A strict constitutionalist does not guarantee overturning Roe.
Look, is Alito a constitutionalist? If he is, then let's ram him down the throats of the liberals and sit back and have a smoke, a drink and a laugh at their expense.
Well, I hope he comes thru. I have the same 3 criteria for Alito as I had if I was going to support Miers:
1. The 2nd Amendment applies to indiviuduals
2. The so-called "right to privacy" does not apply to abortion
3. A strict constructionist view of the constitution
So far, I only have seen #3 answered to my satisfaction.
Was it a stroke of genius to nominate a judge in Arlens home state? He could come out against Alito, but boy, that sure would put him in even hotter water in PA next time (thanks Santorum, you screwed us). He has to support Alito. If Arlen goes, the Gangbang of 14 is done.
" ... right to privacy under the liberty clause of the United States Constitution" is the same position Roberts took in his hearings, as he expressed his view of Griswold. It is not the same as the "penumbras and emanations that flow from the BOR" rationale, also taken from (separate majority opinions in) Griswold, which were used to justify the Roe decision.
He says he only disputes "undue burdens" imposed on women - nothing about the unborn or the beginning of life. And this is better than Miers how?
The difference is the grounds or reason used to sustain or modify or reverse past holdings. The evidence was that Miers, while personally pro-life, put great weight on stare decisis, that once the Court has handed down a decision (for whatever reason), that alone is powerful reason to let the decision stand. "The decsion stands on the basis of the power of the Court, and the harm that would come to the Court if it admitted error."
I actually doubt that, given his record, Alito is uninformed, unintelligent, or liberal enough to believe that Griswold is good law.
I'm not sure that I believe everything said by Arlen Specter.
I read that thing so many times in the last few months (seems that long anyway) I find it nearly impossible that Alito would say that. I think its more likely he'd agree with one of the dissenting justices who wrote (paraphrasing), "while the law is "silly" it isn't unconstitutional".
Especially after reading Alito's dissent in Rybar and Casey. I think Arlen is blowing smoke.
Even Clarence Thomas said positive things about Griswold. NRO had the quote from Biden about Thomas and Griswold back a few months ago on their Bench Memos blog. IOW, this tells us nothing.
Alito is smart enough to know that if he wants a seat on the Court, he CANNOT indicate to Spector in any way that he'd overturn Roe. We all have to understand that.
Lets toss him overboard!!! *rolling eyes*
Funny, isn't it?--How careful everyone was to scrutinize Miers, yet Alito gets an immediate pass.
It seems everyone jumped on the "little Scalia" bandwagon without first examining whether he deserved that moniker. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. One of his law clerks said no one who knew him called him Scalito. He reveres precedent too much, and there is no real evidence he would overturn any of the judicial activism we have seen in the past few years.
He rules by stare decisis, not strict constructionism. Don't tell me he "had to" follow precedent to make unconstitutional rulings, when the very thought violates Marbury V. Madison. A judge is bound by oath to side with the Constitution, and nothing contrary to it.
There is a right to privacy.
It is an implied right, but it is there by the virtue of it being required for other rights, such as protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
I don't understand why this is so difficult.
However, privacy does not mean abortion is okay. And, keep in mind what Spector did not say...that Alito told him he agreed with Roe that the right to privacy did okay abortion. You just inferred that anyway.
While there is no right to privacy within the Constitution as originally written it certainly is a major concern of the first, third, fourth and fifth amendments.
There's evidently a campaign afoot to split conservatives away from Alito, since the Dems and RINOs don't see any other way to stop him. We'll be getting these articles saying that Alito really is pro-abortion. That's two of them just today. Clearly the talking points have gone out from the DNC.
As far as I know, he is NOT pro-abortion. He has simply felt constrained to follow the rulings laid down by SCOTUS. Only SCOTUS has the judicial power to undo SCOTUS.
I wouldn't put my money on what MSNBC or Specter have to say. As for Specter, he's crazy like a fox. I think he has decided that he must put Alito through the confirmation process, but he wants to cover himself with the liberals in the MSM and in his base.
These quotes are from a 1986 University of Pittsburgh Law Review article by Judge Alito regarding subpoenas and the Fourth Amendment:Citing an 1886 case as "manifest[ly] flaw[ed]," Alito stated that the case had been upheld over time largely because of the "brute force of stare decisis."
And then there's this: "The Supreme Court's past and future difficulties are the wages of insisting that the Constitution answer a question that should be entrusted to the mundane processes of democratic government."
http://jewdicious.blogspot.com/2005/11/great-lines-from-new-nominee.html
It's all about the fanboys. That really was one of the main deciding factors. Other potential nominees had the fanboys, Miers didn't. Anything else can be shouted down, spammed away, or ignored.
Specter is a nitwit.
SCHUMER's REACTION + MARK LEVIN's reaction = SOLID PICK
BELIEVING MSM BILDGE and LIB SENATOR HOT AIR = MORON CONSERVATIVE
This doesn't sound good. Either he's pro life or he's not.