Posted on 11/02/2005 12:14:51 PM PST by mathprof
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.
[snip]
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.
The best evidence of his work as a judge are his published opinions. They contain a few surprises and some ammunition - for both the left and the right.
For example, of the four abortion cases in which he participated as an appeals court judge, he voted on the pro-choice side in all but one. A 1995 Alito vote striking down a Pennsylvania abortion restriction in particular is raising eyebrows among some legal scholars.
"That [1995 case] strongly seems to indicate that Alito is not a policy-driven true-believer who's used every possible opportunity to advance one side's preferred outcome, but instead a judge who has indeed come down on both sides, in different cases," says David Garrow, a constitutional historian and expert in reproductive rights cases at the high court.
Senate investigators, legal scholars, and special interest group lawyers are poring over Judge Alito's opinions written during 15-years of work on the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals. They are looking for clues of what kind of justice Alito might become if confirmed to a life-tenure post on the nation's highest court.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Seems pretty pro gay rights too.
how many times is this going to have to be debunked?
I think there are three threads on this already.
He was doing his job and not being a judicial actvist, which is what we want. He stated he was bound by earlier precedents to uphold the law. End of story.
EXACTLY! Many are complaining about the judicial activists. In order to NOT be one, the judge/justice must make a ruling based on law, not on personal preference. He did not write the laws, the congress did, so he is not to blame for this. If they don't like the rulings, CHANGE THE LAW!
As an appeals court Judge, he is required to follow Supreme Court rulings, including Roe v. Wade. He would not be bound as such as a Supreme Court Judge. We wouldn't want someone who showed no respect for the legal system and did what he wanted.
This is nothing more then a lame attempt to divide the Right.
Precisely.
I am 100% comfortable with someone who will rule based on the letter of the law than for my social policy preferences.
I am confident that conservatives can win on conservative ideas (including social policies) at the Ballot box. The problem us conservatives are fighting is the judicial activism that takes the chance of bollot box votes away from people on key issues.
Come on! Let us not confuse the issue and fall into the Liberal/DUmmy trap.
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.