Liberal activist groups are abuzz about a 1985 memo that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote arguing that the government “should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade.” But did anybody in America not already think this was Alito’s view? Isn’t that why President Bush picked him? Besides, even as important as abortion is, the Senate should not block a highly qualified and competent nominee based on this one issue.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- satatom on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Jail consultants straining patience
- Monkeyhawk on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JWink on Jail consultants straining patience
- Monkeyhawk on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Health care reform would save state money
- XXX on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
6 Comments
The Senate shouldn’t block a nominee based “on this one issue.”
How about if he said he thinks the constitution is just a g-damned piece of paper? Would that be just “one issue”? What if he said that the second amendment does not guarantee Americans the right to own guns and that all guns should be confiscated by the gov’t? Would that “one issue” be enough to block his nomination?
Is there any opinion that a potential jurist can hold that would disqualify them from holding a Supreme Court seat?
What if they’re just really dumb?
As long as he ain’t Pro casino he is OK.Anybody notice the shameless plug for casinos by the Eagle?
Great one, Philip. There is such an abundance of information presented in your soliloquy that one doesn’t need to look any further, does one? How about a link to this mysterious memo the Liberal Activists are “all abuzz” about. We might find things are taken out of context maybe? Gee, bet that never happens, does it? As it is, this is a useless piece of information that tells us absolutely nothing but what you want us to read. But then again, isn’t that what blogs are all about? Personally, I expect something better.
Me too. I agree that Roe should not be the sole focus, but, in case you haven’t noticed (i.e. read anything), Phillip, concerns about Roe are just the tip of the iceberg.
The “White House is pulling for her?”
Actually, I did a lot of pulling for her on that submarine, if you know what I mean.
It’s always funny to me that during the Miers hearings, the conservative side of the aisle were gung-ho about questioning Miers’ “judicial philosophy.” Aside from her arguable lack of judicial experience, many members of the right wing were up front that she didn’t follow a far right agenda and thus would vote “no” on her nomination. I was at Schumer’s press conference today where media questioned his skepticism of Alito’s record. Why? When his record is so transparent and lengthy, why are we prohibited from questioning his past judicial decisions?We’re not talking about personal beliefs. Alito has made it clear that his personal beliefs often affect his judicial ones.Examples: He’s made it clear he wants to reverse Roe v. Wade completely.-Polls show 60-70% of Americans want to retain Roe v. Wade in its entirety.Is this middle of the road? Is he really representing the law as Americans want to see it?
Things to think about (to rip off Schumer): What if the nominee said “I personally believe that there should be no guns on the street. Thus, I think constitutionally, according to the strictest of definitions, I will work my utmost on the Supremem Court to block gun possession completely.” Would (should?) conservatives not question this due to respecting his judicial philosophy? No.