In a 58-42 vote, Samuel Alito was confirmed to be the new U.S. Supreme Court justice. Adios, Sandra Dee. From the AP:
All but one of the Senate’s majority Republicans voted for his confirmation, while all but four of the Democrats voted against Alito.
That is the smallest number of senators in the party opposing a president to support a Supreme Court justice in modern history. Chief Justice John Roberts got 22 Democratic votes last year, and Justice Clarence Thomas — who was confirmed in 1991 on a 52-48 vote — got 11 Democratic votes.
Alito watched the final vote from the White House’s Roosevelt Room with his family. He was to be sworn in by Roberts at the Supreme Court in a private ceremony later in the day, in plenty of time for him to appear with President Bush at the State of the Union speech Tuesday evening.
I have no strong feelings about Alito’s confirmation one way or another. But I’m curious about what he allegedly told Senator Diane Feinstein back in November about his “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion” statement made in 1985:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., an abortion rights supporter and the only woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said she asked the conservative judge about a document released Monday showing Alito in 1985 telling the Reagan administration he was particularly proud to help argue that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”“He said first of all it was different then,” she said. “He said, ‘I was an advocate seeking a job, it was a political job and that was 1985. I’m now a judge, I’ve been on the circuit court for 15 years and it’s very different. I’m not an advocate, I don’t give heed to my personal views, what I do is interpret the law.’” (Source)
Interpreting the law and leaving aside personal feelings are exactly what justices are supposed to do, but child killing is not a constitutional right or “personal feelings” issue, so Alito made a true statement back then. The “right of privacy” concept was something the Supreme Court made up in 1973. There is no language or idea in the Constitution that gives anyone the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. There are no such things as absolute rights or absolute freedom.
Limits are placed on all of us in various ways to protect others specifically and the rule of law (i.e., the country) generally. Why Alito backtracked is a mystery. But I used the word allegedly because we don’t know what he actually said to Feinstein or what USA Today left out of the story.
Related post: Blogs4Life/March for Life II
Bloggers: Michelle Malkin, the Professor, Matt Margolis (live-blogging), Independent Conservative, Wizbang…
More bloggers: The Galvin Opinion, The World According to Carl, Uncle Sam’s Cabin, The Florida Masochist…
(AFP photo)
Update (1:17 p.m.): He’s been sworn in. The thing is done.
{ 7 trackbacks }
{ 11 comments }
What a joy to see Judge Alito confirmed! What sadness that both of my Senators voted against him! But what can you expect from CT and New England? Lock-step with the radical left wing of the democratic party.
La Shawn:
Give Alito a break on abortion. He will do what he thinks is right, which is a lot more than you can say about a lot of candidates.
You must know in your heart that Alito will not support “abortion on demand” by the hysterical opposition to him of the Radical Left.
Such hysterical oppisition should be a badge of honor for a good conservative.
Let’s just hope he doesn’t end up behaving like the liberal-pleaser O’Connor.
LaShawn can you tell me where I can find more information about roe v.wade and how some sort of amendment to the 1965 civil rights bill is somehow connected? Because a minister that I know and I have been puzzled too, why the Black church has been very quiet about this, given our opposition to abortion, I would like to know if some sort of amendment was added when roe v. wade became law.
I don’t think there’s such an amendment, Lisa, but here’s my theory: the pro-life movement is closely associated with the Republican party and “white evangelicals,” both of whom are considered historically racist. Even to protect the lives of the unborn, black liberals will not “cross over” and speak out vehemently against the slaughter.
However…child killing is one of many issues that can and MUST unite black and white evangelicals. I pray for major changes during Alito’s tenure.
I don’t see where his comments necessarily indicate backtracking even if they are accurately related by Senator Feinstein. I take it to mean that he doesn’t let his political or personal views influence his jurisprudence.
If his political views are the same now as then, and I haven’t seen any strong evidence to the contrary, I doubt he would have fully disclosed them to the Senator. The lefties were determined to portray Justice Alito as the one to bring about the demise of the Roe vs. Wade precedent. I wouldn’t have given them more ammunition if I could at all help it.
It would be nice to get abortion out of the federal courts and back to the state legislature where it’s supposed to be decided.
-VM
P.S.
Big Howdy to La Shawn from Idaho. I love your blog!
His explanation to DiFi, even on the face of it, makes sense for even a prolifer, because the Roe decision was so bad. It is highly possible to be pro-abortion and find fault with Roe. The case has been a joke even among liberal law professors ever since 1973.
He explained all this quite clearly in the hearings. When he was answering what political policy he prefers as a lawyer for the chief executive, he says he’s opposed to Roe v. Wade. As a judge on the 3rd Circuit, he’s had to treat it as binding precedent and has indeed done so while trying to limit abortion according to O’Connor’s own rules for doing so. As a Supreme Court justice, he’ll be able to raise the question of whether the precedent of Roe v. Wade can be considered for reevaluation. Some principles count against doing so. It is a precedent of the Supreme Court with a 7-2 vote, and its central holding has been upheld (albeit by a smaller margin of 6-3). On the other hand, it was wrongly decided, and the opinion that upheld the central holding explained exactly why the original reasoning was terrible. Current medical science undermines some of the reasoning behind it as well. There are also some issues of workability. He’s said that he’d have to evaluate any case by its own merits, but he’s willing to countenance the possibility that those principles would lead to a reconsideration of Roe v. Wade, though he’s willing to countenance the possibility that in a given case it might not. Then finally once he gets beyond those issues he’d have to see if the case in question happens to be of the sort that would merit overturning or severely limiting the results of Roe. He’s perfectly open to that, but it would have to be based on the case, and you can’t know something like that until all the arguments are on the table.
They will need the smellin salts for Ted Kennedy he has passed out
Rhode Islanders–You need to get rid of pro-abortion Chafee–the only R to vote against Judge Alito.
He’s like retiring Jeffords–a former R turned I who votes with the Ds every time. Try Laffey instead.
With sincerity I want to know why there is so much furor over throwing babies away? In my opinion throwing a baby away is gruesome.
Why is it that women are not arguing about the right to have more time with their children that are lucky not to have been thrown away? How about the right to have more time after giving childbirth away from work? The right to have more time to work on their marriages?
What’s all this hue and cry about throwing babies away?
Comments on this entry are closed.