I hate to say that this is a bad move for Bush. I tentatively like the nominee. But the Democrats can spin his ruling on spousal notification for abortion into a big deal. He did just enforce the law instead of creating it, but liberals don't care about that. It's going to be an ugly fight. And a boring one too as the Democrats won't discuss much past his ruling on the issue.

John, this is exactly what the President should want and needs. This fight will unite the conservatives that split over the Miers debacle. The Democrats may have the fight in them, but they will not have the support of the American people, especially if they try and filibuster.

This would be a great move by Bush.

Good choice.

Sure the dems will have some toe holds to attack, but they aren't going to be able to paint Alito into the "extremist" corner.

The dems risk far more by preventing the vote, than they do by slinging their mud, and voting "no."

John, if what you say becomes true I would love to hear the President say exactly that (and the nominee say so in committee): that he ruled in favor of the law as written. The President should follow up by saying that it is not up to Alito, but instead to his legislative critics, to change the law.

Now is it not a measure of man who after having a successfull experience as mentioned in a blog online, would immediately downplay it by blogging about a bush agenda

cheers to unselfish souls

This is a stellar nominee. Alito is imminently qualified, which in the final analysis is what really matters.

I disagreed with the pro-Miers pundits touting her likelihood to agree with conservatives on political matters as a point (supposedly) in her favor. They seemed to miss the BIG PICTURE, that Supreme Court justices are supposed to be apolitical. I know it's hard for people who are knee-deep in politics 24/7 to think about issues in any other way, but that's precisely how judges should behave.

We shouldn't be tempted into abandoning the deeply held principle that judges should be apolitical just to get someone who can further politicize the Court, albeit in our favor. Let the Democrats be the hypocrites. They're good at it.

Alito has been a well-respected federal Court of Appeals judge for many years. That alone makes him qualified for the Supreme Court.

Hey what can I say, he seems like a serious qualified guy. Shame I dont agree with him on most issues, but what can I do about that. Hope he doesnt make it, but understand if he does. Not like the supreme court was exactly on my side to begin with right?

My only fear is that, in 20 years if he is still around, it will be the year 2025, and we will have a conservative (probably others as well) who thinks with a 1950s mentality. Thats pushing 3/4ths of a century behind the times. If you follow my meaning.

R2000
Bathroom Review

Not like the supreme court was exactly on my side to begin with right?

See, Alex, that's the Big Picture right there -- the Supreme Court (or any court for that matter) is not supposed to be on anybody's side.

That's what it means to be impartial. To be neutral. It's the role of the courts.

And, what the hell does it mean to be with "the times" anyway? As far as I can tell, that's a shorthand expression for a set of political views that you happen to agree with. It's a neat way of avoiding anything remotely substantive.

The "times." I can't stand that expression. It implies that we are all helpless, hapless little passive sheep, going with the herd, go along, get along, shrugging your shoulders and saying "what are you going to do?", resigned to your shitty little existence.

If the Left (or any other group) manages to get the votes together to actually amend the Constitution, I expect Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and others to enforce the brand-spanking new provisions as written. Is that with the "times" enough for you?

All you have to do now is go out there and convince enough people to vote your way. Good luck.

Why couldn't GWB have just picked this guy the first time?!?!?

Phinn,

In a perfect world, yes, the judicial branch should be apolitical. However, it is apparent that in our courts today that there are numerous activists in the courts. As Alex has just demonstrated, it is most often the liberals who see the courts as a means to affect political change.

However, it is impossible for anyone to ever be fully unbiased. Bias comes in from every aspect of life (religion, ethnicity, education, home life, etc.). Bias affects interpretations when trying to establish intent. Activists make little to no attempt to diminish their bias, whereas a constructionist will. Constructionists will often disagree and it will sometimes be due to their personal bias. This isn't bad. This is why there are 9 justices.

For a person to expose their thinking as a conservative is important. It gives us an idea as to what their bias is. Equally important is what you've argued: that the person should (attempt to) be apolitical.

But make no mistake about it; we need a person to be conservative in thinking and to be apolitical in the judiciary.

President Bush is the winner of the 2005 World Series of Political Poker. I believe the Miers nomination and eventual withdrawal was a HUGE bluff deliberately run by the president, who, with the Alito nomination, has once more run rings around the rest of the players.