I think Samuel Alito is an enormously qualified candidate for the job vacancy. For his political accomplishment earned him the rights to prevail politically.

Alito says we shouldn't give too much weight to his comments because was "an advocate seeking a job." Now that he is seeking another job, we should believe anything he says?

Judge Alito said that he was an "advocate seeking a job . . .", this being his rationale for his remarks on abortion.

Once more he's an "advocate", still seeking a job. Why should we believe him now, when he implied that he misrepresented his views before?

Walter Pharr

I guess Senator Feinstein would trust a "wink and a nod" over hard evidence about which way Scalito intends to take the Court on this issue that is very important to her constituents. Ridiculous. What bizarre planet is she living on??

I think he does a disservice to himself by disavowing his 1985 views. We need to take his personal views at face value, and have an intelligent discussion about how much one can reasonably expect this personal view to influence his judicial decisionmaking. Words matter.

In the third paragraph of this article, Judge Alito would have the reader believe that his views back in 1985 are not the same views he holds today, that he was only applying for a job in of all administrations; the Reagan years. I guess next we'll find out that he wrote oppinions against the 14th amendment allowing black folks to vote, but he has had a change of heart, after all; he was only applying for a job. Sadly, Judge Alito will be confirmed to the bench, a position he will hold for the rest of his life. So, he has a lifetime to turn America into a totalitarian fascist country.

If he wasn't against abortion, why on earth would Bush put him up for nomination. Why would the Christian Far Right support him? They know exactly what they're getting.

There is a more important problem with Judge Alito and that is Affermative Action. I am not American, don't live in America and don't indent to ever live in America, so I can be neutral on this subject. I see it this way, the Jedge or people like him till recently closed the doors of the schools and universities to African Americans, lynched them, tortured them and kicked them around with the help of law. Now it is time to compensate for what the last generations did, just like today Germany is paying for what Hitler did and that is Afermative Action. Reason simple. If the universities were open to today's young generation, these young people did not have to live in poverty. It looks what these people are talking about consevatism, they want to conserve the southern culture of white society.
Some times I wonder, what is the difference between Pat Robinson and Ayatollah Khomeini ?
behrouz kia

if his vies in 1985 aren't the same as they are now does that make him a flip-flopper?

pat robertson and bill o'reilly should be locked up in a loony-bin!

The question is whether he simply lied about his position on abortion in 1985 or just overstated it.

From what I have read, this gentleman seems to be highly intelligent and highly qualified.

He should be thoroughly and reasonably questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee, then voted on both in Committee and in the Senate. His is not the exceptional case that would require any filibuster...at least it isn't now.

Principled men speak what is in their hearts and mind. Unprincipled men speak untruths to attain power and wealth. Which one is the Judge? The word "men" in my comments is gender neutral; women are included.

Didn't Bush accuse John Kerry of saying anything to get elected? Now his choice for the Supreme Court admits to saying anything to get a better job. Is this a "character issue"?

I'm a big crybaby and a tattletale.

views, not vies

We should all be very careful here; this is one person recounting what another person said. And even Feinstein's recollection doesn't suggest that Alito told her that his personal view is different today than it was then. His argument may only be that he was applying for a political position as an advocate in 1985 and was thus free to show that he believed strongly in the positions he would be advocating; now, on the other hand, he is a judge and is not free to rule based on his personal views. Nothing in this argument suggests that he lied then or is lying now.

Behrouz Kia,

I find your inflammatory comments hardly "neutral" with little data to support your presupposition. It is true that a past generation of "African-Americans were denied rights in this country, but how can you link those actions to Alito. In terms of Affirmative Action, it has done little to help those African-Americans most oppressed in our country, and has benefited mostly "middle class" African-Americans. The system should be overhauled or retooled to the benefit those most oppressed, which will include all races and genders.

This candidate implies that he misrepresented his views on abortion solely to get a job. When he was vetted for his current seat on the bench, he promised the Senate that he would recuse himself from any decisions involving financial institutions with which he had substantial accounts, but once he got the job he wanted, he no longer felt bound by that commitment. While I agree that recusal probably wasn't ethically necessary in the first instance, he took the expedient path to appointment by voluntarily committing himself to recusal. He purports to take the (extremely conservative) moral high road in his rulings, but not in his own machinations. Shouldn't personal integrity be a minimum job qualification for a Supreme Court justice?

Bush is nothing more than a schill for BIG BUSINESS!!!!!

These comments should concern conservatives. It suggests that Alito said to Sen Feinstein that he thinks that opposing Roe is an "argument" or "position" held by political persons (like the Reagan administration), but that those who faithfully "interpret" the constitution would not take such a position today (now that things are "different"). An important distinction.

Who said he misrepresented his views to get a job? Certainly not Judge Alito. Very clear from his comments, he personally opposes abortion (in 1985 and likely now) but will not allow personal views to cloud legal judgment. He will vote to overturn Roe because it is bad law not because of personal religious beliefs.

You say that as a judge his personal views don't matter but law. Wouldn't his personal view ABOUT the law matter? He said that "the constitution does not protect right to an abortion". How can he judge anything disregarding his personal views ABOUT what the law is and what it protects and not protects?

The fact of the matter is that Judge Alito subjected himself to a litmus test regarding his views on abortion. Are we to believe that if he had responded differently, that he would not have gotten that job? Thus, how many people in the Reagan administration passed this test. Isn't here a constitutional issue of equal protection?

I think some people are mis-interpreting what the article is saying.

When Alito was looking to get a job in the Reagan White House, he gave his personal opinion on abortion. Alito isn't suggesting that his opinon has changed. What he is suggesting is that, as a judge, he will not rule base on his personal opinion. Instead, he will rule based on law, so his personal beliefs aren't relevent.

I think some people are mis-interpreting what the article is saying.

When Alito was looking to get a job in the Reagan White House, he gave his personal opinion on abortion. Alito isn't suggesting that his opinon has changed. What he is suggesting is that, as a judge, he will not rule base on his personal opinion. Instead, he will rule based on law, so his personal beliefs aren't relevent.

It appeares that Alito is someone that says what's convenient at moment. Now that it's convenient to disown his 1985 comments in, he sees no problem with it because it's convenient to do so now.

Why has abortion been the be-all, end-all issue in American politics for the past 30 years or so? There are so many other issues that need attention--ending tax breaks for the rich, improving education, equal rights for gays and lesbians as well as all other minorities--but come election time or judicial appointment time, all we hear is abortion, abortion, abortion. The Democratic party is in danger of becoming a one-issue party, if they aren't already, because of their near-hysterical insistence on maintaining unrestricted abortion on demand, no matter what the circumstances. Virginia Governor-elect Tim Kaine just proved that a Democrat can express a personal disapproval of abortion based on his religious beliefs and still get elected. Can't we talk about something else for a change?

Millions of Americans --especially poor white Americans--hardly ever vote their best self-interest. But that has been true since before the Civil War--how many poor white southern men died fighting to save the Institution of Slavery? for what benefit?). Maybe the overturning of Roe v. Wade will be a wake-up call that it ain't worth dying for (figuratively speaking) the likes of Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson

Alito is qualified. Alito knows the law and many people in the Senate now have voted for him in the past for the bench. With that said Alito is not an unbiased, straight forward judge. He has let his personal beliefs cloud his judgement. His christian views are influencing his secular rulings. I personally support some of the groups that support him. I think he will be comfirmed, but not that it is the right thing to do. He is very intelligent, and knows the law. People like this often loose compassion, or never knew it. He has the conservetive part down, but not the compassionate part. He's not a liar, just wrong about some things. There is a difference.

AAA,

I believe you and others are being disingenuous to Altio views and philosophy. I think you can have a personal view and view of how to interpret the constitution. I may have a predisposition to oppose prohibition; however, when the 18th amendment passed I would be forced to interpret the law accordingly (now I may push the envelope here or there). I am pro-life (I am not saying others are pro-death only using a label) and I would say it was wrongly decided; however, after 33 years of precedent I am forced to accept it as law. Precedent is an extremely important decision tool in how conservative judges decide cases (not that liberal judges do not follow similar philosophy).

REPUBLICANS ARE ALL HYPOCRITES ,IGNORANT AND ARROGANT.
THEY SAY THEY ARE CHRISTIANS AND BELONG TO THE 'CHRISTAIN COALITION',THEY CLAIM TO BE PROLIFE AND PROWAR AT THE SAME TIME,THEY ARE PROLIFE AND PRO DEATH SENTENCE
THEY BELIEVE IN THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE AND SEND BOMBS OVER CITIES LIKE BAGDAD EXPECTING NO ONE TO BE HARMED.
THEY CLAIM EVERY NOMINEE DESERVES AN UP AND DOWN VOTE ,EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO A CERTAIN MYERS
ENOUGH WITH THE SUPREMIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

"His [C]hristian views are influencing his secular rulings... People like this often loose compassion, or never knew it." The bedrock of Christiantity is to live it every second of the day. Values cannot be left at any door, including the courtroom. Difficult for many to comprehend.

AAA raises a good point. Alito did not say in 1985 that he was opposed to abortion; he said that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." Alito can cite to stare decisis but he can't really claim that this statement is merely a "personal view." It is a legal conclusion directly in contradiction to the holding of Roe.

think for yourself, question authority. throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the religious, the educational authorities, who have attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations informing, forming in our minds THEIR views of reality. to think for yourself you must question authority and learn to put yourself in a state of vulnurable, openmindedness; chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself. think for yourself, question authority.

Alito should not be given a free pass to dismiss his 1985 statement as mere "personal views."

These were not personal views on the morality of abortion, but reasoned legal judgments he wrote and espoused not only as a lawyer, but endorsed as his own.

He said then that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

The Constitution has not changed since 1985 (except for an amendment dealing with congressional pay). While it is not appropriate for Alito to say how he might rule on some specific case in the future, it is appropriate to ask him:

Yes or No: Do you still believe "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion?"

AAA and others are getting it wrong by focusing on "personally." Alito didn't write in 1985 that he personally believed abortion was wrong, but his personal views don't matter because the Constitution protects the right. He wrote that he personally believed the Constitution did not protect the right. Once he's on the Supreme Court, the only constraint on him will be his personal beliefs regarding what the Constitution allows and does not allow.

Here is Alito's guaranteed response:

"That question is settled law."

As some have already said, he is once again an "advocate seeking a job," so why should a line of questioning be suppressed? The bottom line is that he is now seeking a far more important job than he was back then, which means he needs to accept that the questioning will proceed on a far more in-depth line. If it takes 2 weeks, 2 months, or 2 years, I say ask the questions that need answers and let's hear the answers! A nominee for a position like this shouldn't be asking what questions he can get away with not answering, he should be asking what question is next.

Hypocrites,

I did not know I was pro-war and for the death penalty because I was pro-life. Thanks for philosophically profiling me. It may come as a surprise, but conservative people can oppose the war and be against the death penalty, but details details....

You are right. I am sorry. Sometimes I get carried away with myself.

Truth Squad hit the nail on the head.

Hypocrites,

No problem, I'm am guity of profiling as well. Thanks

Diane Feinstein was put in power and held in power by the political donations of women who believe in and want to preserve Roe. Emily's List has always fought to keep her in power.
Now that we are faced with a guy who actually stated in writing that he opposed Roe dismisses it as just job application hype. Well, I prefer a judge with higher standards. I prefer one who doesn't fib about Roe or about recusing himself from cases involving companies in which he holds investments. On the Supreme Court, character should count higher than anywhere else in the country.
I think Alito should be filibustered for his lack of character, and being out of touch with the 72% of Americans who support Roe vs. Wade. ( See Pew Trust Polls). I see no reason the Senate should sell out the people it represents. It should dump this dude.
If Diane Feinstein votes to confirm Alito, she will never see another nickel of my money nor will any other Senator who does so.

I wish we could develop some better descriptions for the various positions on abortion: pro-life and pro-choice are so loaded, and obviously overbroad. Why not pro-Roe, anti-Roe, and anti-abortion. I'd include pro-abortion, but I don't think anyone occupies that description.

pro abortion is a good idea. there are already too many people on this planet right now anyway.

So ... are we establishing that it is OK for a candidate for the United States Supreme Court to lie in order to get a job?

Is this not Alito's excuse? "Hey, I needed the work, so I told them what they wanted to hear."

Um ... and today is different because ... sorry, I'm not seeing the distinction.

I think there should be a sign posted outside the court: "No liars." Perhaps that would make it easier for Bush to nominate a qualified candidate.

Tanny views seemed to color his interpretation of the law... that it wasn't meant to apply to so-called negroes...

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito propaganda that his views of yesterday are aborted and that even if they aren't they don't influence his interpretation and understanding of the letter and spirit of the law is intellectually dishonest. Even without having admitted that he had those views in the past, human beings could see that his rulings reflect a disdain for abortion and the law that allows for it's legitimacy...

(there is proof [right here on this comment page] that many outside the US see right through racist and sexist propaganda of some of our so-called "white" male citizens... the other comments about Samuel Alito's flip-flop and the Bush Administration's hypocrisy show that many Americans (including European-American males) are able to think out side the 'box' of discrimination against women and dark folk...)

If Samuel Alito were as impartial as he feigns, he would be able to admit that he is NOT detached, disinterested, or open-minded about abortion and that he is NOT evenhanded, nonaligned, neutral, middle-of-the-road, or on the fence in his rulings related to abortion.

Samuel Alito should withdraw his nomination as the previous nominee did after having spoken about self-determination...

His nomination reflects Bush's belief in a racist quota system that holds as many spots as politically possible for so-called "white" males who, by the way, have benefited from a now 400 year old affirmative action program...

Samuel Alito is not the most qualified person for the position according to the President who, along with his un-Christ-like patrons, nominated him...

I am an American citizen... looking for the America I once knew... the America that acts pursuant to her divine Constitution - without flip-floping and prevaricating about expanding freedom and equality for all... the America that leads by moral example rather than by torture, lies, hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance - to the exclusion only of lust.

Samuel Alito... you're fired as far as I'm concerned
George Bush... you're impeached if America wakes up in time...

Anon,

Your post is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. There is little data supporting your views. As a second generation Asian-American, I do not find your characterization of society as true nor have I seen data supporting your diatribe on Bush (i.e., "white" male quota).

It seems to me that all the talk of abortion could easily be ended. We have a mechanism for overturning Supreme Court decisions with which we do not as a nation agree. It is called the amendment process. This administration and this congress has tried to pass amendments against gay citizens getting married and against flag burning, two very important issues, I mean you just can't walk down the street anymore without stepping over a burning flag, and just the other day a friend of mine was almost forced into a gay marraige(sp). So if the Republican party is so against abortion why not propose an amendment banning it. Is it because that once the abortion whipping boy is gone they will have a hard time explaining to poor and rural voters why they should vote for them?

In reading these comments, I find it interesting how few of my fellow citizens fail to understand the judicial process. All Alito was saying is that his personal views will not get in the way of applying the law. If the law is that there is a constitutional right to abortion, then we will apply it. It's not that difficult.

Also, I note that many of you appear to have misinterpreted what he said regarding he views. All he said is that we was advocating his views in order to obtain a job as a political advocate. All that means is that we was expressing his personal opinions. It does NOT mean, as many of you think, that he was misrepresenting his views in order to get a job. Similarly, his comment does NOT mean that his views have changed since then. All the man is saying is, I was once a political activist, in which my job was to advance my personal views, and since then I have been a judge, in which my job is to apply the law irrespective of my personal views. His views haven't changed, only his job.

Most of you people should cool the emotional level a little bit and just listen and try to understand what people are saying. Things are usually much simpler than you want them to be.

Looks like Senator Feinstein is trying to hide under a rock here. I suspect that if Senators Feinstein and company don't step up and do their duty the Dems will have their own internal revolution (a reverse Harriet Miers)!

These are not simply "personal views" we are talking about. The 1985 statement is indicative of a reasoned legal judgment about whether the constitution protects a right to abortion. Contrast this with O'Connor's expressed personal views that abortion is morally wrong. O'Connor's position is a personal view on the morality of abortion, which has no place in the debate. Alito's view is not a "personal view" per se, it is his answer to the legal issue under consideration and is a valid ground for a senator so inclined to oppose the nomination.

Wow. Judging from these comments, according to the left, having a view contrary to the pro-abortion POV makes you a facist, lying, racist, extremist. Sort of makes you ask who the extremists really are. And why is it so hard for liberals to comprehend the notion that when some of us see an ultrasound (especially the new video ones), and we see the little fingers and toes, watch the yawns and movements and reactions from the baby, that we actually believe this is a living, breathing human person that should not be sucked out and killed? What kind of people would we be if, believing that it is a living human person, we opposed his/her murder? But to liberals, this makes us extreme.

To those who say that "applying the law irrespective of my personal views" is something judges in the real world do, I ask you this: if that's true why don't we just make robot judges? The answer is either: (1) robot judges would be too expensive to manufacture or (2) the personal views (conservative or liberal, or anywhere in between) of real human beings are an inseperable part of the judicial decision-making process. I suspect that (2) is the answer, especially when it comes to hot-button issues like whether the right to privacy exists and, if so, whether a right to have an abortion can be found within that right to privacy. And that is why it matters why Judge Alito said that his personal view is that he is opposed to the Roe decision.

Contrary to what Marc and others naively believe (or pretend to believe), people just don't magically change who they are when they become judges. Nor do they become robots. That is why it is bogus for Alito to say to Sen. Feinstein that, when he puts on his magical judge robe, he transforms into a robot-like law finder. And that is why Senator Feinstein looks like a naive little child for believing that bull he fed her.

To add on to what Scott said, it seems that if law were so easy to "find" (and personal views don't enter the picture), then it shouldn't even matter whether Alito is a smart guy. Harriet Miers could just as easily have done the job, right? The idea that "personal views don't matter" is a conservative pipe dream (and a smokescreen for getting people like Scalito onto the bench).

Senator Feinstein shouldn't let people overpower her so easily. That's a good way to lose a lot of votes.

I am tired of the revisionist history that is put forth by liberals on this site and in the U.S. congress. They would have us believe that Reagan was a dictator not a man that won two of the biggest landslides in the history of this nation. I also believe Bush 41 beat Dukakis in a landslide. These liberals act as if they were on some other planet then. The views of prolife are not in any way extremist the liberals are trying to drown out dissent with misleading speech which in my mind amounts to slander.

I am tired of the revisionist history that is put forth by liberals on this site and in the U.S. congress. They would have us believe that Reagan was a dictator not a man that won two of the biggest landslides in the history of this nation. I also believe Bush 41 beat Dukakis in a landslide. These liberals act as if they were on some other planet then. The views of prolife are not in any way extremist the liberals are trying to drown out dissent with misleading speech which in my mind amounts to slander.

Despite Scott's best efforts, he's dead wrong. A judge's personal views shouldn't come into play when deciding cases. But they often do, hence we have new rights to abortion & gay marriage (that are not found in the Constitution) while we have been denied our right to free speech and to bear arms (that are explicit in the Constitution).

This does not indicate however, that a pro-life judge will automatically vote to overturn "Roe". Alito's time on the bench indicates he values precedence. And since "Roe" is now precedence, it deserves some consideration. The question is, how much does he value precedence. Also, Brown v. Board of Educ settled the issues before the court. Roe has only created more controversy and appeals of patchwork SC opinions by judges like O'Connor. That is the question for Alito.

I honestly do not quite grasp the problem with his statements. In 1985 he was not a judge nor was he bound to impartiality. Why would we not respect his right to an opinion at the time? Do we not think that any judge on any court has personal opinions that do not interfere with his or her ability to judge fairly? Why do we not expect the same from Judge Alito? Anyone who is intellectually honest will need to think hard about that question.

You liberals should read before you jump to histeria. Alito didn't lie on his 1985 application.

He said it was different then, that that was a political appointment, and now he is a judge. He never said he didn't believe the things he wrote in 85'. What he did say was that the job back then was political so it was entirely appropriate to voice his political opinions. But now that he is a judge, his job is to interpret the Constitution, not voice or advocate his personal views.

Mark, hopefully you were not misinterpreting my comments. I am in full agreement with you. My point was that all judges are human and as such have many personal opinions. In the vast majority of cases we respect that and realize that this is not evidence that they will be impartial or "legislate from the bench." Judge Alito's 15 year record, I think, fully supports his ability to maintain his objectivity as well.

Stewart,

You too, huh? I was at the bus stop the other day, and someone was throwing burning flags out of a high-rise! And the cops were rounding up men for the "marriage camps" they've established, since we haven't amended the constitution yet to protect people from gay marriage.

Fact is, Republicans are scared of outlawing abortion, and the fact that the Christian jihad in America hasn't figured this out yet is the joke of K Street. You righties ought to read what Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff were saying about you in private notes ... they called you all "whackos." Your own heroes, calling you "whackos." Get it? You're whackos.

And if you wingnuts out there disagree, then propose a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. I double-dare you.

Is it right to voice one opinion when looking for a job and another when it si a different job? Does ALITO know about things called principles that guide our behaviour? Is it OK to be wishi-washy in life?

Ok, so Alito said he lied before in order to get a job. He's trying to get a job now, a much more important one. Is he lying now? For sure, he either lied then, or he is now.

A man who would lie about a very important issue .... is that the best we can do for the Supreme Court? Honestly. Not a little white lie, but a central issue for the job. Am I really supposed to believe that he's come down with a sudden case of ethics?

Given what I've read here and observed in the past few weeks, it's hard to believe that anyone could, with a straight face, complain about judges "legislating from the bench." The Right's opposition to Myers and support of Alito boils down to the fact that, in their view, Alito is more likely to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade than Myers. Likewise, the left opposes both because either one most likely would.

The earlier point about a constitutional amendment banning abortion higlights this fact. We're more likely to see an amendment banning flag burning or gay marriage. There is no way the actual legislature would bother to try to ban abortion. The support isn't there. So, the focus is on the only branch of government that pro-lifers can go to for the outcome they're looking for...the Supreme Court. Opposed to legislating from the bench? Come on.

Constitutional rights dont come from branches, they come from the concept of liberty. Our law via the Constitution only has validity and authority because it reflects what is transparently rationally understood to free men. Row is decided correctly because it asserts that the privacy interest of the woman takes precedence over state regulatory statutes. Federalists can never really win, because they are not enlightened and their purported fealty to original intent lacks any connection to the force that animates the Constitution.

What does it mean that Judge Alito makes a distinction between being an Advocate vs. a Judge in explaining his answers years ago on abortion? When you work for the US Government, your client is the people, and you are not an "advocate" until all views are aired and the decision makers decide the best course. Its really cheap excuses on Alito's part to argue that he was an "advocate", and to ignore that even then he was not supposed to be a idealogue for antiabortion views. Judge Alito does not deserve to be on the Surpreme Court if thats the best answer he can give for asserting such one sided views. Pity the public served by this product of the elite.

The emphasis of Federalists like Alito on the powers of the elected branches of government is really nothing more than a shirking of the judicial branch's responsibility to protect constitutional rights. The Federalists approach establishes a more authoritarian government in the guise that its preventing judges from "legislating" from the bench. In reality, Alito and other Federalists are using the other branches -- Executive and Legislative (often incompetent in their own way) as a crutch for being blind to non-property human liberty and privacy interests. We didnt have the American revolution to create a legislature or a president for their own sake, rather it was to provide for independence and ultimately a bill of rights from that government, ultimately applied to the states thanks to the Warren court. Dont be fooled, Alito is the new authoritarian, who takes our rights away by not seeing them or finding them written down in sufficient detail.

Why can't he just say, "Yes, I meant it in 1985 -- the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion [which is an interpretation of the law, not a personal view] -- and my position on this still stands today."

Or how about: "Yes, I meant it in 1985, but I no longer think so."

Instead what I hear is tap-dancing.

Some conservatives have written that a judicial nominee should be believed when they say their personal views won't affect their legal rulings.

Most conservatives don't really believe this - that a judge's personal views on abortion don't matter. If conservatives did believe this, they wouldn't have opposed Miars for being insufficiently prolife.

You can't necessarily take comfort from Alito's deference to precedent as a lower court judge, and extrapolate how he will treat precedent as a justice on the highest court in the land. Lower court judges are required to follow the rulings of higher courts. Higher court judges have more freedom to reverse precedent. For this reason, as well as others, personal views of justices matter more than personal views of lower court judges. Therefore, a senator could vote for confirmation of a conservative to a lower court bench, if satisfied that the conservative will follow precedent. She could then vote to oppose confirmation of the overly conservative judge to the highest court in the land and still be consistent.

You can't say "it was different then" and respect yourself. Particularly, if you believe in clear right and wrong, as the right wing does, you can't respect a statement where righteousness is so volitale as to flop on it's head in a 20 year period between '85 and '05.

I want our next Supreme court Justice to be a common houseplant. They should not have a brain, They should not have opinions, they should not have their own ideology.

As for the comments about pro-life/pro death penalty/pro-war being somwhow incompatible.

Well first Abortion kills the most innocent among us. Babies have their heartbeats stopped. For some reason after they are born that would be called MURDER but before they are born CHOP AWAY.

Second, The death penalty is for those who have been found GUILTY of a crime that is deemed so bad that they no longer deserve to live. This is not Iraq where people are sentenced to death for protesting the Government.

(short Recap: Abortion kills innocent people; Death penalty kills those found to be guilty)

Third, about the war. Can evil be negotiated away? Did Saddam use Mustard Gas (you know WMD/Chemical Weapons) on the Kurds? Should the oppressed peoples of the world have a world power stand up for them? Maybe we should just say to hell with the rest of the world and let the real dictators have fun murdering their citizens.

I'd like to find a middle ground between a judge who's a houseplant and one who's a right wing ideologue who'll legislate from the bench.

Instead of saying that Alito's personal views don't matter to them, conservatives should be honest and say they support this nominee BECAUSE they hope his personal views are so strong that they affect his legal rulings. That was obviously why they fought so passionately against Miars: They were afraid she wasn't a knee jerk conservative. Then they should say that in their opinion, those conservative views are within the mainstream of society.

Dear Judge,

"Maybe we should just say to hell with the rest of the world and let the real dictators have fun murdering their citizens."

You are clearly bereft of the ability to know irony when you write it. But in any case, you are a genius.

Love,
Victor Hugo

1/ Alito lied somewhere about his position on abortion - either when applying for his last job, or for his up-coming job. Either way that makes him a liar - just like a guy who sucks just one ___ is a homo. We shouldn't want an exposed liar on our Supreme Court.
2/ The death penalty should be reconsidered. It's obvious that many an innocent man was executed prior to DNA testing - we just didn't know it.
3/ Abortions should be legal and promoted. People with no desire, talent or resources for parenting should be permitted to avoid the job. No child should be forceably delivered to parents who preferred to abort him/her. Forcing pregnancies to term is the same as levying an unfunded mandate on people - and we all know that unfunded mandates are unjust and bad!
4/ In the past the only dictators that the U.S. made war against were those who were meddling with U.S. 'big business' interests abroad, or, who'd taken a position contrary to U.S. foreign policy plans. (nobody had yet thought to use the arguments "Let's democratize somebody!" or, "Let's rescue those destitute,oppressed black/Muslim/Latin people from their cruel dictator!" So why did we go after Hussein? Answer: for the two traditional reasons - the Neocons wanted to control Iraqi oil and they wanted to establish U.S. military bases in Iraq - right in the heart of the Middle East - for use as staging bases in our future wars in that area. Looks like the Neos are right on schedule.

Well Moose, it sure ain't PC, but in a real life, this is reality type discussion I think it might be difficult to argue against the points you made. Maybe that's the problem. There are a lot of great thoughts rolling around out there in the ideal world of academia but most of us aren't living in that world, and what you said is pretty much the way it is whether you (or anyone else) wants to admit it.

judge, how many people who are on death row or who have been put to death b/c of the death penalty are/were innocent?? your argument makes no sense. and judge once these women are FORCED to have their baby are you going to be there supporting them financially when it comes to buying diapers, baby food, medical expenses, education, college, day-care, etc? most likely not

Alito wasn't necessarily lying about his stance on abortion (or any other issue) at any time. Not everyone's thinking remains static over 20 years. Perhaps he has become more accepting of Roe with time, as it has become more settled as a part of law and society over time to the point where overturning it would produce problems that judges would be reluctant to unleash. He may feel the same way about affirmative action; it has its problems, but repealing it would produce new problems.

Also, as a judge he may see himself more as someone who wants to apply the law and not radically change it. Being a judge is different from applying to be a political appointee who would be charged with promoting the agenda of a certain administration.

To MHK919: Maybe "being a judge" means something different to many different people, including judges. The best evidence of what it means to Alito is what he said in his job application to Meese, not what he is saying now just to get weak-kneed Senators like Feinstein to like him just enough not to filibuster.

thank you, mr bush, for making the tough decisions for americans. if we had to think for ourselves, we would practice our own religion and do are best to get by from day to day.
now we can all be christians and join in lynch mobs for attack back-alley abortionists.
isnt (d)evolution grand?

thank you, mr bush, for making the tough decisions for americans. if we had to think for ourselves, we would practice our own religion and do our best to get by from day to day.
now we can all be christians and join in lynch mobs to attack back-alley abortionists.
isnt (d)evolution grand?