1/15/2006
Today, a Washington Post Editorial formally called for Judge Alito’s confirmation to the US Supreme Court. Here are a few excerpts from the editorial:
He would not have been our pick for the high court. Yet Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an appellate judge and because of the dangerous precedent his rejection would set…
And Judge Alito is superbly qualified. His record on the bench is that of a thoughtful conservative, not a raging ideologue. He pays careful attention to the record and doesn’t reach for the political outcomes he desires. His colleagues of all stripes speak highly of him. His integrity, notwithstanding efforts to smear him, remains unimpeached.
Excellent points. But please don’t let me create the impression that the editorialist for the Post had no concerns regarding Alito. On the contrary, the editorial expressed several deep concerns with the possible curbs placed on abortion and perhaps a greater deference to Presidential wartime powers.
Here are a couple of pertinent comments:
He has tended at times to read civil rights statutes and precedents too narrowly. He has shown excessive tolerance for aggressive police and prosecutorial tactics. There is reason to worry that he would curtail abortion rights…
[H]e is undeniably a conservative whose presence on the Supreme Court is likely to produce more conservative results than we would like to see.
Oh if only the Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee could have expressed their concerns and doubts so honestly, intelligently, and forthrightly. Please note that the editorialists’ comments related to concerns over curtails on abortion is almost precisely what I said in a previous post an honest liberal and/or Democrat should say, rather than hiding behind a lot of hooey related to comments made by someone else over 20 years ago.
Kudos to the Post for once an intelligent and thoughtful editorial on such a serious issue.
1 Comment
bdsm slaves
N0viysV3tstaaart0
Trackback by bdsm slaves — 7/11/2006 @ 6:51 am