November 15, 2005
HUSH, LITTLE DAHLIA:
Three-Quarter Truths: The sloppy mischaracterizations of Alito's abortion decisions. (Dahlia Lithwick, Nov. 14, 2005, Slate)
This morning's Washington Times story about Sam Alito's views on abortion is interesting for any number of reasons, not the least of which is his assertion, in a 1985 job application, that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."Stop the presses. Alito's conservative!
That abortion statement is being thoroughly chewed over today. It's part of the de rigueur constitutional doublespeak, in which most almost everyone privately agrees that: (i) Roe probably represented judicial overreaching; but (ii) Americans believe in a constitutional right to privacy; such that (iii) to be confirmed, conservative Supreme Court nominees must be privately opposed to indefensible Roe and publicly in favor of indefensible Roe. This abortion mambo is exhausting, but it does help keep the pounds off.
Doesn't she know, you're not supposed to acknowledge that no thinking person believes Roe can be reconciled with the Constitution? Posted by Orrin Judd at November 15, 2005 9:46 AM
This is the "superprecedent" argument. Roe is indefensible and there's no right to abortion in the constitution, but it's too late now to go back and set things right.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 15, 2005 10:16 AMThe most impressive contortion is simultaneously holding all of the above ideas, with precedent trumping all else, and yet still thinking Lawrence v. Texas was a great decision...
Posted by: b at November 15, 2005 10:57 AMb: Because for the left Progress is inevitable and unidirectional.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 15, 2005 10:59 AMIIRC, Ginsburg admitted the same thing.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 16, 2005 2:57 AMSlavery was also a superprecedent in which certain people were treated as 3/5ths of a person and as disposable property by their owners. "Please don' beat me no mo', Massa Gandy."
Posted by: Noel at November 16, 2005 8:10 AM