Well this is quite dissapointing. In an earlier post I hoped that Alito's abortion "outing" would force Republicans to say that believing abortion is unconstitutional does not make you a whacko. But it appears that Alito himself is backing down.
"Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito distanced himself Tuesday from his 1985 comments that there was no constitutional right to abortion, telling a senator [Fienstein] in private that he had been "an advocate seeking a job."
This is dissapointing to me not only in the fact that nobody is standing for the "pro-life = normal" position, but that it shows weakness in his character. He is saying that he lied to get a job then and he didn't truly believe what he said. The other possibility is that he is lying to Fienstien now (kinda like lying to the Devil I suppose), but that is dissapointing because he is still lying and refusing to stand for his beliefs. The message then would be that it is acceptable to lie to accomplish the "greater good" (get on the SC). I suppose this is the way politics functions these days, but it is what is killing us.
Is there no one in this country willing to say that our country was founded on the principle of "Inalienable Rights" and among those listed prominently is LIFE and not abortion? If one takes an honest look at the original intent there is no basis for the "right to abortion" in the Constitution. Interpreting the Constitution based on original intent is NOT out of the mainstream and somebody needs to stand up and say so.
I'm dissapointed...
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Dissapointed in Alito
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I don't think he's lying then or now.
"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 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.'"
The "law" he interpreted on the circuit court included Roe V. Wade which he had to accept (despite personal disagreements). But on the SC we will be able to address Roe V. Wade on a different level.
also
Alito, 55, has told senators in his two weeks of private meetings that he has "great respect" for Roe v. Wade as a precedent, but he did not commit to upholding it.
So he has not promised anything...
He Either...
(1) meant what he said then and is lying now,
(2) did not actually believe what he said then and was lying (or misrepresenting his beliefs) then to get the job, or
(3) his position has evolved (which is legitimately acceptable).
or (4) That he meant what he said then and even today IF he were seeking an advocate job, he would say it again and mean it, but that since he is a current judge and is seek a higher judgeship job, he isn't going to be an advocate.
What he isn't saying, but is known, is that as a SC judge he would interpret the law AND the consitution. Nothing that he has said indicates that his view of the constitution and RvW has changed. He respects it, but what does that mean? Nothing since as a SC judge, he has the ablity to overturn it (respectfully, of course)
I also would not be so quick to dismiss #3. I don't see how you can rule it out "safely".
He is saying "IT" was different then in a tone that also implies "I" was different then.
I don't think he is all that different now, but I really don't know the guy. He certainly is different now in that he would not make such a statement since he's a judge and not an advocate.
No, the last two comments were not contradictory. Even thought I don't think his position has evolved enough to change how he will rule, that doesn't mean we can "safely rule it out". Especially when doing so leads you to conclude he is lying (then or now).
I would think that his overall beliefs HAVE changed to some extent, but hopefully not enoght to chainge how he would rule.
Distanceing himself for a past "statement" is different from distancing himself from a past "belief". So far, he has only been talking about "the statement" and its context. And he refuses to comment on this "beliefs".
This all doesn't really matter becase the Dems are not buying it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175731,00.html
However, there is a BIG difference in distancing yourself form a past statement and a past belief. I don't see how I can make that point any clear.
So far he has only distance himself from the statement or the document, not the belief.
He would never write or say such a statement while seeking a judgeship because judges don't divulge their beliefs BEFOREHAND. So he can HONESTLY say that he would not WRITE OR SAY that statement today.
It has nothing to do with what he believes, just what he would or would SAY today.
Post a Comment