The revelation that Alito, when working in the Reagan Solicitor General’s office, wrote a memo suggesting a strategy for chipping away at Roe v. Wade, has brought the issue back to the forefront of the Alito nomination debate.

Captain Ed points to the New York Sun article [Subscription required] that quotes Charles Fried.

This is a real red herring because the solicitor general’s office is a small one,” Mr. Fried said. “We all helped each other and looked over each other’s work. He had no formal role in writing that brief,”

And in response to Schumer (”It is puzzling that one of the most significant cases that Judge Alito had a hand working on was omitted,”) and Kennedy questioning the lack of mention of this information in his questionares as a “credibility gap,” Fried remarks:

“I have never head of anyone who worked in the solicitor general’s office who would list all the cases where they wrote memos,” Mr. Fried said. “There are hundreds of these. It’s just absurd. It’s one of these typical cases, and I’m afraid Senator Schumer is guilty of this, that if you can’t get someone on the merits, you bring up some phony lack of candor argument. He should be ashamed of himself, but he is shameless. And you can quote me on that.”

There is also speculation that since these memos should have been privileged in the first place, that these were intentionally waived during the previous administration to torpedo a nomination like this. I’m skeptical, but Ed notes:

The Bush administration didn’t authorize its release, and yet it found its way into the National Archives. The New York Sun’s Brian Maguire suggests that the release came years ago during the Clinton years as a pre-emptive strike against anyone that a subsequent GOP administration might want to pick for just this position. Alito had been elevated to the federal appellate bench by Bush 41 and was seen as a rising star. Since they had the power to waive privilege at the time, they could easily have done so with a number of documents selectively culled to provide little caches of ammunition for hearings on Alito and others who worked in the White House Counsel or Solicitor General offices.

Schumer has decided once more to go fishing, probably using a map provided by his fellow Senator from New York and her husband to torpedo a well-qualified nominee on the basis of political partisanship

Other supporters indicate that he was just doing his job.

“He was by no means suggesting the formulation of a policy here — he was simply acknowledging and proceeding from a common premise from within the Justice Department” that Roe v. Wade was a flawed decision, said Chuck Cooper, a former assistant attorney general who worked with Alito in the Justice Department.

Wendy Long, chief counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network and an Alito supporter, said she believes Alito would be restrained as a jurist by a respect for legal precedent. Even if Alito personally opposes the legal reasoning or the impact of Roe v. Wade, he could still vote to uphold abortion rights, she said.

“The memo is more about inside baseball and tactics” rather than Alito’s own views, she said.

Vern Beachy says “Good,” and A Lady’s Ruminations adds “Good to Hear.”

The left side of the blogosphere is collectively frothing at the mouth on this one.

Stone Court:

Beyond making clear his overarching, and carefully though-out, agenda to overturn Roe, the 1985 memo makes clear that Alito has no patience for the notion that precedent (”stare decisis” in legalese) bars overturning Roe. Footnote 10 on page 17 reads:

Lake Dwellers:

[Y]ou are trading a right-leaner for a Jesusistani, and the balance of things changes radically. With another wingnut on the SCOTUS, little things like the Minimum Wage are in every bit as much danger as Roe vs. Wade.

El Shrubbo said that Jesusistan credentials would be part of what he looks for in a SCOTUS appointee, and we can now see that-for once-the Chimperor has told the truth about something.

Leftwing Nutjob writes:

But the bigger question may just be who the hell is it in the National Archives that keeps leaking this information to the press? Or better yet, how can I PayPal him a donation to show my support?

Jessica at Bush v. Choice:

A new memo written by Alito in 1985 shows that he has been working to undermine choice for years.

And over at Feministing, responding to the “just doing his job” explanation:

Sure. That must be why he refers to doctors as “abortionists” and suggests telling women that “certain methods of birth control are ‘abortifacients.’”

As a side note, those are both accurate statements with which Jessica takes issue.

A Lie a Day:

The real question is will the Democrats allow them to get away with the lie. The american public have indicated that do not want Alito approved if he will overturn Roe, and his writings make it clear that Alito is an activist in the effort to overturn Roe.

Pam’s House Blend:

Oops - more anti-choice Alito uncovered

On the other side, Wendy Long, writing at the NRO, notes (H/T: CFJ):

The May 30, 1985 memo released today by the National Archives, written by Judge Alito when he was a Reagan administration lawyer working under Solicitor General Charles Fried, reflects tactical litigation advice that Judge Alito, writing 20 years ago as a deputy lawyer in the Office of the Solicitor General, gave to his client, the pro-life administration of President Ronald Reagan. The administration ultimately did not follow some of that advice: it called for the overturning of Roe, whereas Judge Alito had urged that the administration not call for Roe’s reversal.

Matthew Franck expands a bit on what Wendy said.