Alito, and trust

[pecunium]

Judge Alito said his legal opinion was that the Constitution doesn't support the holding of the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade. Since we are contemplating his appointment to a job where he will be using his legal opinions to make decisions, I think it matters still.

He said this when he was hoping to be hired by the Reagan administration. Senator Feinstein (with whom I've already shared a piece of my mind. I am not happy with her, haven't been for years, the only real problem is the alternatives I've been offered) said today, in response to him saying, in essence, "I didn't really mean it, I was just trying to get the job,"

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., an abortion rights supporter and the only woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said she asked the conservative judge about a document released Monday showing Alito in 1985 telling the Reagan administration he was particularly proud to help argue that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

"He said first of all it was different then," she said. "He said, 'I was an advocate seeking a job, it was a political job and that was 1985. I'm now a judge, I've been on the circuit court for 15 years and it's very different. I'm not an advocate, I don't give heed to my personal views, what I do is interpret the law.'"

When asked whether she found his answer satisfactory, Feinstein said: "The question is, Did I believe he was being absolutely truthful, and I did."

The question I have is whether she believes he was being truthful when he said he would lie to get the job, because it is, at its best interpretation, disingenous to think the personal and the political never intersect with the legal opinions of those on the bench.

We know that he has, in the past, decided his testimony to the Senate about how he would behave on the bench could be rendered, "inoperative," to use the words of another menadacious public servant, in light of his not recusal in cases where he'd promised to do so.

He, and his supporters are also playing the public for fools (not exactly a bad bet), byh saying, "He relied on precedent [not clear, given his record of reversal] in the past, so (now that he has the right to set precedent, and no one abovce him to overturn; barring the odd Graham type amendment to defense bill, in response to Supreme Court decisions), he will retain that level of restraint in the future.

Bullshit.

His record is one of putting the corporation over the individual, the police over the magistrate, the gov't ahead of the citizen.

The Ninth Amendment says the list of rights in the Constitution, and the eight preceding amendments, are not restrictive; that the people retain all sorts of rights, not enumerated. Alito, and his ilk, take the other tack, that only those rights (and not broadly) mentioned exist. Where there is a conflict between the privelege of the state and the liberty of the people, the people lose.

To be honest, I'd rather see nine Thomases on the court, than one Alito.

Comments

[honormac.livejournal.com]

The quote on his past and supposed future use of restraint is the most stunning nonsense. It never ceases to amaze me that the noise machine of the right can even produce this kind of sick parody of logic and truth with anything approaching a straight face. It's, if anything, even more terrifyingly amazing how often it works.

I'm with you... The last one was scary. This one is flat out horific.

[sethg]

Is there some custom of Senatorial courtesy that prevents people from calling a spade a spade?

Alito was nominated by a president who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade* to appease right-wing activists who want to overturn Roe v. Wade. He has risen through the ranks of a movement in jurisprudence that holds overturning Roe v. Wade as one of its key values. He made no secret of his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade when he worked for the Reagan Administration. As a judge in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, he obviously didn't have the authority to overturn Roe v. Wade, but he interpreted that precedent in a way that took the most restrictive possible view of a woman's right to an abortion.

And now we're supposed to believe that if he gets a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, there's some kind of doubt as to what he will do with Roe v. Wade? If you put a Port-a-Potty in the woods, will the bears start shitting in it? Sheesh!

*Not to mention all the other long-established precedents that the right fringe looks down on. Remember, this guy was brown-nosing for a promotion in the office of Attorney General Edwin "if a person is innocent of a crime, then by definition he is not a suspect" Meese.

[ourika.livejournal.com]

It's interesting that he says he lied and that he didn't mean it, "He was just trying to get the job." Last I checked, one of the few "quick and easy" ways left to fire someone without getting a possible backlash later was to find that they'd lied on their application/resume. He didn't get the job, but he was willing to lie to get it.

Makes me wonder how many truths he's telling this time around to get the job (oh, sure, he says that he's not because there's no need to now...). But this is a more important position and it's got a lifetime employment-ship (my new, made up word for the day).

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

I'm shocked, shocked to find that Alito opposes abortion and doesn't think there is a right to it protected by the Constitution! Come on, who is surprised by this? We all know it, we knew it as soon as he was nominated. The fact that he's lying through his teeth now should be less surprising, considering he just alleged he was lying through his teeth to get that job back then. Once a liar, always a liar. He's not qualified and not ethical and we don't need him on the court.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I'm not shocked, any more than you, or Claude Rains (bowing to jmhm) were really shocked.

What saddens (and worries) me, is those people (on both sides of the aisle) who aren't willing to fight about the things we're discovering.

That I had to threaten one of my senators with joining someone else's campaign, in an attempt to get her to oppose someone like this; who admits he's willing to lie to get the job (but trust me, I'd never lie to you, and that was then, this is now, the check is in the mail), and who has a track record like this; that more than saddens me; it infuriates me.

I don't have much in the way of litmus tests, but honesty in public servants is one of them, and he's failed.

It bothers me (and gives me hope) that I have to be one of the people trying to raise a stink. Yes, the electorate needs to oversee the actions of the elected, but I ought not need to remind them of what's right so often.

There are those who will say it's because I'm out of step. I disagree.

I think it's because the media have so given over to the loudmouths with the money that there is no ready check to the right, and so being a loudmouth on the net is as good as it gets.

Sigh.

TK

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

I'm taken by the thought of 9 Clarence Thomases sitting on a single court--I suspect they'd end up disagreeing with each other so much, out of sheer spitefulness, that nothing much would get sone.

[karl-lembke.livejournal.com]

Judge Alito said his legal opinion was that the Constitution doesn't support the holding of the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade. Since we are contemplating his appointment to a job where he will be using his legal opinions to make decisions, I think it matters still.

    Well, we have a number of cases where Alito decided cases in accord with prevailing law and against his personal preferences, so we have at least a little evidence that he is capable of setting his personal opinion aside while on the bench. This is not a unique trait in humankind, either. Mario Cuomo is personally opposed to abortion (at least we may assume as much since he's a practicing Catholic), but did not oppose liberal abortion laws in New York when he was governor.
    As for the notion that Roe v Wade might have been wrongly decided, this view is shared by many legal scholars on the left, including Lawrence Tribe.