Replies

I can't help but notice the bias, or just plain sloppy handling, in the AP's reporting of the following exchange from Sen. Leahy about the Schaivo case: "Leahy asked: If a person has a living will, could he designate someone to decide whether to use extraordinary measures to keep him alive? "Yes, that's, I think, an extension of the traditional right that I was talking about that existed under common law, and it's been developed by state legislatures, and in some instances, state courts to deal with the living will situation and advances ... in medical technology, which create new issues in this area," Alito said. Schiavo suffered a brain injury in 1990 that left her in what some doctors called a "persistent vegetative state." Her parents sought to keep her feeding tube in place while her husband wanted to have it removed, citing her wishes and setting off a bitter court battle. Congress, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and his brother, the president, all sought to have the feeding tube reinserted. Schiavo died on March 31" The key is the beginning of Leahy's question of "If a person has a living will..." The problem, of course, was that Terri did not have a living will - thus the fight. That plain perspective is absent in the AP's reporting of the exchange.

Noticed that too. The bias is not so much what they say but what they leave out, trying to leave the impression that he's extreme.

Also, as a kind of wrap up, instead of the many times Alito did answer forthrightly, they decide the relevant statements are his few refusals based on the possibility he would see the cases...including abortion and immigration. Obviously written the way a lib would see it.

Nothing in the article, unless I missed it, alludes to his judicial philosophy that the Supreme Court should look at the facts of the cases before it, not proclaim sweeping opinions above and beyond the case, to keep an open mind, and to leave personal feelings behind.

A great example for me was the pollution case brought up by Feinstein. He ruled against (or dissented, can't remember which) the plaintiffs who tried to say they were damaged by a polluting plant. He decided that the plaintiffs had no evidence that they were damaged. That was the case before him...he didn't try to go after the company to right any "social" injustice. To Feinstein and libs, he should have decided the case before hand: a polluting company is guilty, no trial necessary. Should not matter what the facts are. That was a good illustration to me the difference between what a Dem wants and what a conservative wants on the bench.

In fact, the only quotes from Alito are refusals, agreeing with Leaky about living wills, and a compliment for O'Connor. Absolutely nothing in this article, if you only knew what was happening from this article, would tell you one thing about how Alito may rule on the Supreme Court. And therefore, if this writer had his way, you wouldn't have one reason to support him.