Text of the President’s announcement here. For what it’s worth, ABC News noted that “Scalito” is called such because “some” compare him to “arch-conservative” Antonin Scalia—the “some” being those who write copy for ABC News, no doubt. Here’s Stuart Buck on the name.
Guess we know what shape the media attacks are going to take.
Meanwhile, as Patterico argued in advance of the nomination, conservatives should be prepared to combat attacks on Alito’s dissent in Casey. In short, left advocacy groups will try to frame that dissent—which touched on the legality of spousal notification for abortion and Justice O’Connor’s “undue burden” criterion guiding restrictions to abortion—as anti-woman, the suggestion being that Judge Alito “believes” women must obtain a husband’s permission before getting an abortion, essentially giving men veto power over a woman’s choice.
Such an argument would be (suprise!) a simplistic and dishonest way to frame a clear and well-reasoned dissent, naturally—which is precisely why we should anticipate the left using it, and why we must be prepared to rebut it in clear and simple terms, namely, that Judge Alito “believed” no such thing, but rather that he believed Pennsylvania had the authority to pass such a law, which did not violate established legal thinking on the conditions for placing restrictions on abortion.
Remember, too, that the following exemptions to spousal notification were provided for:
(1) [The husband] is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) [the woman seeking an abortion] has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her.
Alito’s decison—far from being “extreme” or archly conservative—instead shows precisely the kind of judicial restraint conservative legal thinkers have long been arguing is required of the judiciary.
Alito respected the legal authority of the state of Pennsylvania and its people. If such thinking makes him, as ABC’s Charles Gibson just said, “very conservative” (or, as Harry Reid has suggested, “too radical”—well, then we’ll just have to accept that the Constitution itself is “very conservative”.
****
update: George Stephanopoulus seems concerned that the President didn’t pick a “diversity” candidate—though I suspect Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owens or Miguel Estrada wouldn’t have Senate Democrats singing the praises of “diversity,” and would have Stephanopoulus wringing his wee little hands.
At first blush, the howls of protest from Democrats are fearsome. But as I argued during the Miers debacle, the onus is now going to be on Dems to argue to the American people why a man of Alito’s impressive credentials (Princeton and Yale Law School, editor of the Yale Law Journal, clerk for a federal court of appeals judge) strong reputation, and distinguished legal history is somehow “too radical” for the Supreme Court.
More, from Stanley Kurtz.
****
update 2: FOXNews morning anchor Jon Scott just framed the Casey dissent in such a way that suggested Alito was requiring women to receive a husband’s “permission” before receiving an abortion. And Tammy Bruce, “disappointed” that the President didn’t pick a woman, disagrees with Patterico’s analysis, and calls Alito’s Casey dissent a “religious” opinion and not a conservative one—the argument being that it is “activism” to pronounce on “how spouses should communicate.”
However, if I’m understanding the dissent—and again, we have to remember the exemptions provided for—Alito is simply saying that it isn’t the role of the judiciary to tell the state how it can legislate, if the legislation meets the conditions of contemperaneous law. If anything, this seems precisely the opposite of activism, though, not being a lawyer or legal scholar myself, I am certainly open to hearing dissenting views.
I like and respect Ms. Bruce; but on this I think she’s wrong.
****
update 3: Not that it matters, necessarily, but here’s how Americans feel about spousal notification.
Bush to liberals: BOO!
Happy Halloween, y’all!
Judge Alito believed Pennsylvania had the authority to pass such a law
Unfortunately, this doesn’t say what he DOES believe. No offense, Jeff, but I believe this would be a cop-out as well. Why not just make the argument for the law logically? These words come directly from the statute in question:
The left will not only frame it as an anti-woman bill, they’ll go into more detail by saying it doesn’t protect women from abusive husbands in this, etc. And the media will only show that side.
Make the argument that there are exceptions to the rule, like: if the spouse is not the father, the pregnancy is the result of sexual assault, the woman feels that she’ll be in danger if the spouse is notified, etc.
Regarding interpreting the law, your explanation as to how this should be handled, is correct. The average American watching the hearings isn’t going to care about that. They’ll want to know why he voted a certain way. Why not use this opportunity to say, without reservation, this is the REASON Pennsylvania has a right to make this law.
The left has framed abortion as being completely untouchable – no restrictions, no exceptions, etc. I don’t even think the court in 1973 thought that was the case. I say use this opportunity to make such a case.
TV (Harry)
tw: Western – A western omelette would be good right now.
Surprise?
It’s a great day in America. Time to bag and tag.
The Left is making a big miscalculation if they think this is all about abortion. It includes abortion, sure. Abortion may even be at the top of the list. But the list is, as they say, long and distinguished.
It’s about dismatling the Leftist agenda that has been implemented through the Court for the last 70 years. I don’t expect it to be accomplished overnight. But the tide has turned.
The fact that the Q’os Q’idz are flopping on the floor, urinating on themselves, tells me that we are definitely on the right track.
Bruce’s insta-analysis makes me wonder whether she read the dissent, or read into it. Alito seems to argue not that abortion is wrong, but that the spousal notification clause does not meet the undue burden clause of unconstitutionality. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems a very narrowly written opinion to me.
From Phinn’s link:
“This is it, kids. This is the battle that will define both parties for some time to come.”
Damn skippy! And it’s about damned time!
I, for one, am ready for some definition to the GOP. It’s been essentially a political amoeba for the past several years.
Maybe I won’t be sitting here in three more years wondering if anything would be different if Kerry had won.
I like and respect Ms. Bruce; but on this I think she’s wrong.
I am a lawyer; I also like and respct Tammy Bruce; she is wrong in this instance.
Judge Alito was not adressing his own views on the matter of “how spouses should communicate,†but rather, was addressing whether it is unconstitutional for the Pennsylvania legislature to do so as it had wrt abortion. His analysis was that, under controlling precedent, there was no basis to inform the PA legislature that it had passed an unconstitutional law by requiring spousal notification, with some important exceptions. (The people of PA, of course, were free to inform the legislature that they disliked the law, or not.)
Ms. Bruce is a reasonable woman. One hopes that upon reflection she will stop distorting Alito’s holding in Casey. It had absoluteluy nothing to do with his own views, religious or otherwise, about spousal communication, and had everything to do with the views of the PA legislature.
I always thought the mainstream view on spousal notification was “If she asks, I was with you.”
TW: waiting with a rolling pin. Does anyone do that any more?
When John Roberts (the reporter) asked Scott McClellan if Alito was “sloppy seconds” in the wake of the Miers nomination, would that be properly termed a Scalitological reference?
Turing word: four, as in the first and seventh of the four—in Latin, Adso, in Latin.
Also, did you happen to catch Nina Totenberg describing Judge Alito this morning as “extremely, extremely conservative,” with inflection that is impossible to illustrate adequately here. What’s the matter, loyal NPR listeners can’t quite take the hint without repeated use of an adjective?
So this is what it has come to, true judicial respect for the U.S. Constitution is extremely, extremely conservative. Alas for my country.
Turing word: military
For all the tedium of the Meiers flap, we now get the payoff. Bush knows that he will have the support of most, if not all his voters with this pick. He also knows that the loudest core of his voters will defend this guy to the hilt against the democrats and their enablers, the nattering nabobs of the MSM.
Meiers took one for the team. I thank her and all of you political junkies for a job well done.
tw: make it happen
To all participants of this nice (in Dems’ parlance: nice, nice, very, very nice!) Forum:
Hats off to all of you!
Sorry if i don’t strip my head before aristerasts (my term: from Greek aristeros left + erastOs lover; slightly reminds a well known but rarely used in our PC slang word).
You breathe fresh air into me: I’ve got a very (very-very) gloomy mood we are like Robinson Crusoe with Friday abandoned on a uninhabited island last years. “They” – aristerasts – hijacked the entire country if you recall September 24, 2005 in front of the White House.
But we are responsible for allowing that intrusion, and we are responsible for stopping it. “Umarmen, Millionen”, Schiller-Beethoven said. So be it.