Abortion Contortions
Wendy Long and the Judicial Confirmation Network believe that Roe was wrongly decided. So why, given evidence that Judge Sam A. Alito once openly expressed a similar belief, do they seek to downplay and shrug off his remarks?
Weren't these the same folks who were aching for a statement like this from Harriet Miers?
Further, Long, in suggesting that Alito's 1985 application essay does not mean what it appears to mean, notes that Alito has expressed reverence for precedence. That implies that even if Alito opposes Roe, he respects it as [strengthened through Casey and thus] settled law.
But days ago, after Alito seemed to tacitly endorse Roe's precedential value, Long was quick to say that, of course, Alito could have very well meant to slyly suggest that Roe was not a settled precedent at all.
Such language games are a sign of how quickly social conservative interest groups are eager to help the White House post-Miers -- even -- dare we suggest -- at the cost of their own coherence. The implication is that if Alito actually said something definitive about Roe, then liberals will find a way to filibuster him, perhaps joined by pro-choice mod Republicans.
BTW: Conservoblogger Professor Bainbridge is quite clear on what the Washington Times article means.
Long writes today that "Judge Alito's statement in 1985 reflects a legal view that has been widely held among judges, lawyers, and legal scholars from across the political spectrum, who have widely divergent views on the proper abortion policy."
True, there are many liberal legal scholars who agree that Roe was imporperly decided, but who, in endorsing substantive due process rights, believe that the Constitution does guarantee the right to choose. Few liberal legal scholars believe that "the living Constitution," as they see it, has nothing at all to say about abortion rights.
"That legal view -- that the Constitution is silent on the question of abortion, and does not mandate either a pro-life or a pro-choice policy, but rather leaves the matter of abortion to be decided by the people’s representatives instead of the courts –- is a view shared by the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the late Justice Byron White (a Democrat and Kennedy appointee), and the late federal Court of Appeals Judge Henry Friendly, among many others."
It doesn't mandate a view, but in the 1985/2005 vernacular of abortion debates, it certainly suggests one! In other words, job giver Edwin Meese certainly knew what job seeker Alito was trying to get at.
A statement by ACLJ's Jay Sekulow is much more clear: "“he fact that Judge Alito criticized the legal underpinnings supporting abortion as a constitutional right should not Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who is working to support the Judge Alito nomination. "The statement by Judge Alito mirrors that of the late Supreme Court Justice Byron White, who was appointed by President Kennedy, and the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. At the same time, the Senate overwhelmingly approved Justices Breyer and Ginsburg after they expressed comments supporting the right to abortion. Even Justice Ginsburg – who supports the right to abortion – has questioned the legal underpinnings of Roe v. Wade. A statement by Judge Alito two decades ago questioning the constitutionality of the right to an abortion cannot be used to disqualify him for a seat on the high court. The Senate should focus on Judge Alito’s judicial philosophy and his 15-year record of service on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit."
