amendment in place. But there’s no amendment dictating that abortion is a right. This is a simple court precedent, and we have seen precedents overturned before. Roe is no different, and to overturn it would be the proper thing to do. The people, after all, were denied their voice in this decision.
The Bunny ;)
Mistress Pundit
Publius II
This is a special treat for our regular readers. We’re trying to make sure we each post something each day. Today was busy, and with the time constraints, we made a decision to pool our talents in one post addressing the recent moves by the Left against Judge Samuel Alito. Sabrina did a fine job early Monday morning pointing out the Alliance for Justice’s first salvo. They opted to go after him on issues other than abortion.
But, as it is typical of the Left, they opted not to follow that lead. And on the heels of Bill Sammon’s outstanding scoop earlier today about his personal views on Roe v. Wade, the liberals have redoubled their efforts in attacking Alito on that subject. The Alliance for Justice did not want to make this the focus of their assault on Pres. Bush’s most recent nominee, but the liberals in the Senate seem to keep missing these memos.
As reported in the New York Times today, the Alliance for Justice would like to avoid this issue. A recent poll conducted by them show that "many Americans would oppose Alito if they thought he would overturn Roe v. Wade." His record regarding Roe is hardly definitive. He has only dealt with a case or two on the subject; the most notorious one for him being Casey. And they’re trying to hang the man over his participation in that case. In Sammon’s piece today, it was revealed that his personal view is that he dislikes Roe.
But that is his personal view. Like Luttig, Roberts, and Brown, Alito abhors judicial activism. He hates the fact that judges have, in effect, legislated from the bench, and that is actually his main grievance with Roe. He feels, like Roberts did, that the court not only acted improperly in rendering the decision, but also that there was little jurisprudence involved in determining Roe. Justice Blackmun spent a fair majority of his opinion going over the history of abortion, but when it came to nailing down his decision based within the law, there was little that anyone could point to.
And that was the reason many a legal scholars–conservative and liberal, alike–were left scratching their heads at the opinion. Yes, Judge Alito personally disagrees with Roe, but he has stated, as did Chief Justice Roberts, that it was "settled law," meaning that he would abide by stare decisis; the previous precedent of the court. There is nothing wrong with this stance. In fact, it’s quite healthy. It takes the justices deciding whether they will revisit a case de novo (with fresh eyes), and that is what must be done with Roe. Would more originalists on the court prompt the court in this particular direction? Possibly.
But it’s a possibility that must be looked at. If both sides of the ideological spectrum are still scratching their heads over Roe, and the incremental precedents set in it’s wake, then why not take a new look at the issue? The answer is quite simple, and I quoted it above. "Many Americans would oppose Alito..." Not a majority, just many. In this nation we live by a democracy. That being "majority rules." Those that stand firmly on the side of Roe, and this includes the politicians that defend Roe incessantly, don’t want America to have a say on this issue. They’re afraid they’d lose too much in such a move.
And they’re right to worry. Should the issue of abortion be put up to a national vote–whether directly through ballot initiatives, or through a state’s legislature–I’d be willing to bet that a good majority of the nation would reject abortion. I could speculate on the states that would more than likely approve of abortion, but it’s pure speculation. But the point is that the people who stand opposed to Alito really care about one issue. That’s abortion. The Alliance for Justice made a smart move in trying to move the debate away from Alito’s views on abortion.
It is the Democrats that pulled them back in this direction. The reason, I am sure, is because their offices are being deluged by pro-abortion people raising a stink about Alito on the topic. They are driving the debate, and this is the same group of leftists moonbats that are attempting to hijack the Democrat party. They do not like Alito based on one issue, and they refuse to look at any others. Abortion for the Left is a sacrament that they have protected for over thirty years. They scream up and down that it is a right, that it is a woman’s "reproductive right to choose." As we pointed out just a few weeks ago, it ceases to be "reproductive" the moment you decide to end the child’s life in the womb.
All Alito stated in 1985 (this is the record that Bill Sammon dug up and put in his column today) was that there was no right for abortion anywhere within the Constitution. He’s correct. "Abortion"–inherent or otherwise–is not within the Constitution. There are protections in place that could grant the act it’s protection were an amendment in place. But there’s no amendment dictating that abortion is a right. This is a simple court precedent, and we have seen precedents overturned before. Roe is no different, and to overturn it would be the proper thing to do. The people, after all, were denied their voice in this decision.
The Bunny ;)
Mistress Pundit
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home