The Washington Times gives us the story....
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.
"I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.
The document, which is likely to inflame liberals who oppose Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, is among many that the White House will release today from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
This is sure to enrage liberals who have come believe that the right to have abortion is in the Constitution somewhere (although, I still can't find it) and will be considered good news by conservatives who understand that the right to have an abortion is nowhere within the text of the Constitution.
I say this is good that it came out... I'd like to see this discussed during Alito's hearings... Perhaps now we can have the debate about the need for conservatives on the Supreme Court, and about the Constitutionality of abortion.
UPDATE: More here, and here.
Posted by Matt at November 14, 2005 11:12 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/president.cgi/5981
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Alito: Abortion Is Not A Right:
All Things Beautiful linked with Alito Supposedly Declares on Abortion
Matt Margolis @ Blogs For Bush hopes for opening the debate on the Constitutionality of abortion...
[Read More]
Tracked on November 14, 2005 04:39 PM
The Tar Pit linked with Alito: no Constitutional "right to an abortion" -- Open Tar Pit #2
"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."
[Read More]
Tracked on November 14, 2005 04:40 PM
The Political Teen linked with Judge Alito: Abortion is Not a Right
Judge Alito: Abortion is Not a Right
...
[Read More]
Tracked on November 14, 2005 05:38 PM
The Right Nation linked with Alito: On Abortion Explodes the Battle
Bill Sammon's scoop on the Washington Times fires up the battle - on the Right and on the Left - for the confirmation of Samuel Alito at the Supreme Court. in a 1985 document obtained by the newspaper, Alito wrote that "the Constitution does not prot...
[Read More]
Tracked on November 14, 2005 05:46 PM
The Barking Left linked with Proof that Alito can read!
It has now been confirmed that SCOTUS nominee Judge Alito has actually read the Constitution (of the US, that's where I live, and him too I think). The Washington Post has uncovered this information from documents that are scheduled to be released by th
[Read More]
Tracked on November 14, 2005 07:17 PM
Crescat Sententia linked with The omissions of Dahlia Lithwick
In her latest column for Slate, Dahlia Lithwick complains that having said that it is time for a national conversation about proper judging and the meaning of the constitution, conservatives refuse to step up to the plate. In particular, her...
[Read More]
Tracked on November 17, 2005 05:34 PM
Crescat Sententia linked with The omissions of Dahlia Lithwick
In her latest column for Slate, Dahlia Lithwick complains that having said that it is time for a national conversation about proper judging and the meaning of the constitution, conservatives refuse to step up to the plate. In particular, her...
[Read More]
Tracked on November 17, 2005 05:34 PM
Crescat Sententia linked with The omissions of Dahlia Lithwick
In her latest column for Slate, Dahlia Lithwick complains that having said that it is time for a national conversation about proper judging and the meaning of the constitution, conservatives refuse to step up to the plate. In particular, her...
[Read More]
Tracked on November 17, 2005 05:42 PM
Crescat Sententia linked with The omissions of Dahlia Lithwick
In her latest column for Slate, Dahlia Lithwick complains that having said that it is time for a national conversation about proper judging and the meaning of the constitution, conservatives refuse to step up to the plate. In particular, her...
[Read More]
Tracked on November 17, 2005 05:42 PM
Crescat Sententia linked with The omissions of Dahlia Lithwick
In her latest column for Slate, Dahlia Lithwick complains that having said that it is time for a national conversation about proper judging and the meaning of the constitution, conservatives refuse to step up to the plate. In particular, her...
[Read More]
Tracked on November 17, 2005 05:42 PM
Newsblog linked with The Blog Herald: more blog news more often
An issue or news story to discuss? Submit a blog entry...
[Read More]
Tracked on December 20, 2005 08:12 AM
Comments
it need to be stop ed it is wrong stop abortoin no w please don t le t my kids grow up in a worl d tha t tell s therwe they can kill little nbaby please stop it please please
Posted by: rebekah at November 14, 2005 12:49 PM
Abortion is Religious Bigotry
The opposition to abortion is a religious issue. Christians have always tried to exert strict control over sexual activity and preproduction and church fathers make it a serious crime to terminate a fetus. The basis is the Christian doctrine of "immediate ensoulment." It is believed by strict Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants that the soul entered the body at the time of conception and all abortions for them, at any time, was considered the sin of murder
Hank Roth
http://pnews.org/
Also see Abortion, Reason or Reaction
Posted by:
Hank Roth at November 14, 2005 01:02 PM
I guess I'll go with shaking my head. No matter whatever else happens, the ultimate "litmus test" for Judge Alito will be his stance on abortion and this will provide fuel for the fire the el cubos have lit.
Not that that's not a bad thing, you see....
Posted by: Macker at November 14, 2005 02:55 PM
As one would expect the Washington (com)Post reported it with an inflammatory headline.
Posted by: Rplat at November 14, 2005 05:34 PM
The left needs to be challenged publically during those hearings. Do they wish to allow activism from both parties in the judiciary or do they wish it to be in the hands of the people via their elected politicians?
All "precedent" incorrectly created is also open to review and of course, amendment.
Posted by: DL at November 14, 2005 06:01 PM
The real culprit in this fiasco is that fool, Specter. Instead of beginning the hearings immediately, he put them off until January so the Democrats would have plenty of time to fabricate a case against Alito. On the other hand, he's probably no worse than those in the senate that gave him the chairmanship of that committee. Who needs enemies when you have friends like this?
Posted by: Rplat at November 14, 2005 07:10 PM
Hank Roth,
And your point is, what precisely?
Of course opposition to abortion is grounded in religion...all moral movements are so grounded. Heck, welfare is ultimately grounded in the religious principle of charity.
The question before us is this: do we, as a society, want to be a people who kill innocents because they are inconvenient at the moment?
Posted by: Mark Noonan at November 15, 2005 03:15 AM
Abortion is the premature removal of a living fetus from the body of a woman for the sole purpose of killing it. Furthermore, it is frequently done only to rid a person of an inconvenience and the responsibility for a child's care and nurturing That event as defined above could even turn the stomach of practicing atheists. Because of Its vile nature it is routinely shrouded in platitudes justifying it as a woman’s right to control her own destiny and her body.
Sorry Roth, the opposition to abortion transcends religion
Posted by: Rplat at November 15, 2005 09:33 AM
Rplat, you are correct - opposition to abortion most definitely trancends religion.
Roth, I know many pro-life people who are neither strict Catholics nor fundamentalist Protestants. Your arguement, furthermore, is somewhat circular as I can say support for abortion is also religiously based, held by those who either don't believe in a soul (in which case, why not decriminalize all murder) or who believe in ensoulment at some other completely arbitrary point.
As Mark said, what's your point?
Posted by: CeCe at November 15, 2005 04:25 PM
Rplat, you are correct - opposition to abortion most definitely trancends religion.
Roth, I know many pro-life people who are neither strict Catholics nor fundamentalist Protestants. Your arguement, furthermore, is somewhat circular as I can say support for abortion is also religiously based, held by those who either don't believe in a soul (in which case, why not decriminalize all murder) or who believe in ensoulment at some other completely arbitrary point.
As Mark said, what's your point?
Posted by: CeCe at November 15, 2005 04:31 PM
Post a comment
it need to be stop ed it is wrong stop abortoin no w please don t le t my kids grow up in a worl d tha t tell s therwe they can kill little nbaby please stop it please please
Abortion is Religious Bigotry
The opposition to abortion is a religious issue. Christians have always tried to exert strict control over sexual activity and preproduction and church fathers make it a serious crime to terminate a fetus. The basis is the Christian doctrine of "immediate ensoulment." It is believed by strict Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants that the soul entered the body at the time of conception and all abortions for them, at any time, was considered the sin of murder
Hank Roth
http://pnews.org/
Also see Abortion, Reason or Reaction
I guess I'll go with shaking my head. No matter whatever else happens, the ultimate "litmus test" for Judge Alito will be his stance on abortion and this will provide fuel for the fire the el cubos have lit.
Not that that's not a bad thing, you see....
As one would expect the Washington (com)Post reported it with an inflammatory headline.
The left needs to be challenged publically during those hearings. Do they wish to allow activism from both parties in the judiciary or do they wish it to be in the hands of the people via their elected politicians?
All "precedent" incorrectly created is also open to review and of course, amendment.
The real culprit in this fiasco is that fool, Specter. Instead of beginning the hearings immediately, he put them off until January so the Democrats would have plenty of time to fabricate a case against Alito. On the other hand, he's probably no worse than those in the senate that gave him the chairmanship of that committee. Who needs enemies when you have friends like this?
Hank Roth,
And your point is, what precisely?
Of course opposition to abortion is grounded in religion...all moral movements are so grounded. Heck, welfare is ultimately grounded in the religious principle of charity.
The question before us is this: do we, as a society, want to be a people who kill innocents because they are inconvenient at the moment?
Abortion is the premature removal of a living fetus from the body of a woman for the sole purpose of killing it. Furthermore, it is frequently done only to rid a person of an inconvenience and the responsibility for a child's care and nurturing That event as defined above could even turn the stomach of practicing atheists. Because of Its vile nature it is routinely shrouded in platitudes justifying it as a woman’s right to control her own destiny and her body.
Sorry Roth, the opposition to abortion transcends religion
Rplat, you are correct - opposition to abortion most definitely trancends religion.
Roth, I know many pro-life people who are neither strict Catholics nor fundamentalist Protestants. Your arguement, furthermore, is somewhat circular as I can say support for abortion is also religiously based, held by those who either don't believe in a soul (in which case, why not decriminalize all murder) or who believe in ensoulment at some other completely arbitrary point.
As Mark said, what's your point?
Rplat, you are correct - opposition to abortion most definitely trancends religion.
Roth, I know many pro-life people who are neither strict Catholics nor fundamentalist Protestants. Your arguement, furthermore, is somewhat circular as I can say support for abortion is also religiously based, held by those who either don't believe in a soul (in which case, why not decriminalize all murder) or who believe in ensoulment at some other completely arbitrary point.
As Mark said, what's your point?