So the pun was strained. Its been a long weekend. The New York Times weighs in today on Judge Alito.
Judge Alito has tried to reassure Democratic senators by talking about his respect for Supreme Court precedents, including Roe v. Wade. It would be unwise to put too much stock in such reassurances. Even justices who value precedent, as most do, sometimes overturn existing case law with which they disagree. It should give Democrats pause that after Judge Alito's meetings with senators, both sworn opponents of Roe and fervent supporters have emerged reassured.
One group that clearly does not believe that Judge Alito will be a slave to existing Supreme Court precedents is the far right. Many of the same groups and individuals who waged a fierce campaign against Ms. Miers, President Bush's previous nominee for this seat, appear to be lining up in support of Judge Alito. Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican who strongly opposes abortion, and other rights the court has recognized over the years, declared after meeting with Judge Alito, "This is the type of nominee I've been asking for."
Now lets think about this. If Alito pleases both opponents and supporters of Roe, that's bad. If he pleases opponents of Roe at all, that's bad. The implication is that no judge should be confirmed who is not explicitly pro-choice. This is of course the New York Times position, but they are not honest people, and so they won't tell you that. They say they want a candidate who is in the mainstream, but they are in fact insisting on a candidate who is in the leftstream.
What the Times cannot imagine is that conservatives might be honest when they tell people what kind of judge they want. I am pro-life, but I would oppose a judge who was prepared to rule that the Constitution prohibits abortion. I don't want people on either side reading their politics into the Constitution.
Recent Comments