Alito? Yeah - I just imagine there are generic answers that illustrate a certain degree of knowledge and competence with the principles involved. I don't think there is any harm in reinforcing that this war is unlike past wars, and that "we" have a need for some new detail applications of Constitutional principles as a result.
I don't think Alito hurt his confirmation, I just picture better answers, even if generic answers, to a darn hot and timely topic.
Curious what he is suppose to say about a purely hypotetical situtation. Without the specifics of a case all a Justice CAN do is make general genaric statements. Anything else and he is going to be stomped on for pre judging the case. Alito is straight on. We are in a new form of warfare. Trying to stretch old legal definations and laws to cover Terrorism is dumb. You simply cannot treat Terrorists a citizens who have merely comitted crimes. Criminals are still citizens with rights. WE, as a society do NOT want to catch them after the fact, we have a right to DEFEND ourselves from them acting. However as NGO;s we cannot declare war on them. We need to develop new legal methods and structures for dealing with them. The President has made his case. The Congress has made theirs. Some one will have to bring a legal case and try it up the ladder to the SC. That is why we have a system of checks and blanaces. It is SUPPOSE to help us resolve these sorts of issues