RE: Alito a Bad Choice

As usual, the Journal is too cowardly to put a by-line on these kinds of articles.

A few interesting points:

...the Journal cannot endorse that decision.

All of Western Civilization trembles at the thought. This is high comedy. Linda's gotten just a bit too big for her britches, methinks.

On matters of professional and personal qualifications, Alito is eminently qualified to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the court.

But, on matters of judicial and legal philosophy, he is not.

Some will argue that these matters are not germane to the confirmation process, that a candidate for the high court should be judged on his personal and professional qualifications alone.

That is not so.

Says who, Linda? Show me where there is any law, guideline, or even tradition that says otherwise. It is on personal and professional qualifications alone that a SCOTUS nominee should ever be considered. Beyond that, judicial philosophy is a matter for the President to decide in picking his nominees. The Senate is not even allowed, under the Constitution, to consider judicial philosophy in its role of "advice and consent."

In Alito, the court will not be getting the kind of moderately conservative justice it had in O'Connor.

Well thank goodness for that. Characterizing O'Conner as "moderately conservative" is a real hoot. And someone please tell me where the left's insistence on replacement in-kind gained any footing in reality? If there is a tradition on the courts over the last 50 years, it has been to replace sound, judicial originalists with ever more outlandish pseudo-legislators.

If Alito holds true to his previous decisions, he can be expected to prefer the arguments of a strong government over those for individual rights.

That is utter horse manure, Linda. Alito has a long history of preferring individual rights over government power. Maybe you should actually read his record instead of taking the Chucky Schumer/Ted Kennedy/Joe Biden Cliff Notes version as gospel.

He will not be sympathetic to concerns about environmental protection.

You mean he won't bend over to every enviro-whack-job with a mission to save the world from itself. This is a good thing, Linda.

He will side with those who would erode the separation of church and state...

Meaning he won't automatically side with every atheist nutcase who is pissed off about his town's manger scene. Another good thing, Linda.

...and he will vote to narrow individual privacy rights, especially those related to the right to have an abortion.

I'm still waiting for the downside, Linda. Just to make sure the record is clear, there is no "right to privacy" guaranteed by the Constitution and even if there were, it would not apply to abortion. So the characterization of "narrowed privacy rights" is a fairy tale from top to bottom.

Possibly most threatening is his belief in the prominence of the executive branch of government.

Of course Linda only thinks this is a bad thing when there is not a liberal Democrat in the White House. Were it Hillary sitting in the Oval Office, Linda would be pushing for the courts to give the Beast cart blanche. Furthermore, Alito has no record of "preferring the executive branch." Early in his career, he made an ill turn of phrase (if only Linda was guilty of just one), and the degenerates on the Judiciary Committee jumped on it with both feet. Alito's judicial record most certainly does not reflect any such belief.

This can't be said enough: The left's goal on the SCOTUS is to push their agenda by judicial fiat. They want an oligarchy to implement their ideas which would never get past the American electorate. The left, and its spokesmen, like Linda Brinson, are in favor of tyranny so long as it meets their ends. And even though they might be unwitting and ignorant rubes (like Linda), they are no less evil for supporting that goal.