It is a remarkable sign of the times that within hours of the nomination of Alito we can read a kind

of point-counterpoint in which he references O’Connor in a decision and she references that decision in a later rejection. There is no

doubt: he’s no O’Connor. mjh

Samuel A. Alito Jr. Profile

Samuel A. Alito Jr., 55, is a jurist in the

mold of Justice Antonin Scalia. Nicknamed “Scalito,” or “little Scalia,” by some lawyers, the federal appeals court judge is a frequent

dissenter with a reputation for having one of the sharpest conservative minds in the country. …

In 1991, he was the lone

dissenter in a 3rd Circuit decision striking down a Pennsylvania law’s requirement that women tell their husbands before having an

abortion.

Bush Selects Alito for Supreme Court

Citing previous opinions of

O’Connor, Alito wrote that an abortion regulation is unconstitutional only if it imposes an undue burden on a woman’s access to the

procedure. The spousal notification provision, he wrote, does not constitute such a burden and must therefore only meet the requirement

that it be rationally related to some legitimate government purpose. …

“In addition,” he wrote, “the legislature could have

reasonably concluded that Section 3209 [the spousal provision] would lead to such discussion and thereby properly further a husband’s

interests in the fetus in a sufficient percentage of the affected cases to justify enactment of this measure. . . . The Pennsylvania

legislature presumably decided that the law on balance would be beneficial. We have no authority to overrule that legislative judgment

even if we deem it “unwise” or worse.”

The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the appeals court decision,

disagreed with Alito and used the case to reaffirm its support for Roe v. Wade , the 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

On the

spousal notification provision, O’Connor wrote for the court that it did indeed constitute an obstacle. The “spousal notification

requirement is . . . likely to prevent a significant number of women from obtaining an abortion,” she wrote.

“It does not merely

make abortions a little more difficult or expensive to obtain; for many women, it will impose a substantial obstacle. We must not blind

ourselves to the fact that the significant number of women who fear for their safety and the safety of their children are likely to be

deterred from procuring an abortion as surely as if the Commonwealth had outlawed abortion in all cases,” she said.

Plus, it

“embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of

marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when

they marry, ” she said.

“The Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of

governmental power, even where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the individual’s family.”

Newsday.com: Alito provoked no controversy at confirmation hearing 15 years ago By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press

Writer

WASHINGTON — Fifteen years ago, Samuel Alito told senators at his confirmation hearing that judges shouldn’t “step over

the line” into lawmaking or “try to pigeonhole the case or to import a judge’s own view of the law into the law,” records showed Monday.

…

Alito’s confirmation to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was noncontroversial, with the full Senate approving his

nomination on April 27, 1990, by unanimous consent, which meant that there was no opposition among the 100 senators. Nominated on Feb.

20, Alito was rated well qualified by the American Bar Association.

Transcript: Sen. Schumer’s

Remarks on Alito Nomination

A preliminary review of his record raises real questions about Judge Alito’s judicial philosophy

and his commitment to civil rights, workers’ rights, women’s rights, the rights of average Americans which the courts have always

looked out for.

Now, it’s sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a

nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor who would unify us.

America needs unity now. America needs reaching out to one another

more than ever. But the president seems to want to hunker down in his bunker and is more concerned about smoothing the ruffled feathers

of the extreme wing of his party than about governing all of America and changing history for the better.

SCHUMER: This

controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate

and the American people.

The president had an opportunity to nominate someone in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor, a mainstream,

albeit conservative, who would unite the country, not further decide us. At first blush, Judge Alito does not appear to be a Sandra Day

O’Connor.

It is an immutable law of history that when a president tries to govern from the extreme, his presidency and the

country end up losing. Democrats learned this when we governed from the far left. President Bush will learn this as well. …

QUESTION: Why do you think the president nominated Judge Alito?

SCHUMER: Well, as I said, I think that the president received so

much criticism from the extreme wing of his party that he felt, in his position right now, that he couldn’t afford to alienate them

further. And they demanded fidelity to their viewpoint.

Remember that Duhbya was

going to restore dignity and honor to the White House, at the same time he united the country. Missions unaccomplished. mjh

White House Ethics, Honesty Questioned
55% in Survey Say Libby Case Signals

Broader Problems
By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane, Washington Post Staff Writers

A majority of Americans say the indictment

of senior White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby signals broader ethical problems in the Bush administration, and nearly half say the

overall level of honesty and ethics in the federal government has fallen since President Bush took office, according to a new Washington

Post-ABC News survey.

The poll, conducted Friday night and yesterday, found that 55 percent of the public believes the Libby case

indicates wider problems “with ethical wrongdoing” in the White House, while 41 percent believes it was an “isolated incident.” And by a

3 to 1 ratio, 46 percent to 15 percent, Americans say the level of honesty and ethics in the government has declined rather than risen

under Bush.

In the aftermath of the latest crisis to confront the White House, Bush’s overall job approval rating has fallen to

39 percent, the lowest of his presidency in Post-ABC polls. Barely a third of Americans — 34 percent — think Bush is doing a

good job ensuring high ethics in government, which is slightly lower than President Bill Clinton’s standing on this issue when he left

office. …

The survey of 600 randomly selected Americans represents a snapshot of initial reactions to the Libby

indictment.

Criminalizing politics by Robert

Novak [Yes, THE Robert Novak]

In today’s polarized climate, both parties have contributed to the criminalization of politics.

But Democrats, losers in both elections and the world of ideas, have turned to using the criminal process over the last two decades. …

Big of Novak, whose central role in the “Plame Affair” is still undercover, to allow that “both parties”

have had a role in something he despises the Democrats for doing. Yes, indicting Scooby (sic) Libby for perjury is the same as impeaching

the President. mjh

The Criminalization of Criminals by James Moore

Leaking the names of CIA agents is not politics; it is

a crime. Lying to congress about evidence for a war is not politics; it is a crime. Failing to tell a grand jury that you met

with a reporter and talked about the CIA agent is not forgetfulness; it is a crime. Deceiving your entire nation and frightening children

and adults with images of nuclear explosions in order to get them to support a bloody invasion of another country is not politics; it is

a crime. Anyone other than Karl Rove and Lewis Libby and Tom Delay who does not get this, please raise your hand. The three of you will

need to stay after class for further instruction in civics.

I’m no fan of Wilson, but I am happy to see her break with the House

leadership and the White House. Duhbya wants the CIA to remain free to torture as needed — and surely wants more than just the CIA to be

free to torture. How can anyone doubt that torture isn’t supported from the top down. mjh

ABQjournal: Rep. Wilson Favors Anti-Torture Rules By Michael

Coleman

On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that the Bush administration wants to exempt the Central Intelligence Agency

from new anti-torture rules under consideration in the Senate.

The Senate voted 90 to 9 earlier this month to change a defense

spending bill in a way that would prohibit harsh or degrading treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody anywhere in the world. According to

the Post, the Senate wanted to close a loophole in current law.

The White House reportedly opposes the Senate’s broad

definition of what is and isn’t acceptable treatment of those detained by the United States. The House defense spending bill contains no

such change.

Wilson, a New Mexico Republican, Air Force veteran and member of the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence, said the news report troubled her.

“It makes no sense to me,” Wilson said. “The United States government has a

responsibility to live up to our obligations in both the Convention on Torture and the Geneva Conventions.”

Truth About Torture By Michael Hirsh

The Bush administration has

consistently maintained that it is not U.S. policy to abuse prisoners. But Bush has threatened to veto the entire appropriations bill if

it contains McCain’s language — all in an effort to preserve the right to treat prisoners in whatever way the president decides

is necessary. Last week Vice President Dick Cheney, with CIA Director Porter Goss in tow, met with McCain to try to persuade him

to exclude the CIA from any restrictions. The administration also sought to cut out the term “regardless of physical location,” McCain

said in an interview. The Washington Post, in a harsh editorial, later branded Cheney “the vice president for torture.”

Cheney’s spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, said she had no comment on the McCain meeting. CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Dyck also declined to

talk about it. But John Yoo, a former Justice Department official who drafted an August 2002 memo that justified rough methods, said last

week that the administration should continue to treat terrorists differently overseas because they “do not operate according to the

Geneva Conventions.”