[Mb-civic] Democrats Ready to Go After Alito - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

Democrats Ready to Go After Alito
High Court Nominee's Memos Opposing Abortion Likely to Be Focal Points 
at Hearings

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 9, 2006; A10

Senate Democrats are expected to attack Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. 
Alito Jr. on multiple fronts at the confirmation hearing that opens at 
noon today, but their strongest ammunition is likely to come from the 
nominee's own hand.

Alito wrote two memos in 1985 that rocked political circles when they 
were made public last November. In one, an application for a promotion 
in the Reagan administration, Alito wrote that "the Constitution does 
not protect a right to an abortion." He said he was proud to fight for 
such causes in which "I personally believe very strongly," and he cited 
his membership in a conservative Princeton alumni group that has been 
widely criticized for opposing efforts to bring more women and 
minorities to that university.

The other memo outlined a strategy for attacking the landmark 1973 court 
ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, asking: "What can be made of 
this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual 
overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?"

Alito and his supporters have sought to put some distance between him 
and the memos, and Republicans predict he will survive this week's 
grilling and be confirmed to succeed centrist Justice Sandra Day 
O'Connor, a step that could shift the court notably to the right. But 
Judiciary Committee Democrats say they will press him to explain his 
writings, and they warn that peril may lie in his fully embracing them 
or trying to disavow them.

"He indicates in his job application his view about what the 
Constitution guarantees in terms of, for example, women and the issue on 
abortion," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the committee's most senior 
member, said yesterday on ABC's "This Week." "We haven't had a statement 
like that since Robert Bork," the outspoken conservative who was 
rejected for a Supreme Court seat in 1987.

Kennedy described the now-disbanded group, Concerned Alumni of 
Princeton, as "anti-black, anti-disabled and anti-women," but he said 
Alito in 1985 "took a sense of pride in belonging to" it. Alito has said 
recently he does not recall participating in the group. Democrats say 
that is an example of evasions they will aggressively challenge.

Another committee Democrat, Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), said on NBC's 
"Meet the Press" that Alito in 1985 unequivocally stated "that the 
Constitution does not provide for a right to an abortion. The worst 
thing that could happen with Judge Alito is if he tries to duck the 
question" at the hearing. Unlike recently confirmed Chief Justice John 
G. Roberts Jr., Schumer said, Alito has expressed his personal and legal 
views on abortion so clearly that he cannot refuse to discuss them with 
senators by contending he must remain unbiased in case the Supreme Court 
revisits the issue.

After Alito met in November with Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen 
Specter (R-Pa.), Specter told reporters that the nominee said the 1985 
memos expressed his personal views or an advocate's work for the 
government, and do not necessarily indicate how he might rule on the 
Supreme Court.

The committee's 10 Republicans and eight Democrats will start 
questioning Alito tomorrow, as today's schedule is devoted to opening 
statements by the senators and the nominee. Besides abortion, issues 
likely to dominate the week include:

Alito's credibility. At the 1990 confirmation hearing for his seat on a 
federal appeals court, Alito told senators he would not rule in cases 
involving the Vanguard Group Inc. or Smith Barney Inc., firms that have 
handled some of his investments. However, he ruled in a 1996 case 
involving Smith Barney, and a 2002 case involving Vanguard.

Democrats agree that Alito did not profit from the cases, but they have 
complained about his explanations. Concerning Vanguard, Alito has said 
he was not required to recuse himself because there was no conflict of 
interest; the 1990 promise applied only to his first few years on the 
bench; and a courthouse computer program failed to alert him to the 
possible need to step aside.

Kennedy cited Vanguard, the Princeton alumni group and other matters in 
an op-ed piece, headlined "Alito's Credibility Problem," in Saturday's 
Washington Post. Yesterday, on "This Week," Judiciary Committee member 
Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) defended the nominee, saying, "I don't think 
there's a credibility problem at all."

Executive powers. Many liberal groups say Alito's rulings and writings 
have shown too much deference to the executive branches of state and 
federal governments. In a 2000 speech, Alito embraced the theory of "the 
unitary executive," which imbues the presidency with expansive powers. 
In 1986, as deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal 
Counsel, he advocated having the president issue statements about the 
meaning of statutes when he signs them into law, a move that some 
consider a violation of the separation of powers.

Specter, who plans to hold hearings into President Bush's expanded use 
of the National Security Agency for domestic spying, said yesterday on 
CBS's "Face the Nation" that the question of presidential power "will be 
very, very important" at Alito's hearing.

Commerce and gun control. Alito wrote in a 1996 dissent that Congress 
did not have the power under the Constitution's commerce clause to pass 
a law banning possession of machine guns, arguing that there was no 
evidence the mere possession of such weapons affected interstate commerce.

"He was one of the very few [appellate court judges] to say that the 
federal government can't regulate machine guns," Schumer said yesterday. 
The federal government "has regulated machine guns since the days of 
John Dillinger in 1936."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/08/AR2006010800794.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060109/3166f0c7/attachment.htm