# Alito confirmation hearing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187 "2006-01-09T18:25:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/121 "2006-01-11T17:46:14Z")
Come on guys, there is no way that the Dems would give up the option of filibustering a Supreme Court nomination. The agreement for the Gang of 14 concerned the Federal Judges and was specifically to avoid a showdown over them. It should be viewed in that light not as some far reaching agreement. I have to say though I have the same concerns about Alito’s memory that I did have about Roberts. He, like Roberts, seems to have convientently “forgotten” what their involvement was in very conservative organizations. Alito, despite putting his involvement on a resume, has no recollection of his involvement in Concerned Alumni of Princeton University. One can only hope that he remembers his law classes a bit more clearly. ---
**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:** [January 11, 2006, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/122 "2006-01-11T17:51:35Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > You’re missing the point, John. The issue isn’t whether or not Alito gets confirmed, the Dems win in a filibuster either way. They can say, “We went to the mat against Alito, we filibustered and got nuked, but the bastard still got in. Those Republicans are the author of your woes, and we MUST vote them out!” > > Filibuster or not, any Dem who votes for Alito is going to be very vulnerable is Alito acts as conservatives seem very sure that he will act, and as his past record clearly indicates he will act. Alito is also on record as being bigoted against women and minorities. He’s pure poison for Dems, they have a duty to fight his nomination. I agree that most Democratic Senators have little to lose (other than their integrity) by voting against Alito. But filibustering is another thing altogether. It’s entirely unlcear how much a “win” this would be for any given Senator. Americans are of two minds about this: Ask them if the Senate filibuster should be preserved and they will say “yes”. Ask them if every nominee should get an up or down vote in the Senate and they will say “yes”. So, it depends on who frames the issue best later this year during the midterm elections. It’s unlikely that Alito will have any signifincant record on the SCOTUS by then, but if the Dems filibuster, that will be something everyone remembers. And there are a whole series of “conservative” justices waiting the wings to nominated to the SCOTUS. Filibuster Alito, and Bush will nominate Lutig. Just how long can the Dems filibuster before they look like mindless obstructionists? ---
**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:** [January 11, 2006, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/123 "2006-01-11T17:57:12Z")
> [@treis](#): > > \I have to say though I have the same concerns about Alito’s memory that I did have about Roberts. He, like Roberts, seems to have convientently “forgotten” what their involvement was in very conservative organizations. Alito, despite putting his involvement on a resume, has no recollection of his involvement in Concerned Alumni of Princeton University. One can only hope that he remembers his law classes a bit more clearly. This is such a non-issue. Kennedy looks like a mean-spirited asshole as he lectures Alito about that organization. If he thinks he’s going to prove that Alito hates women and minorities, he’s a bigger fool than I thought he was. And anyone listening to Alito’s answers knows damn well he knows his case law. That dog not only won’t hunt, it ain’t gettin’ off the porch. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/124 "2006-01-11T17:59:33Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Come on guys, there is no way that the Dems would give up the option of filibustering a Supreme Court nomination. The agreement for the Gang of 14 concerned the Federal Judges and was specifically to avoid a showdown over them. It should be viewed in that light not as some far reaching agreement. > > I have to say though I have the same concerns about Alito’s memory that I did have about Roberts. He, like Roberts, seems to have convientently “forgotten” what their involvement was in very conservative organizations. Alito, despite putting his involvement on a resume, has no recollection of his involvement in Concerned Alumni of Princeton University. One can only hope that he remembers his law classes a bit more clearly. I think that the agreement of the Gang of 14 was intended to cover more than the Federal bench nominations that were pending at the time of the agreement. There’s a section called “Future nominations” which actually contains the phrase “extraordinary circumstances.” > [@](#): > > Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist. They’re not giving up the option, just trying to make it less common and indiscriminant, IMO. ---
**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:** [January 11, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/125 "2006-01-11T19:05:53Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > **EC** , can you explain, please, how conservatives think Alito is going to act, and perhaps provide a link to Alito’s record of bigotry against women and minorities? Thanks. I think he will work with Thomas, Scalia and (likely) Roberts to issue decisions that gut Roe v. Wade – anything that makes getting an abortion difficult, preferably impossible, without out and out overturning it (so he won’t be lying about stare decis). On NPR this morning they were talking about a Princeton campus organization Alito was a member of, which was “alarmed at all the women and minorities Princeton was admitting.” The organization, [Concerned Alumni for Princeton](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/26/151543/82) was basically a bunch of Neanderthals SO EXTREME that Bill Frist described them as extreme. Bill! Fucking! Frist! Too extreme, man! Too extreme! Alitopologistas will probably say, that was his early years, surely he matured as he grew. Well, maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. But here’s an interesting quote: > [@](#): > > But in terms of his personal views, the Reagan-era documents proved to be quite interesting. In an application to become a political appointment, for instance, Alito said he was “particularly” proud of the work he had done to help the administration in its quest to end certain affirmative action programs [Source.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/06/DI2006010601144.html) He has also consistently decided against minorities in his judicial decisions: > [@](#): > > Eroding Civil Rights > As a government lawyer and a federal judge, Judge Alito has consistently failed to protect civil rights. He has said he disagrees with historic Supreme Court decisions articulating the “one person – one vote” principle. As a judge, he has rarely sided with individuals seeking relief from discrimination on the basis of race, age, gender, or disability, and he has opposed efforts to redress the historic effects of discrimination in the workplace. Indeed, in civil rights cases where the Third Circuit was divided, Alito advocated positions detrimental to civil rights 85 percent of the time. He once argued that it was permissible to seat an all-white jury in a case in which the evidence indicated that prosecutors had rejected black jurors on the basis of race. As part of a 1985 application for promotion in the Justice Department, he highlighted his membership in a reactionary Princeton alumni group that opposed the admission of women and attempts by the university to increase minority enrollment. [Source.](http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.1322295/k.810D/PreHearing_Report_on_Alito.htm) [He’s also been hell on women’s rights generally.](http://www.now.org/issues/judicial/supreme/alito_talking_points.html) Put all this together, and you have a picture of a guy who just doesn’t like women and minorities. Much more comfortable with tighty-whities in power, and women in their place. ---
**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:** [January 11, 2006, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/126 "2006-01-11T19:08:47Z")
> [@KRM](#): > > You say that like it’s something new. Isn’t that, by definition, the rallying cry of the opposition party? If Roe V. Wade gets gutted and/or overturned, a LOT more people in the center will hear it and believe 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:** [January 11, 2006, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/127 "2006-01-11T19:21:20Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I agree that most Democratic Senators have little to lose (other than their integrity) by voting against Alito. I think voting the interests of your citizens in this case is the “integrity” thing to do. YMMV, although it must involve a pretty twisted version of “integrity.”. > [@](#): > > But filibustering is another thing altogether. It’s entirely unlcear how much a “win” this would be for any given Senator. Americans are of two minds about this: Ask them if the Senate filibuster should be preserved and they will say “yes”. Ask them if every nominee should get an up or down vote in the Senate and they will say “yes”. I’m thinking a little down the road, when Scalia and Alito and Thomas and Roberts – all Catholics, aren’t they (or at least Thomas went to Catholic school)? get to chewing on Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose. At THAT TIME I can hear smarmy-voiced conservatives saying, “Well, if you Dems REALLY hated Alito, why dincha filibuster him? You knew we had the votes to get him in, and you just let us vote him in. If you REALLY hated Alito, you’d have filibustered him.” Sorta like they’ve said about the Senate resolution authorizing Bush to use military force in Iraq. I think if the Dems filibuster, they have a clean shot at wiping the Pubbies out of power in Congress and the White House, given that Roe v. Wade will be gutted by Scalito. > [@](#): > > So, it depends on who frames the issue best later this year during the midterm elections. It’s unlikely that Alito will have any signifincant record on the SCOTUS by then, but if the Dems filibuster, that will be something everyone remembers. And there are a whole series of “conservative” justices waiting the wings to nominated to the SCOTUS. Filibuster Alito, and Bush will nominate Lutig. Just how long can the Dems filibuster before they look like mindless obstructionists? Oh, there may be some corruption scandals and a war or two to distract the voters from the judicial nominations. The question is, how will they look to the center, and the center likes Roe v. Wade like it is. I think they’ll look real damn good to the center, filibustering anti-choice nominees. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/128 "2006-01-11T19:27:40Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > This is such a non-issue. Kennedy looks like a mean-spirited asshole as he lectures Alito about that organization. If he thinks he’s going to prove that Alito hates women and minorities, he’s a bigger fool than I thought he was. And anyone listening to Alito’s answers knows damn well he knows his case law. That dog not only won’t hunt, it ain’t gettin’ off the porch. What is a non-issue? Alito’s involvement in the organization or his memory loss of that involvement? > [@Crotalus](#): > > They’re not giving up the option, just trying to make it less common and indiscriminant, IMO. Perhaps, but its not exactly a binding agreement. There is so much wiggle room that for all practical purposes there is no agreement. Even if there were it was never intended to remove the filibuster option on Supreme Court nominees. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/129 "2006-01-11T19:43:02Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I think he will work with Thomas, Scalia and (likely) Roberts to issue decisions that gut Roe v. Wade – anything that makes getting an abortion difficult, preferably impossible, without out and out overturning it (so he won’t be lying about stare decis). > > On NPR this morning they were talking about a Princeton campus organization Alito was a member of, which was “alarmed at all the women and minorities Princeton was admitting.” The organization, [Concerned Alumni for Princeton](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/26/151543/82) was basically a bunch of Neanderthals SO EXTREME that Bill Frist described them as extreme. Bill! Fucking! Frist! Too extreme, man! Too extreme! > > Alitopologistas will probably say, that was his early years, surely he matured as he grew. Well, maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. But here’s an interesting quote: > [Source.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/06/DI2006010601144.html) > > He has also consistently decided against minorities in his judicial decisions: > [Source.](http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.1322295/k.810D/PreHearing_Report_on_Alito.htm) > > [He’s also been hell on women’s rights generally.](http://www.now.org/issues/judicial/supreme/alito_talking_points.html) > > Put all this together, and you have a picture of a guy who just doesn’t like women and minorities. Much more comfortable with tighty-whities in power, and women in their place. Thanks for the explanations and links. I notice that they are both from advocacy groups, which doesn’t necessarily invalidate what they contain, although those are the kinds of sites which generally spur me to look for less biased alternatives. There are sites on my side of the political spectrum which I would be very reluctant to use as support for a position of mine in a debate with you, for instance, because the source would be likely to correctly cause your BS meter to go off. In an earlier post in this thread, I linked to a Washington Post article and graph on Alito’s decisions. Did you get a chance to look at those? My reading of that info is that Alito has made more decisions against certain groups than for them, but it is by no means an “all one way” record. If it was all one way, I would be concerned that he was more of an idealogue than a judge, but I don’t have that concern from what I see. Here are the [graph](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/12/30/CU2005123001137.html) and [story](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/31/AR2005123100328.html). And you are correct that I view the Concerned Alumni thing to be old, unimportant news. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/130 "2006-01-11T19:57:48Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > This is such a non-issue. Kennedy looks like a mean-spirited asshole as he lectures Alito about that organization. If he thinks he’s going to prove that Alito hates women and minorities, he’s a bigger fool than I thought he was. And anyone listening to Alito’s answers knows damn well he knows his case law. Ted Kennedy is the Republican’s wet dream, because he’s far left, an idiot, and pathetic. I’m disgusted that they’re spending any time on the while Concerned Alumni of Princeton issue. It’s pathetic, sad, and insulting. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/131 "2006-01-11T20:15:30Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I’m thinking a little down the road, when Scalia and Alito and Thomas and Roberts – all Catholics, aren’t they (or at least Thomas went to Catholic school)? get to chewing on Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose. At THAT TIME I can hear smarmy-voiced conservatives saying, “Well, if you Dems REALLY hated Alito, why dincha filibuster him? You knew we had the votes to get him in, and you just let us vote him in. If you REALLY hated Alito, you’d have filibustered him.” > > Sorta like they’ve said about the Senate resolution authorizing Bush to use military force in Iraq. I think if the Dems filibuster, they have a clean shot at wiping the Pubbies out of power in Congress and the White House, given that Roe v. Wade will be gutted by Scalito. First of all, I thought imposing religious litmus tests on public servants went out of style back in 1960 or so. Secondly, when they were in vogue, it was the Democratic Party that suffered most by their application. Third, Clarence Thomas is an Episcopalian. Not that it matters. Fourth, you fail to realize an important thing, which is that positions and votes have consequences. These consequences involve public policy, true, but they also involve a party’s or a candidate’s electability. If you look like a nut while opposing what looks to most people like a reasonable jurist, your party will suffer in reputation. If you oppose military action in the face of a clear threat against our country, your party will be seen as weak and unelectable. Put you in charge of the Democratic Party, and they’d be in far worse shape indeed. You would out-Dean Dean. ---
**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:** [January 11, 2006, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/132 "2006-01-11T20:44:38Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Third, Clarence Thomas is an Episcopalian. Not that it matters. No, he’s Catholic. He used to attend an Episcopal church with his wife, but he is most certainly a Catholic, and attends Catholic church now. Not that there’s anything wrong with 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:** [January 11, 2006, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/133 "2006-01-11T20:51:35Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > Thanks for the explanations and links. I notice that they are both from advocacy groups, which doesn’t necessarily invalidate what they contain, although those are the kinds of sites which generally spur me to look for less biased alternatives. Um, actually one of the sources I cited was the Washington Post. The others were fairly partisan, but if you think you can dig up a cite that leads to different conclusions than the one in my cite with the same amount of background (i.e., the NOW site at least listed the specific decisions Alito made that gave rise to their concern) feel free. Otherwise, you pretty much have to take my word for it, arm-waving notwithstanding. There are sites on my side of the political spectrum which I would be very reluctant to use as support for a position of mine in a debate with you, for instance, because the source would be likely to correctly cause your BS meter to go off. In an earlier post in this thread, I linked to a Washington Post article and graph on Alito’s decisions. Did you get a chance to look at those? My reading of that info is that Alito has made more decisions against certain groups than for them, but it is by no means an “all one way” record. If it was all one way, I would be concerned that he was more of an idealogue than a judge, but I don’t have that concern from what I see. Here are the [graph](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/12/30/CU2005123001137.html) and [story](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/31/AR2005123100328.html). [/quote] Did ya read that graph? With your eyes? On the topics that’s gemane here: Age, Race, Sex and Disability discrimination, Alito voted against the claim on 75 percent of the time. That’s 40% more often than Democrat appointees opposed discrimination claims, and 20% more often than REPUBLICAN appointees did. This indicates to me that the guy continues to be a partisan hack. > [@](#): > > And you are correct that I view the Concerned Alumni thing to be old, unimportant news. I understand that you want to minimize that. But along with everything else, it certainly creates a pattern. ---
**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:** [January 11, 2006, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/134 "2006-01-11T20:53:09Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What is a non-issue? Alito’s involvement in the organization or his memory loss of that involvement? Both. ---
**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:** [January 11, 2006, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/135 "2006-01-11T21:01:43Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > This indicates to me that the guy continues to be a partisan hack. He has been given the highest rating across the board from the ABA. He has been praised by justices who served with him from across the political spectrum. You’ll hear from some of these later this week-- liberal as well as conservative. But you’re sure he’s a partisan hack. Look, I’m pretty confident that you would oppose any Bush nominee. It’s your political beliefs that are far outside the mainstream, not Alito’s. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/136 "2006-01-11T21:02:49Z")
On a completely non-partisan note, it sure is fun to watch Specter and Kennedy argue back and forth like little children. I don’t think we can count on any of these guys to act with honesty and integrity. ---
**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:** [January 11, 2006, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/137 "2006-01-11T21:04:28Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No, he’s Catholic. He used to attend an Episcopal church with his wife, but he is most certainly a Catholic, and attends Catholic church now. Not that there’s anything wrong with it. 🙂 Roe v. Wade is the big issue on the court and four Republican appointees are Catholics, all with strong indications of being anti-choice. I’m just saying, and there’s nothin’ you can say about it – 'cause it’s true. ---
**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:** [January 11, 2006, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/138 "2006-01-11T21:11:29Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Roe v. Wade is the big issue on the court and four Republican appointees are Catholics, all with strong indications of being anti-choice. I’m just saying, and there’s nothin’ you can say about it – 'cause it’s true. The Democrats should be so lucky that \*Roe \*is overturned. That would be the biggest electoral boom for that party since Watergate. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/139 "2006-01-11T21:18:43Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > If Roe V. Wade gets gutted and/or overturned, a LOT more people in the center will hear it and believe it. This is a fairly common opinion and one some liberals even hope for. My brother works as an executive for a very well known organization commonly seen in the forefront of women’s reproductive health rights and this is an opinion he shares. While he would rather the SCOTUS not dump Roe he believes there is a very real backlash that may occur and be a silver lining, if you will, that would likely benefit his organization greatly (in the form of donations and so on). I am surprised conservatives don’t see it coming or, if they do, not seem to pay it much heed because it may well pull them down. Political pendulums are very like real world pendulums in that they tend to swing back sooner or later. Here is a snip from The Economist magazine article in talking about just this (and it mentions Alito just to be topical for this thread). > [@](#): > > **The Democrats (and abortion rights) might be better off if Roe v Wade were overturned** > > _\_ > > …in political terms, Roe has been particularly disastrous for the Democrats. The Republicans have generally had the better of the abortion wars (something most liberals admit as long as nobody from NARAL Pro-Choice America is in the room). Roe has proved a lightning-rod for conservatives; and many moderates dislike the Democrats’Roe-driven defence of partial-birth abortions. So consider a heretical proposition: why on earth don’t Democrats disown Roe? > > SOURCE: [The Economist, 12/08/05](http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5278945&subjectid=3856663) ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187/140 "2006-01-11T21:24:17Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Both. I can’t agree that they are non-issues. Being involved in CAP shows at least something about his personal beliefs. As much as Judges and nominees like to say that their personal beliefs don’t come into play thats junk. Its simply impossible to make a judgement without basing it at least somewhat on your personal perceptions and beliefs. The fact that he has “forgotten” and feels that is an acceptable answer makes me go: :dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alito-confirmation-hearing/339187.md?page=8)