Me on Alito so far...
I've been combing through this guy's background, looking at rulings he's made & what his arguements have been, and I must say I'm shocked:
So far I see no reason to oppose Alito.
I'm not saying he's the type I would personally nominate, hell no. There's a couple things that are somewhat questionable, but they end up being nitpicky upon closer inspection. For example:
-"C.H. v. Olivia et al.". Spotted in summary form in Wikipedia's listing on Alito, that had me raising an eyebrow thinking his view in this was a sign of religious nuttery. Then I took a look at the details of the matter (summarized fairly accurately here in case you don't have all day) & saw that the point being made was less "how DARE you keep Jesus out of the schools!" and more like "y'know, insulting some kid's parents is probably not a good idea regardless of what they believe". So, question mark dropped.
-"Doe v Groody". Saw this one first on a news site, don't remember which one. Alito argued that searching a mother & daughter during a search of a residence didn't violate their rights. Obviously, my first impulse was to cry foul. Then I saw that though they weren't referred to explicitly in the warrant the request for it included searching all occupants -- which would cover them. If anyone is in the wrong on that one, it is whoever authorized the warrant in the first place; such a blanket grant of authority is troubling to say the least, but it was not Alito that granted it. No sense in blaming him for that one.
Add to having cleared up those bits that much of what interest groups are complaining about are issues where he's actually correct (i.e.: stating that the commerce clause doesn't give congress the power to ban machine guns) or are incidents that were created by screwy interpretation to begin with that he didn't have the power to clean up then (i.e.: ACLU v. Schundler), plus sufficient proof that the Bible-Thumping class isn't exactly getting what they expect (his rulings on abortion are actually a mixed bag), and his background actually stacks up to be decent. Again, I am shocked.
Unless he shows himself to agree with Luttig on US citizens being "enemy combatants", I'll have to just accept this one. He's not the fire-breathing Bringer of the Congressional Handcuffs I would've wanted, but he's qualified (read: not Miers), not an open Jesus freak (read: not Owens), & pretty even-keeled.