Bush Picks Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

Thanks Joe. That clarified things for me. Sorry if I seemed a bit dense at your reasons for the points you made.

(3) With the appointment of Alito the court will have a Roman Catholic majority (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito). That's rather odd, to put it mildly. I certainly don't adhere to the tired notion that Catholics can't be trusted because they serve a foreign master, but I do think that the court should represent a broader cross-section of the American population. Perhaps this is a welcome change from all the Episcopalians and Presbyterians who have populated the bench in the past. But the US isn't 5/9ths Catholic, so should we have a supreme court that is?

BVT wrote:

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

A dissenting opinion to Casey shouldn't be stretched to infer that Alito would overturn Roe v. Wade. Quite properly at the time, Alito made a judgement call based on previous Supreme Court rulings that including spousal notification would not add "undue burden" to a woman desiring an abortion. In my opionion, this was a proper role and position for a judge to take i.e., interpreting the law based on the Constitution and earlier Supreme Court rulings.

In the Casy decision, the SC basically employed stricter standards than it had previously defined. thus Alito should not be faulted for his dissent. He did exactly what judges are supposed to do, evaluate a case based on a past precedent and acknowledgement of the proper limited role of the courts.

The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems -- such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition -- that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion," wrote Alito. "The Pennsylvania Legislature presumably decided that the law on balance would be beneficial. We have no authority to overrule that legislative judgment even if we deem it 'unwise' or worse.

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, praised Alito's record and said the committee would have an abundance of material to review. . . .

Specter, who supports abortion rights, met for more than an hour with Alito and said afterward that the nominee told him "there is a right to privacy" in the Constitution.

The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems -- such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition -- that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion," wrote Alito. "The Pennsylvania Legislature presumably decided that the law on balance would be beneficial. We have no authority to overrule that legislative judgment even if we deem it 'unwise' or worse.

Now we get to see the loonies on the left, foam at the mount about Roe v Wade, as if it was the most important item on the agenda.

This should be a surprise to NO ONE!
We all knew Meirs was a stall tactic by Bush, just getting the lay of the land, I suppose. We all knew Meirs would never get the spot, it was just a matter of HOW she was going to be removed from consideration. To get this "scalia-lite" appointee, is what should have been expected. Now we get to see the loonies on the left, foam at the mount about Roe v Wade, as if it was the most important item on the agenda. This will be fun to watch.

I think Democrats should fight this to the bitter end. I think most Americans will find this guy to be very radical and this is not a good time for Bush to return to his neo-con roots.

Debra_Law, quoting CNN on 'Casey', wrote:

The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems -- such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition -- that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion," wrote Alito. "The Pennsylvania Legislature presumably decided that the law on balance would be beneficial. We have no authority to overrule that legislative judgment even if we deem it 'unwise' or worse.

That's basically the snippet from Alito's opinion that Rehnquist quoted in his dissent in Casey. Could you or Joe, by any chance, give me a pointer to the 3d circuit court of appeals' Casey decision and Alito's dissent? It would have been interesting to read the whole of it, but it was the only case for which I couldn't find Alito's original text using the 'usual suspects' of Google searches.

That's basically the snippet from Alito's opinion that Rehnquist quoted in his dissent in Casey. Could you or Joe, by any chance, give me a pointer to the 3d circuit court of appeals' Casey decision and Alito's dissent? It would have been interesting to read the whole of it, but it was the only case for which I couldn't find Alito's original text using the 'usual suspects' of Google searches.

Here are Alito's "Hot Topic" links provided by the University of Michigan (excellent resource site):
University of Michigan
http://www.law.umich.edu/library/news/topics/alito/alitoindex.htm

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (PDF format):
http://www.law.umich.edu/library/news/topics/alito/conc&dissopinions/casey1991c&d.pdf

Judge Alito's dissent begins on page 42.

Debra's direct link to the opinion on the Univ. of Michigan website didn't work for me. You need to go to the first link she posted, then click on or scroll down to "Concurring and Dissenting Opinions," then click on the Casey v. Planned Parenthood link.

Alito applied (and I believe, misapplied) the rational basis test which simply asks whether the challenged statute (on its face or as applied) is rationally related to a LEGITIMATE state interest.

Although the majority and I apply different prongs of this two-part test, I see no indication that we disagree concerning the conclusion produced when either prong is applied to Section 3209. If the majority is correct that Section 3209 must satisfy heightened scrutiny, I agree that its constitutionality is doubtful. Similarly, I do not interpret the majority opinion to mean that Section 3209 cannot satisfy the rational relationship test. Indeed, the majority acknowledges that Section 3209 serves a "legitimate" interest. See majority slip op. typescript at 74, 77. Thus, my major disagreement with the majority concerns the question whether Section 3209 imposes an "undue burden", and I will therefore turn to that question.

If the state's alleged interest in the integrity of the marriage refers to the state's interest in keeping married individuals together in wedlock, we agree that this is a legitimate state interest. It is not an interest that the Supreme Court has recognized as a compelling one, however.

I do not expect Roberts to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, or even to overturn the Court's repeated decisions sustaining limited affirmative action programs in state universities and professional schools. It seems likely, moreover, that neither decision will be seen as in the best interests of political conservatives. Overruling Roe would suddenly make abortion again an urgent national political issue for many millions of women who have come to take for granted the right that women have enjoyed for two generations and who now vote to express their views on other issues, often for Republicans. Overruling Roe would not be helpful to the national Republican Party.