January 11, 2006

The Alito Nomination & A Local Case of Bush Derangement Syndrome

Carroll Andrew Morse

Over at RI Future, they're relying partially on distortions, partially on just making stuff up to advocate against Samuel Alito. Here's the distortion...

RI FUTURE: Sen. [Richard] Durbin asked Judge Alito, “John Roberts stated unequivocally that Roe v. Wade was the settled law of the land. Do you, Judge Alito, believe that Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land?”

Unlike, John Roberts, Alito refused to say that Roe is the settled law of the land.

Here's Judge Alito's actual answer to Senator Durbin's question as transcripted in the Washington Post...
DURBIN: But let me just ask you this: John Roberts said that Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. Do you believe it is the settled law of the land?

ALITO: Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. So it's been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions. And I discussed those yesterday.

And it is my -- and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision; sometimes on the merits; sometimes -- in Casey -- based on stare decisis. And I think that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis for at least two reasons.

First of all, the more often a decision is reaffirmed, the more people tend to rely on it. Secondly, I think stare decisis reflects the view that there is wisdom embedded in decisions that have been made by prior justices who take the same oath and are scholars and are conscientious.

And when they examine a question and they reach a conclusion, I think that's entitled to considerable respect. And, of course, the more times that happens, the more respect the decision is entitled to. And that's my view of that.

So it's a very important precedent...

DURBIN: Is it the settled law of the land?

ALITO: If "settled" means that it can't be reexamined, then that's one thing. If "settled" means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect as stare decisis and all of the factors that I've mentioned come into play, including the reaffirmation and all of that, then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis in that way.

Judge for yourself if you think RI Future's portrayal is accurate.

Now, here's where RI Future just makes stuff up...

RI FUTURE: With Judge Alito on the Supreme Court, the count will be 5-4 to make abortion illegal.
We don't yet know how Justice Roberts will vote. In fact, by RI Future's logic, Justice Roberts is a vote in favor of keeping Roe because of precedent.

But forget that for a moment. And pretend that it's not Samuel Alito being nominated to the Supreme Court, but someone who has declared their intention to always vote pro-life, no matter what the facts of the case are. Now what's the hypothetical count in a Roe v. Wade case? Still at least 5 votes in favor of upholding the precedent -- John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. This majority reflects the fact that Justice Ginsburg, a vote in favor of upholding Roe, replaced Justice Byron White, who wrote one of the original dissents in Roe.

The errors in reading, errors in counting, and errors in logic show how unhinged the left has become in its attempts to defeat any Bush judicial nominee, no matter who it is.

If you are interested in the details of Samuel Alito's record of ruling according to the law -- and not according to personal feelings -- in abortion related cases, click here.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

I actually think that they believe their own propaganda. Try as you might to use an intellectual, logic-based argument, it's probably of no use.

The important part is that we all work to convince those capable of reevaluating their preconceived notions regarding Judge Alito. We shouldn't waste our efforts trying to change the minds of those who aren't using their minds to begin with.

Posted by: Will at January 12, 2006 1:02 AM

Now really, people,

All one needs do is to read the absolute lunacy that is posted on that site, RI Future, and you quickly understand where they are coming from.

Actually, I go there often just for a good laugh. They can't actaully believe what they post over there because it is just so far out, no sane person could truly believe it.

RI Future (that name is also their sick joke) is a site of oneupsmanship, where they try to see who can be the most fanatical leftist ideologue.

Posted by: Kramer at January 12, 2006 11:15 AM

I might be more inclined to agree with Kramer were it not for the fact that Matthew Jerzyk (RIPop) who runs rifuture.org, is the Political Director of the RI Young Democrats and an organizer for the Service Employees International Union. RIFuture.org isn't run by cranks. You therefore have to take it seriously as an expression of the policies the progressive wing of the RI Democratic Party favors, and would push hard for if Charlie Fogarty is elected governor in November, 2006. Do a lot of people who read the posts on that site think those policies would drive RI straight into bankruptcy? No doubt. But to think they are joking over there is a big mistake.

Posted by: John at January 12, 2006 12:52 PM

Propoganda is the right word. They've been on Alito since day one - labelling him Scalito though that moniker still rings less relevant when he was first nominated as it does now.

I've yet to read a cogent reason why Judge Alito does not qualify to be a Supreme Court Justice. None.

The left can only grasp at straws or strawmen. But just like the same, the left is getting easily exposed for the flimsy, out of touch, and hollow partisans they are.

Posted by: donroach at January 13, 2006 2:55 AM