The Senate Judiciary Committe has begun its opening statements regarding the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. In his opening remarks, Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) had this to say about questions that will be directed to Judge Alito concerning abortion (source):
Perhaps the dominant issue is the widespread concern about Judge Alitos position on a womans right to choose. This has arisen, in part, because of a 1985 statement by Judge Alito that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion, his advocacy in the Solicitor Generals Office to modify Roe v. Wade and the dissenting portion of his opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood in the Third Circuit. This hearing will give Judge Alito the public forum to address the issue, as he has with Senators in private meetings, that his personal views and prior advocacy will not determine his judicial decision, but instead he will weigh factors such as stare decisis on the precedents, womens (and mens, too) reliance on Roe, and whether Roe is embedded in the culture of our nation.
The history of the Court is full of surprises on this issue. The major case upholding Roe is Casey v. Planned Parenthood, where the landmark opinion was written jointly by Justices OConnor, Kennedy and Souter. Justices OConnor and Kennedy were outspoken in opposition to abortion rights before joining the Court. As New Hampshires Attorney General, David Souter had opposed repealing his states law banning abortions even after Roe had declared it unconstitutional. At the time of Justice Souters confirmation hearing, there was a Stop Souter Rally by the National Organization for Women on Capitol Hill. The red letter poster said Stop Souter or Women Will Die.I understand Specter's implied criticism of abortion extremists who are already rallying against Alito with similar ridiculous and untrue assertions. Yet I'm tired of Senators who cater to the left by suggesting that Alito could be a "Souter" or a "Kennedy" and that taking a strong pro-life stand is unacceptable for a judge.
LifeNews is convering the hearing and Bench Memos has great commentary.
Note: Supreme Court posts by pro-life bloggers are aggregated here.
Specter is reminding his fellow pro-choicers that a vote to confirm Alito is not necessarily a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. This is entirely reasonable for a pro-choice Republican in Specter's position to say. It's not even bad for a pro-lifer who simply wants the truth and nothing but the truth to be reported. I have no problem with saying that Alito's mother says he's pro-life, that Alito at one point thought Roe was wrongly decided, and that Alito has authored opinions that would restrict abortion. I do have a problem going beyond those pieces of evidence unless one carefully states that one's conclusion is an inference that isn't 100% sure. That's why I will continue to insist that pro-choicers who portray him as a duplicate of Scalia and Thomas on this issue are simply going beyond the evidence. It's not a matter of making Scalia and Thomas on the issue appear bad. It's a matter simply of acknowledging how much we know and how much we don't.
Actually a great comment - well said. I think each side of the issue tends to read a lot into certain actions and statements without a full consideration of the context. Toward that end I think I would have to agree, in contradiction to what I wrote, that Specter was not catering.