Justice Alito on abortion precedent at 2006 confirmation hearing

By | December 4, 2021

Justice Alito on abortion precedent at 2006 confirmation hearing

1 00:00:00,190 –> 00:00:06,270 >> Or do you think are required. What do you think there is as fundamental a concern as 2 00:00:06,270 –> 00:00:10,800 legitimacy of the court would be involved if Roe were to be overturned. 3 00:00:11,700 –> 00:00:17,370 >> Mr. Chairman I think that there the legitimacy of the court would be undermined in any case 4 00:00:17,370 –> 00:00:22,800 if the court made a decision based on its perception of public opinion 5 00:00:22,800 –> 00:00:28,350 . It should make its decisions based on the Constitution and the law. It should not 6 00:00:28,350 –> 00:00:33,510 be it should not sway in the wind of public opinion at any time. What may come now to the 7 00:00:33,510 –> 00:00:38,160 statement you made in 1985 that the Constitution does not. 8 00:00:39,510 –> 00:00:45,300 >> Provide a basis for a woman’s right to an abortion. Do 9 00:00:45,300 –> 00:00:47,380 you agree with that statement today. 10 00:00:47,400 –> 00:00:53,310 >> Judge Alito Well that was a correct statement of what I thought in 1985 from 11 00:00:53,310 –> 00:00:58,680 my vantage point in 1985 and that was as a line attorney in the 12 00:00:58,680 –> 00:01:04,080 Department of Justice in the Reagan administration. Today if the issue were 13 00:01:04,080 –> 00:01:09,210 to come before me if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed and the issue were to come before me the 14 00:01:09,210 –> 00:01:14,170 first question would be the question that we’ve been discussing and that’s the issue of starry decisis. 15 00:01:14,310 –> 00:01:19,540 >> And if the analysis were to get beyond that point then I would have to. 16 00:01:19,600 –> 00:01:24,750 >> That would approach the question with an open mind and I would I would listen to you or I would approach it with an 17 00:01:24,750 –> 00:01:28,700 open mind notwithstanding your 1985 statement. 18 00:01:28,770 –> 00:01:34,920 >> Absolutely Senator do you agree if the statute that restricts access to abortion that 19 00:01:34,920 –> 00:01:40,230 it must protect the health of the mother in order for it to be constitutional. Well I think 20 00:01:40,230 –> 00:01:45,600 that the case law is is very clear that protecting the life and the health of 21 00:01:45,600 –> 00:01:47,520 a mother is a compelling interest. 22 00:01:48,000 –> 00:01:51,970 >> Throughout pregnancy. I think that’s very clear in the case law. 23 00:01:52,110 –> 00:01:58,190 >> John Roberts said that Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land. 24 00:01:58,190 –> 00:02:00,360 Do you believe it is the settled law of the land. 25 00:02:01,110 –> 00:02:07,410 >> Roe vs. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973 26 00:02:07,410 –> 00:02:13,770 . So it’s been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions and 27 00:02:13,770 –> 00:02:19,770 I discussed those yesterday and it is my and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision sometimes 28 00:02:19,770 –> 00:02:25,200 on the merits sometimes. In Casey based on starry decisis and I think that 29 00:02:25,200 –> 00:02:31,110 when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed that strengthens its value as 30 00:02:31,110 –> 00:02:33,270 starry decisis for at least two reasons.