Depends on the Application

We all tailor our strengths, abilities, and beliefs to the subject we are trying to impress. That's why it should come as no surprise that Judge Alito is trying to pass himself off to Senators as a moderate with respect for precedent now, when in 1985, trying to get into Edwin Meese's Justice Department, he was singing a different tune:

“I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed, and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”

This cannot be surprising. Nathan Newman notices something that is:

But what is most striking about Alito's statement is this line:

In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment.

"Reapportionment"?

For the non-lawyers out there, Alito meant he was against the Supreme Court decisions requiring that all state legislative districts be designed to guarantee "one person, one vote", instead of giving some districts with very few voters the same representation as urban districts with far more voters.

So he believes that packing hundreds of thousands of voters into one urban district and giving it the same weight as an expansive rural district with a handful of voters is a great idea. That's the genius that went into all of those "See, the country is MOSTLY red" maps that came out last year, as if acres could vote instead of people. According to Alito acres should vote.

This adds on to the Vanguard conflict last week, where Alito ruled in a case from which he specifically said to Congress he would recuse himself. His answer to this was that he had been "unduly restrictive," which sounds like lawyer-speak for "I lied to the Senate and I don't care." I don't think the conflict of interest (what judge doesn't own some mutual funds?) is as important as the impunity with which Alito cast aside his own statements. Doesn't that mean he'd do the same with anything else he says in the confirmation hearings?

The more I hear about this guy, the more it concerns me. If we're not allowed to talk about specific cases in these hearings, then your integrity is of utmost importance. His finds me wanting.