Ask CJ Roberts how reliable Sen. Durbin's comments are. Speaking of Durbin and Roberts, my wife approached the Senator on the street the other day and told him that he should be ashamed of himself both for his questioning and his vote against Roberts. She politely told him he was a liar when he said he was just voting for what he thought was in the best interests of the country.

He did precisely what a judge should and must do, and reached the most conservative result properly. I have no idea what you would have him say and do, but it seems none of it would be appropriate for a judge.

rds: The "most conservative result" will be for Roe to never be overturned since it is a super-duper precedent. oj is perfectly justified in ridiculing all of those who went into meltdown over Harriet Miers for being allegedly squishy on conservative principles but love Roberts & Alito.

Orrin is starting to fold up like a itsy-bitsy puppy tent. Why is he bad-mouthing Alito? Because the judge applied the Supremes' decisions to specific cases as best he could?

Sorry to state the obvious, Orrin, but that's what appeals court judges are supposed to do. What's your problem with Alito, anyway? I know you're still carrying a torch for Harriet, but this is getting ridiculous.

Stop sobbing for Harriet, and start making sense.

Casey:

I love Alito--he'll be a great Justice.

Then why are you talking about him folding up like a pup tent and backing away from his principles?

Or were those comments sarcasm? Or is your new comment about Alito making a great Supreme sarcasm?

Or am I in an alternate universe where everything on a blog means the exact opposite of what it says?

He's trolling his own blog again. Just ignore him and he'll go away.

Casey:

Of course it's all sarcasm. I'm just showing the anti-Miers folks how easy it is to skewer their pet.

OJ is mocking the Miers critics. These stories about Alito are similar to the ones which gave her critics strokes. Yet Alito gets a pass.

One liberal, Sen. Reid, said nice things about Ms. Miers and heads exploded at the NRO offices for instance. Scores of liberals say nice things about Alito and we hear nothing from her critics.

Um, okay, I think. You might want to make that a tad clearer when you talk about Alito folding up and abandoning his principles. Because those comments didn't sound like sarcasm. They sounded like you were bashing Alito for kissing up to Durbin.

Maybe I'm too literal-minded.

Sure, let's just take tiny steps and not overturn Roe while just allowing more and more restrictions to be found legal. Roe was already narrowed in some ways in Casey.

All you have to do is let bans after a certain week (like they have in most European countries) stand, and you don't have to explicitly overturn Roe. You don't even have to deny the right to privacy, just say that the state's interest in protecting the life of the fetus trumps it once viability occurs.

Skewered? A temper tandrum that would make any 2 year old proud, yes, but the only thing skewered is the reputation of our host.

John Thacker is correct. Roe v. Wade will not be overturned directly. Baby steps toward limiting abortions is how it will happen.

"baby steps"

I'm sure you're correct on Roe (or at least I have no better prediction) however I think it is important that the underlying idea of a general right of privacy be rejected in the future or otherwise no telling what mischief it may cause.

It probably is the necessary approach, but it is flat evil to have to talk of "baby steps" in restraining abortion.

The real questionis why is OJ still carrying a torch for Harriet Souter, especially since MoDo is looking for someone who is man enough to make her happy?

MoDo's waiting for the next big movie or TV series dealing with the Supreme Court before she finds her true judicial hero/heroine on the cover of People magazine. As for Alito, you get the feeling that the NRO-Weekly Standard types are so certain of their infallibility on the issue, that Barbara Boxer could give him a big smack on the lips and Ted Kennedy could invite him out for drinks and they would still be enamoured both with the nominee and with their own ability to get him the nomination in place of Miers by pointing out all the liberals who were happy with Harriet's selection.

In light of your results-oriented arguments for Miers, it makes sense that you don't get why Alito gets a pass on this kind of thing and she didn't.

Alito gets a pass because his reasoning in hundreds of cases shows how he approaches the Constitution and that his approach is consistent and well-thought out. Someone with his approach will interpret the document in intellectually coherent, predictable ways.

Miers gets no pass because she has never been observed interpreting the Constitution or even thinking about it much. All we had in her favor was the President's word, which I think was worth something as to her current political conservatism, but not worth much at all over the long run as Miers confronted new issues outside of the present political conversation.

Miers' own constitutional reasoning from her gosh-awful early-90s speeches was embarrassingly dull-witted and amounted to constitutional interpretation by liberal cliche.

The above-quoted Judge's opinion that Alito won't overrule Roe is worth jack squat, as it is contradicted by Alito's decades-long record of legal reasoning. In contrast, a similar quote about Miers would have equally counterbalanced the assurances of Justice Hecht.

rds:

Yes, he's a proven wet.

rdsr and other like posters: Souter and Kennedy didn't have as long an opinion train as David Alito does, but what they had was just as solidly conservative as David Alito's is. Yet, do you like them and how they reason?

Miers as an outsider would be more likely to stay true. David Alito will drift because he is of the elite, just like everyone else on the court. He will uphold precedent because that is what "consistent and well-thought out" elite judges do.

I think he should and will be confirmed. He is a solid conservativenow. He is the President's choice and I still keep that faith. But to think that his circuit court history is a good predictor of his SC behavior is wistful thinking. Maybe he will, Scalia did.

curt:

Ouch, bitchy aren't we? It worked...

Maybe he will, Scalia did.

Scalia was an academic, which makes for a different type of thinker and arguer. More combative, more likely to stick to his pet theory, more likely to use his pet theory to explain as much as possible.

Roe delenda est.

Some commentators on the left and right have opined that it isn't even good for the right (as a political movement) to have Roe overturned.

The principled pro-lifer in me says that you overturn it anyway because it is the right thing to do.

The Rovian on the other shoulder says "are you nuts?!" With meaningful majorities wanting more restrictions, but not an outright ban, a court decision throwing it back to the states is the best policy, but would probably create a backlash that would benefit the Democrats for a while.

I wasn't virulently anti-Miers, and I'm not slavishly pro-Alito. The fact remains that avoiding another Souter is 90% a matter of luck.