The conservative right are pissing their pants they're so happy, which scares the Dems. Planned Parenthood was protesting him 30 seconds after he was announced, which delights the Religious Right.

I find very little extremism evident in his decisions. I fail to see how his dissent in Casey over husband notification indicates he will be the Roe overturner that makes him the Religious Right wet dream/liberal nightmare.

---

_______________________________________________

Has Planned Parenthood EVER supported a single Supreme Court nominee?

Alito doesn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade. There is no way that the RNC wants a judge that would, in a single stroke, get rid of their biggest money maker. How would they rally the troops without the abortion issue? My bet is that Alito just LOOKS good enough to placate the far right who want a litmus test appointee.

You guys continue to crack me up. I say again, this is exactly what most of us on the far, radical, religious, extreme right want, and have wanted for a long time:

"Alito does not have an agenda, contrary to what the Republican right is saying about him being a 'home run.' He is not result-oriented. He is an honest conservative judge who believes in judicial restraint and judicial deference."

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I don't have any clue whether he or Roberts will vote to overturn Roe. I do know that if we have all or most of the SC justices that think the way Roberts and Alito think, it will fall eventually.

The key is the homerun Vitus referred to. Conservatives are process oriented, not results oriented, at least on a good day. If the judges read the laws, interpret them without injection personal policy preferences, the country will be well served.

Conservatives are process oriented, not results oriented, at least on a good day. If the judges read the laws, interpret them without injection personal policy preferences, the country will be well served.


Gimme a break - they are just as results oriented as anyone else. If the results are what they want, they'll say the decision was made without injection of personal policy preferences. If not, they cry judicial activism.

---

_______________________________________________

Single issue people will react the way you describe, of course, but they are boring. On a good day real conservatives don't react that way. So, for example, I had a real problem with the SC letting the feds stop the Oregon medical marijuana laws, despite my opposition to those laws.

I admit that every day is not a good day.

Exactly. Liberals keep wanting to attribute some sort of litmus test to conservatives, when one does not really exist. The closest we came to that was with the Miers nomination, and the attempt to sell her as a reliable vote on Roe. An attempt that was almost universally derided by conservatives.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That's because conservative does not necessarily mean Republican and the religious right, something many people fail to understand.

That's because conservative does not necessarily mean Republican and the religious right

Fair enough. Where are the statements from the religious right demanding a litmus test, as opposed to a sound judge?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Good point. I didn't like the Miers nomination, even though I suspected she would vote the way I wanted consistently, probably better than Alito will.

We need justices that will not only get the right answer, but provide intellectually educational arguments to the public for the answer they give.

I was actually agreeing with your previous post and adding that I think that many people look at someone who considers themselves to be a conservative to automatically be in lock step with the Republican party, when in fact that is not necessarily true.

I consider myself a conservative (particularly fiscally) but consider at the current Republican admin as being extremely socially conservative while almost being fiscally liberal.

I was actually agreeing with your previous post

Oh. Well, in that case. . .

;)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You're crappen' me right vitus? No litmus test for the religious right? Why do you think Karl Rove had an in office conference with James Dobson? To talk about the weather? You say you just want a qualified person but I suspect that if the nominee has been a brilliant jurist but a staunch liberal that you would not want them on the supreme court.

Well, Dobson has come out in support of Alito. Alito has had four abortion related decisions and came down on the prochoice side three of the four times.

Apparently you are certain Alito will vote against Roe. How do you know?

Just to be a devil's advocate Art, how many of his "pro choice" rulings were because he was bound by SC precedent?

---

_______________________________________________

All four of his rulings were because that was how he interpreted the SC rulings. That is how it should be.

Shouldn't he be bound by those same precedents even if he is on the SC? That's why they call it precedent isn't it?

All four of his rulings were because that was how he interpreted the SC rulings. That is how it should be

My point Art, is simply that a SC Justice is not bound by SC precedent as is an appeals judge (though there is the concpet of stare decisis). Just because Alito had 3 "pro choice" rulings doesn't mean he'll have any on the SC.

---

_______________________________________________

No, which is how rulings get overturned.

---

_______________________________________________

He can still rule in a manner that is inconsistent with the SC precedents. It will just get overturned along with being deemed judicial activism. What prohibits him from ruling contrary to established precedent?

No, I don't think he will overturn Roe, but I think that he is being sold to the religious right as someone who might.

I am aware that they have the power to overturn previous rulings, but on the whole they tend to look at established rulings as setting a precendent in that area and usually rule accordingly.