Samuel Alito submitted an article to NR for publication in the 1980s. We apparently rejected it, because Mr. Alito was not nearly far enough “out of the mainstream” to be an NR author.
The story-broken by the Washington Times-that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote, in 1985, that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion” set off a furor among the usual suspects in the stop-Bush-nominees coalition. Ralph Neas, head of People for the American Way, said Alito’s views are “consistent with the efforts of the radical right to overturn Roe v. Wade and many other decisions.” But the more we look at it, the more it appears that Alito simply agrees with a number of pro-choice legal scholars who, over the years, have questioned the basis for the Roe decision. Shortly after the story came out, Alito’s supporters circulated quotes from several liberal legal stars-people like Laurence Tribe, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Cass Sunstein-who have said that Roe was dreadfully reasoned. It’s no surprise that Alito agreed with them in 1985, and perhaps does so today. That doesn’t necessarily mean he would vote to overturn Roe-he might believe that so many people have relied on the law for so long that it should remain standing-although we would like to see that happen. By the way, while abortion is a serious issue that will be explored at length during Alito’s confirmation hearing, we found another part of Alito’s writing particularly intriguing. “When I first became interested in government and politics during the 1960s,” he wrote, “the greatest influences on my views were the writings of William F. Buckley, Jr., the National Review, and Barry Goldwater’s 1964 campaign.” Confirm that man.
Comments