Well, certainly no one can remotely call Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. a “stealth” candidate on abortion anymore:
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, wrote that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion” in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.
“I personally believe very strongly” in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.
Ya empieza la guerra….Now the war begins. This is going to delight George Bush’s conservative base and force Democrats to take a harder line on Alito than had seemingly been in the cards. Just read on:
The document, which is likely to inflame liberals who oppose Judge Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, is among many that the White House will release today from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
It’s NOT just liberals. The political pattern we’ve seen from the outset in this adminstration is Bush is backed without question (even if he changes position on a dime…except in the case of the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination) by his hardcore conservative base and opposed steadily by Democratic party’s left wing base.
Before this news surfaced Alito could have sailed through without any substantially strong Democratic opposition.
Now this will become THE issue and could force some in the middle to choose sides. It’ll be interesting to see how this impacts Alito’s poll ratings. A lot will depend on whether this sparks a big debate or not. MORE:
In direct, unambiguous language, the young career lawyer who served as assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee, demonstrated his conservative bona fides as he sought to become a political appointee in the Reagan administration.
“I am and always have been a conservative,” he wrote in an attachment to the noncareer appointment form that he sent to the Presidential Personnel Office. “I am a lifelong registered Republican.”
But his statements against abortion and affirmative action might cause him headaches from Democrats and liberals as he prepares for confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, scheduled for January.
“It has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan’s administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly,” he wrote.
“I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”
And now…get ready for…THE SPIN:
A leading Republican involved in the nomination process insisted that this does not prove Judge Alito, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, will overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that made abortion a constitutional right.
“No, it proves no such thing,” said the Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “In fact, if you look at some of the quotes of his former law clerks, they don’t believe that he’ll overturn Roe v. Wade.”
Judge Alito sided with abortion proponents in three of four rulings during his 15 years as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, usually based on existing law and technical legal issues rather than the right to abortion itself.
“The issue is not Judge Alito’s political views during the Reagan administration 20 years ago,” the Republican official said. “It’s his 15 years of jurisprudence, which can be evaluated in hundreds of opinions. And in none of those opinions is it evident what his political philosophy is.
The spin is unlikely to work here. In reality, it COULD BE that Alito has evolved over the years (yours truly was a Democrat, Republican, a liberal, conservative, liberal and now doesn’t belong to any party or identify with anyone). But the bottom line is that he is now branded as someone who not just has questions about abortion but does not feel it’s a right.
So social conservatives will open the champagne, since there is not the slightest question (in their minds) where he will stand now (eliminate or undermine Roe V Wade) and Democrats will be decide how to use this against Alito since there is not the slightest question (in their minds) where he will stand now (to eliminate Roe V Wade).
And the question becomes whether this is enough to stiffen opposition to Alito. The betting is it won’t stop his nomination. But the betting here is also that the Bush administration will make more enemies and lose support by the way it will try to spin this as being meaningless — when even a cabbage reading this news report would know it indicates a slight….ahem…pre-conceived preference on this issue.
UPDATE: UCLA Professor Stephen Bainbridge, in a must-read post, says this is a vindication for “the anti-Mier’s crowd.” Here’s just one point (read the rest yasself):
I think this clearly vindicates those of us who led the anti-Miers fight. Yes, it was 20 years ago, and yes it doesn’t mean that Alito’s views haven’t changed, but nobody ever found such an unequivocal statement of commitment to conservative values uttered or penned by Harriet Miers. Only by standing up to Bush and the party loyalists were conservatives able to get a judge who gives us a shot at advancing movement concerns. It would be nice if the Bush loyalitsts who so regularly bashed us anti-Miers types, but are now delighted by Alito’s statement, would at least admit that we had a point even if they’re still unwilling to admit that we were right.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.