Posted on 11/12/2005 2:07:42 AM PST by Crackingham
"I don't know what his personal views are, but I know that he has ruled on pro-life cases four times and he has ruled against pro-life positions three times. And the fourth was a split decision," said Richard Collier, president of the Legal Center for the Defense of Life, based in Morristown, N.J. "If you look at the paper trail, it is all negative."
SNIP
In one case, he voted with the majority to overturn a Pennsylvania law that would have required poor women seeking federally paid abortions after rape or incest to have first reported the crime to police.
In another case, Alito agreed that a New Jersey ban on a late-term abortion procedure that critics call "partial-birth abortion" was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had previously struck down a nearly identical Nebraska law.
The remaining case is less well known, but some abortion foes consider it more important.
In 1997, Alito concurred in a ruling denying a woman the right to claim damages in the case of a stillbirth caused by alleged medical malpractice. The majority opinion in that case, Alexander vs. Whitman, explicitly held that a fetus had no constitutional rights.
Alito wrote that he was in "almost complete agreement with the court's opinion," which was based largely on Roe. He added that because stillborn fetuses were not considered to have rights at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, they do not have them now.
"I perceive excessive hiding behind abortion precedents, unlike his boldness in other areas," said Collier of the Legal Center for the Defense of Life. "He's sort of perceived as a radical conservative. It that's true, why isn't that true in the abortion area?"
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I notice that the MSM try to portray him as pro-abortion. I wonder if behind those stories, the MSM hope to divide the conservatives so the conservatives would oppose Alito like they did to Miers...
That's their only hope, thus we are seeing these stories based on lib (wishful thinking/cynical manipulation, pick one).
This only proves that the writer has no understanding of constitutional law. Alito did not necessarily "agree" that the NJ law was unconstitutional, he voted, as any true strict constructionist would, that there was clear Supreme Court precedence which he was bound to follow. It is not for a lower court judge to make new law. It is rarely even for a Supreme Court justice to make new law. Alito did just what we conservatives say publicly that we want him to do, follow the rule of law and know his place.
Read the LA (and NY) Times long enough and you will find that Alito is a conservative-liberal-anti/pro abortion-libertarian-progressive-gun loving/hating-moderate.
According to the MSM, Alito is whatever you don't want him to be.
Nor do I, but a judge's job is to determine what is within the law, not to make up new laws-that's the job of the legislative branch.
I think that conservatives, when asked about Judge Alito by the MSM, should express grave concern about his position on Roe! Then they can express SHOCK! SHOCK! when he starts helping to return the Court to interpreting what is actually in the Constitution, instead of what Liberals want to be in the Constitution. ;-)
Alito wrote that he was in "almost complete agreement with the court's opinion," which was based largely on Roe. He added that because stillborn fetuses were not considered to have rights at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, they do not have them now.
It's possible the LA times is taking him out of context, so I'll reserve judgement until I see the actual opinion. I tried finding it in Findlaw without success.
Can we get a Freeper legal begal to give some analysis?
Wow..you mean he actually might believe in the Constitution and believe that the "ally in the fight" should be the American people? Horrors...to actually have the laws reflect the will of the people, not legislate through nine in robes.
The real issue conservatives should be most aware of is being hidden behind the distracting frenzy over abortion. (I view abortion as a ritual murder before an idol of vanity and performed upon an altar of conceit, just in case you wonder where my views are.)
The greater issue is really homosexual monogamy. The left and their mainstream media sycophants really want to obscure this. I cannot stress this enough...
Chucky Scummer in his frantic haste slipped and let that cat out of the bag right after the nomination of John Roberts. He hasn't spoken of it since. It is the greater issue nobody wants to talk about. Beware...
BINGO!
Remember, when it comes to the MSM ENEMEDIA, don't believe anything you read, and only half of what you see (maybe less).
Conservatives shouldn't be looking for a judge to legislate, but to be a true constructionist!
Don't pay attention to the spin of the media...
"We really don't know yet how he'll vote in overturning Roe. I'm quite sure, however, that he's going to vote for any effort to limit abortion. Parental notification, spouse notification, ban on partial birth abortion, and other issues related to limit the abortion are those that he'll let stand."
Really, when he's on the high court and not encumbered by controlling precedent, you already know how he's going to vote?
Gee, you think?
That would be an interesting strategy if that's the case. The conservative revolt against Miers got us Alito. If there's a conservative revolt against Alito, what would that then get us? Janice Rogers Brown?
Following unconstitutional precedent is not strict constructionism.
You're right. As a Circuit Court of Appeals judge, Alito should simply have voted to overrule the Supreme Court.
I'll try. I just spent 10 minutes scanning the opinion, so this will not be complete by any means. (If you want to read the whole opinion, just Google the name of the case and it will be the first result.)
The case is about a woman who sadly had a stillborn at the hospital. She claimed negligence and was suing under New Jersey's wrongful death statute (among other laws). She "lost". Then she sued to have those laws declared unconstitutional. The point of the case was whether an unborn fetus is a "person" entitled to Constitutional protection.
Alito's court held that this theory lost on every level. First, that New Jersey law and NJ Supreme Court case law were absolutely clear that a fetus has no such rights. Further, the US Supreme Court had ruled absolutely in Roe, that a fetus has no 14th Amendment rights (equal protection). So, again, Alito was constrained to follow the clear rules laid out by SCOTUS. I don't think that he necessarily agreed that the result was just or proper, but that he agreed he was bound to rule the way he did. IOW, from my scan of the case, this was among the worst possible cases to bring in order to further the beliefs of people who think like we do. This was a loser from the beginning. Even if he had wanted to try something new, Roe was right there with a hammer over his head. Only the SCOTUS itself can make headway in this area. I have no idea if Alito will be truly interested, I pray that he will.
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.