Yes, do a "replace" on the name in the story from Alito to Miers and you'd pretty much have the innuendo the NRO and Weekly Standard crowd were claiming 30 days ago made Harriet an obvious covert liberal. Whether or not they'll even respond to this article's implications (true or not) remains to be seen.

oj. Bite your tongue.

erp:

It's not mine I'm biting.

Fair is fair, OJ.

But if Miers writing/speech in 1993 isn't probative because of it's age, then neither is Alito's writing as a senior in law school.

For my part, all of it is worth airing, and taking into account. I'd like to see an amendment overturning Marbury v. Madison.

...Or maybe...

a "Super Initiative" where voters get a shot at overturning Sup. Ct. cases once a year. (chuckle chuckle)

The more one looks at the 3 nominations the more one sees that somehow it has become necessary to have Ivy League credentials & judging experience to get on the Supreme Court. Obviously what decisions one hands down as a judge don't matter if you have the right paperwork.

Apparently Constitutional Law is some sort of gnostic religion that only the high priests of the judiciary are capable of understanding. Huh. Somehow I had thought that I understood the copy of the Constitution that sits on my bookshelf pretty well, and that that was what made it such a great and lasting document...

Truly the Stupid Party...

Bruno:

Exactly--it's all foolish.

The Miers objections were mostly about credentials, yes, as this shows. One of the things about serving as an Appeals judge, like Judge Alito, is that most of the time you're bound by precedent from above. His opinions are generally restrained and highly refer to precedent, although I'd say that often he puts a fairly conservative take on what precedent says, while not contradicting it. Small steps, though.

None of the extensive paper trail really says what he would do when not bound by precedent from above, when on the SCOTUS. He has avoided the sort of tell-tale rhetoric of some of the difficult-to-confirm judges.

b:

Considering the number of highly-educated judges that have deserted them, you'd think conservatives would have good cause to regret portraying Constitutional law as some sort of Delphic mystery only Ivy League intellectual gold-diggers can handle.

They never learn.

john:

He's notorious for not following precedent, though he seems to like Roe:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/11/02/alitos_colleagues_said_he_ignored_precedent/

So is stare decisis just Latin for "I was just following orders"? An all purpose excuse for any behavior from a judge.

try not to lose track of the big picture, GWB is treating the leftocrats life a doberman's chew toy.
they are practically wetting themselves in fear and confusion. if we win the 2008 presedential election (and maybe 60 real senators) then a weakish pick now means nothing.

OJ, you're just teasing us.

Paul:

Just paying y'all back for your Miers idiocy.

It still remains class and religion.

Alito went to Princton and Yale, Miers to SMU. Obviously, Alito is smarter to NE elites.

Alito is Catholic, Miers is a Evangelical. Obviously, to the Catholics and secular Jews at NRO, Alito is more reliable. The known is always less scary than the known. How many Evangelicals post at NRO?

Pretty basic, all the rest is just window dressing.

OJ: just give it a rest. Harriet Souter was in over her pretty little head and even she knew it. Alito is a bright guy who is conservative in a very profound way. The opinions he wrote were correct and in accordance with his duties. There can be no complaint about any of them. The Miers you are romanticizing is a figment of your imagination. She is no longer an issue, so you can drop it.