What I don't understand is why so many people seem to insist that this candidate has to be a swing-vote judge. Is there a rule I don't know about that requires there not be a conservative/liberal majority?

I mean, I definitely agree that it's a good thing to have one - it allows for balance without a split court, if nothing else. But I still don't get it, and I don't like the insistance upon it.

Another thing I don't like - his pro-life stance seems to be a bit extreme. From FoxNews: "But Alito's role as the sole dissenter on the 3rd Circuit court in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision (search), which struck down a Pennsylvania law that required women to inform their husbands before they got an abortion, could cause Democratic objections."

On the other hand, he seems to believe that checks and balances are a good thing. And that makes me do my happy dance.

You think the Planned Parenthood v. Casey dissent is "extreme"? Unless there is more to it than you have written here, it sounds like he's saying nothing more than that the would-be father, as a stakeholder in the matter, should be consulted in the decision. Now, I could see how someone might disagree on the basis that the would-be mother shoulders most of the burden in the childbirth process, but surely this is a matter on which reasonable people may disagree.

If Alito's position on this matter counts as "extreme", then I, for one, would like to know exactly what are the left and right boundaries of the non-extreme positions in the abortion debate. It sounds to me like they must be pretty narrow indeed.

-rpl

Dayton's a stooge. He's not showing open-mindedness. He's just withholding his reaction (disappointment? rage? polite disagreement? horror? fear?) until the Democratic leadership figures out how to play this.

And funny how Kerry would characterize Bush's fulfillment of a campaign promise as the act of a weakened President caving to an interest group.

abortion may not be for the courts to decide, but according to msnbc's reporting, it may well be decided under alito:

"It may be symbolic of the Senate confirmation battle ahead that one of federal appeals court Judge Samuel Alito’s best-known dissents from the bench was rejected by the woman he would replace on the Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

In 1991, Alito dissented when his colleagues on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit struck down Pennsylvania’s law restricting abortion.

In that case, Alito argued that the Pennsylvania legislature was well within its rights in requiring that women inform their husbands prior to getting an abortion."

Who can seriously question that Bush is currently in a weakened state? Surely, that could change but currently he is clearly the tail being wagged by the base. Most of us no little or nothing about this current choice, but is it unreasonable to say or suspect that this nominee is more likely to appease the base?

A picky point, but you refer to him several times as "Alita." At least it's not "Scalita"...

Reminds me of the many slips made by others who referred to John Roberts as John Edwards!

--What I don't understand is why so many people seem to insist that this candidate has to be a swing-vote judge.--

Depends on which way the judge swings....

It was more in the other side's favor.

I think "Pro-Life" is a perfectly reasonable position, and I actually find the position admirable, so long as it isn't used to make law.

"Another thing I don't like - his pro-life stance seems to be a bit extreme"

How can someone be a little bit too pro-life? Either it is innocent life or it isn't. If it is, you can't believe it ever is moral to take innocent life and destroy it. That's why the suppporters have to lie to themselves, and call it pro-choice as if evil were good..

You know what Kerry should do? He should run against Bush for president and try to convince the people that Bush will appoint conservative judges and that that's a bad thing.

Anybody who gets the shriller voices on the Left _that_ upset has to be at least a reasonable choice. :)

Am I the only one on God's green earth who thinks that the whole Miers nomination was, in effect, a well-calculated (for lack of a better word) ploy by the Bush administration?

I mean, it's not likely that the Democrats could block two nominations in a row - in fact, unless I'm mistaken, it's completely without precedent. So why not nominate someone you wouldn't mind being a justice but who'll probably not make the grade, and then put up who you'd really like on the court - now THAT's a plan.

Cold? Yeah. Crazy conspiracy-theory? Yeah. Right up Karl Rove's alley, and a smart-ass move to boot? You'd better believe.

Jonathan, you are mistaken in your statement about multiple nominees being blocked for a single position. In recent memory there was bork and ginsburg.

Okay, so some people didn't like my use of the word "extreme"....(see first post)

I'll try to explain my rationale a bit here. First off, I can't have kids, and in many cases you want what you can't have. I would most probably welcome the idea of children if I could have them, so I'm not in favor of abortion as a personal choice - but *only* as a personal choice.

But I don't want anybody telling me what to do, either. It's not that I think a spouse/father shouldn't be consulted - I really do think they should be. But I think it should be a personal decision, not something required by law.

So essentially, I'm a pro-lifer, but mostly because I'm pretty stubborn when I get told what to do when it directly affects me (or could). And even though it didn't pass, I still got irritated when I heard about this proposed requirement, thus causing stubbornness to rise.

However, in regards to abortion, I intended only that if I chose to have an abortion, I would not want to be *forced* to consult with my spouse. I see it as a small step from that to needing their consent - and so it goes from there. Slippery slope, etc.

However, I don't think it should be decided by the courts, either - but if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe vs Wade, all it does is go back to the states for them to decide.

I really didn't intend to spark this sort of debate....and do not mean to spark another one. Just wanted to clarify, and I won't comment on it again beyond this.

But I don't want anybody telling me what to do, either. It's not that I think a spouse/father shouldn't be consulted - I really do think they should be. But I think it should be a personal decision, not something required by law.

Prague -

So, I'm wondering how your murder/bank robbery spree is going?

You know, after being told you can't do those things, I naturally thought...

Judge Alito seems to be well qualified choice for the court. Infinitely better than the "not ready for prime time" Harriet Miers.

That said, the politics of abortion has totally mangled the judicial appointment process. Both parties share the blame in this.

The pro-life forces are certainly not shy about their desire to overturn Roe. This explains their focus on SC nominations.

The reason they are fixated on Roe is that they don't have the political support to amend the Constitution. While they claim to have the country behind them, recent polling data indicate that while most voters think abortion morally questionable, they still think it should be legal.

The pro-lifers might be able to get an amendment passed if they would compromise their position and allow unrestricted abortions in, say, the first trimester, with restrictions on abortions occuring thereafter. They won't compromise, so any amendment offered won't make it out of Congress.

In other words, the pro-life side is fighting judicial activism (Roe, as they see it) with judicial activism (a theoretical anti-Roe majority appointed to the court).

IMHO, the pro-life side started this fire with their efforts to stack the court. The bombastic Left throws gasoline on this fire with their grandstanding against conservative nominees.

There seems to be no way out of this political quagmire. Only when the pro-life side sees that Roe is not likley to be overturned will this problem go away. It could go away with compromise on their part, but that ain't gonna happen.

Reminds me of the slavery issue, pre-WBTS. Anti-slavery zealots would not compromise with slave owners seeking restitution for banning slavery. In their minds, it would be immoral to pay off owners for the immoral institution of slavery. The country paid a heavy price because of their unwillingness to compromise on restitution.

Okay, an attack on my personal character I *will* respond to.

Hogarth, I work for the DoD. I hold a security clearance. About the only law I break is the speed limit, and then not by much. I was referring to spousal notification in the abortion process.

Funny, I would have thought that part was clear. Did you even read the rest of it?

Anyway, I still don't like what he said in the Pennsylvania case, but I'm much happier after seeing the article at the following link: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1102/p01s04-usju.html

And RandMan, nice post.

"This explains their focus on SC nominations."

No, Roe is only a very small part of it, it is the 'whole bastardization of the constitution' that we object to.

If you can't get a simple majority to vote for it then we get '5 of the 9' to simply create the law by fiat... that is not how our government was set up, that is what we are fighting against. I don't care what laws you get enacted as long as they are done properly.

This is a simple matter to end here, just return it to the states for the people to vote on, that way it would be removed from the SCOTUS process...

"There seems to be no way out of this political quagmire. Only when the pro-life side sees that Roe is not likley to be overturned will this problem go away. It could go away with compromise on their part, but that ain't gonna happen."

See above, just allow the people to vote on it... just like our government was set up to do. Since a majority of people don't want it to be outlawed, it wouldn't be... what is the problem with doing this?