Posted on 11/02/2005 7:35:56 AM PST by dubie
In 3 of 4 cases, Supreme Court nominee Alito voted on the side of abortion rights.
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – If there was any doubt about where US Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito stands on abortion, his 90-year-old mother quickly and decisively put that question to rest. "Of course he's against abortion," Rose Alito told the Associated Press in a telephone interview from her Hamilton, N.J., home.
Her candid statement may go down in history as the most blunt and honest admission of a Supreme Court nominee's view on the hot-button issue.
But the true test of appeals court judges isn't which personal views they hold, but to what extent those personal views may influence how they rule in a particular case.
On this issue, legal analysts disagree in their assessments of Judge Alito. Some say he is a conservative ideologue. Others say he is a smart, careful jurist who leaves personal views behind when he dons his black robes.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
And, in how many of those cases, was he following existing SCOTUS precedents?
He doesn't have to follow precedent once he's on SCOTUS.
Can we go back to Miers?
Well....DUhhhhhhhhhhh!
The dems can't complain much about that statement.
Even Kennedy/Schumer/Leahy have said they are "against abortion."
"And, in how many of those cases, was he following existing SCOTUS precedents?"
From what I've seen, the answer would be 'all'.
He's not a judicial activist - if he was bound by a prior precedent from the supreme court, he'd follow it.
Of course, this might upset a few here that say they want non-activist judges, except when it comes to their personal causes.
I've never understood this expression. What is reproductive about abortion?
The more I hear about Alito, the more I like him..
Probably 100%, but on those 1/4 cases where he voted on the side against abortion rights (and followed SCOTUS precedent 100%) he'll be protrayed as anti-woman and a slave master.
key paragraph:
"I don't think these cases tell us anything about whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade or not," says James Bopp, general counsel for National Right to Life. "Nor do they tell us whether he supports pro-life as a value."
GOOD. Democrats will have a more difficult time painting him a right-wing activist, which of course, he is not.
Actually, he ruled in favor in 4 out of 4. The one ruling simply stated that a husband has the right to know if his unborn child is being sucked up into a Hoover.
Uh, no.
Perhaps it may go down in history as the most blunt and honest admission of a Supreme Court nominee's mother's view on the hot-button issue.
This man is solid as a rock.
He can not reinvent the law that as a Federal judge he must uphold.
Combine Schumer's reaction with Mark Levin's reaction and this guy is the libs worst nightmare come true.
When Stevens and Ruth Buzzy go, the libs get to see the sequels.
Is there anything at all that matters about a Supreme Court justice besides views on abortion? Does the Supreme Court decide other issues like, say, eminent domain, state vs federal powers, general constitutional law, stuff like that?
Didn't you know, abortion is considered by "reproductive experts" as a form of contraception.
Some folks aren't happy unless they can flog W.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.