Alito even opposes "one man, one vote."

[Karmadillo]

What a nut. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to give the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States a win on this one.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/nov2005/alit-n17.shtml

<edit>

Alito claimed his “deep interest in constitutional law” and his motivation to become a lawyer developed out of his “disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment.” His highlighting these three areas of jurisprudence is particularly revealing of his extremely reactionary and authoritarian legal views.

From 1953 to 1969, when Earl Warren was chief justice, the Supreme Court handed down criminal procedure rulings enforcing civil liberties laid down in the Bill of Rights and barring certain police and judicial abuses. Among the most far reaching was Mapp v. Ohio (1961), which recognized for the first time that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures” applied to state and local police as well as to federal agents, and established the “exclusionary rule” barring the use of illegally seized evidence in criminal trials.

Five years later, the Warren Court decided the well-known case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), mandating that police had to inform criminal suspects of their right to remain silent.

If Alito’s view were to be accepted by the current Supreme Court, civil liberties would be rolled back to the era when police routinely kicked in doors and ransacked homes without warrants, and arrested people without probable cause to take them in for the “third degree.”

Alito cited the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause because of precedents such as Engel v. Vitale (1962), which invalidated a New York law requiring “non-denominational” prayers at the beginning of the school day, and Epperson v. State of Arkansas (1968), striking down an Arkansas law that prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools. The judicial recognition of the strict separation of church and state underlying these rulings was considered essential to personal freedom by the nation’s founders.

Alito’s attack on the Warren Court’s reapportionment rulings is perhaps the most revealing of all. 1962’s Baker v. Carr established the rule that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection meant literally “one man, one vote.” As a direct result, election schemes throughout the United States, particularly in the Deep South, that effectively disenfranchised black voters had to be rewritten.

more...

[Deja Q]

1. But this will protect us from terrorists! And why worry, just do nothing.

:crazy:

[kurth]

2. No wonder the right wing is in orgasmic throes

The loud-mouth druggie and his ilk have been advocating for years that representation should be based on wealth, not headcount.

FILIBUSTER!