NBC's Pete Williams falsely suggested Alito followed O'Connor precedent in upholding spousal notification
SUMMARY: NBC correspondent Pete Williams falsely claimed that Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. was following Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's precedent in his dissent in favor of spousal notification in an abortion-rights case and that O'Connor subsequently "changed her mind." In fact, that case, upon its appeal to the Supreme Court, was O'Connor's first ruling on spousal notification.
Defending Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s dissent in the abortion-rights case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams falsely suggested that Alito had simply followed the lead of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor but that O'Connor then "changed her mind" on the constitutionality of spousal notification requirements. In fact, the Casey decision was O'Connor's first ruling on spousal notification, which came after Alito dissented in Casey. Alito, therefore, could not have based his dissent on O'Connor's rulings on spousal notification, nor did O'Connor's ruling in Casey represent a reversal on her part.
Discussing Alito's judicial record on abortion during the January 8 edition of NBC's syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, New York Times White House correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller said that O'Connor "thought [spousal notification] was an undue burden on women, and she took a different position than Alito on this."
Williams countered: "But she changed her mind. And you could argue that Judge Alito, when he voted to uphold this Pennsylvania provision, was following Justice O'Connor's earlier rulings. She then changed her mind and said, you know, this is -- this is an undue burden."
But at the time when Alito wrote his dissent for the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, O'Connor had yet to address the question of the constitutionality of spousal notification requirements. In reaching separate conclusions about how the Supreme Court would rule on the provision, the 3rd Circuit majority in Casey and Alito's dissent in that case both relied on O'Connor's rulings on other types of abortion restrictions.
The Supreme Court upheld the 3rd Circuit's ruling in Casey that the Pennsylvania spousal notification requirement created an undue burden on women seeking abortions. O'Connor ruled with the majority in determining that spousal notification requirements were "likely to prevent a significant number of women from obtaining an abortion." The court wrote, "It does not merely make abortions a little more difficult or expensive to obtain; for many women, it will impose a substantial obstacle."
From the January 8 broadcast of NBC's syndicated The Chris Matthews Show:
BUMILLER: I will speak and just remind people that Sandra Day O'Connor, the centrist on the court who Alito is replacing, thought this was an undue burden on women, and she took a different position than Alito on this. That --
WILLIAMS: But she changed her mind. And you could argue that Judge Alito, when he voted to uphold this Pennsylvania provision, was following Justice O'Connor's earlier rulings. She then changed her mind and said, you know, this is -- this is an undue burden.
The defenders of the NeoCons must LIE in order to try to sell their candidates. It's important that we note the lengths they will go to in being deceptive about the FACTS of the beliefs of their people.
They MUST deny their true selves. What does this tell us?
Sandra O'Connor did "change her mind"!
Williams was not clear on this, but conservatives know that O'Connor did, in fact, "change her mind" regarding parental notification!
In Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 458-59 (1990), O'Connor wrote,
See also City of Akron v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, 462 U.S. 416, 458 (1983) and Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 814 (1986).
Pete Williams was exactly correct. All of these cases came before the Casey decision!
MMFA should issue a correction.
The Hodgson quote was regarding parental notification (there is a now case in front of the Court on this (re: a New Hamphire law).
The issue (or one of many issues) in Casey was, of course, spousal notification. However, in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 814 (1986), O'Connor wrote,
After Casey, however, it appears O'Connor's overall view did change. Again, see also City of Akron v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, 462 U.S. 416, 458 (1983).
You know Left, your correction seems less that sincere. Further, your feeble attempt to show how Justice O'Connor's attitude towards abortion laws changed in a broad sense lacks any credibility to the argument (in addition to there being no nexus to the topic at heand.) It seems to me that you spend an inordinate amount of time berating Media Matters for parsing conservative commentary and splitting hairs to prove a point. Your argument that O'Connor's "over-all attitude did change" is nothing more that that of which you accuse Media Matters (one may even go so far as to say that you are hypocritical, a failing not uncommon to many members of the conservative media and Neo-Cons alike.)
let's see if that works.
O'Connor's dissent in Thornburgh does not conflict with her majority opinion in Casey - on the contrary, it harmonizes with it quite well. In Thornburgh, O'Connor repeated her advocacy of the "undue burden" analysis that she began in Akron and which was firmly established in Casey: "Under this Court's fundamental-rights jurisprudence, judicial scrutiny of state regulation of abortion should be limited to whether the state law bears a rational relationship to legitimate purposes such as the advancement of these compelling interests, with heightened scrutiny reserved for instances in which the State has imposed an "undue burden" on the abortion decision."
Your assertion that "it appears O'Connor's overall view did change" is incorrect.
"After Casey, however, it appears O'Connor's overall view did change. Again, see also City of Akron v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, 462 U.S. 416, 458 (1983)."
"view did change". What view "appears" to have changed? Your initial claim from your first post was that "Pete Williams is CORRECT!!" and "MMFA should issue a correction." in italics and bold, start and end.
So when are you going to correct these two statements because talking about why O'Conner changed positions on a completely different area than what Pete Williams was specifically talking about here is dishonest. Or don't you care?
And why should I check a 1983 case to see why her views did change "After Casey" in 1992?
Otherwise not so much.
I notice Oliver does nothing to refut Left's contention but rather engages in ad hominem attacks instead. If you can refut his points, do so and save for the attacks for another forum.
DGR,
I notice that you do not refute my claim (that Left consistently takes MMFA to task), follow your own advice. My posting was not intended to refute any claim by Left, indeed his argument is so weak it hardly is worth the bother, rather it was to point out that when backed into a corner, Left uses the very techniques to extricate himself that he accuses MMFA of using to prove its points (hair splitting, parsing, etc.) Pointing out hypocrisy is hardly "attacking".