Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alito tells Snowe he erred on 1991 abortion decision
Sun Journal ^ | 11/17/5 | Christopher Williams

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; alito; rino; samuelalito; scotus; snowe; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

1 posted on 11/17/2005 4:07:33 PM PST by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
"He was trying to anticipate what she (O'Connor) would uphold and he said obviously he got it wrong,"

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.

2 posted on 11/17/2005 4:09:21 PM PST by peyton randolph (Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

well, he appears to actually know how to get confirmed...just lie to the Dems.


3 posted on 11/17/2005 4:10:23 PM PST by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
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.

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.

4 posted on 11/17/2005 4:11:49 PM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

It's odd to say, but I hope he's lying. What a world.


5 posted on 11/17/2005 4:12:45 PM PST by My2Cents (Dead people voting is the closest the Democrats come to believing in eternal life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
He wasn't lying, and wouldn't have been able to anyway. The Dems are at least as familiar with his record as we are.
6 posted on 11/17/2005 4:13:31 PM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

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.


7 posted on 11/17/2005 4:13:56 PM PST by RWR8189 (George Allen 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: inquest

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.


8 posted on 11/17/2005 4:16:00 PM PST by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
"how to get confirmed...just lie"

In fairness, this information is third-hand. After a liberal and a liberal reporter have sequentially massaged the information.

9 posted on 11/17/2005 4:16:16 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Snowe, who supports abortion access.

Kill the babies, burn the babies, ooo Yey! Cut the babies, vac the babies, rah rah!

10 posted on 11/17/2005 4:16:32 PM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past ("The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

#####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.


11 posted on 11/17/2005 4:16:46 PM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

"...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)?


12 posted on 11/17/2005 4:17:01 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

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.


13 posted on 11/17/2005 4:18:08 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
"...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..."

hmmmm
14 posted on 11/17/2005 4:18:18 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
If he can lie to the Dems...

Backtracking on a correct conclusion is the first thing I have heard from Alioto to bring a hint of skepticism to my head.

15 posted on 11/17/2005 4:18:26 PM PST by ThanhPhero (di hanh huong den La Vang)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

The more I hear, the less impressed I am.


16 posted on 11/17/2005 4:19:01 PM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest

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.


17 posted on 11/17/2005 4:19:08 PM PST by A.Hun (Flagellum Dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

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.


18 posted on 11/17/2005 4:19:42 PM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
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

The downfall of the Republic.

19 posted on 11/17/2005 4:20:48 PM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

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.


20 posted on 11/17/2005 4:20:55 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson