Last week, a surprisingly large number of conservatives expressed concern that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito’s record in opposition to abortion wasn’t quite clear enough. Today, it seems those questions have been answered.
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, wrote that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion” in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.
“I personally believe very strongly” in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.
The document, which is likely to inflame liberals who oppose Judge Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, is among many that the White House will release today from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
What’s more, Alito made his partisanship quite clear.
In direct, unambiguous language, the young career lawyer who served as assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee, demonstrated his conservative bona fides as he sought to become a political appointee in the Reagan administration.
“I am and always have been a conservative,” he wrote in an attachment to the noncareer appointment form that he sent to the Presidential Personnel Office. “I am a lifelong registered Republican.”
Last week, the executive director of New Jersey Right to Life said “there’s a big question mark about what [Alito] would do” on the Supreme Court. I have a hunch that question mark isn’t quite as big today.
Also keep in mind, this helps resolve questions about Alito’s work at the Solicitor General’s office. Advocates can try to dismiss taking firm stands on controversial issues as a lawyer doing work on behalf of a client. But in this case, Alito made his own beliefs clear.
“It has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan’s administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly,” he wrote.
“I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”
So much for ambiguity.
As for how the left is approaching the Alito nomination, abortion rights will not, oddly enough, serve as the centerpiece of the argument against confirmation. Apparently, poll respondents were even more troubled by some of Alito’s other controversial rulings.
A coalition of liberal groups is preparing a national television advertising campaign against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. that seeks to move the debate over his selection beyond abortion rights and focus instead on subjects like police searches and employment discrimination, several leaders of the coalition said.
The possibility that Judge Alito could vote to narrow abortion rights has dominated discussion among both supporters and opponents of his nomination. But Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice and one of the leaders of the coalition, said a poll commissioned by her organization showed the potential to attack Judge Alito on aspects of his record that had received less attention. […]
Among the issues raised by the poll was Judge Alito’s support as a lawyer in the Reagan administration for an employer’s right to fire someone who had AIDS. Another issue was a judicial opinion he wrote supporting a police strip-search of a suspected drug dealer’s female companion and her 10-year-old daughter. Others included his votes as a judge against employment discrimination suits and an opinion overturning part of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
And all of this comes before the groups learned about the 1985 memo in which Alito makes his opposition to Roe quite clear.
This confirmation process might get more interesting after all.