Recall that in 1985 Alito wrote in a job application that he was proud of his contributions to the government’s argument that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.” Alito tried to dismiss this as just a statement by someone “seeking a job.” But it turns out this was not just a case of padding a resume. The release of additional documents shows that Alito actually did make a significant contribution to the government’s effort to undermine Roe v. Wade, by offering strategy recommendations and helping write a key government brief in the Thornburgh case.
Then, Alito reportedly claimed that his 1985 statements represented only his “personal” views. This won’t wash either. In fact, Senator Specter, who reported this explanation from Alito, wasn’t buying it – he said, “Judge Alito categorizes it as a personal opinion; I don’t.” Indeed, on their face, Alito’s statements in his job application were expressions of his views on the law – he refers to his help in advancing “legal positions” he believed in, and after all, whether the Constitution protects the right to choose is quintessentially a question of law. Moreover, this explanation is inconsistent with yet another explanation Alito offered. He reportedly told Senator Specter that he was just “functioning as an advocate” – that is, helping carry out the policies of the administration he worked for – implying that he may or may not have actually shared its views. How could his recommendations for overturning Roe be both “personal” and just a lawyer carrying out the views of his client? In truth, it’s obvious from the face of the documents that Alito was expressing his own legal views – which is exactly what’s relevant in examining his fitness for the Supreme Court.
Then there’s Alito failure to include the Thornburgh brief in his answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire. The questionnaire asked Alito to supply copies of his briefs before the Supreme Court. He answered that he was attaching all briefs he “drafted or assisted in drafting.” We know that Alito helped draft the Thornburgh brief, yet he neglected to turn over a copy to the committee.
That’s not all. In 2002, Alito failed to recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard funds due to his financial ties to the company, even though he had promised the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1990 that he would recuse himself from any cases involving Vanguard! In attempting to explain why he broke his earlier promise, Alito and the White House have offered inconsistent explanations, first blaming it on a “computer glitch”, then saying there was no error at all, and then saying his promise to the committee applied only to his initial service on the Third Circuit and that he had been “unduly restrictive” when he made the promise in the first place, so presumably he was free to forget it. Yesterday, Senator Edward Kennedy sent Alito a letter identifying no fewer than six different explanations Alito and the White House have offered regarding the Vanguard situation, concluding that this has left the situation ''even more problematic than when the issue was first raised."
And don’t forget Alito’s alleged memory lapse about his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). CAP, which was openly hostile to the admission of women and minorities at Princeton, has been described as a “far right organization funded by conservative alumni committed to turning back the clock on coeducation at the University." One of its founders fondly reminisced about the days when Princeton was “a body of men, relatively homogenous in interests and backgrounds.” Alito listed his membership in CAP on his 1985 job application to help show his conservative bona fides. That was many years after he graduated from Princeton, and his memory apparently was still good then. Now, however, when such membership is hardly a plus, he has conveniently forgotten that he was ever a member of CAP: in his response to the Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, he states that he has "no recollection" of being a CAP member.
As Senator Kennedy said, Alito "bears an especially heavy burden at the hearings in January to explain the growing number of discrepancies between his current statements and his past actions."
