The Ali-to Shuffle
I found this article interesting. The author admitted that Alito was ducking questions on Roe left and right, and professed some slight annoyance. But he seems to believe that this is the only way to get nominated (which is the truth). Had Alito said anything against Roe, he probably would not have been confirmed. And that's why I could never be a Justice. The two options I'd have would be either totally ripping Roe, castigating the legal reasoning that went into it, and perhaps venting about any moral and philosophical problems I have with it (and believe me, I'm able to separate the three areas). Or, I'd have to swallow my self respect, and let myself be badgered by the likes of the insufferable Kennedy and the others on the committee. I'd have to meekly evade the issues, avoid saying what I feel, and deliver the most awful bilge about how I "respect precedent" and "don't want to talk about specific cases". And I don't think I could do it. I suppose that Alito has more self-restraint. But why do we want a wishy-washy middle of the road guy? Why not allow the passionate on the Court, those with strong views on issues? I'd rather have the battle lines clearly drawn than have the slough that is (or at least probably will be) the Court.http://nationaljournal.com/taylor.htm
Oh, and rather than have the Court have to have battle lines drawn, I'd rather have the American people make sticky political decisions. Maybe those who resolve our important and most divisive issues should be accountable to the American people. That wouldn't be such a bad thing, would it?