Replies

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.