Monday, October 31, 2005

Bush Chooses Samuel Alito

A great pick, from what I've read. I read and then skimmed the Wikipedia piece on him, and like his decisions and how he came to them. I also read through most of the famous "Menorah" display case (thanks Chaim), and there, too, I liked what he wrote.

Michelle Malkin has a roundup of dozens of bloggers on Alito - they know a lot more than I do, and they all think he's a great choice. Even DovBear thinks it's a good one, for now at least.

Technorati tags: , .


  1. I am not a fan of his. Based on what I have read I am very concerned about the damage that he might do while on the court.

  2. Any specific reasons? I've liked the cases I've read...

  3. I am crossing my fingers for a filibuster. The man is way too conservative for my tastes and I am no bleeding-heart liberal. I support the death penalty. I support the right to bear arms.

    In 1999, he supported manger/Jesus scenes at city hall. I am a strong proponent of the separation of church and state.

    And I am pro-choice.

    So for me, he is not a candidate I would support. I would like someone who is more of a moderate. I am no fan of extremism, in any form.

  4. But where are you getting your information from? Don't rely on the basic news, which can't cover details...

    The city hall display clearly did not violate the establishment clause, as it contained a number of religious and secular displays: The 3rd Circuit is a pretty liberal court, and yet they agreed with their colleague Alito.

    He also voted that partial-birth abortion was legal - in fact, some on the right are a bit worried on his Roe v. Wade stance, but because a judge is there to judge, not legislate, they're happy with his overall philosophy.

    Perhaps that is the more important point: Judges are not appointed (or at least should not be) to come to certain conclusions. Rather, they are appointed to judge cases based on a constitutional philosophy. People may disagree on that philosophy, but that does not make someone a poor choice as a judge. Republicans knew that Breyer and Ginsburg would be strong supporters of liberal views - and they are. Yet, they voted 97-3 on Ginsburg (don't know Breyer) to approve her, because she was well-qualified. It will be a shame if some Democratic Senators do as they did by John Roberts and vote against, or worse, filibuster, just because they disagree with some of the decisions they're afraid he'll make or overturn. The US Constitution specifically states that they are not allowed to reject a judge for his views.

  5. And, after I write all that, I see the WSJ has explained it all much better...


  6. Argh. And George Will, who'd been bashing the administration lately (at least that's what DovBear told me), addresses my last point - far better - here.

  7. I don't like his stance on abortion and I am not pleased with the position I have read about regarding the sep. of church and state.

  8. Jack - firstly, not liking his stances does not mean he's not fit to judge.

    Seperate from that, however, what about those cases don't you like? He ruled against a ban of partial-birth abortion (if you're pro-abortion), and for laws about informing the husband etc by abortion (if you're against). He rules by law, not by his own feelings...