Posted on 11/17/2005 4:07:32 PM PST by Crackingham
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Jr. admitted he made a mistake in a 1991 opinion when he backed a Pennsylvania law that women needed permission from their husbands to get an abortion, he told U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe.
Alito on Wednesday met privately with Snowe for an hour. Afterward, she said she would withhold judgment on his confirmation until after the Senate hearings in January.
Alito told Snowe that his lone dissent on a 1991 abortion case mistakenly interpreted Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion on what constitutes an undue burden. He believed her support of parental notification could be extended to include spousal notification, Snowe said.
"He was trying to anticipate what she (O'Connor) would uphold and he said obviously he got it wrong," Snowe said.
He would not answer whether he would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, if confirmed, she said.
Alito agreed that, as in the Miranda case that came before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002, a precedent-setting case should be upheld because it has become part of national culture even though the roots of that case might be built on shaky constitutional footing, said Snowe, who supports abortion access.
Or he is lying to us when he tells us he is one of us instead of someone just trying to get ahead. If he cannot stand up for himself now is he really going to stand up to the libs on the court and the Washington elites when he is not getting invited to the top parties?
Oh, I'll wait. I was willing to give Miers the same benefit of the doubt. I just don't like it when (or if) he backpedaled on such a no brainer as spousal notification.
I don't either but I strongly suspect that what he told Snowe isn't what's being reported.
Snowe is worthless, I will grant you that!
I don't know. His record is solid, so I think he is not really "lying," but conveniently twisting things around to give the Dems a wrong idea about him, that he will rule with them.
Read what he said very carefully. At no point did he say he was wrong to uphold spousal notification as a matter of either policy or law. He said he was wrong to assume O'Connor (the deciding vote on this issue) would uphold spousal notification. As a lower court judge, he had no choice but to recognize Supreme Court precedent. That precedent was that there exists a constitutional right to abortion and any restriction causing an "undue burden" on women seeking an abortion must be struck down. Now, we both know that there is no such thing as a right to abortion in the actual Constitution. I'm sure Alito knows it as well. However, as a lower court judge, he had no choice but to uphold the precedent. Alito assumed that since O'Connor had previously said parental notification was okay (not an "undue burden") that she might also approve of spousal notification. However, the wishy-washy witch didn't. She and the other usual suspects struck the Pennsylvania spousal notification law down. Alito simply said he was wrong in anticipating that she would uphold that law.
Typical Snowe job.
What you say is valid. But I'd much rather hear him say that the supreme court erred in it's decision to reverse him, not that he was mistaken.
Yeah, but still, agreeing with an idiot (Snowe), about what an airhead (Conner) would do is not the way to inspire conservatives, especially since a majority of women do not support abortion.
That said, however, I still cautiously support Alito.
"'...Pennsylvania law that women needed permission from their husbands to get an abortion...'
Didn't the law in question simply require informing the husband (with lots of exemptions)?"
Good catch and very astute of you. Yes, this is a lie this news publication is telling that the law required a woman to GET permission. It was merely a notification measure. The husband had no veto according to the law. But as usual the MSM and its sloppy journalism gets it wrong. Or was it a more purposeful smear?
In any event, all Alito ruled on was the constitutionality of PA voters being able to decide on this law which was a ballot measure. It said nothing about the constitutionality of the law itself. And Alito was perfectly justified in ruling that PA voters had every right to decide this because it truly does not infringe on a woman's supposed right to kill her children.
Anyway, it's too bad Alito didn't stand firm on this and explain his reasoning because it was entirely justified. But we conservatives have been backed into a corner for being conservatives now in the witchhunt atmosphere Dems. and their media lapdogs have created against everything and anything conservative. I cannot believe the Dems have gotten us to the point where we have to apologize for being conservatives.
Anyway, who cares I guess? Hopefully Alito is just lying and will get on the court and hammer abortion laws. Hacks like Snowe deserve to be lied to in their defense of the indefensible, i.e. abortion of a living child. I'm sick and tired of judicial candidates having to kneel at the alter of baby murder to pay homage to the feminist sacrament of infanticide. Anyone advocating such a position requires being lied to in my opinion if it means getting past them to end federally-mandated abortion. They are not deserving of truth, candor and least of all respect.
Alito should pull a Democrat trick. He should say at his confirmation hearing that he is in favor of abortion on demand, believes the Constitution is a "living" document, and is in favor of affirmative action.
Then after he is on the bench, vote to overturn Roe, faithfully follow Original Intent, and strike down affirmative action.
Exactly!
You nailed it. Much ado about nothing here, folks.
Alito said absolutely nothing to Snowe. He said he was wrong because he was reversed. He was not asked what he thought about O'Connor's reversal, and refused to opine about Roe. Characterizing what he said as lying is tendentious.
> Conservatives would rather have their nominees lie? That's a good path.
I don't think so. You just have to think like a lawyer, I'm told. As a judge subservient to the Supreme Court, his role is different than it would be serving ON the Supremem Court. Deference to higher court interpretations is a hallmark of judicial restraint. There is nothing inconsistant with saying he should have voted against spousal notification, in light of the Supreme's ruling but being a supporter of it while sitting on the court. I'm no lawyer, but that is the way it's been explained to me. So there is no need to lie.
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.