Keep reading your dimness, "I think he has the creativity and indeed the intelligence that chip away at existing precedents in a way I think some of us will regret over the years." You're welcome.
Trader_J, it disturbs me to see you embarrass yourself so. I am troubled that you have placed yourself in this position. Troubled I may be, but duty requires me to point out that, in your quote above, you leave out the damning part regarding Alito... the clear condemnation of his friend. So you will see your error, which may have been unintentional, let me point it out for you. It is merely the rest of Mulder's quote: "I don't think there can be any question that Alito's ideology is a conservative one. While I don't think he's the kind of guy, because of his respect for the institution of the judiciary, who would seek to overturn precedent in a radical sort of way, I think he has the creativity and indeed the intelligence that chip away at existing precedents in a way I think some of us will regret over the years." -- Lawrence Lustberg, criminal defense attorney and friend of Alito Keep D&D Civil.
To be fair, he said conformation of judges, not nomination. When people vote to elect a president there is some expectation that he try to enact the positions that led people to vote for him, including appointments that reflect those positions. The conformation process is meant to be about the qualifications of the candidate, not the philosophy. They are two related but seperate things. That is not to say that conservatives would not bemoan the nomination of liberal judges by a liberal president, as everyone wants to get their own way (big news right, that everyone has bias?), but it does not mean that t_j was incorrect in that statement.
Deck, there was another editorial in the NY Times right next to the one you posted. I guess you must of missed it, so here it is. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/01/opinion/01althouse.html ***************************** Separated at the Bench By ANN ALTHOUSE Madison, Wis. NO sooner did we learn that President Bush had chosen Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court than commentators began blurting: "Scalito!" Judge Alito, a man of stellar credentials and 15 years on the federal bench, has long endured the witticism that connects his lyrical surname to that of Justice Antonin Scalia. The names blend mellifluously and both men are considered conservatives, so why should we give up the clever nickname? Well, quite aside from the tedium of cliché, we might want to consider whether Judge Alito really is all that much like Justice Scalia. If you're old enough, you might remember how savvy it once seemed to respond to the nomination of Harry Blackmun by lumping him with Warren Burger and calling them "the Minnesota Twins." Both men were appointed by Richard Nixon, who, like George W. Bush, ran for office saying he wanted to appoint strict constructionists to the bench. Yet while Justice Burger remained conservative, Justice Blackmun went on to write the opinion legalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade and, eventually, to vote consistently with the liberal justices. Assuming that Judge Alito is confirmed, there will be time enough for the critics to mutter "Scalito" whenever he joins Justice Scalia in a decision they dislike. But for now, we should give careful consideration to his record. And what a thorough record it is: a decade and a half of judicial opinions that deserve close study, not facile comparison to the work of Justice Scalia. Consider how the two view the First Amendment. Writing for the majority in Employment Division v. Smith in 1990, Justice Scalia took the position that "neutral, generally applicable" laws do not violate the Constitution's guarantee to the free exercise of religion. Thus, he wrote, a state law could penalize the use of peyote without making any accommodation for its ritual use in the Native American Church. Judge Alito, since he sits on a lower court, is surely bound by Smith; but in two later cases he found room to protect free exercise rights by holding the government to a tough standard about what deserves to be called a neutral, generally applicable law. In a 1999 New Jersey case, he decided in favor of two Muslim police officers who wanted to grow beards, which they cited as a religious obligation. He reached this outcome by determining that their police department's policy of banning beards was not neutral and generally applicable because it included a single exception (for people with a skin problem aggravated by shaving). Judge Alito used a similar approach to limiting the Smith decision last year in Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania, in which he sided with a Lakota Indian who claimed he derived spiritual powers from two black bears and demanded that the state waive fees imposed on those who keep wildlife. Both decisions displayed a sensitivity to the needs of adherents of minority religions that was absent from Justice Scalia's opinion in the Smith case. Those who oppose Judge Alito reflexively may see conservative ideology in his accommodation of religion in those decisions, but the critics should remember that the dissenting justices in the Smith case were Harry Blackmun, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall - then the three most liberal members of the court. Those men saw the free exercise clause as recognizing the interests of members of minority groups, and Judge Alito's decisions protected those interests. Yes, chances are that a Justice Alito will please conservatives more often than liberals. Doubtless, many liberals will anguish over Judge Alito's opinion, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that would have upheld a law requiring that husbands be notified when their wives seek abortions. Still, they should give serious study to his record; they may discover that there are varieties of judicial conservatives, just as there are varieties of political conservatives, and that Samuel Alito is not Antonin Scalia. In a more general sense, President Bush should be commended for nominating someone with so substantial a judicial record. In the decades since the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination, presidents have unfortunately tended toward "stealth" nominees out of fear that actual evidence of the person's jurisprudence would only give ammunition to his opponents. Mr. Bush had followed that pattern: his thwarted nominee Harriet Miers had no serious constitutional law writings, and even Chief Justice John Roberts had only a handful of constitutional law cases from his two years on the bench. Those Democrats who are already insisting that Judge Alito's record on the bench makes him unacceptable should keep in mind that someday they, too, will have a president with a Supreme Court seat to fill, and it would serve the country well if that president wasn't forced to choose only among candidates with no paper trail. To oppose Judge Alito because his record is conservative is to condemn us to a succession of bland nominees and to deprive future presidents of the opportunity to choose from the men and women who have dedicated long years to judicial work. Ann Althouse is a professor of law at the University of Wisconsin.
From the WSJ: Samuel Alito By JONATHAN H. ADLER November 1, 2005; Page A16 With the nomination of Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, President Bush has returned to the approach that served him so well when he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court -- that of picking the best available candidate irrespective of diversity concerns. Judge Alito's credentials are more like those we have come to expect from Supreme Court nominees, including an Ivy League education and substantial judicial experience -- more than any Supreme Court nominee since before World War II. Yet he also has significant executive branch and prosecutorial experience that could add a unique perspective to the court. There is nothing "stealth" about this choice, no need to fight over documents or trust that the president knows Judge Alito's "heart," for a brilliant judicial mind is clearly on display in his public record. Over the past 15 years he has shown himself as a thoughtful, serious conservative with impressive intellectual chops. This is not meant to denigrate the accomplishments or integrity of Ms. Miers, an accomplished attorney who has dedicated much of her life to public service. Indeed, it is to Ms. Miers's profound credit that after her withdrawal, she immediately turned to helping pick the next nominee. Judge Alito is a supremely qualified nominee who should (though he may not) win a quick and easy confirmation. Some Senate Democrats will find reasons to oppose him, but he once held their support. He was confirmed unanimously by a Democratic Senate in 1990 only two months after he was first nominated by George H.W. Bush. There being no question about Judge Alito's accomplishments and credentials, the debate over this nomination will focus squarely on his jurisprudence. Already at least one Democratic aide reportedly called Judge Alito a "right-wing wacko." Such epithets grossly distort his record. He is not a dogmatic conservative; his record shows a man more interested in getting the law right and faithfully applying applicable precedents than scoring rhetorical points or advancing an ideological agenda. As he commented in an interview earlier this year, "Judges should be judges. They shouldn't be legislators, they shouldn't be administrators." Judge Alito is most often compared to Antonin Scalia. Years ago one journalist even dubbed him "Scalito," and the name stuck. While the two share an ethnic heritage and a constitutionalist judicial philosophy, it would be easy to overstate the comparison. Judge Alito's opinions are rarely adorned with zingers or verbal barbs at his colleagues. What he may lack in rhetorical flair, however, he more than makes up for with analytical rigor. Whereas Justice Scalia's caustic wit and penchant for tweaking his colleagues (particularly Justice O'Connor) might have cost him in building court majorities, Judge Alito's subtle charm and cooler approach could make him a powerful intellectual force on the court. A Justice Alito may vote with Justice Scalia on many issues, but they would hardly march in lockstep -- and when they disagree we would be treated to an intellectual debate of the highest order. One area we may expect to see differences between the two is on the First Amendment. Judge Alito's record suggests that he is more sympathetic to religious liberty claims, and more willing to hold that purportedly neutral government regulations unnecessarily impede upon the right to live in accord with one's religious ideals. He has ruled favorably in challenges by Muslims and Native Americans who argued that local laws impermissibly burdened the exercise of their faiths. There are also indications a Justice Alito could take a more expansive view of constitutional protection for free speech, including religious expression. In several cases he has voted to protect public school students' rights to express their own religious views. Judge Alito's most controversial opinion may be his partial dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which he voted to uphold the constitutionality of a spousal notification requirement for abortions. The three-judge panel in Casey unanimously upheld several abortion restrictions adopted by the Pennsylvania Legislature, including a parental-notification requirement and a 24-hour waiting period before a woman could obtain an abortion. While both policies may restrict the availability of abortion, neither constituted an "undue burden" on a woman's right to abort her fetus, as the Supreme Court subsequently held. Where Judge Alito differed with his colleagues was on whether it was an "undue burden" to require married women to notify their husbands prior to obtaining an abortion. This requirement was subject to several exceptions and was easily circumvented. After a careful reading of the available Supreme Court precedent, Judge Alito concluded that this spousal notification was a constitutionally permissible limitation on a woman's right to an abortion. His opinion gives no hint as to whether he would personally support spousal notification, or other regulations. This is not a judge's role, he explained: "Whether the legislature's approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether [the law] meets constitutional standards." This is the hallmark of judicial restraint. Placing Judge Alito's Casey dissent in the context of his other abortion-related decisions further demonstrates his commitment to law over predetermined policy outcomes. In Planned Parenthood v. Farmer (2000), he joined the court in striking down New Jersey's ban on partial-birth abortion as inconsistent with prevailing Supreme Court precedent. Five years earlier, he joined a majority opinion that deferred to an executive branch agency's interpretations of federal law, even though doing so meant blocking a state from limiting government funding of abortions. In short, his record is neither that of a "pro-life" or "pro-choice" judge, but of a "pro-law" judge. It is often said that judicial appointments are perhaps the most important part of a president's legacy. If so, this part of the Bush legacy should be secure. In nominating Chief Justice Roberts and now Judge Alito, President Bush has nominated two jurists with powerful intellects who could shape the law for years to come. We may not all agree with all of their decisions, but we will respect their judgment, appreciate their analyses, and admire their commitment to the law. As a law professor, I look forward to the opportunity to study Justice Alito's future opinions with my students, as I am confident a Justice Alito would contribute well to a Supreme Court of which we can all be proud. Mr. Adler teaches law at Case Western Reserve University and is a visiting professor at the George Mason University School of Law. Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113081034940184871.html
"Meant" being the key word. I understand you point, but when was the last time either party utilized the confirmation process solely to judge qualifications?
It seems as though the liberals are outraged that Bush would nominate a conservative judge (despite political beliefs not being the basis for confirmation). My question is why the outrage? Bush won the election, and to the victor goes the spoils. Bush is under no obligation to nominate a moderate or a liberal. In fact, he should reward those who voted for him by nominating someone that shares the voters' beliefs. He has done that with Alito. What the liberals don't understand is that they lost the election. They are in the minority. They are acting as if Bush is wronging the entire nation by having the gall to nominate a conservative. What they are ignorant to is that Bush is pleasing more people than he is displeasing with this nomination. Because of the liberals self-centered mindset and misguided beliefs on what the nation wants, they are out in left field (again) on the issue. ...and they wonder why they can't grab control of any branch of government...
He will legislate from the bench By Dahlia Lithwick Posted Monday, Oct. 31, 2005, at 2:26 PM ET Well, boo. It's magic. Almost as if the whole Harriet Miers debacle never happened, President Bush has rapidly retreated from his judicial preferences of last month. The urgency of filling Sandra Day O'Connor's seat with another woman has been erased; the importance of balancing the too-scholarly court with a practicing attorney has evaporated; and the need to put an outsider onto the court is long forgotten. Suddenly George Bush's vision for what the high court most needs maps perfectly with that of the movement conservatives who sank the Miers nomination. Never has a pander felt so good. In the true spirit of Halloween, a month of vicious attacks from the right has been papered over, and this nomination is dressed up as if the last one never occurred. So rededicated is President Bush to keeping his promise to elevate a Clarence Thomas or an Antonin Scalia to the high court, that he picked the guy in the Scalia costume. Alito offers no surprises to anyone. If explicit promises to reverse Roe v. Wade are in fact the only qualification now needed to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, Alito has offered that pledge in spades: In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey—which later became the case that reaffirmed Roe, Alito dissented when his 3rd Circuit colleagues struck down Pennsylvania's most restrictive abortion regulations. Alito felt that none of the provisions proved an undue burden, including a requirement that women notify their spouses of their intent to have an abortion, absent narrow exceptions. Alito wrote: "The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems—such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition—that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." Sandra Day O'Connor rejected that analysis, and Casey reaffirmed the central holding of Roe. Then Chief Justice Rehnquist quoted Alito's dissent in his own. You'll hear a lot about some of Alito's other decisions in the coming days, including his vote to limit Congress' power to ban even machine-gun possession, and his ruling that broadened police search powers to include the right to strip-search a drug dealer's wife and 10-year-old daughter—although they were not mentioned in the search warrant. He upheld a Christmas display against an Establishment Clause challenge. His prior rulings show that he would raise the barriers for victims of sex discrimination to seek redress in the courts. He would change the standard for analyzing race discrimination claims to such an extent that his colleagues on the court of appeals fretted that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, would be "eviscerated" under his view of the law. He sought to narrow the Family and Medical Leave Act such that states would be immune from suit—a position the Supreme Court later rejected. In an antitrust case involving the Scotch tape giant 3M, he took a position described by a colleague as likely to weaken a provision of the Sherman Antitrust Act to "the point of impotence." And there's a whole lot more where that came from. Best of all for Bush's base, Alito is the kind of "restrained" jurist who isn't above striking down acts of Congress whenever they offend him. Bush noted this morning: "He has a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society. He understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people." Except, of course, that Alito doesn't think Congress has the power to regulate machine-gun possession, or to broadly enforce the Family and Medical Leave Act, or to enact race or gender discrimination laws that might be effective in remedying race and gender discrimination, or to tackle monopolists. Alito thus neatly joins the ranks of right-wing activists in the battle to limit the power of Congress and diminish the efficacy of the judiciary. In that sense Bush has pulled off the perfect Halloween maneuver: He's managed the trick of getting his sticky scandals off the front pages, and the treat of a right-wing activist dressed up as a constitutional minimalist.
I do agree that to the victor goes the spoils. However, you are incorrect in assuming that the majority of the country is right-wing ultra conservative. What the 2004 election proved was that the majority is closer to Bush than it is to Kerry. That's all it proves. When Clinton won his 8 years , that didn't mean that we were a country full of Ted Kennedys. Similarly, two Bush wins does not mean that we are a country full of Barry Goldwaters. God I hope we are not a country full of Barry Goldwaters!
From the LA Times this morning. I think these people have a better feel for Judge Alito than all the armchair hate-spewing liberals. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-legal2nov02,0,4962703.story?coll=la-home-nation Liberals who have worked with Samuel A. Alito Jr. say he is fair, not a rigid ideologue. By David G. Savage and Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writers WASHINGTON — Samuel A. Alito Jr. was quickly branded a hard-core conservative after President Bush announced his nomination, but a surprising number of liberal-leaning judges and ex-clerks say they support his elevation to the Supreme Court. Those who have worked alongside him say he was neither an ideologue nor a judge with an agenda, conservative or otherwise. They caution against attaching a label to Alito. Kate Pringle, a New York lawyer who worked last year on Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign, describes herself as a left-leaning Democrat and a big fan of Alito's. She worked for him as a law clerk in 1994, and said she was troubled by the initial reaction to his nomination. "He was not, in my personal experience, an ideologue. He pays attention to the facts of cases and applies the law in a careful way. He is conservative in that sense; his opinions don't demonstrate an ideological slant," she said. Jeff Wasserstein, a Washington lawyer who clerked for Alito in 1998, echoes her view. "I am a Democrat who always voted Democratic, except when I vote for a Green candidate — but Judge Alito was not interested in the ideology of his clerks," he said. "He didn't decide cases based on ideology, and his record was not extremely conservative." As an example, he cited a case in which police in Pennsylvania sent out a bulletin that called for the arrest of a black man in a black sports car. Police stopped such a vehicle and found a gun, but Alito voted to overturn the man's conviction, saying that that general identification did not amount to probable cause. "This was a classic case of 'driving while black,' " Wasserstein said, referring to the complaint that black motorists are targeted by police. Though Alito "was a former prosecutor, he was very fair and open-minded in looking at cases and applying the law," Wasserstein said. It is not unusual for former law clerks to have fond recollections of the judge they worked for. And it is common for judges to speak respectfully of their colleagues. But for a judge being portrayed by the right and left as a hard-right conservative, Alito's enthusiastic backing by liberal associates is striking. Former federal Judge Timothy K. Lewis said that when he joined the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1992, he consulted his mentor, Judge A. Leon Higginbotham Jr. The late Higginbotham, a legendary liberal and a scholar of U.S. racial history, was the only other black judge on the Philadelphia-based court at the time. "As he was going down the roster of colleagues, he got to Sam Alito. I expressed some concern about [him] being so conservative. He said, 'No, no. Sam Alito is my favorite judge to sit with on this court. He is a wonderful judge and a terrific human being. Sam Alito is my kind of conservative. He is intellectually honest. He doesn't have an agenda. He is not an ideologue,' " Higginbotham said, according to Lewis. "I really was surprised to hear that, but my experience with him on the 3rd Circuit bore that out," added Lewis, who had a liberal record during his seven years on the bench. "Alito does not have an agenda, contrary to what the Republican right is saying about him being a 'home run.' He is not result-oriented. He is an honest conservative judge who believes in judicial restraint and judicial deference." In January 1998, Alito, joined by Judge Lewis, ruled that a Pennsylvania police officer had no probable cause to stop a black man driving a sports car after a rash of robberies in which two black males allegedly fled in a different type of sports car. The driver, Jesse Kithcart, was indicted for being a felon in possession of a gun, which police discovered when they patted him down after his car was stopped. After a trial judge refused to suppress the search, Kithcart pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal. "Armed with information that two black males driving a black sports car were believed to have committed three robberies in the area some relatively short time earlier," the police officer "could not justifiably arrest any African-American man who happened to drive by in any type of black sports car," Alito wrote. He said the trial judge had erred in concluding that the police had probable cause that extended to the weapons charge because Kithcart had not been involved in the robberies. Alito and Lewis sent the case back to the trial judge for new hearings on whether the search was legal. The third judge in the case, Theodore A. McKee, said he would have gone even further. "Just as this record fails to establish" that the officer "had probable cause to arrest any black male who happened to drive by in a black sports car, it also fails to establish reasonable suspicion to justify stopping any and all such cars that happened to contain a black male," wrote Judge McKee. He said he would have thrown out the search without further proceedings. Judge Edward R. Becker, former chief judge of the 3rd Circuit, said he also was surprised to see Alito labeled as a reliable conservative. "I found him to be a guy who approached every case with an open mind. I never found him to have an agenda," he said. "I suppose the best example of that is in the area of criminal procedure. He was a former U.S. attorney, but he never came to a case with a bias in favor of the prosecution. If there was an error in the trial, or a flawed search, he would vote to reverse," Becker said. Some of his former clerks say they were drawn to Alito because of his reputation as a careful judge who closely followed the text of the law. Clark Lombardi, now a law professor at the University of Washington, became a clerk for Alito in 1999. "I grew up in New York City, and I'm a political independent. But I liked Judge Alito because he was a judicial conservative, someone who believed in judicial restraint and was committed to textualism," he said. "His approach leads to conservative results in some cases and progressive results in other cases. In my opinion, he is a fantastic jurist and a good guy." Some of Alito's former Yale Law School classmates who describe themselves as Democrats say they expect they will not always agree with his rulings if he joins the Supreme Court. But they say he is the best they could have hoped for from among Bush's potential nominees. "Sam is very smart, and he is unquestionably conservative," said Washington lawyer Mark I. Levy, who served in the Justice Department during the Carter and Clinton administrations. "But he is open-minded and fair. And he thinks about cases as a lawyer and a judge. He is really very different from [Justice Antonin] Scalia. If he is going to be like anyone on the court now, it will be John Roberts," the new chief justice. Joel Friedman teaches labor and employment law at Tulane University Law School, but is temporarily at the University of Pittsburgh because of Tulane's shutdown following Hurricane Katrina. "Ideology aside, I think he is a terrific guy, a terrific choice," said Friedman, a Yale classmate of Alito's. "He is not Harriet Miers; he has unimpeachable credentials. He may disagree with me on many legal issues — I am a Democrat; I didn't vote for Bush. I would not prefer any of the people Bush has appointed up until now. "The question is, is this guy [Alito] going to be motivated by the end and find a means to get to the end, or is he going to reach an end through thoughtful analysis of all relevant factors? In my judgment, Sam will be the latter." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Savage reported from Washington and Weinstein from Los Angeles.
I haven't seen anyone question this guy's character, but the fact remains that his views are not the same as mainstream America, especially concerning roe v wade. It is clear, that Americans are set to oppose him if it becomes clear to them that he would overturn it. This is why you are seeing the GOP talking points about how he wouldn't overturn it come out so quickly from t_j. The right knows that America as a whole wants to protect a woman's right to choose what happens to her body.
Filibuster looking unlikely! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174699,00.html Biden: Alito Filibuster Unlikely Sunday, November 06, 2005 WASHINGTON — A Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday he believes Samuel Alito (search) will get an up-or-down vote on his Supreme Court bid. "We should commit," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., minimizing prospects of a Senate filibuster that would prevent final action on President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search). "I think the probability is that will happen," Biden said on ABC's "This Week." Bush last week selected Alito, a former Reagan administration lawyer who is currently a judge on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, after White House counsel Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination amid withering criticism from conservatives. Alito's confirmation hearings begin in the committee on Jan. 9. Some Democrats have raised the prospect of a filibuster (search) until they get a fuller sense of his views on abortion (search) and other social issues on which O'Connor has been a swing vote. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., another Judiciary Committee member, said he was not hearing his Democratic colleagues discussing the filibuster option. Kennedy said he had an open mind about Alito's nomination, although he was concerned about the judge's rulings on privacy rights and rights of the disabled. Alito wrote a 1991 dissent in a case in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses. O'Connor was an author of the Supreme Court ruling that found the notification unconstitutional. "The people that were so enthusiastic about knocking down Miers are so enthusiastic about this nominee. We have to find out why are they so enthusiastic this time and what do they know that we don't know," Kennedy said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of 14 centrists who averted a Senate breakdown over judicial nominees last spring, said most members of the centrist group including himself are "favorably disposed" toward Alito. The Democrats "are making up their minds and waiting for the hearings which is entirely appropriate, ... but so far I have not seen any significant concern that might lead to the filibuster," McCain said on "FOX News Sunday." Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said he will support Alito based on his conservative philosophy as well as his credentials as a former government lawyer and prosecutor. "I think he represents the best of judicial prudence, style and qualifications," Hagel said.
There's nothing wrong with a conservative court. It just means states will get to make decisions instead of the feds. I doubt the Supreme Court will act in a way that will upset the mainstream country. They tend to not do that. So really, there's no problem. Everyone is screaming and crying, but I think Alito is a good pick.
