Quote of the Day
From today's Best of the Web on OpinionJournal.com, regarding an editorial in the New York Times on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court (emphasis mine):
The Times actually calls the Alito pick "yet another occasion to bemoan lost opportunities," and opines: "Mr. Bush could have signaled that he was prepared to move on to a more expansive presidency by nominating a qualified moderate who could have garnered a nearly unanimous Senate vote rather than another party-line standoff." In other words, Bush should have betrayed those who voted for him by appointing a justice who would have pleased those who voted against him.And the more I read about Sandra Day O'Connor, the more I'm convinced she wasn't a "moderate," she was an undisciplined floater whose view of the law depended on her whims.
posted by Ken @ 6:27 PM
1 Comments:
At 11/02/2005 7:56 PM,
Anonymous said…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051103/ap_on_go_su_co/alito_gang_of14
Nelson said Alito had assured him "that he wants to go to the bench without a political agenda, that he is not bringing a hammer and chisel to hammer away and chisel away on existing law."
Durbin said the judge never refused to answer any of his questions — as Miers and John Roberts had during their private interviews — and that Alito told him he saw a right to privacy in the Constitution, one of the building blocks of the court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision.
Alito said that when it came to his dissent on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a case in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses, that "he spent more time worrying over it and working on that dissent than any he had written as a judge," Durbin recounted.
Post a Comment
<< Home