The Statements. They Mean Nothing.

He basically said . . . that Roe was precedent on which people — a lot of people — relied, and been precedent now for decades and therefore deserved great respect,” Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D (sic)-Conn.) told reporters after meeting with Alito yesterday.” (via FL)

The Court’s opinion brings to the decision of this troubling question both extensive historical fact and a wealth of legal scholarship. While the opinion thus commands my respect, I find myself nonetheless in fundamental disagreement with those parts of it that invalidate the Texas statute in question, and therefore dissent.” Rehnquist, J., Roe v. Wade (dissenting)

To repeat, these kinds statements by Alito mean absolutely nothing. Talking about “respected precedents” is a good way of evading the issue, and that’s it. It takes someone as hard-wired to roll over and play dead as Lieberman to infer something from them. It should be noted as well that talking about how much you respect precedents before you overturn them is quite common; considerably more common, I would bet, than the “it was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today” rhetoric that was used in Lawrence. Particularly given that Alito knows that advocating the overturn of Roe (whether explicit or sub silento) would be the end of his nomination, these statements mean less than zero.

…AFJ notes that even Clarence Thomas touted the value of stare decisis at his hearings.

…Shakes Sis writes letters.