So, you really think that Supreme Court justices should be chosen by popular vote? Where I am from, it is rude to opine on a subject on which one knows nothing of (some people say it is a form of terrorism). I just finished reading all of Alito's opinions, and I came to the conclusion that he probably would not be best for the country (for reasons you don't care about) -- but only after reading all of his opinions. Most of these Americans have not read his opinions, therefore they are not qualified to opine on the subject. God bless those without an opinion, becuase at least they know the damage that those who stated an opinion without reading his opinions have done to the country. I don't know if we can ever recover.

You can't. My opinion on him isn't that strongly-held, either, so I really don't want to convince people either way. However, to form such an opinion without first reading his, would be unAmerican and would probably help the terrorists.

Oh geez. Now that he's been compared to Hillary, someone's going to come up with some specious "personal family issues" that are going to make him withdraw his nomination. Way to go, Washington Times.

Unfortunately for typical poll tests, there is a 50 percent chance that those administering the test will be from the bottom half of the intellectual pile, so the typical "tests + discretion" of the Jim Crow days would have to go, even if discriminantion was possible to prevent. The people granted the discretion would be unable to exercise it in an informed manner.

Maybe require SAT scores above a certain percentile or something similar? Nearly everyone of even moderate intelligence has taken one of the college admissions tests by the time they can legally vote. The tests are generally unbiased. The LSAT would also make an excellent test for such purposes.

But this gets us back to the original structure of the government before the populist revolution of the early 20th. Remember that presidents are voted for by the electors (who were once selected for their wisdom, not as rubber stamps) and senators were once chosen by state legislatures. I would imagine that the state legislature of Florida would be far more discerning than the average Florida citizen and less amenable to talk of gay marriage and other irrelevancy.

I always thought that a major factor in Bork's rejection was his eccentric appearance: he looks like a nut. The fact that he is a nut, was secondary for the mass of the American People. Alito looks perfectly normal. He's mild-mannered, well-groomed, etc. He's also an authoritarian.

I don't want to see him on the Supreme Court for the same reason I wish Clarence Thomas was not on the Supreme Court: Alito is an evil prick, to use the technical term.

Would a constitutional majority of the American Body Politic agree with me, if they were fully acquainted with Alito's judicial character? I don't know that they would entirely agree with my labeling him an authoritarian, or that they would even agree "authoritarian" is properly considered a pejorative. The American People, on the evidence available, elected George W. Bush, the worst President since Buchanan, after four years of direct experience with his manner and his policies; their taste and judgement is questionable.

Like it or not, the political contest over Alito's nomination will involve a lot of propaganda. Since the Media is divided between a corporate, right-wing mainstream and an openly partisan Republican branch, with only a marginalized minority of center-left outlets, most of the propaganda will favor Alito. It will be just like the referenced Washington Times article -- puff pieces, which ignore his judicial record. Conservatives will find it convenient to avoid engaging, say, Dahlia Lithwick, in a discussion of the merits of his actual judicial philosophy.

I hold out a slim hope that Alito's nomination will fall victim to the reaction to Bush's overreaching on torture, detention, wire-tapping, etc. Bush is fairly viewed as conducting an assault on the rule of law, and Alito is fairly seen as an appointment meant to confirm that assault; for the sake of my country's future, I hope the country rejects that assault, Bush and Alito included. I'm not optimistic.

It is funny how the Alito opponents here resort to name-calling. Someone who had read Alito's opinion ought to be able to say something more substantial.

Shelby wrote, "In their defense, the principle alternative was no prize either. ;-)"

Exactly what I think, every time a Republican pundit recalls the 1972 Democratic nomination of McGovern.

Post-Whitewater and post-Campaign 2000, the selection pool of Democrats willing and able to brave the inevitable slings and arrows of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy (VRWC) is pretty shallow. Howard Dean, an apparently sensible fellow, for example, had the support of a lot of Democrats, but gets slapped down by the Media quite regularly. Dean's personal limitations as a speaker or a "political philosopher" are certainly no less severe than those of the moron we've got. But, Diane Sawyer and company disposed of him pretty easily. Kerry's nomination probably owes more than anything to the fact that his wife belongs to the same Pittsburgh billionaire's club as Richard Mellon Scaife, the Whitewater scandal financier, and, thus, Kerry could claim a limited exemption from Media slander of the most determined sort. She was accused in a report given surprising Media attention, though, of assaulting one of Scaife's reporters; a clear shot-across-the-bow to show that even Kerry was not beyond reach.

When a super-wealthy oligarchy dominates the Media, and heavily influences the operations of both Parties, it should be no surprise, that we get mediocrities for political posts reduced to ceremonial function by corruption and media manipulation.

Howard Dean, an apparently sensible fellow, for example, had the support of a lot of Democrats, but gets slapped down by the Media quite regularly.

Please tell me that you're trying to make a point through humor and that you don't really believe the above statement.

For that matter, it's probably rude to opine about the doings of President Bush, since most of the sources from which he gathers his insights are classified.

Bruce wilder said: Since the Media is divided between a corporate, right-wing mainstream and an openly partisan Republican branch, with only a marginalized minority of center-left outlets.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. How can the "mainstream" be "right-wing"? Doesn't the political spectrum necessarily center on what is considered "mainstream"?

Passing Visitor asks, 'How can the "mainstream" be "right-wing"?'

"Mainstream", I suppose, is partly a matter of style and partly a matter of institutional weight and positioning. I was not using it as a synonym for the centerpoint of the political spectrum, conceptually, philosophically or electorally.

Media (newspapers, magazines, radio, television, blogs) target markets. Some go for a broad appeal; some clearly tailor themselves more narrowly. "Mainstream" in this case means media, who are trying to serve a very broadly defined community, and I was using it as a contrast to media, who target a relatively more narrow audience.

CNN, as a matter of tradition and style, tries to appeal to a broad, American audience; Fox News, provides a lot more opinion, and the weight of that opinion tends to confirm Republican Party orthodoxy. On the basis of targeting, I would say that CNN is "mainstream", and Fox, partisan, even though Fox, most of the time, actually has a much larger audience than CNN. Similarly, the Washington Post tries to be the community paper for the Washington Metro area; the Washington Times targets political conservatives. The Post is "mainstream" and the Washington Times is not. The Post still has a usually quite conservative editorial page. And, the policy of its newspages is, apparently, to appease the White House. See, for example:

Digby1
and
Digby2

The first of the two links comments, briefly, on the presentation in the Post of an Alito poll, similar to the one, which heads this thread, so we are not completely off-topic.

Bruce Wilder, you can't seriously believe that the Washington Post "still has a usually quite conservative editorial page." If you do, then that judgment necessarily affects my view of all of your other assessments of the political orientation of various media entities. Mayube the Post is corporate liberal, but they are liberal nonetheless.