- The Washington Times - Friday, November 4, 2005

Liberals’ response to the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito Jr., to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is as hysterical as it was predictable.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, blamed the “radical right wing” for Judge Alito’s selection. Failed Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts echoed the sentiment. “Has the right wing now forced a weakened president to nominate a divisive justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia,” Mr. Kerry asked, rhetorically. And not just senators, but left-leaning interest groups joined the fray. Ralph Neas of the misnamed People for the American Way warned, “Replacing a mainstream conservative like Justice O’Connor with a far-right activist like Samuel Alito would threaten Americans’ rights and legal protections for decades.”

For all the talk of right-wing coups, Judge Alito is no radical but a judicious, thoughtful and careful jurist with one of the most impressive resumes of any nominee in modern Supreme Court history. He’s been a career lawyer in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, a federal prosecutor with a distinguished record of prosecuting organized crime, and an appellate judge for more than 15 years. You couldn’t find a better prepared candidate, unlike President Bush’s previous nominee, Harriet Miers, whose nomination floundered when it became apparent she lacked experience with constitutional issues. So what exactly do the Democrats fear so?

It boils down to one issue: abortion. Democrats have worried for years that Roe v. Wade would be reversed when a Republican took the White House and began appointing Supreme Court justices. They warned about it during President Reagan’s and President George H.W. Bush’s terms, inveighing against their nominees to the court during Senate hearings. Liberals attacked Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and Clarence Thomas for their presumed anti-abortion views, but only Justices Thomas and Reagan appointee Justice Scalia have consistently opposed the legal reasoning in Roe v. Wade in their subsequent decisions.

Ironically, Justice Scalia faced little criticism when named to the court in 1986 and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate — touted as the first Italian-American appointed to the high court. Justices O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter, despite the dire predictions of Democrats, have repeatedly reaffirmed the basic outlines of Roe v. Wade.

No one knows how Judge Alito would vote on any future abortion case — and he’s unlikely to tip his hand at confirmation hearings, any more than Chief Justice John Roberts did at his or Clinton-appointed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did at hers, for that matter.

But let’s just assume Roe v. Wade will be reversed if Judge Alito is confirmed. Would abortion suddenly become illegal in the United States? Would women seeking abortions be forced into back alleys, as the Democrats are fond of asserting? Hardly. A reversal on Roe would simply turn the issue back to the states. At the time Roe was decided in 1973, most states were liberalizing abortion laws. Today, after more than 30 years of virtually unfettered access to abortion, it is unlikely many states would pass restrictive laws.

Public opinion polls show a substantial majority of Americans would not want abortion outlawed altogether but favor some restrictions on the procedure. For example, about two-thirds of Americans would not allow abortions in the fifth or subsequent months unless the mother’s health or life were in danger.

Similar majorities favor parental notification for girls under 18 who seek abortions — a restriction the Supreme Court has countenanced so long as the girl could appeal for a judge to bypass notification. And Americans overwhelmingly oppose “partial-birth abortions,” which most often occur late in pregnancy and involve a particularly gruesome procedure to collapse the fetus’ skull before removing the body vaginally.

Democrats’ hysterical predictions notwithstanding, the Supreme Court — even one dominated by anti-Roe justices — cannot outlaw abortion. A reversal of Roe v. Wade would return this most divisive and emotional issue to the people to decide through their elected legislatures. That’s no excuse for opposing Samuel Alito.

Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide