Get used to saying “Scalia, Alito” rapidly, as in, “Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas,” who will be voting closely together in lots of cases.
Fortunately, there are still five pretty solid votes on the Court for the area I care most about, gay rights – Stevens, Kennedy (who wrote Lawrence and Romer), Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Now that O’Connor’s presumably gone, I think Kennedy’s going to become the new swing vote. Also interesting and still semi-applicable: this SCOTUSblog article from June about a possible “gang of three” – just replace “Rehnquist” with “Alito” in the following excerpt:
On a Court somewhat more conservative without O’Connor, Kennedy’s influence seems sure to grow. He has a chance to become the new balance wheel, a role that was filled so routinely by O’Connor. (Even if there were to form a solid Rehnquist-Scalia-Thomas-Roberts phalanx, they would still need Kennedy to prevail, and he would not be with such a quartet automatically.) Kennedy also has more influence than is sometimes credited to him. He has a store of common sense that saves him from ideological rigidity, and that steers him away from agenda-driven voting. He has an even deeper sense of what history asks of the few who become members of the Court. Those are summonses to the use of sound judgment.
As I’ve said recently, despite my relatively liberal social views, my judicial views have been in flux lately. Alito seems not be an ideologue or an asshole like Scalia, which is good. I prefer him to someone like Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen. (And hey – go, New Jersey, with two out of nine seats!)
The Harriet Miers nomination was bad for the Court as an institution. The Alito nomination is good for the Court, regardless of how good or bad it turns out to be for the country.
http://samuelalito.blogspot.com/
Not as amusing as Harriet’s- yet- but his profile has some sly amusements.
Well, what Scalia has repeatedly said is that he views the Constitution as a “dead document” — his words, not mine — and that he rules, basically, as if this were the America of 1781, not 2005.
For those of us who have to live in this century and not that one, this is a very scary thought. If any other branch of government broadcasted its intent to do this, who wouldn’t be terrified?
If Alito shares his views on “originalism” — and I’m sure that, if he makes it to confirmation hearings, he will deny this — I would argue that giving him the O’Connor seat will be bad for the court as well as the nation.
This is because the Supreme Court will be rejecting its responsibility — established through many decades of precedence — of interpreting law according to the prevailing values of the day, rather than according to some reconstructed Fundamentalist vision.
One thing that I liked about Harriet Miers, besides the fact that she was a Lesbian, was that I perceived her to be a lot less ideologically committed than other potential nominees, many of whom are very far right on the political spectrum.
In order for the Supreme Court to be healthy, we need justices who will make rulings that serve the interests of this country today — not the interests of some extinct, white, Protestant male plantation owner of the 18th century.
Slavery is gone; women can vote; Jews, Muslims and people of all faiths, not just Christians, are in the mainstream of this country. Interpreting the law as if all of this were not true is not just regressive. It represents a failure of judicial duty.
If Alito is another Scalia, the court goes to the sickbed.
I completely agree that Kennedy will be the new SOC. I don’t think he’s necessarily becoming more liberal (though he is a believer in that “let’s see what other countries do” movement), but I think he will begin to see himself as the guardian of the center.