Alito Nomination: I Got Nothing -- Which is Not a Bad Thing
---
If someone can give me a reason to oppose the nomination of Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Samuel Alito to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, then I'd like to hear it. Because, so far, I got nothing.
While I may disagree with his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I can't get too indignant about believing that it might not be a bad idea for a wife to tell her husband that she is planning to get an abortion. Again, not my view, but not an unreasonable view.
I see nothing from him on gay rights. Since his Circuit includes New Jersey, and the Third Circuit must therefore often decide questions based on New Jersey state law, I might be interested, were I a senator on the Judiciary Committee, whether he had any thoughts regarding Boy Scouts v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), in which the New Jersey Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court disagreed about whether the Boy Scouts could discriminate against gays while enjoying the use of public facilities. Dale, remember, is a key precedent in the upcoming Solomon Amendment / "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" case, Rumsfeld v. FAIR.
He seemed to like "rational basis with bite" Commerce Clause jurisprudence, voting to extend U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), back in 1996 — see his dissent in U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996):
In any event, unlike Harriet Miers, Judge Alito is indisputably qualified for the Supreme Court, whether one agrees with his jurisprudence or not. Barring any smoking guns, he deserves to be confirmed. For once the president got it right.
While I may disagree with his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I can't get too indignant about believing that it might not be a bad idea for a wife to tell her husband that she is planning to get an abortion. Again, not my view, but not an unreasonable view.
I see nothing from him on gay rights. Since his Circuit includes New Jersey, and the Third Circuit must therefore often decide questions based on New Jersey state law, I might be interested, were I a senator on the Judiciary Committee, whether he had any thoughts regarding Boy Scouts v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), in which the New Jersey Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court disagreed about whether the Boy Scouts could discriminate against gays while enjoying the use of public facilities. Dale, remember, is a key precedent in the upcoming Solomon Amendment / "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" case, Rumsfeld v. FAIR.
He seemed to like "rational basis with bite" Commerce Clause jurisprudence, voting to extend U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), back in 1996 — see his dissent in U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996):
Was United States v. Lopez ... a constitutional freak? Or did it signify that the Commerce Clause still imposes some meaningful limits on congressional power?I love it, but whether that's at all relevant after the recent medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich, No. 03-1454 (2005), is unclear.
In any event, unlike Harriet Miers, Judge Alito is indisputably qualified for the Supreme Court, whether one agrees with his jurisprudence or not. Barring any smoking guns, he deserves to be confirmed. For once the president got it right.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Final Thoughts on the Alito Confirmation
- Alito Nomination: On His "Gay Cases"
- Alito Nomination: I Got Nothing -- Which is Not a Bad Thing
Posted by Kip on
31 October 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
