Samuel Alito and the Supreme Court

by Cliopatria

So President Bush has chosen Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O’Connor.

On first glance, he looks like a good choice for Bush. Alito is top sirloin from the conservative perspective, as opposed to the spam-like mystery they perceived in Harriet Miers. Also, while very conservative, he tends to be cool in presentation. It sounds like he can give a pretty good “Here, I stand” presentation to the Senate without coming across as crazy.

That will make it tough for ideological opponents—which probably includes me though I will reserve judgment until I learn a bit more about him. Americans don’t like obvious ideologues, but they do like firmness. Most Americans also don’t know much about the relationship between court decisions and rights, except for really big decisions like Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board. If he doesn’t break down and start drooling while discussing how he’ll get the King James Bible back into the schools or if something equally bizarre in his past doesn’t come back to haunt him, then opponents will have a lot of trouble raising public opposition.

Alito might lose anyway, particularly if he indicates some lack of support for women’s rights (aside from abortion). One of the true sea changes of the past thirty years has been the growth in publicly active, conservative women who don’t like Roe v. Wade but who otherwise want to be equals in the public sphere. If I were getting to question him, the evolution of the rights of women is where I would focus my questions.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

tiffany jewelry - 4/7/2010

links of london bracelets
links of london jewellery
ed hardy jeans
ed hardy clothing

Links of london - 3/5/2010

Hi guys , here i have a good place to buy links of london jewellery,links of london jewellery, all of high qualities and high quality service,
http://www.linkslondonsale.com/

Oscar Chamberlain - 11/2/2005

I meant "in."

It is easy to forget that thirty to forty years ago the debate over the rights of the women was over fundamentals. It was over things as basic as whether or not women should be discouraged from having a "public" life: to be the head breadwinner in the household, to serve in high office, to have equal chances at promotion in the workplace, to be included in a military draft should one resume.
Conservative Christians arged, pretty openly, that women should not seek such roles save in exceptional cases.

The change I was pointing to is that there are many conservative women in public life who have accepted the idea that they and other women should have equal opportunity. They have accepted that such opportunity does not upset the moral order. Most oppose abortion in most if not all circumstances, but on other issues of women's equality, their ideals now require continuing an intepretpation of the 14th amendment that extends rights, and the protection of those rights, to women.

There is some suggestion that Alito's conservatism would roll that interpretation back some. If in his testimony he seems to confirm that, then he might have trouble from a few more Republicans and that might solidfy any wavering democrats.

John H. Lederer - 11/1/2005

"One of the true sea changes of the past thirty years has been the growth in publicly active, conservative women who don’t like Roe v. Wade but who otherwise want to be equals in the public sphere."

I have read this several times and just can't figure out what you mean. I think what is missing is the "with" after "equals"