The Liberals have come out against Judge Samuel Alito without the facts. The low-level hacks on blogs are ranting and the high-level hacks on network television are raising their eyebrows at Alito’s alleged extreme conservatism.

While they nervously cough in their hanky when his name is mentioned, liberals should appreciate Alito’s record of fairness and fidelity to our laws and the Constitution. Regardless of his predisposition, a Justice who will strictly adhere to legal precedent is a win for everyone.

In fact, well-known liberals in the field of law are supporting Alito. Attorney Timothy Lewis, a former 3rd Circuit judge and colleague of Alito’s for seven years, said, “Sam Alito is intellectually honest. This is what makes him a wonderful judge and also why I feel very good about his appointment to the Supreme Court.”

Ron Chen, a lawyer and professor at Rutgers University-Newark and board member of the American Civil Liberties Union, says he does not “view [Alito] at all as an extremist.” He added that Alito would take a more measured approach to the bench.

Yet, without the facts to support their dissent and regardless of the 5-star rating of his peers, liberals seek to shoot down his nomination with myths.

Myth 1: Alito is for strip-searching children

The 3rd Court of Appeals described the situation in their opinion of Doe v. Groody:

“On March 6, 1998, as the result of a long-term investigation of John Doe for suspected narcotics dealing, officers of the Schuylkill County Drug Task Force (“Task Force”) sought a search warrant for Doe and his residence. The typed affidavit in support of the warrant application stated, in pertinent part, that a reliable confidential informant had purchased methamphetamine on several occasions from John Doe, at Doe’s “residence/office,” or from a Volkswagen automobile parked in front. In addition, the affidavit noted that individuals with histories of prior narcotics use or with drug gang affiliations had been observed by Task Force members entering or leaving John Doe’s residence. Finally, the affidavit indicated that the most recent methamphetamine purchase by the informant had occurred within the preceding 48 hours. The typed affidavit requested permission to search John Doe’s residence and his Volkswagen for drugs, paraphernalia, money, drug records and other evidence. Additionally, the affidavit stated:

“‘The search should also include all occupants of the residence as the information developed shows that [Doe] has frequent visitors that purchase methamphetamine. These persons may be on the premises at the time of the execution of the search warrant and many attempt to conceal controlled substances on their persons.

“ ‘This application seeks permission to search all occupants of the residence and their belongings to prevent the removal, concealment, or destruction
of any evidence requested in this warrant. It is the experience of your coaffiants that drug dealers often attempt to do so when faced with impending apprehension and may give such evidence to persons who do not actually reside or own/rent the premises. This is done to prevent the discovery of said items in hopes that said persons will not be subject to search when police arrive.

“ ‘As a result of the information developed, your affiant requests that a search warrant . . . be issued for . . . the residence of [John Doe] and all occupants therein.’

“Armed with the warrant, Task Force police went to the John Doe house to carry out the search. Evidently, they anticipated encountering females because they enlisted a female traffic meter patrol officer to be available if necessary to assist in the search. As the officers approached the house, they met John Doe, and brought him into the house. Once inside, however, the officers found no visitors, but only John Doe’s wife, Jane, and their ten year old daughter, Mary.
The officers decided to search Jane and Mary Doe for contraband, and sent for the meter patrol officer. When she arrived, the female officer removed both Jane and Mary Doe to an upstairs bathroom. ”

Jane and Mary were then search and the officer found nothing.

The Court ruled that the officers were wrong to search the females. Alito dissented:

“I share the Majority’s visceral dislike of the intrusive search of John Doe’s young daughter, but it is a sad fact that drug dealer’s sometimes use children to carry out their business and to avoid prosecution. I know of no legal principle that bars an officer from search a child (in a proper manner) if a warrant has been issued and the warrant is not illegal on its face.”

Myth 2: Alito is for women having to get permission from their husbands before abortion

It is amazing how much is construed when a lengthy court opinion is reduced to a single sentence. Penndit said, “in [Alito’s] world , women have to have their husband’s permission to get an abortion…”

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 3rd Circuit of Appeals was asked to rule if legislation passed by Pennsylvania that required a women to notify her husband before having an abortion violated the Constitution and was “unduly burdensome.” The law did not say the woman had to have permission from her husband; all she had to do was notify him.

The majority ruled it was a violation, while Alito was the lone dissenter.

In his dissent Alito noted the safeguards enacted to protect a women from abuse:

“Section 3209 contains four significant exceptions. These exceptions apply if a woman certifies that she has not notified her husband because she believes [FN4] that
(1) he is not the father of the child,
(2) he cannot be found after diligent effort,
(3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or
(4) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her.”

He then gave his reasons for dissenting:

“An undue burden does not exist unless a law (a) prohibits abortion or gives another person the authority to veto an abortion or (b) has the practical effect of imposing “severe limitations,” rather than simply inhibiting abortions ”‘to some degree’” or inhibiting “some women.”

Keep in mind the only consideration before the court was whether the law violated the Constitution, not whether it was good policy. Alito gave no legislative opinion.

–

Conservatives and liberals alike should see Alito for who he is: a fair judge who will call it like he sees it.

–

When discussing Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Los Angeles Times had an interesting aside.

“…in California, as in more than 40 states, a mother can terminate all parental responsibility by returning the baby to the hospital within a few days or weeks of birth, with no repercussions (and no consultation with the father).

“Yet if the mother decides that she wants to keep the child, she can demand 18 years of child support from the father, and he has no choice in the matter.

“Feminists base their support for Roe v. Wade in large part on the idea of ‘My Body, My Choice.’ Yet men also help create children. Why should they have no say?”

–

Update: Hat tip to…

West Virginia’s favorite son, Don Surber

Stop the ACLU

Adam’s Blog

Basil’s Blog

The Political Teen

and last but not least, Bacon Bits