Regarding the Nomination of Samuel Alito

[Neil D]

November 1, 2005

Washington, DC - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today issued the following statement on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"President Bush shouldn't try to use the nomination of an extreme conservative to distract from the ethical problems his White House is facing. Three days after a top White House official was indicted, President Bush continued his troubling pattern of playing to his right-wing political base in times of political trouble. In an indication of his weakened political position, Bush has nominated Samuel Alito, a conservative activist judge, to replace Justice O' Connor, who has been a voice of moderation on the Court for a generation.

"A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States is too important to be sacrificed on the altar of short-term political gain. President Bush's nomination of Alito is not leadership, it is capitulation.

"Alito's record suggests an activist judicial philosophy bent on rolling back the rights and freedoms that all Americans value. Alito has sought to limit the rights of women and people with disabilities in discrimination cases, demonstrated an open hostility to women's privacy rights even in basic reproductive health matters, has a record of hostility toward immigrants, and tried to immunize employers from employment discrimination cases. It is particularly troubling that President Bush would nominate a judge who would reverse American progress and make the Supreme Court look less like America on the same day that most Americans are honoring the life and legacy of Rosa Parks.

"Now, as Alito goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he must demonstrate that he will be a Supreme Court Justice who uses his position on the highest court in the land to protect and advance the fundamental rights and personal freedoms of all Americans. Alito must prove that he is not a captive of the radical right-wing, and the White House must provide the Senate with all the information it needs to thoroughly evaluate Alito's nomination."

[Dr. Shane]

I guess he has a good record of religious liberty. >>> Stan's Post <<<

I am going to wait until the hearings to make up my mind.

[Dr. Shane]

Alito: US abortion ruling deserves 'great respect'

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Emerging from a meeting with President George W. Bush's conservative candidate for the high court, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said he was encouraged by Alito's comments about the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling.

"He basically said ... that Roe was precedent on which people, a lot of people, relied, and had been precedent now for decades and therefore deserved great respect," Lieberman told reporters...

"He assured me that he had tremendous respect for precedent and his approach is to not overturn cases due to a disagreement with how they were originally decided," Collins said.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I really doubt we will see Roe v. Wade overturned in our lifetime or prehaps before Christ returns. However what we may see is a Court that allows individual states to restrict and discourage abortion. I think that is what the pro-choice crowd is really worried about since overturning Roe v. Wade is so unlikely.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Collins, Lieberman and others cautioned that they did not directly ask Alito if he would vote to overturn Roe, and that his comments should not be seen as a guarantee of how he may rule.

---

This in...Allito's comments do not guarentee how he will rule.

Quote:

---

But the conversations appear to be building Alito's resistance to what might be the biggest impediment to his confirmation: liberals' claims that he is a threat to legalized abortion, which most Americans support, according to opinion polls.

---

From the next paragraph of the Contra Costa Times speaks for itself.

One of the concerns that many progressives have with Alito are these...

[:"blue"] Alito's support of a Pennsylvania law that required married women to inform their husbands before getting an abortion.

• Alito's tendency to support defendants in discrimination suits.

• Alito's belief that the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to restrict the sale of machine guns at gun shows. [/]

The latter restricts congress' power to legislate. Does congress want to limit it's own power?

[Dr. Shane]

The issue of a woman needing to notify her husband in case of abortion is exactly what I am talking about. With a more originalist Court, things like that which restrict abortion are liklely to be permitted by the states.

Roe v. Wade was a bad decision and most judges know that. The Consitution simply does not grant the right to abortion to a woman. However it is established law. Even though it was a bad ruling, it has set precident. So to overturn it all at once would be a major shock to the judicial and law enforcment system. So judges that recognize that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision are more likely to go about overturning it with the slippery slope. Little by little they will allow states to pass laws to restrict it. Eventually, if the Lord doesn't come first, and society's abhorance of the procedure increases a future Supreme Court will use all the rulings restricting abortion to overturn Roe v. Wade. However that is not likely to happen in our lifetime.

Judge Alito has shown that he is willing to support restrictions against abortion. For many that believe in interpretting the Constitution by using original intent, that is good.

The gun ruling is, from what I understand, an issue of interstate commerce. It was not a "right to bear arms" issue.

One can make all kinds of arguements about why a married woman shouldn't have to notify her husband before she has an abortion. However, why shouldn't these arguements be made in the arena of ideas and let the people vote on it? Why should elite judges be deciding if a husband should have knowledge of his wife having an abortion? After all, if she doesn't want him to know it is probbally because she is committing adultry and shouldn't he know that?