# Alito and the nuclear option: Is he an "extremist"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 31, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778 "2005-10-31T20:34:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/101 "2005-11-03T20:59:07Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I don’t understand why you would assert this. Alito didn’t write the law and impose it on the unsuspecting citizens of Pennsylvania. It was passed by the Pennsylvania state legislature. If only a small percentage of Pennsylvania citizens thought the law was a good idea, why did a majority of the Pennsylvania state legislature vote for the law? Why didn’t the Pennsylvania legislators fear for their jobs? Because they sold the law as something other than, “Force battered women to go to their abusive husbands with news of an abortion and get the shit beaten out of them Bill 101.” Duh. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/102 "2005-11-03T21:08:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And this just in… > > (By way of decidedly lefty blog _Atrios_, but the follow up links are provided, I am just too lazy and easily…oooh! shiny!..) > > [http://atrios.blogspot.com/](http://atrios.blogspot.com/) > > (emphasis added) It’s in the Washington Post, too. We’ll see if the “computer error” defense holds… [Judge Participated in 2002 Vanguard Case Despite Promise to Recuse](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101686.html) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/103 "2005-11-03T21:09:41Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Because they sold the law as something other than, “Force battered women to go to their abusive husbands with news of an abortion and get the shit beaten out of them Bill 101.” Maybe because the law does **nothing of the sort**. FIGHTING ignorance, **EC** , not SPREADING it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/104 "2005-11-03T21:12:17Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > With respect to gauging the political beliefs of Americans, I suggest that \*\*EC \*\*keep his day job. 🙂 I do plan to keep my day job, but I think the problem is that most people, in interpreting such a question, assume it is about people like them, which in most cases is a non-abusive thing. So they think OF COURSE a wife should have to notify her husband in case of an abortion. But in the vast majority of cases, a wife will notify her husband of an abortion prior to having one, in fact, they will probably talk it out pretty thoroughly. Whereas the people who would REALLY be affected by this law are the ones whose relationship has gone sour. A goodly percentage of these people will be in abusive relationships. So the law basically is, “Make abused women get the shit beaten out of them by their abusive husbands if they want an abortion Bill 101.” Or else they have to bear (a)nother child by Mr. Abusive. Lovely example of jurisprudence there. Really. If the law were presented as it really is, and as Mr. Alito is CLEARLY content with its being, because he DID do a bit of judicial crocodile crying, saying, “Women with abusive spouses who must give notification under this law is a matter of grave concern.” I notice he wasn’t so concerned that he was willing to deep-six it, though. I noticed that real good. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/105 "2005-11-03T21:15:19Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > If the law were presented as it really is, and as Mr. Alito is CLEARLY content with its being, because he DID do a bit of judicial crocodile crying, saying, “Women with abusive spouses who must give notification under this law is a matter of grave concern.” Should read: If the law were presented as it really is (and as Mr. Alito is CLEARLY content with its being, because he DID do a bit of judicial crocodile crying, saying, "Women with abusive spouses who must give notification under this law is a matter of grave concern) **the general public’s approval of the law would probably be in the single digit range.** ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/106 "2005-11-03T21:20:17Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I do plan to keep my day job, but I think the problem is that most people, in interpreting such a question, assume it is about people like them, which in most cases is a non-abusive thing. So they think OF COURSE a wife should have to notify her husband in case of an abortion. But in the vast majority of cases, a wife will notify her husband of an abortion prior to having one, in fact, they will probably talk it out pretty thoroughly. Whereas the people who would REALLY be affected by this law are the ones whose relationship has gone sour. A goodly percentage of these people will be in abusive relationships. So the law basically is, “Make abused women get the shit beaten out of them by their abusive husbands if they want an abortion Bill 101.” Or else they have to bear (a)nother child by Mr. Abusive. Lovely example of jurisprudence there. Really. > > If the law were presented as it really is, and as Mr. Alito is CLEARLY content with its being, because he DID do a bit of judicial crocodile crying, saying, “Women with abusive spouses who must give notification under this law is a matter of grave concern.” > > I notice he wasn’t so concerned that he was willing to deep-six it, though. I noticed that real good. First of all, you know damn well that the law allowed for a woman to be exempt under the conditions you describe. Please stop spreading ignorance. Secondly, a justice cannot strike down a law because he hypothesizes that it will result in women being battered by their husbands. You do realize that, don’t you? (I supposed that, technically, he could do so, but there is no legal precedent for doing such a thing.) I know you want to give justiced the ability to rule according to their whims, but keep in mind that their whims will often not agree with yours. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/107 "2005-11-03T22:13:18Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It’s in the Washington Post, too. We’ll see if the “computer error” defense holds… If it pans out, it’s enough for me to say “Take a hike, Sammy”. Howzabout you? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/108 "2005-11-03T22:18:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > If it pans out, it’s enough for me to say “Take a hike, Sammy”. Howzabout you? I’ll wait for the details, but I have no problem if Alito gets bumped. There are plenty just like him waiting in the wings. \*Chiao \*Alito just means \*Wilkommen \*Lutig. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/109 "2005-11-03T22:29:28Z")
**elucidator** : It looks like Vanguard was just one of many financial institutions affected, and it could be that it was some subsidiary of Vanguard or something like that. I think if he flagged it himself, as the WH claims, even if it wasn’t until after that woman complained, then he’s probably OK. It’s not like he smoked marijuana or once hired an illegal alien nanny or something really despicable like that. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/110 "2005-11-14T22:14:06Z")
How, if at all, do the documents released today affect this question? [From the AP:](http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/alito.ap/index.html) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON (AP) – Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote back in 1985 that he was proud of his Reagan-era work helping the government argue that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion,” documents showed Monday. > > Alito, who was applying in 1985 to become deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, said in a document that he was proud of his work in the solicitor general’s office from 1982-1985, where he helped “to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly.” > > “I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government argued that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion,” he said. > > […] > > In the document, Alito also declared himself a “lifelong registered” Republican and a Federalist Society member, and said he had donated money to the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Conservative Political Action Committee and several GOP candidates. > > […] > > “I am and always have been a conservative and an adherent to the same philosophical views that I believe are central to this administration,” Alito said. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/111 "2005-11-14T22:35:25Z")
Meh. The constitution DOESN’T contain a right to an abortion-- the SCOTUS read that right into it. That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t support the precedent. As for th other things… are any of them surprises? The guy is a political conservative. Shall we stop the presses? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/112 "2005-11-14T23:13:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The constitution DOESN’T contain a right to an abortion-- the SCOTUS read that right into it. That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t support the precedent. I’m not arguing that it does contain that right. This gives some insight into not only Alito’s legal philosophy, but his personal views on the subjects. I think that has the potential to be significant. I’m sure people will make something out of his (understandable) refusal to commit to the precedent, and now his statement that he personally believes it is wrong. That’s as close to a response to the “would you vote to overturn it?” question as we’re going to see. So, as I said, I’m wondering how this will affect the decisions of the Democrats (and even the pro-choice Republicans). > [@](#): > > As for th other things… are any of them surprises? The guy is a political conservative. Shall we stop the presses? I seem to recall a to-do regarding Roberts and the Federalist Society. I thought that was interesting. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/113 "2005-11-14T23:36:07Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The constitution DOESN’T contain a right to an abortion-- the SCOTUS read that right into it… No, it doesn’t _specify_ any such right. Which is not the same as saying it doesn’t exist. Unless, of course, you can point out the passage that states that any right not enumerated in the Constitution may be presumed not to exist. If the Great State of Minnesota should decide, in its wisdom, that my gall bladder is the seat of Godhead, and that its removal is blasphemous, hence forbidden…surely I can expect you to defend my right to decide to remove said gall bladder? It is the most fundamental form of property, is it not? My very self. But wait! The Constitution says nothing whatever about my having a right to a gall bladder extraction! Is my case somehow thereby nullified? I think not. And, of course, nowhere in the Constitution is there any statement that the rights of a citizen begin at the moment of conception. You could look it up. > [@](#): > > …That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t support the precedent… True enough, but somebody is zooming somebody, here, no? We have good reason to expect that the Bushiviks are seeking to pander to their extemist base: they have promised an overturn of RvW, and if they don’t or won’t or can’t deliver…well, that will certainly set the cat amongst the pidgeons. The Republican grip on power _depends_ on the abortion extremists, if they lose but 5% of the electorate, nation wide, they’re toast. And they know it. So we have this game of nods and winks to blind horses: wink and nod to the “pro-life” forces, try to sneak somebody on to the SCOTUS who will do their bidding without ever explicitly stating that such is their purpose. Pander to the right without infuriating the center and left. Do I distrust these people? You betcha. Would they be willing to pull a fast one to get their way? Without question. Legal minds, as I’m sure you know, are enthralled with complexity. Would it be so hard, really hard, to find a position that would “respect the precedent” and yet discover a means to overturn RvW? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/114 "2005-11-14T23:41:50Z")
Alito wrote a judicial opinion that said regulating the ownership of machine guns was beyond the power of the federal government. Pretty outside the mainstream to me. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/115 "2005-11-15T02:02:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > No, it doesn’t _specify_ any such right. Which is not the same as saying it doesn’t exist. Unless, of course, you can point out the passage that states that any right not enumerated in the Constitution may be presumed not to exist. The relevant point here is that there are several schools on thought on that topic, none of which can claim an exclusive lock on the truth. _Roe_, in particular, has been viewed as tenuously decided by plenty of well respected legal minds across the political spectrum. > [@](#): > > If the Great State of Minnesota should decide, in its wisdom, that my gall bladder is the seat of Godhead, and that its removal is blasphemous, hence forbidden…surely I can expect you to defend my right to decide to remove said gall bladder? It is the most fundamental form of property, is it not? My very self. > > But wait! The Constitution says nothing whatever about my having a right to a gall bladder extraction! Is my case somehow thereby nullified? I think not. > > And, of course, nowhere in the Constitution is there any statement that the rights of a citizen begin at the moment of conception. You could look it up. Well, that’s exactly the problem with decisions like _Roe_. When you are willing to stray far afield from the text of the constitution, you COULD find that rights begin at conception (or at the initiaition of brain waves, or the frist hear beat, or…). > [@](#): > > True enough, but somebody is zooming somebody, here, no? We have good reason to expect that the Bushiviks are seeking to pander to their extemist base: they have promised an overturn of RvW, and if they don’t or won’t or can’t deliver…well, that will certainly set the cat amongst the pidgeons. The Republican grip on power _depends_ on the abortion extremists, if they lose but 5% of the electorate, nation wide, they’re toast. And they know it. Are you suggesting that that 5% would begin to vote Democratic? They might try to form a different party, but that’s a very, very slim possiblity. The Pubs have that crowd as securely enthralled as the Dems have the African-American voters. > [@](#): > > So we have this game of nods and winks to blind horses: wink and nod to the “pro-life” forces, try to sneak somebody on to the SCOTUS who will do their bidding without ever explicitly stating that such is their purpose. Pander to the right without infuriating the center and left. > > Do I distrust these people? You betcha. Would they be willing to pull a fast one to get their way? Without question. > > Legal minds, as I’m sure you know, are enthralled with complexity. Would it be so hard, really hard, to find a position that would “respect the precedent” and yet discover a means to overturn RvW? No justice should ever say that he or she would uphold precedent under any and all circumstances. So, of course Bush’s nominees are going to be more open to overturning some precedents than would, say, Kerry’s. But that doesn’ mean that he WILL overturn it, assuming of course that he even has that opportunity (and it’s quite likely that he never would). Does a memo written 20 years ago mean that he MIGHT overturn _Roe_? Yes. Does it mean that he WOULD? No. The Republicans (mostly Bush) are getting weaker by the day, and maybe the Dems will decide to roll the dice and go for the fillibuster. But it is a big crap shoot, and might very well backfire. So, I guess you’ve got to ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya …? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778/116 "2005-11-15T02:18:19Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I seem to recall a to-do regarding Roberts and the Federalist Society. I thought that was interesting. At least Alito has the memory and/or honesty that Roberts is lacking. > [@John Mace](#): > > Well, that’s exactly the problem with decisions like Roe. When you are willing to stray far afield from the text of the constitution, you COULD find that rights begin at conception (or at the initiaition of brain waves, or the frist hear beat, or…). Actually, from my understanding the main question in Roe was whether the State had an interest in protecting the fetus not whether there is a right to privacy. I think its pretty well agreed upon that the State doesn’t have the power to ban a medical proceedure for no particular reason. The disagreement comes into play when one considers whether protecting the fetus counts as a particular reason. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-and-the-nuclear-option-is-he-an-extremist/328778.md?page=5)