Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Alito's Clintonian, "It all depends on what the meaning of 'settled' is."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 09:26 AM
Original message
Alito's Clintonian, "It all depends on what the meaning of 'settled' is."
Edited on Thu Jan-12-06 09:35 AM by flpoljunkie
Excellent, Salon! It surely does. The fact that the Republican Majority for Choice came out against Alito after yesterday's testimony is telling, indeed. Interestingly, Senator Specter is one of five Republicans on their advisory committee.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/01/11/alito1/index.html

Alito goes Clintonian on Roe

As the third day of Samuel Alito's confirmation hearing began this morning, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin asked the nominee if he considers Roe v. Wade to be "settled law." As he has on so many other things, Alito responded to the question without really answering it.

"If 'settled' means it can't be reexamined, that's one thing," Alito said. "If 'settled' means it is a precedent entitled to respect as stare decisis. . . then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis in that way."

The structure of Alito's equivocation rang a bell with us, as it should have with Republicans who were once up in arms over a similar statement made by someone else. During Bill Clinton's grand jury testimony in 1998, the president said, famously and not unreasonably, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Then he added: "If 'is' means is and never has been, that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement."

That wasn't good enough for Republicans who pushed for Clinton's impeachment. Why should Alito's equivocation on Roe be good enough now?

-- Tim Grieve

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The White Tree Donating Member (630 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. I guess the question that should be asked then is:
Will Alito still respect stare decisis in the morning (the morning after confirmation that is)?

Me thinks not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Especially with Alito using Rehnquist's phrase "not exorable command" re
Edited on Thu Jan-12-06 10:03 AM by flpoljunkie
stare decises, when arguing to overturn Roe v. Wade--what better signal to the hard right anti-choice crowd of his intention, when the opportunity comes before the Supreme Court for him to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 05:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC