Bring Articles of Impeachment against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Jr.

Bring Articles of Impeachment against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Jr.

0 have signed. Let’s get to 200!
At 200 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!
Kaycee Buzzo started this petition

The impact to health outcomes for children, women, and an even higher impact to BIPOC women has been substantiated through various scientific studies that have informed policy on a woman's right to abortion, body autonomy, and reproductive path including Roe Vs. Wade.

Impact to children born is especially heinous when access to abortion for mothers is left to the state and the foster system related to poverty and injustices of that system. You can read more about that here:

Citation: Wallis, K. (2014). No Access, No Choice: Foster Care Youth, Abortion, and State Removal of Children. City University of New York Law Review.

Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., has irreparably damaged the public trust based on his part in the overturn of precedent set by Roe vs. Wade. Based on his confirmation hearing in January, 2006, he upheld the importance of stare decisis on the issue of abortion. 

You can find the full record here: 

In addition, here is direct information and quotes from the confirmation hearing:

    "Chairman Specter. Let me move now directly into Casey v. 
Planned Parenthood, and picking up the gravamen of Casey as it 
has applied, Roe on the woman's right to choose, originating 
from the Privacy Clause with Griswold being its antecedent, and 
I want to take you through some of the specific language of 
Casey to see what your views are, and what weight you would 
ascribe to this rationale as you would view the woman's right 
to choose. In Casey the joint opinion said, ``People have 
ordered their thinking and lives around Roe. To eliminate the 
issue of reliance would be detrimental. For two decades of 
economic and social development people have organized intimate 
relationships and reliance on the availability of abortion in 
the event contraception should fail.'' Pretty earthy language, 
but that is the Supreme Court's language. The Court went on to 
say, ``The ability of women to participate equally in the 
economic and social life of the Nation has become facilitated 
by their ability to control their reproductive lives.'' Now that states in specific terms the principle of reliance, which is one of the mainstays, if not the mainstay, on stare decisis precedent to follow tradition. How would you 
weigh that consideration on the woman's right to choose?
Judge Alito. Well, I think the doctrine of stare decisis is a very important doctrine. It's a fundamental part of our legal system, and it's the principle that courts in general should follow their past precedents, and it's important for a variety of reasons. It's important because it limits the power of the judiciary. It's important because it protects reliance interest, and it's important because it reflect the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions. It's not an inexorable command, but it is a general presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents, and as you mentioned--

Chairman Specter. How do you come to grips with the specifics where the Court, in the joint opinion, spoke of reliance on the availability of abortion in the event contraception should fail, on that specific concept of reliance?

    Judge Alito. Well, reliance is, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, one of the important foundations of the doctrine of stare decisis. It is intended to protect reliance interests, and people can rely on judicial decisions in a variety of ways. There can be concrete economic reliance. Government institutions can be built up in reliance on prior decisions. Practices of agencies and Government officials can be molded based on reliance. People can rely on decisions in a variety of ways. In my view--

Chairman Specter. Let me move on to another important quotation out of Casey. Quote: ``A terrible price would be paid for overruling Casey, for overruling Roe. It would seriously weaken the Court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law, and to overrule Roe under fire would subvert the Court's legitimacy.'' Do you see the legitimacy of the Court being involved in the precedent of Casey?

Judge Alito. Well, I think that the Court, and all the courts, the Supreme Court, my court, all the Federal courts, should be insulated from public opinion. They should do what the law requires in all instances. That's why they're not--that's why the members of the judiciary are not elected. We have a basically democratic form of Government, but the judiciary is not elected, and that's the reason, so that they don't do anything under fire. They do what the law requires.

Chairman Specter. But do you think there is as fundamental a concern as legitimacy of the Court would be involved if Roe were to be overturned?

Judge Alito. Mr. Chairman, I think that the legitimacy of the Court would be undermined in any case if the Court made a decision based on its perception of public opinion. It should make its decisions based on the Constitution and the law. It should not be--it should not sway in the wind of public opinion at any time.

Chairman Specter. Let me move to just the final quotation that I intend to raise from Casey, and it is, ``After nearly 20 years of litigation in Roe's wake, we are satisfied that the immediate question is not the soundness of Roe's resolution of the issue, but the precedentual force that must be accorded to its holding.'' That separates out the original soundness of Roe, which has been criticized, and then lays emphasis on the precedentual value. How would you weigh that consideration were this issue to come before you if confirmed?

    Judge Alito. Well, I agree that in every case in which 

there is a prior precedent, the first issue is the issue of 

stare decisis, and the presumption is that the Court will 

follow its prior precedents. There needs to be a special 

justification for overruling a prior precedent.”


Or how about this one:


“Senator Feinstein. Let me move on, if I might. One of the 
core principles of Roe is that a woman's health must be 
protected. In Casey, Justice O'Connor specifically wrote that 
after viability, the State may, if it chooses, regulate and 
even proscribe abortion, except where it is necessary in 
appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of the life 
of the mother. This requirement to protect a woman's health was 
also reaffirmed in Stenberg v. Carhart, where it was said the 
Court rejects Nebraska's contention that there is no need for 
health exception.
    Do you agree, if the statute restricts access to abortion, 
that it must protect the health of the mother in order for it 
to be constitutional?
    Judge Alito. Well, I think that the case law is very clear 
about protecting the life and the health of the mother is the 
compelling interest throughout pregnancy. I think that's very 
clear in the case law.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    In 1985, at the time you wrote the strategy memo on 
Thornburgh, the Court had already held in Roe, Akron, and 
eventually 30 other cases, that a woman had a constitutional 
right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. In addition, 
in your memo, you specifically wrote that in the Akron case, 
the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe. However, despite this, your 
memo outlined a strategy to eventually overturn Roe.
    My question is a little different from what you discussed 
somewhat yesterday. What was your view of precedent at the time 
you wrote that memo?
    Judge Alito. Well, I think there are two things that I 
should say in response to that. The first is that I did not 
advocate in the memo that an argument be made that Roe be 
overruled, and therefore, the whole issue, had the Government 
proceeded with the argument that I recommended, the issue of 
stare decisis wouldn't have been presented and so there wasn't 
any occasion for me to talk about stare decisis in the memo and 
I did not talk about it. I think there's a mention of it in a 
footnote. So I didn't address it and there wasn't an occasion 
to address it."

Based on answers like these he held a certain amount of confidence from Congress and was confirmed. Even without the mistrust, impeachment articles need to be brought forward for investigation into perjury and financial benefit with regard to the decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade. 

Congress must act immediately.


0 have signed. Let’s get to 200!
At 200 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!