Scalito becomes more fitting

with continued conflicting information emerging on his beliefs, Alito seems more reptilian every day. his actions are cold-blooded, his beliefs clearly defined by current personal agenda, and his fitness for a Supreme Court position more questionable.

Alito claims to respect precedent regardless of his beliefs; he also claims that his comments during the Reagan administration were motivated by want of a job--leaving one to wonder what else he would 'adjust' about his 'deeply held' convictions should the price be right.* in addition, new information has surfaced that strongly suggests his respect for precedent only goes so far:

''There is no explicit textual warrant in the Constitution for a right to an abortion," the brief said. It said the doctrine of precedent should not prevent overturning Roe because ''a decision as flawed as we believe Roe v. Wade to be becomes a focus of instability, and thus is less aptly sheltered by that doctrine."

The Supreme Court rejected those arguments, saying, in part, ''We reaffirm the general principles laid down in Roe."

Alito has told some senators that he has respect for precedent, but he has not said if he would vote to overturn Roe.

One of the key questions about Alito among senators is now whether his statement that ''the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" means that he would try to overturn Roe, or whether his statements about respecting precedent mean that he would leave it intact.

Alito volunteered to work on this case, volunteered to generate arguments protecting onerous and penurious legislation, bragged about this case in a previous job application. Alito bragged about making a difficult decision just that much more horrible for women.

*curiously similar to Scalia, no? Alito has a similar history of shady ethics and failure of recusal, even in the face of written pledges to the contrary.