|
| Thursday, November 03, 2005 |
| Alito less nutty than thought? |
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has an article citing a number of judges who served with Alito who say he probably would NOT overturn Roe, due to his tremendous respect for precedent.
The picture that's emerging is interesting - Alito as a traditional, less-scary conservative rather than a right-wing idealogue... that the comparisons to Scalia are simplistic. But perhaps we're being hoodwinked by the right?
Also, these polls comparing inital support for Alito and Roberts are interesting. |
posted by CB @ 9:05 AM   |
|
| 1 Comments: |
-
The NYT had an interesting read on Alito's abortion decisions yesterday: they're bound mostly by a very strict and formal interpretation of the idea of marriage (i.e. If you're pregnant, of course you would tell your husband, since you've entered into a legally-sanctioned contract with him). This is particularly troubling for any rulings on equal benefits for gay partners, especially since Alito doesn't have a long paper trail on gay rights issues.
I do feel like I'm being hoodwinked by the friendly coverage of Alito, and I still find myself wishing the Democrats were being a lot pushier about him and his previous stances. If the Republicans could trot out Kerry's years of votes as 'evidence' of his flaws, then why can't the same be done just as aggressively with this guy?
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recent Posts |
|
| Archives |
|
| Contact Me |
| Email me |
| Template by |
 |
|
|
The NYT had an interesting read on Alito's abortion decisions yesterday: they're bound mostly by a very strict and formal interpretation of the idea of marriage (i.e. If you're pregnant, of course you would tell your husband, since you've entered into a legally-sanctioned contract with him). This is particularly troubling for any rulings on equal benefits for gay partners, especially since Alito doesn't have a long paper trail on gay rights issues.
I do feel like I'm being hoodwinked by the friendly coverage of Alito, and I still find myself wishing the Democrats were being a lot pushier about him and his previous stances. If the Republicans could trot out Kerry's years of votes as 'evidence' of his flaws, then why can't the same be done just as aggressively with this guy?