I don't believe abortion is a right either, but not because it doesn't appear in the Consititution. The Amendments to the Constitution are not the all-inclusive list of rights.

If you think that's bad, check this at Powerline:

Don't Believe A Word of It!

That "journalist" made an effort alright, but not to be factual and unbiased.

Uh, you know, one can be in favor of abortion, yet opposed to it being considered a constitutional right. Conversely, one can be opposed to abortion, yet support the constitutional interpretation that it is a right. I know people who fit each of those molds.

Although the AP idiot probably did not consider any of the distinctions when he wrote the article, you certainly did change the literal meaning of the quote.

I think the point is the lede sentence - paragraph contains not one word of what Alito said. It is purely the construct of the reporter

And it doesn't get much better afterwards. Considering the verbiage surrounding the very short quotes from Alito.

Oh that's just the tip of the iceberg. As a young lawyer Alito was also opposed to murder rights, drunk driving rights, grand larceny rights, and rape rights. The kid was a loose cannon and I don't really think he's gotten any wiser with age!

I hate the implication that because you're anti-abortion, you are automatically ineligible for a seat on the Supreme Court. If that's true, then if your are pro-abortion you should also be ineligible for a seat. And the outcome is that we will never appoint another person to the court.

As a young anti-property rights* lawyer, Lincoln ...

(* Slaves were considered property)

Look, you clods, we have tried subtlety, nuance, voodoo - none of it has worked, you've just gone on ignoring us and electing complete cretins like Du(m)bya.

So we're going to broad hints - such as spelling everything out for you in the first sentence. If that doesn't work we will shout at you.

Don't make us break out the baseball bats. Now, listen up and follow your betters already!

This has been a public service announcement from AP.

(sarcasm off)

Back 50 years ago, a Eric Blair coined the phrase NewSpeak. While his essay on the use of language accompanying his book carefully explained his intent, I suspect that this man who had plenty of experience in journalism may have also enjoyed the irony of "news" "speak" being run together. The yellow journalism that is alive today on all sides of political debates demonstrates that the phrase journalistic integrity [or professionalism] is indeed a potent oxymoron.

"As a young government lawyer opposed to abortion rights, Samuel Alito..."

I don't think "abortion rights" implies that abortion is a constitutional right, but simply that Alito was opposed to women having the right to an abortion.
I agree that the mainstream media is a big turd, albeit for different reasons than you I suspect, but you're really reading too much into this.

Epador- Didn't George Orwell originally coin the term Newspeak in the book 1984?

catfish - George Orwell was Eric Blair's penname.

So you and Epador are both right.

"I hate the implication that because you're anti-abortion, you are automatically ineligible for a seat on the Supreme Court."

I think the broader point is that Altio has, at several points in his career, talked about and "strategized" overturning Roe V. Wade. That is the definition of judicial activism, and it's a quality that should not be in a Supreme Court justice.

As far as media bias, there are lots of examples:

MSNBC: "Alito faces down criticism on ethics questions"
The NYT:"A Prosecutor Known for His Common Sense and Straightforward Style"

Both of those headlines are very pro-Alito. Saying he doesn't support abortion rights (which is true) is entirely another category.

-jp2

I think the broader point is that Altio has, at several points in his career, talked about and "strategized" overturning Roe V. Wade. That is the definition of judicial activism, and it's a quality that should not be in a Supreme Court justice.

He wasn't a judge yet.

Commenter jp2 says that a lawyer who strategizes to use court decisions to accomplish a change in legal precedents is engaging in "judicial activism" and thus such a person should not be on the Court. Two points. 1. Thurgood Marshall spent his pre-government career executing the paradigmatic strategy of using court decisions to accomplish change, so by jp2's test Marshall should not have been on the Court; thus, if jp2 is a liberal who would defend Marshall and other liberals, his using this argument backfires. If jp2 is a conservative, then he is consistenly applying a principle that in this instance likely works against a nominee he otherwise would like, but which in many other instances would operate to bar nominees he would dislike as too liberal. 2. It is not necessarily the case that a lawyer who in private practice designs and executes such a strategy over the many years such a strategy requires would, when on the bench, fail to apply a properly impartial judicial temperament to each case she/he decides. But it is reasonable to think that a person who in private practice worked for certain goals he/she deemed idealistic and morally right, regardless of whether such work took the form of a strategy to use court decisions to accomplish social change, would be more likely to judge cases in ways that further the same goals.

"The voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy." -W

You are right on the "non-judge" point McGehee. However, as a judge, you can see his opinion, ruling 3 times to restrict abortion rights. (Including a parental notification, which was grossly invasive)

It's very easy to say "well, he was just working on a case for someone." However, statements regarding abortion rights were also in a written application, so his personal views on the subject are well know.

From everything there is to know about Alito - as a judge and as a person - he would rule to change both case law and social policy.

-jp2

He can have all the personal opinions he wants, but if he doesn't twist the Constitution -- as many prominent liberals agree Blackmun did in Roe v. Wade, by the way -- to impose his personal views, that is the very opposite of judicial activism.

Show us evidence that he did something as blatant as Blackmun's opinion in Roe and you might get our attention.