But Of Course

I saw Norah O’Donnell this morning claiming that Alito’s support of the “right to privacy” is somehow meaningful. As Nancy Keenan correctly notes:

Under the first round of questions from Senator Specter, Samuel Alito did not refute his record of opposition to Roe v. Wade. He did not state whether he believes that the right to privacy includes a woman’s right to choose. He did acknowledge that his 1985 statement, which said he believes legally that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion, was accurate. At this early stage in the hearings, Alito is stealing a page from Clarence Thomas’ playbook. Thomas said the constitution included a right to privacy, then he voted to overturn Roe v. Wade one year later. Thus far, Alito has failed to give the American public any assurances that he would protect a woman’s right to choose.

Alito’s retrospective support for Griswold, of course, means absolutely nothing. It is highly unlikely that he will have to evaluate the constitutionality of a statute that bans the use of contraception by married couples. What matters is whether is applies to abortion, and it is almost certain that he believes that it doesn’t. (On the other hand, it’s hilarious to see conservatives who think that the “right to privacy” is completely illegitimate defend Alito because he supports it.)

…I explain this in a little more detail here.