Supreme Court

I know that I definately dropped the ball in the Miers process. I probably will have to do the same with Alito given how much busier I am during the academic year (as opposed to the blog-filled non-academic periods). All I really want to point out is two things. First, don't listen to me, just go to Volokh Conspiracy, they had something like 35 posts Monday. They were really on top of pointing out how a McConnell nomination was not going to happen. They also had a blurb from this article by the always intriguing Cass Sunstein. Cass summed up Alito in a manner I have heard twenty times before:

A reading of the opinions of Samuel Alito reveals that he is an unexpectedly interesting judge, with a conservative record that shows a very different tone from that of Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas. He does not press ambitious claims, and each of his opinions is firmly anchored in the law. At the same time, his overall pattern of votes shows a great deal of deference to established institutions.

Unlike, say, Justice Scalia, Judge Richard Posner, and Judge Michael Luttig, Alito avoids theoretically ambitious claims. He rarely asks for large-scale reorientations of the law. His opinions are both measured and low-key. He does not insist that the Constitution must mean what it meant when it was originally ratified. If each opinion is read in isolation, the evaluation, even for those who disagree, would almost always be this: solid, more than competent, unfailingly respectful, and plausible.

So basically this leaves us where Roberts left us over this summer: with the impression that he is a qualified pick (he has the pedigree Miers did not) with a conflicted judicial record. This is probably where Bush wants us to be, and I honestly don't think its a bad place to be. Much better than a Luttig or Owens alternative.

-Mr. Alec