Moonie TimesJudge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Cons ution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 do ent 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.
The do ent, 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.
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."
Not that this represents any type of lytmus-test for Alito or anything. I'm sure it's all just pure liberal hype and a mere coincidink.
All of the SCJ's have a clear opinion on the matter and are divided in that opinion. Is Alito supposed to have a neutral opinion of no opinion at all in order to qualify him for the court?
That was 20 years ago and he could certainly argue an evolution of thinking if he chose to do so.
So what?
Dan you had your Gins(berg), we'll get our conservative brewed Samuels.
I personally like Newcastle though.
But who the likes Bus(c)h Light aka "John Kerry".
...ok, i'm getting a little too corny. I need more michelob!
The Cons ution does not protect abortion, but it also doesn't explicitly protect your right to __________________________________. (Fill in the blank with whatever you like to do.)
Is there any particular reason that hot-news opinions from Judicial nominees always seem to come from the 80's? Just curious... Didn't Alito or John Roberts have anything to say in the last 20 years?
"Didn't Alito or John Roberts have anything to say in the last 20 years?"
if they did, the excessively secretive WH will do everything possible to cloak them in executive privilege.
Great answer.
The Bush White house huh?
With that lame comment, i should give you a lame response. Janet Reno's own "no comment.".
the dubya WH has moved tons of do ents back under executive privilege that the Clinton WH was moving into the open, inlcuding Clintons own papers.
Somebody missed the point.
Unless you were looking for the Rose law firm billing records. They were just laying there in plain view but couldn't be found.......
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
