Schumer besieges Alito on abortionConcludes:
'It is very likely you would vote to overrule Roe' 
Posted: January 10, 2006
7:11 p.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Sen. Charles Schumer
In the second day of Senate hearings, Democrats pressed U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Samuel Alito to reveal how he would rule on the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that rescinded laws banning abortion.
Alito said he would handle any case involving abortion with an open mind, and in a lengthy, early evening exchange with Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., refused to answer whether his unequivocal denunciation of Roe 20 years ago reflects his position today.
Alito is expected to be confirmed by the full Republican-led Senate later this month, but abortion-rights activists say they're concerned about his 1985 application essay for a job in the Reagan administration in which he said the Constitution contains no right to abortion.
Schumer repeatedly pressed Alito – chosen by President Bush to replaced retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor – to state whether the 1985 essay reflects his view of the Constitution today.
Alito's first response was, "Senator, it was an accurate statement of my view at the time, and I made it from the vantage point of an attorney in the attorney general's office."
Several Democratic senators have made a point of Alito being nominated for O'Connor's seat, noting she was a swing vote on many cases involving abortion.
As Schumer continued to press, Alito explained he would begin with the question of stare decisis, taking precedent into account, and then go through the normal judicial decision-making process.
Schumer interrupted many times, saying he wasn't asking about stare decisis or case law, only prompting Alito to state his view of the Constitution with respect to a "woman's right to choose."
The New York senator finally gave up, saying, "I now know you're not going to answer the question."
"I didn't think you would," Schumer added. "Your refusal I find troubling."
Later, the senator stated, "We can only conclude that if the question came before the court, it is very likely you would vote to overrule Roe versus Wade."
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, then led off his half-hour segment by taking Schumer to task for the line of questioning, comparing it to asking whether someone has stopped beating his wife.
"It's rather telling," Cornyn told Alito, "that Senator Schumer said he didn't expect you to answer the question."
Some senators, Cornyn said, already have decided to vote against Alito and want to accuse the nominee of being unresponsive.
But Cornyn pointed out that Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware had commented that he could not remember a court nominee being so responsive.
Earlier, Alito explained that his writings opposing abortion reflected an attorney representing a client's interests and, if confirmed, he would "approach the question with an open mind."
Alito, a federal judge, defended his dissent in the 1991 case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood, in which the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.
"I did it because that's what I thought the law required," Alito told the Senate panel.
The Supreme Court upheld the appeals court's decision, but Chief Justice William Rehnquist quoted from Alito's opinion in his own dissent.
Alito has been a member of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since 1990 and was a U.S. prosecutor and an attorney in the Reagan administration.
Responding to a question by Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Alito said he agrees "with the underlying thought that when a precedent is reaffirmed, that strengthens the precedent."
But in a reference to terminology Specter used during the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts last year, Alito said he doesn't believe in the idea of "super-duper precedents."
"It sort of reminds me of the size of laundry detergent in the supermarket," Alito said.
Specter was contending that decisions such as the Roe v. Wade ruling should be enshrined in law, because they have been reaffirmed so many times in subsequent cases.
Specter asked Alito if he accepts the principles of Griswold v. Connecticut, a case used in Roe to establish a "right to privacy."
"Senator, I do believe the Constitution protects the right to privacy," he said. "I agree that Griswold now is understood by the Supreme Court based on the liberty clauses of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment."
The committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, quizzed Alito on presidential power – an issue raised after news of President Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to use wiretaps on telephone converstations between terrorists overseas and U.S. citizens at home.
Alito said the president must comply with the Fifth Amendment's guards against unreasonable search and seizures.
But he also said someone has a right to sue if they are subject to surveillance that violates the Constitution.
Asked his view of foreign law in deciding U.S. Supreme Court cases, Alito said he would rely only on the Constitution. Foreign laws might be relevant, he said, in cases that pertain to international treaties, but they must not be used to interpret the Constitution.
"I think the framers would be stunned by the idea that the Bill of Rights is to be interpreted by taking a poll of the countries of the world," Alito said. "The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to give Americans rights that were recognized practically nowhere else in the world at the time. The framers did not want Americans to have the rights of people in France or the rights of people in Russia or any of the other countries on the continent of Europe at the time; they wanted them to have the rights of Americans."
Yesterday, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., told Alito to expect tough questioning, saying the record of the U.S. Supreme Court nominee "troubles me deeply."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has said that if the Democrats decide to filibuster, he would employ the "nuclear option" to ban the procedure, which requires a majority vote in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Each of the committee’s 18 senators get a 30-minute round. Testimony continued into the night, with lunch, dinner and two other breaks during the hearings.
Specter said he would conclude the hearings this week and has called for a committee vote Jan. 17. Republicans want a full vote of the Senate Jan. 20, but Leahy said he would not promise to adhere to that schedule.
Today, Kennedy told Alito his judicial opinions suggest he advocates broad presidential powers.
"You give enormous, almost total deference to the exercise of executive power," Kennedy said.
Alito insisted otherwise, stating, "No person is above the law, and that means the president and that means the Supreme Court."
Alito was asked about his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group that became controversial for its opposition to opening the school to women and bringing in more minorities.
"I have no specific recollection of that organization," said Alito, who explained he was not an active member.
In a friendly exchange, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, asked Alito if he opposed the admission of women and minorities in colleges.
"Absolutely not," he said, then added, with the hint of a smile, "I had never attended a non-coeducational school until I went to Princeton and after I was there a short time I realized the benefits of attending a coeducational school."
Alito also was grilled on his participation in a 2002 Vanguard case after he had pledge to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1990 that he would recuse himself from any case involving the securities companies, because of his personal holdings.
"If I had to do it over again there are things that I would do differently," said Alito.
But he maintained he broke no laws or ethical rules.
Sen. Herbert Kohl, D-Wisc., asked Alito his opinion of Judge Robert Bork, whose 1987 nomination to the high court was blocked by Democrats because he was considered to be an extremist. Kohl noted that in a 1987 TV interview, Alito called Bork "one of the most outstanding nominees of this century."
Alito expressed admiration for Bork but said he disagrees with him on some issues and agrees on others, explaining that at the time, "I was an appointee in the Reagan administration and Judge Bork had been a nominee of the administration and I had been a supporter of the nomination."
Kohl also tried to get Alito to give his opinion on the Bush v. Gore case that ended the Democrats' attempt to contest the 2000 presidential election. But Alito said he had not studied the case thoroughly and, therefore, could not give an answer.
Schumer besieges Alito on abortion
Author