Now wait a second. Alito didn't write "I believe abortion is wrong." He wrote "The Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." Now it's fine for people like you and me to have that as a personal opinion. We may be right, we may be wrong, whatever. But for a judge sitting on the bench, that's a legal opinion, not merely a personal one. How can Alito say as an advocate that there is no such right, then as a judge sitting a bench, somehow manage to find the complete opposite? Is his legal reasoning as an advocate different then his legal reasoning as a judge? I suppose it's not impossible to imagine that Alito, 20 or so years later, could arrive a different conclusion in a case before the Supreme Court. If he had said something narrower like "I believe the Constitution does not allow for abortions for minor without parental consent in every circumstance" well, now that he could change his mind about. But this is different. His statement is so broad and definitive that the only way he could find otherwise in an opinion now is if he were to hold the exact opposite opinion now. Which clearly is not the case.As for the earlier memo, the senator said, "I asked him about the line here, 'The Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.' And he identifies that as a personal opinion . . . and he said that his personal opinion would not be a factor in his judicial decision."
Of course all of this smoke and mirrors about what he said when is a bunch of hoo-ha. It's silly to think that a Justice can somehow override his own personal opinion, and act completely dispassionately, in a case before the Supreme Court. If he didn't believe that abortion should be restricted, he never would've been nominated in the first place. But it sure is great fun to watch the Bush administration and Alito bend over backwards to say he doesn't believe what he says he believes, while they cross their fingers behind their backs and wink at their conservative Christian supporters.
No comments:
Post a Comment