More on Alito

Via Shakespeare's Sister, People for the American Way has a detailed fact sheet on Alito's written views on abortion, racial and gender discrimination, police power, family values, and more.

ACSBlog links to an article at Law.com that examines how well Alito's nickname -- "Scalito" -- fits him.

John Aravosis is ready to rumble:

If you're a woman, you better get permission from your husband before you take off your burka.
[...]
...after 40 years, the game is finally on. Miers wasn't Conservative enough, so they pick a guy who wants to bring Taliban-style rulings to our Supreme Court. This is the big fight folks and this one, we're going to win. Bully Bush is weak, and it's time we gang up and take him on.

Ready for hand-to-hand combat? It's time to take these bullies on "big time"!

Steve Soto at The Left Coaster tells us why the nomination of Alia may actually be a good thing for the Democrats: it gives them the chance to remind voters how truly spineless Bush is when it comes to pleasing his "American Taliban" (I love that metaphor; it's so apt) fan base:

...Democrats will need to have the right framing in fighting this battle. ... Such framing includes reminding voters that Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were more enlightened with their high court judicial selections than Bush, who has shown that he was quick to jettison Harriet Miers due to evangelical pressure in favor of a conservative male who supports positions that Miers would abhor. After all, it was just last week that Bush was touting how much of a groundbreaking woman Miers was in her profession. Bush told us that the Miers pick would be great for the court because she didn't have a judicial resume, but instead had real life experiences as a woman breaking down barriers. Yet this week, Bush has forgotten all those words in touting the long conservative judicial track record of Alito, who seemingly takes the position that women have their place, as second-class citizens, barefoot and pregnant.

How much courage does it take, after all, to vote against confirming a Supreme Court nominee who upheld the unauthorized strip search of a 10-year-old girl?

There is a profile of Alito and more info on his track record at the Supreme Court Nomination blog.

Kash at Angry Bear has a cogent analysis of Alito's written opinion attacking the Family and Medical Leave Act:

In 2000, Alito authored an opinion in which he ruled that the FMLA was an instance of unconstitutional congressional overreach. In particular, he said that the FMLA was unconstitutional because there was no evidence for the notion that women are disadvantaged in the workplace when they are not allowed to take family leave. Furthermore, he argued, the requirement that everyone be guaranteed 12 weeks of unpaid family leave was a disproportionately strong remedy. ...

Kash notes that even William Rehnquist disagreed with Alito's reasoning, in his 2003 written opinion for the majority overturning Alito's ruling on the FMLA.

Kash argues that Alito's attempt to overturn legislation that helps families spend more time together is not at all in keeping with the conservative idea that supporting the family is an important role for government.

Not to mention that it totally undercuts Powerline's explanation for Alito's dissenting opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania:

...Judge Alito's dissent in Casey does not evince any reflexive hostility to restrictions on abortion, and does reflect what most conservatives would regard as an appropriate deference to the legislature's role as arbiter of public policy.

Not bloody likely, given Alito's lack of deference to the legislature's role as arbiter of public policy in the instance of the FMLA. The more credible explanation is that Alito defers to the legislature's role as the arbiter of public policy when the legislature supports policy dear to the hearts of conservatives. It's a whole 'nother story when the legislation is sponsored and supported by liberals.