NYT's Latest Mouth-Foaming Over Alito

Get the lead editorial here.

Reasonable Moloch-Worshippers break into hives. Judge Alito actually expresses what even supporters of Roe v. Wade have all but said: The US constitution does not support the "right" to abortion. For this Foolishness, he must be punished:

Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s insistence that the Constitution does not protect abortion rights is not the only alarming aspect of a newly released memo he wrote in 1985. That statement strongly suggests that Judge Alito is far outside the legal mainstream and that senators should question him closely about it. They should be prepared to reject his nomination to the Supreme Court if he cannot put to rest the serious concerns that the memo, part of a job application, raises about his worthiness to join the court.

When Judge Alito applied for a job with the Justice Department under President Ronald Reagan, he submitted a Personal Qualifications Statement that outlined his approach to the law. That statement raises three major concerns:

First, he has extreme views on the law. Judge Alito said he was particularly proud of his work on cases that tried to establish that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." He did not merely oppose Roe v. Wade in the abstract - he worked to reverse it. He also noted his "disagreement with Warren Court decisions" in many important areas, including reapportionment. The reapportionment cases established the one-person-one-vote doctrine, which requires that Congressional and legislative districts include roughly equal numbers of people. They played a key role in making American democracy truly representative, and are almost uniformly respected by lawyers and scholars.

Second, Judge Alito does not respect precedent. Judicial nominees who appear extreme often claim that because they respect precedent, they will vote to reaffirm decisions they disagree with. When Judge Clarence Thomas was nominated for the Supreme Court, he told the Senate about his deep respect for precedent - and then immediately began voting to overturn important precedents when he joined the court. The Senate has specific reason to be skeptical about Judge Alito. Not only did he work to overturn Roe v. Wade, but he also said he had been inspired to go to law school by his opposition to Warren Court precedents - presumably by a desire to see them overturned.

The Moloch-Worshippers know they can't win support for the full, libertine expression their Sacrament at the polls. California's failure to pass Prop 73, how many American parents will vote away their right to supervise their daughters' possible procurement of abortions? How many will applaud partial-birth abortion? How many will accept the abortion-as-birth-control way of life that has become the fruit of the "right to choose" movement?

Not enough.

The Moloch-worshippers mouth-foam over Alito because his nomination threatens to restore Judicial integrity to the one institution whose disintegration has safeguarded their sacred Rites. I can't laugh over their outrage enough! To quote Feddie of Southern Appeal, "This is awesome!"

Update: Reader L. helps me correct a misprint, which I've now fixed.

Upate II: The Anchoress has the following to say:

What is important, and hilarious, is that the NY Times is taking a huffy stand against a man who wrote a memo 20 years ago about possibly overturning a law…and yet they seem to have no opinion - no opinion at all - about a man writing a memo just two years ago, about possibly overturning a presidency. In fact, except for a brief article about Democrats questioning how the memo got leaked, I don’t recall the Times - or any of their competitors - writing a single anguished word about Jay Rockefeller outlining the presidential takedown.

An interparty memo detailing the means by which an administration may be toppled? Pffft, it’s nothing, nothing, pay no attention! Here, dahling, read a theatre review and just forget all about that silly little Rockefeller plan, it’s not important…”

Yeah, isn't that a bit of interesting inconsistency from the Flagship of MSM? Why am I not surprised?

Professor Bainbridge thinks the Grey Lady protests too much:

Let's deal with the reapportionment question first. I blogged about this Democrat talking point the other day. I showed there that it is possible to simultaneously supporty the one-person/one-vote principle, while still offering legitimate criticisms of the reapportionment cases. (Election law expert Rick Hasen calls the Times editorial "somewhat of an overstatement," which is quite generous to the Times.)

As for Roe v. Wade, the American people's views are far more nuanced that the NYT likes to admit:

... At the same time they indicate support for Roe, Americans favor definite limits on this procedure--including some the Supreme Court has forbidden. "They don't want all abortions to be illegal," says public opinion analyst Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute, "but they're still willing to add considerable restrictions." Most Americans, for example, favor waiting periods and parental consent for minors--which abortion-rights groups cannot tolerate. More important, most Americans think abortion should be banned after the first trimester. In a 2003 Gallup Poll, 68 percent of Americans said abortion "should be generally illegal" in the second trimester, and 84 percent said it should be barred in the third trimester. (Link)

Does the NYT think that those folks are all extremists? (Probably.)

Of course we are! We're Fools, aren't we? How can we not be extremists?

Keep slobbering on the carpet, you fine, Reasonable folks! I can hear that broom closet opening up already!