Steve’s Weblog

S.D. House Approves Abortion Ban Bill

By CHET BROKAW
The Associated Press
Friday, February 24, 2006; 4:38 PM

PIERRE, S.D. — South Dakota lawmakers approved a ban on nearly all abortions Friday, setting up a deliberate frontal assault on Roe v. Wade at a time when some activists see the U.S. Supreme Court as more willing than ever to overturn the 33-year-old decision.

Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman’s life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

Washington Post

Looks like the people who want to take away women’s privacy and freedom didn’t waste any time in putting the wheels in motion on plans to overturn Roe v. Wade. I bet it already feels like Roe is overturned to the women of South Dakota. This ban will outlaw abortion altogether without an exception to protect women’s lives and with no exception for women whose health is in danger or are pregnant due to rape or incest!

not just for women and not just because of his views on abortion rights… but for gays and blacks and everyone who isn’t a white christian.

Alito on His Way to Confirmation

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 31 minutes ago

WASHINGTON – Samuel Anthony Alito Jr., the son of an Italian immigrant and a longtime lawyer, prosecutor and judge, is poised to take his place as the 110th Supreme Court justice behind what is expected to be the most partisan victory for a high court nominee in modern history.

Yahoo News

“There is no consensus that he will allow the court to perform its vital role in continuing the march of progress toward justice and equal opportunity,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

The Vote Of A Lifetime

Many people seem curious or even skeptical why United States Senators believe it’s so important to take a stand against the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court — why we’re willing to take on a fight that conventional wisdom suggests we will lose.

The reality is simple. We care about the future of our country.

We care about the millions of Americans who expect Congress to stand up and fight for their rights and their freedoms, and we also know that the Supreme Court, again and again, is the battlefield on which those rights and freedoms are decided.

So let’s get this straight. The time to fight is now – before we make the irreversible decision of confirming a new Supreme Court Justice. When you’re talking about the Supreme Court, you don’t live to fight another day. It’s a zero sum game. Once Judge Alito becomes Justice Alito, there’s no turning back the Senate confirmation vote. We don’t get to ‘take a mulligan’ when choosing a Supreme Court Justice. The direction our country takes for the next thirty years is being set now. Will it matter if we speak up after the Supreme Court has granted the executive the right to use torture, or to eavesdrop without warrants? Will it matter if we speak up only after a woman’s right to privacy has been taken away? Will history record what we say after the courthouse door is slammed in the faces of women, minorities, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor? No. History will record what we say and what we do now.

Read the rest of it at the Huffington Post.

US anti-abortion movement sees victory near

42 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Thirty-three years after a Supreme Court decision gave women the right to abortions, anti-abortion activists expressed “new hope” that they would soon be able to outlaw the practice.

Yahoo

No, not the woman who ran out of the confirmation hearings in tears, though that did make for some good soap opera drama, didn’t it? The Fat lady is about to sing, signifying it’s over. Despinte all the drama from activists, Alito looks to be headed to confirmation.

Alito Likely To Become A Justice
Liberals See Slim Chance Of Blocking Confirmation

By Charles Babington and Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 13, 2006; Page A01

Samuel A. Alito Jr., an appellate judge who could shift the Supreme Court significantly to the right, appeared headed for the high court yesterday after completing three days of interrogation without a serious misstep.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee made a final stab at challenging Alito on presidential powers, the death penalty and other matters. But their efforts sometimes seemed halfhearted, and even the most liberal advocacy groups acknowledged privately that they saw slim hopes of preventing his confirmation later this month in the full Senate, where Republicans hold 55 of the 100 seats.

Washington Post

Alito Leaves Door Open to Reversing ‘Roe’
Membership In Controversial Group Surfaces As an Issue

By Amy Goldstein and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 12, 2006; Page A01

The once-sluggish confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. turned confrontational yesterday, as the nominee signaled he might be willing to revisit the ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and Democrats pummeled him over his membership in an alumni group that wanted to restrict enrollment of women and minorities.

Alito edged closer to suggesting that he might be willing to reconsider Roe if he is confirmed to the high court, refusing, under persistent questioning by Democrats, to say that he regards the 1973 decision as “settled law” that “can’t be reexamined.” In this way, his answers departed notably from those that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. gave when asked similar questions during his confirmation hearings four months ago.

Alito told several senators that he felt constrained from saying whether he regards Roe as settled because abortion remains a live issue in the courts. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) reminded Alito that he has willingly said other areas of the law were settled even though they remain in play and that, in a 1985 application for a promotion in the Reagan administration’s Justice Department, he had written he did not believe the Constitution protects the right to an abortion.

Washington Post

Will privacy be a privilege only for the wealthy or will it remain a right for all of us?

If Samuel Alito is confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, we could see the end of the rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade. We could lose our right to choose, our right to privacy, and even our access to birth control.

Alito Says He’d Keep ‘Open Mind’ on Abortion
Nominee Avoids Detailing Views on Controversial Issues

By Charles Babington and Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 11, 2006; Page A01

Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. said yesterday that his 1985 assertion that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion was a “true expression of my views at the time,” but he told senators he would “approach the question with an open mind” if confirmed to the high court.

Repeatedly asked about abortion rulings that date to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, Alito said long-standing decisions deserve great respect. He stopped short of saying Roe could not be overturned, however, saying that the doctrine of following precedent is not “an exorable command” — the same language the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist once used in arguing to overturn Roe.

Washington Post

Sounds like bullshit to me.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Doing the Alito Shuffle By MAUREEN DOWD

January 11, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
WASHINGTON

You’ve got to like a man who knows how to juggle.

Samuel Alito picked up the skill on a summer vacation a decade ago, and his juggling talent was on full display yesterday as he tried to balance the old Sam, who was eager to impress Reagan revolutionaries with his zeal, with the new Sam, who is eager to impress a bipartisan Senate panel with his open-mindedness.

It was a tale of two Sams.

Is he the old Sam, who devised ways to upend Roe v. Wade and crimp abortion rights? Or the new Sam, who has great respect for precedent and an “open mind” about abortion cases?

Is he the old Sam, who plotted ways to tip the balance of power to the executive branch? Or the new Sam, who states that “no person in this country is above the law, and that includes the president”?

Is he the old Sam, who said Robert Bork “was one of the most outstanding nominees of this century” and “a man of unequaled ability”? Or the new Sam, who shrugged off that statement as the dutiful support of one Reagan appointee for another?

Is he the old Sam, who cited membership in a Princeton alumni club that resisted the admission of women and minorities when he was seeking a promotion in the very white Reagan old boys’ club? Or the new Sam, who has “no specific recollection of that organization,” unless, of course, he innocently joined it to support R.O.T.C. on campus, and who says he’s been shaped partly by his hopes for his 17-year-old daughter, Laura, and by his sister’s experiences “as a trial lawyer in a profession that has traditionally been dominated by men”?

Is he the old Sam, who thoughtlessly blew off a pledge to recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard, where he has a six-figure mutual fund? Or the new Sam, who admits that the problem was not “a computer glitch,” as he had suggested, and humbly says, “If I had to do it over again, there are things that I would have done differently”?

The judge didn’t deign to say what he thought of illegal wiretaps – which you’d think would be an easy one.

About the judge’s memory lapses, Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, drolly noted, “And I hope you’ll understand if any of us come before a court and we can’t remember Abramoff, you’ll tend to believe us.”

Some of his answers, Senator Joe Biden complained to Chris Matthews, did not “ring a chord of sincerity.” (The National Review Web site says the voluble Biden got in 3,673 words and held Judge Alito to 1,013.)

You don’t have to know the difference between horizontal and vertical stare decisis, or between emanations and penumbras, to see that the man who could take Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat and yank back women’s rights was, in a word, shifty.

Or in three words, shifty, sapless and sighing.

To offset his reputation on women’s rights, he even played the henpecked husband. When Republican senators used the expression “When did you stop beating your wife?” about Democratic questions, Judge Alito riposted, “I wasn’t asked whether she had stopped beating me.”

His basic defense to Democrats boiled down to: “I was just saying what my boss wanted to hear at the time.” Haven’t we had enough yes-men mangling government for the last five years? Heck of a job, Sammy.

I understand why the president is drawn to the judge. Mr. Alito is dubbed “Scalito” – a conservative senator, John Cornyn, accidentally blurted out the nickname – because he’s so much like Antonin Scalia. And W. loves Nino.

Judge Alito has supported imperial powers for the presidency, not strong checks and balances; he approved the strip search of a 10-year-old girl but is not probing too deeply into what the executive branch is doing. That’s W.’s philosophy, too – a pre-emptive right to secretly do everything from war to torture to snooping.

Like the president, the judge loves baseball. Mr. Alito once vacationed at a fantasy baseball camp (O.K. fielder, hopeless hitter), wearing the red and white Phillies uniform. W. has spent five years in fantasyland on Iraq, on occasion donning military costumes.

His fingers in his ears, W. didn’t want to hear that we had too few troops in Iraq – ignoring advice from Viceroy Paul Bremer and Gen. Eric Shinseki – or that the troops didn’t have enough armor. But the president continues to fling blame outward. In a speech yesterday before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he warned the Democrats that they should take care not to bring “comfort to our adversaries.”

Judge Alito was evasive, disingenuous and deferential. He fits the Bush era like a baseball glove.

Alito Confirmation Hearings Begin

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 9, 2006; 1:12 PM

The Senate Judiciary Committee today opened confirmation hearings on the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court, a choice that senators of both parties said brings into focus major questions on presidential power.

In an opening statement, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the chairman of the committee, said the hearing “comes at a time of great national concern” about balancing the civil rights of Americans and the president’s national security authority. He cautioned against jumping to any conclusions about Alito, a nominee widely seen as likely to shift the court to the right.

Washington Post

Man, the rhetoric has been turned up on this confirmation hearing, from both sides. Should be interesting…

Alito Likely to Be Grilled More Than Roberts
Meanwhile, Judge’s Friends and Foes Campaign Hard as Senate Hearings Near

By Charles Babington and Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 5, 2006; Page A03

Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. will face a more intensive Senate grilling next week than Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. experienced last year because of concerns over secret surveillance of Americans and Alito’s lengthy record of conservative rulings, several lawmakers and interest groups said yesterday.

Alito would replace retiring centrist Sandra Day O’Connor, the decisive justice on numerous 5 to 4 rulings, further raising the stakes for the Judiciary Committee hearings, which will begin Monday. By contrast, Roberts had a shorter paper trail — three years as an appellate judge, compared with Alito’s 15 — and he succeeded a fellow conservative, the late William H. Rehnquist, thereby having modest impact on the court’s balance.

Washington Post

Democrats May Delay Panel Vote on Alito
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 5 minutes ago

WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats are considering a plan that could delay a committee vote on Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination for at least a week, slowing what could have been a quick confirmation for
President Bush’s pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter had hoped to hold a committee vote on Alito’s nomination Jan. 17, a little over a week from Monday’s start of the federal appellate judge’s confirmation hearings.

Senate leadership aides said Thursday that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., that Democrats will invoke their right to hold the Alito committee vote over for one week. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the move had not been announced yet.

Democrats insisted that a final decision has not been made. “We want to see how the hearing goes, procedurally and substantially, before allowing them to accelerate the vote for a week,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee. “That’s what we’ve always said.”

“No decision has been made,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley added.

The longer a confirmation process takes, the tougher it can get for a nominee because his opponents have more time to build momentum against the candidate.

Yahoo News

Look who’s behind the presidential power grab described below.

Alito Once Made Case For Presidential Power

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 2, 2006; Page A11

As a young Justice Department lawyer, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. tried to help tip the balance of power between Congress and the White House a little more in favor of the executive branch.

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration, like other White Houses before and after, chafed at the reality that Congress’s reach on the meaning of laws extends beyond the words of statutes passed on Capitol Hill. Judges may turn to the trail of statements lawmakers left behind in the Congressional Record when trying to glean the intent behind a law. The White House left no comparable record.

In a Feb. 5, 1986, draft memo, Alito, then deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, outlined a strategy for changing that. It laid out a case for having the president routinely issue statements about the meaning of statutes when he signs them into law.

Such “interpretive signing statements” would be a significant departure from run-of-the-mill bill signing pronouncements, which are “often little more than a press release,” Alito wrote. The idea was to flag constitutional concerns and get courts to pay as much attention to the president’s take on a law as to “legislative intent.”

The Reagan administration popularized the use of such statements and subsequent administrations continued the practice. (The courts have yet to give them much weight, though.)

President Bush has been especially fond of them, issuing at least 108 in his first term, according to presidential scholar Phillip J. Cooper of Portland State University in Oregon. Many of Bush’s statements rejected provisions in bills that the White House regarded as interfering with its powers in national security, intelligence policy and law enforcement, Cooper wrote recently in the academic journal Presidential Studies Quarterly.

Washington Post