Romero Bashes Alito’s Decisions

Posted on November 2, 2005

Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU, has issued a statement, questing some of Alito’s court decisions. From his views on abortion, to his rulings on national security, the ACLU is threatened because unlike the judges they agree with, he follows the Constitution. I’m going to dispute what Romero had to say, point by point. His statement can be found HERE.

Every time we step into that courtroom, fundamental freedoms are on the line. That will certainly be true later this month when ACLU attorney Jennifer Dalven, Deputy Director of our Reproductive Freedom Project, will step before the Justices of the Supreme Court to argue Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

I just wanted to point out how the ACLU is more worried about “reproductive freedom” than they are about religious freedom, something that is actually mentioned in the Constitution, instead of thrown in there by some misinterpreted right.

With a decision in the Ayotte case, the Supreme Court could revoke the long-established principle that abortion restrictions must include exceptions to protect a woman’s health. This is the first abortion-related case to reach the Court in five years — and it will probably be the last time the ACLU argues a case before Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Justice O’Connor has provided more than a swing vote on the Court. She has been a moderating voice on critical civil liberties issues ranging from race to religion to reproductive freedom. We cannot know for certain how Judge Alito would vote in Ayotte or any other case, but there is no question that this nomination calls into question the delicate balance that Justice O’Connor has helped to shape and preserve.

I looked into this ruling, and the law is highly controversial, but the only thing the law in question does force is notification. It requires parental notification within 48 hours for those having abortions under the age of 18. It doesn’t even require consent. Why is health an issue here? If you’re about to die, I don’t think you should be that worried about your parents knowing you’re going to have an abortion.

The law in question would have required health care providers to notify a parent at least 48 hours before providing an abortion to a woman under the age of 18, or for young women to obtain a court waiver of this requirement. The law contained no exception for circumstances in which the delay would seriously threaten a young woman’s health. Instead the law would have forced physicians to wait to provide emergency medical care until the young woman was facing imminent death. It was struck down by the Boston-based 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled the 2003 law unconstitutional for failing to provide an exception to protect the minor’s health in the event of a medical emergency. SOURCE

What delay? Will a 5-minute delay to call the young girl’s parents on the phone seriously threaten her health? I don’t think so, but back to Romero.

For example, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Alito voted to uphold a state law provision that required women to notify their husbands before having an abortion. Justice O’Connor joined with a majority of the court in rejecting his position. In addition, Judge Alito has been more willing to support state-sponsored religious displays than Justice O’Connor. And he has written several dissenting opinions on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that, if accepted, would have not only made it more difficult for victims of discrimination to prevail in bringing a suit, but would have made it more difficult for them to even get their case to a jury.

He conveniantly overlooks when Alito struck down a partial-birth abortion ban because the Supreme court already ruled on it. Alito understands that this isn’t about abortion, but is rather about lawmakers having the right to make these decisions, instead of judges.

Other troubling positions in Judge Alito’s record includes: Upholding the strip search of a mother and her ten-year old daughter, even though the warrant allowing the search did not name either of them. Holding that Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to restrict the transfer and possession of machine guns at gun shows. Holding that Congress did not have authority to require state employers to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act. Make no mistake about it. As the Senate considers the Alito nomination, we are at a pivotal moment in our nation’s history. The Bush Administration is claiming unprecedented national security powers, reproductive rights are in jeopardy, the teaching of evolution is under attack, and we continue to struggle with a legacy of discrimination.

The Supreme Court’s role as the ultimate safeguard of our constitutional liberties has never been more critical. With that stark reality in mind, the ACLU will, in the weeks ahead, compile a complete report on Judge Alito’s civil liberties record, including the good and the bad. And, with your help, we will make sure each and every Senator understands that record and acts on his or her obligation to protect the Supreme Court’s vital position in our constitutional democracy.

We’ll be counting on your support every step of the way.

Sorry, a strip search when worried about security, how evil of the United State’s government. Also, why is the American Civil Liberties Union more worried about weapon regulation than the right to bear arms? Are they picking and choosing which civil liberties to defend? The ACLU will compile a report bashing Alito, because he doesn’t legislate from the bench, and he doesn’t support their attack on the Constitution.

REAL Teen is the founder of Right on the Right. He contributes to Stop the ACLU, Gribbit’s Word, Republican Voices, Conservative Spirit and Big Dog’s Weblog.