Oh, c'mon Davd.

I didn't claim the world was going to end when Clinton put Ginsberg on the bench.

Well I'll be damned, my buddy is still speaking to me! hehe... No, but it is conventional wisdom that Bush should have appointed a more moderate choice this time. The balance of the court is now being thrown off. And the world may not be coming to an end but we are now going backwards.

David, I think you'd do well to look at the entire picture of Alito that will come out over the next couple of days. Take the abortion issue: He did, in fact, support spousal notification, but he also concurred with striking down PA's partial-birth abortion ban, based upon a ruling by SCOTUS.

He seems to have a record that supports dedication to the precise language of the law, rather than devotion to either political agenda. That should be the deciding factor with this sort of nomination.

He'll have an uphill battle because of the stereotypes that are already being flung, but he just doesn't strike me as one who will severely "unbalance" SCOTUS, unless your idea of balance is 4 liberals, 4 moderates and one conservative.

Nah--you're not that much like O.W.
:-)

Well I am willing to wait and see Bo. Especially since I have little choice in the matter anyway. hehe...
And Oliver and I are two different people altogether.

Forget it, Bo.

The Borking has begun. Alito made a very narrow ruling in the Casey case, hinging on (among other things) whether or not spousal notification constituted "undue burden."

But, hey, that's just a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo, right?

The Lefties will make him the Devil incarnate, whose only purpose in life has been to deprive women of "THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE." That's the Leftie Party Line. Get used to it.

David is already "dreading" his being seated.

Well, as someone who is against abortion (under most situations), and who happens to agree with that particular ruling, that case is the least of my concerns.

Okay, I'll bite ...

What IS your concern about Alito?

Civil Rights...

Which of his opinions (or writings, or speeches) lead to that concern?

Here is one list of his opinions:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/10/alito.html

(There may be others that I am not aware of.)

I am VERY INTERESTED in what he has specifically said, done, or written that gives you ANY cause for concern on 'civil rights.'

Perhaps THIS ONE?

"In 1999, the judge wrote a unanimous opinion on behalf of the majority saying the Newark police department had wrongly fired two Muslim officers for refusing to shave off their beards, which the two maintained they were required to wear because of their religious beliefs."

That's the closest I could find to a civil rights case, and he wrote the opinion IN FAVOR of Muslim officers fired for wearing beards.

So, I can only find one opinion of his on a 'civil rights' matter, and it seems very, very supportive of civil rights, for Muslims at least.

Do you have some other, conflicting evidence?

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/10/31/jury/index.html

From the Salon article, excerpted from Alito's opinion:

"The majority's simplistic analysis treats the prospective jurors who were peremptorily challenged as if they had no relevant characteristics other than race, as if they were in effect black and white marbles in a jar from which the lawyers drew. In reality, however, these individuals had many other characteristics, and without taking those variables into account, it is simply not possible to determine whether the prosecution's strikes were based on race or something else."

I started to compose some theoreticals, but the language from the actual appellate case from a link in the article was much better. There were three black people in the jury pool for the case in quesiton. The first took a long time to answer when asked if he could in good conscience recommend the death penalty. The second answered directly that she could not. The third had requested to be excused, based upon the time proximity to the Christmas holiday, and the prosecutor struck him, deeming him to likely be more preoccupied with getting home to his family than hearing the case out.

In addition, the other cases mentioned in the case involved 1)striking one black, one indian, and six white jurors; 2)striking three black and five white jurors, and two more unidentified by race in the court documents; and 3)striking one black and four white jurors.

The rest of the document consists of much "legalese" essentially stating what was not addressed in earlier hearings, such as the particular reasoning behind the exemption of certain jurors, but in all honesty, David, if a crime calls for the death penalty, isn't it prudent for the state to boot any jurors who are predisposed, by their own admission, to not return a recommendation to that effect? If black jurors state that they would not return a death penalty recommendation towards a black defendant, regardless of the nature of the crime (something of which members of the jury pool are supposed to have very limited knowledge), should they not be exempted from jury service?

I really think this is simply another example of a knee-jerk reaction over a carefully reasoned decision (as is the 10-year-old strip search meme). I have no doubt that if Alito is confirmed, he will author some opinions that will anger conservatives, and some of his opinions will get liberals raving mad, but I haven't seen any indication that his decision making process is rooted in any philosophy except strict constitutional interpretation, aside from any political bent.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Subscribe to this comment thread.

Comments: