Alito says roe vs wade should be overturned

S

steveinneed

CAGiversary!
I just saw on cnn that there were some memo's where Alito stated this. Its not that suprizing but...yeah.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote in a June 1985 memo that the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion should be overturned.

In a recommendation to the solicitor general on filing a friend-of-court brief, Alito said that the government "should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled."

The June 3, 1985 document was one of 45 released by the National Archives on Friday. A total of 744 pages were made public.

Abortion has become a wedge issue in connection with Alito's confirmation to take the Supreme Court seat held by Associated Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring. The federal appellate court judge has been seeking to assure senators that he would put his private views aside when it came time to rule on the issue as a justice. O'Connor has been a supporter of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling affirming a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The documents released Friday are the latest involving Alito and abortion.

In paperwork released earlier from Alito's time in the Justice Department's solicitor general's office, he recommended a legal strategy of dismantling abortion rights piece by piece. And as part of an application for a job as deputy assistant attorney general, Alito said the Constitution does not guarantee abortion rights.

The latest memo is certain to stir controversy as the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings for Alito, slated to begin January 9.

Charles Fried, a Reagan administration solicitor-general, two decades ago noted the implications of the memo in his introduction, "I need hardly say how sensitive this material is, and ask that it have no wider circulation."

Link to article:http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/23/alito.ap/index.html
 
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote in a June 1985 memo that the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion should be overturned.

In a recommendation to the solicitor general on filing a friend-of-court brief, Alito said that the government "should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled."

The June 3, 1985 document was one of 45 released by the National Archives on Friday. A total of 744 pages were made public.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/5624973/detail.html

I think I saw this already, but regardless, let's hope the Dems block this idiot.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']It's nice how they try to bury this by releasing it on a Friday, two days before Xmas. Must be real proud of his record.[/QUOTE]

Good call. Not only is it a Friday News Dump, but it's also before a major U.S. holiday when Americans really aren't paying attention to the news.
 
He will simply make the same argument that Roberts did, that this was advice to a client and not his personal views. Of course I agree with him so no matter to me, but he will definitely make that claim to Democrats and people like Arlen Specter.
 
I was wondering something. If it was possible to transfer a foetus to anyone (man or woman) and, therefore, save its life, how many pro lifers would offer to save the baby?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I was wondering something. If it was possible to transfer a foetus to anyone (man or woman) and, therefore, save its life, how many pro lifers would offer to save the baby?[/QUOTE]

Many forms of cloning are completed by removing the egg, and messing around with it in a laboratory. Therefore, it feasible to assume that eggs can in fact be moved from one woman to another. However, I'm not quite sure how the body changes with a fetus being implanted. Chances are, you could not move the fetus from one body to another by some point in the pregnancy due to extreme changes in the woman's body that need to take place (such as rapid expansion of the Uterus). That being said, I do think that moving the fetus from one body to the next is feasible early on in the pregnancy.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I meant I wonder how many prolifers would take the baby inside themselves to save it, the moral side not the medical one.[/QUOTE]
I know, but I thought you were also asking if it were feasible.
 
Roe V Wade had a good framework going for it that was basically just taken away By Casey V Planned Parenthood, but kept viability. By no means do i like it that abortions are going on, especially after seeing a video a few years back that showed one of the facilities. However, if Roe V wade werent in place then these women that want one would be tempted to go through it by illegal and harmful means. The best way to prevent this whole thing though is for people to stop doing it without protection if they dont want a baby, with a few exceptions(and i think we all know what that exception is). Let the decision stand as it is or there could be greater problems in the future
 
how fookin hard is it to fine a true moderate for the supreme court. They purposely pick tighty whitey righties because they seem to want a fight. It would be a whole lot easier if the president didnt pick some hand picked by the jesus coalition or from his back pocket. If maybe he could choose someone with a spine who does not always vote on party lines....2000 election.... I am really sick of political parties, repubs and dems alike. We either need to get rid of them all together like washington wanted or make the process viable for 3rd parties which just doesnt rob a similar party of votes (Perot, Nader)
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']how fookin hard is it to fine a true moderate for the supreme court. They purposely pick tighty whitey righties because they seem to want a fight. It would be a whole lot easier if the president didnt pick some hand picked by the jesus coalition or from his back pocket. If maybe he could choose someone with a spine who does not always vote on party lines....2000 election.... I am really sick of political parties, repubs and dems alike. We either need to get rid of them all together like washington wanted or make the process viable for 3rd parties which just doesnt rob a similar party of votes (Perot, Nader)[/QUOTE]
I think you know as well as I that it's not about doing what is right, but doing whatever keeps them in power the longest, or keeps their interests in power the longest. I'm sure this sort of posturing is not attractive to people like you or I, however, it is attractive to the more machiavellian people around, which tend to be al ot more vocal than most.
 
By no means should abortions be encouraged but in certain incidents it is needed to be legal so people don't go about it illegally...there will be abortions whether you like it or not, legal or illegally.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I was wondering something. If it was possible to transfer a foetus to anyone (man or woman) and, therefore, save its life, how many pro lifers would offer to save the baby?[/QUOTE]

I should imagine quite a lot. Would you push a person about to be run over by a truck out of the way if you could? Although I suppose it's a little different situation, since you are putting yourself in the least severely inconvenienced and in pain, and at the most in mortal danger.

[quote name='capitalist_mao'] Many forms of cloning are completed by removing the egg, and messing around with it in a laboratory. Therefore, it feasible to assume that eggs can in fact be moved from one woman to another. However, I'm not quite sure how the body changes with a fetus being implanted. Chances are, you could not move the fetus from one body to another by some point in the pregnancy due to extreme changes in the woman's body that need to take place (such as rapid expansion of the Uterus). That being said, I do think that moving the fetus from one body to the next is feasible early on in the pregnancy.[/quote]

Do you have any medical evidence for this at all? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I should imagine quite a lot. Would you push a person about to be run over by a truck out of the way if you could? Although I suppose it's a little different situation, since you are putting yourself in the least severely inconvenienced and in pain, and at the most in mortal danger.
[/quote]

It's a lot different situation. Pushing someone requires minimal effort and time. Though I highly doubt many would do it, including you. I also think many people who claim they would would think twice before actually going through with it.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Do you have any medical evidence for this at all? Or are you just talking out of your ass?[/QUOTE]
I did actual research on cloning. Dolly the Sheep used a process called "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer". In this process, an egg has the nucleus removed and parts of an adult male cell that are not from the sperm are fused into the egg. The egg is then planted into the mother to be.

This is why I reasoned that featuses could, in fact, be transfered, but only early on in the process (when the fetus is but a small clump).
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It's a lot different situation. Pushing someone requires minimal effort and time. Though I highly doubt many would do it, including you. I also think many people who claim they would would think twice before actually going through with it.[/QUOTE]

Of course it's a lot different. I guess my sarcasm in the "little" wasn't evident enough.

But of course people are going to think twice about doing it. It would be a major, major life choice to have a baby implanted in you, just like getting pregnant is a major, major life choice. But I'm sure some people would do it because they would feel like they were saving a life. Honestly, if this became possible and I were confronted with that choice, I have no idea what I'd do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top