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.
Yes...he made the mistake of trying to read the mind of a woman...and expect A, B, and C to logically flow into D instead X.
well, he appears to actually know how to get confirmed...just lie to the Dems.
Can't say I blame him too much. Trying to make heads or tails out of what the hell O'Connor's talking about is probably not an enviable task.
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
Ugh. But predictable, I guess.
It's odd to say, but I hope he's lying. What a world.
I don't think he's lying.
His statement makes sense, he assumed that O'Connor would uphold her own rulings, and she didn't.
Well, hopefully he was beating around the Bush and will overturn Roe.
But, maybe he won't. It has been here for so long, it will be very hard to overturn.
Look how long Plessy stayed the doctrine on segregation.
In fairness, this information is third-hand. After a liberal and a liberal reporter have sequentially massaged the information.
Kill the babies, burn the babies, ooo Yey! Cut the babies, vac the babies, rah rah!
#####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.#####
Which only goes to show how silly and arbitrary the "undue burden" criterion is. I have a much smarter rule based on the Constitution itself: There is NO constitutional right to an abortion, therefore states are free to do whatever they want on this issue.
#####"He was trying to anticipate what she (O'Connor) would uphold and he said obviously he got it wrong," Snowe said.#####
What??!!!??? He failed to anticipate what a shallow, vain, arrogant woman with little regard for the Constitution would do on this issue??!!
####He would not answer whether he would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, if confirmed, she said.#####
Let's see...Roe is unconstitutional, unscientific, and unpopular. Sounds like a good candidate for reversal to me.
"...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)?
He is simply saying that his ruling was trying to predict what the high court (swayed by O'Connor) would rule. This is how lower courts are SUPPOSED to rule.
He admits that his prediction was proven incorrect.
Backtracking on a correct conclusion is the first thing I have heard from Alioto to bring a hint of skepticism to my head.
The more I hear, the less impressed I am.
Life is tough when you are up for confirmation. Think your track record might keep you from getting there?
Gee, it's funny how things seem different.
Conservatives would rather have their nominees lie? That's a good path.
Good point! Plus Snowe is a dimwit for the most part. All Alito seems to have said is that he was wrong in thinking O'Connor would uphold spousal notification. He didn't say he was wrong in holding that the law in question was not unconstitutional.
The downfall of the Republic.
We don't know what Alito said or in what context. All we know is what a newspaper reported Snowe as saying. I'll wait until the hearings.
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.