perfidy

I don't know much about Alito but all the Liberals were sputtering in indignation tonight on the news over him, so he must be good.

As for ownership of machine guns – it probably is unconstitutional to prohibit their ownership. The 2nd Amendment does not name exceptions.

I think you'll find that the liberal response (myself included) is guarded but positive. I've heard a number of interviews (on NPR, FYI) with people Alito has worked with in the past, and all were glowingly positive. University profs he's worked with, in particular, respond to his nomination with "delight", and at the same time indicate that they know they're going to disagree with him.

So be it -- I don't care if an SC justice is "conservative" (whatever that is these days) in his thinking. I care if he/she thinks at all. Alito has a long track record that puts him in the serious conservative column, and far more importantly he appears to be the kind of guy who will do what he thinks is right, not what is expedient.

Major cautionary notes about Alito include his Casey dissent, supporting a law that requires woman to notify their spouse if they intend to have an abortion. It is not clear to me if the law required consent or just notification, and whether the law indicated the spouse must be informed, or the father of the child. According to an interview on NPR this morning, Alito has spent his entire career as a government lawyer and hasn't once represented a private person. That's a problem to me, as the natural tendencies of such a person will be to assume that government is right, that government is to be trusted, and that the needs of the many....etc... ;)

Bush's administration has demonstrated in spades that government is not to be trusted. There's some "conservative" dork occupying the WJFK timeslot mid-afternoon who summarized Scooter Libby's predicament as "no harm, no foul"; said he shouldn't have been charged because there was no crime. Ye Gods.

On the SC -- I figure I'm essentially at the point where I don't care. There are FAR more important issues that this country must deal with, such as the fiscal wreckage that Bush is creating with his lack of leadership, and the fact that the current GOP would rather have a war in Iraq than state or government health care systems.

What Ross said, for the most part. The Prez won fair and square in '04... it's his perogative to name justices that fit his side's ideals. Alito seems to be the best we could hope for under those circumstances, much like Roberts. My only hope is that he is SERIOUS about the Constitution, more so than Scalia, who never met a moral issue that couldn't trump the law.

Oh, and Ross. From what I hear, on the spousal notification thing, the woman has to sign a document attesting she notified her hubby. Nothing more, which as far as limits to abortion go, is small beer.

I do share your caution about gubmint lawyers thinking that gubmint is the default protagonist, and I don't like that. I like big-government moralistic conservatism EVEN LESS than I like big-government moralistic liberalism.

Ross said:

"On the SC—I figure I’m essentially at the point where I don’t care. There are FAR more important issues that this country must deal with, such as the fiscal wreckage that Bush is creating with his lack of leadership, and the fact that the current GOP would rather have a war in Iraq than state or government health care systems."

A better illustration of the problem we have, one could scarce make up. Here, crystallized, is the notion that desired policy outcomes trump fundamental organizing principles.

The SCOTUS is far more important than the issues Ross cites, because it cuts straight to the heart of how this nation will be governed, and what the rightful relationship is between the individual and the State. The issue is this: Does the Constitution mean what it says?

If it does, then we're spending an awful lot of our time, talent, and treasure equipping the government to do things it is expressly forbidden to do.

If it doesn't, and we have a "living Constitution" that can therefore be amended according to preferred policy outcomes, why have an enumerated procedure for amending it...or indeed, why have a written Constitution at all?

Do you also believe, Ross, that the individual is the raw material of the State? I ask because I have heard this health-care canard one time too many. Suppose that all present health-care providers in the U.S. decide that they too would like their health care provided (ahem) "free", courtesy of the government. Who now is the service provider? Or does the government then force doctors and nurses to serve at gunpoint? It would be the utilitarian thing to do, after all.

Single-payer health care can be provided solely through the involuntary, State-mandated servitude of the medical profession.

Ken,
I have very little direct experience with state-sponsored 100% healthcare, and that was as a soldier. The medical corps does great if you're broken or bleeding. Otherwise...well, let's say I'd rather pony up my own $$ for a civilian specialist. Dentists, too.

As for indirect experience, I'll cite my in-laws. They live in Poland and are retired. They get a small gubmint pension and of course, universal healthcare.

And yet, a few times a year I send a coupla extra bottles of Jim Beam for medicinal purposes. Not because it helps papa's arthritis (necessarily!), but to bribe administrators, doctors, and other staff into getting the care that, absent small tokens, will be lacking.

That is, if the bottles make it. Their postal system is more corrupt than their cops and doctors combined.