Interpretation of the Constitution should have nothing to do with diversity. The Constitution is the Constitution and where one was educated (assuming it was a school/schools that is/are respected - don't really need a nominee with a mail order degree) should not make a difference.

I disagree scaeagles. It isn't like the Supreme Court had rules on a simliar case five years ago and he could dissent hoping that something had changed.

The Supreme Court ruled on essentially an identical case in between the time his court started writing its opinion and when the opinion was issued. There was no way he could have ruled other than he did without completely rebuffing the supreme court.

But regardless, at no point in that case did he rule on the merits and it certainly gives no indication of how he would have ruled if he had been on the Supreme Court rather than a lower court.

I don't think a refusal to bluntly say "**** you" to the Supreme Court shows much restraint.

I disagree. Interpretation isn't done in a vacuum. If there was one magic answer, we wouldn't need a panel of 9. Heck, we wouldn't need a panel at all. Life experiences color our reasoning process. All schools have a certain character to them and that's bound to rub off on students, at least a little bit. East coast and west coast social environments are very different, and while education on both coasts might be substantively equivalent, my own experience meeting people from the other coast tells me that there are differences. (My dad likes to use the phrase "subtle but significant.") Aren't some political candidates criticised for being too "blue blood" and therefore insufficiently representative of the nation as a whole? Do we want a blue blood court.

Or, to put it another way, do you really think the school doesn't matter? Or if someone from a well-respected -- but not Ivy League -- school was nominated, would you think a little less of their academic preparation?

Eh, what do I really care. I'm just bitter today.

To me, the school that a Supreme Court nominee goes to is not all that important in evaluating them for the Supreme Court any more than I care what school the presidential or congressional candidates went to. (Or when doing my own hiring what school the applicants went to unless they are applying straight out of school).

By the time somone is nominated for the Supreme Court they are at least a quarter century (and potentially much longer) removed from their schooling. What has happened in between dwarfs the importance of the school to near insignificance.

And the fact that Ginsburg and Scalia both came from the same narrow category of school would tend to argue against that being a stifling factor. To the degree it is significant I think it shows how going to an Ivy League school puts you in range of contacts that eases the slide toward prominence.

As far as schools, not all the justices went to Ivy League schools. Several have Stanford affiliations, for their undergrad or grad degrees.

I so love that avatar. It makes me think everything you say is shocking.

Dragging this back up, now that the deed is done. Sigh.

By way of picking up the somewhat controvertial stance I took earlier, saying essentially that, since I disagree with the way Alito interprets the Constitution, I think he's unqualified and would vote against him, I've got an analogy for y'all to chew on.

Michael Eisner.

Michael Eisner is an eminently qualified CEO. He held high positions at a successful tv network and a movie studio. He helped save one of the most recognizeable companies from the brink of ruin, with strong financial growth through his entire 2 decades at the helm. Even amidst the controversy, on paper and from an investor's perspective, Eisner was a successful and experienced CEO. He is by all account an ethical man, and seemingly even friendly, in a "I'm so rich I've lost touch with reality" kind of way.

So with all that, but with what you know about the way he interperets how Disney should be run, would you cast a vote that says "Yes, this man is qualified to run Disney"?

I found the politics of this to be interesting. Those on the left with aspirations of the democratic nod for President in 08 were put in a position of having to support a failed filibuster. Kerry called for it, and so Clinton had to go along with it to have the support of the left in primaries. No support of filibuster, no support of the left wingers in primaries. I believe it was also an effort to stall confirmation until after the SOTU to prevent Alito from being seated with the SCOTUS.

But, back to the issue at hand.....I couldn't be happier the man was confirmed.

GD....interesting analogy. What would the board have done then? All you can do is look at the qualifications of the individual. No one has a crystal ball (example: David Souter, the worst justice on the court, IMO).

Would you consider Scalia unqualified? The man is brilliant, though if you disagree with Alito, I would guess you disagree with Scalia's take on the Constitution.

What scares me about your view point is that you dismiss intelligent people who disagree with you. I disagree with Ginsburg in just about every way, but she is intelligent and qualified. To dismiss intelligent people who disagree with you is to eliminate debate. I find that disturbing.

I don't think the filibuster attempt was a total failure. It didn't suceed, but it sent a strong message to Bush that there are many who disagree with his choice. In that regard, I'm glad it was done. I'd be even happier if it worked, but oh well.

Politically speaking, an attempt to filibuster that garners only 25 votes of support is a failure.

There was no attempt to send a message to Bush. Bush doesn't know there are people of the left who oppose him???? It was an attempt by the dems who want to be nominated for President to their left leaning supporters.