President Bush nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., who currently serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to the Supreme Court today, four days after his previous choice withdrew her nomination.
The nomination is likely to please Mr. Bush's conservative allies, whose sharp attacks on Harriet E. Miers were instrumental in prompting her to withdraw last week. But the president is more likely to get a battle from Democrats and liberals who may believe Judge Alito's views are too extreme.


Full article at


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/politics/politicsspecial1/31cnd-court.html?hp&ex=1130821200&en=1100e2db3270fceb&ei=5094&partner=homepage

In a more general sense, President Bush should be commended for nominating someone with so substantial a judicial record. In the decades since the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination, presidents have unfortunately tended toward "stealth" nominees out of fear that actual evidence of the person's jurisprudence would only give ammunition to his opponents. Mr. Bush had followed that pattern: his thwarted nominee Harriet Miers had no serious constitutional law writings, and even Chief Justice John Roberts had only a handful of constitutional law cases from his two years on the bench.


Full article at




http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/01/opinion/01althouse.html?hp

The nomination of Samuel Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court raises a lot of questions about the judge's attitudes toward federalism, privacy and civil rights. But it has already answered one big question about President Bush. Anyone wondering whether the almost endless setbacks and embarrassments the White House has suffered over the last year would cause Mr. Bush to fix his style of governing should realize that the answer is: no.
As a political candidate, Mr. Bush had an extremely useful ability to repeat the same few simple themes over and over. As president, he has been cramped by the same habit. The solution to almost every problem seems to be either to rely on a close personal associate or to pander to his right wing.


Full Editorial at

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/01/opinion/01tues1.html

November 5, 2005
Court Nominees: The Role of Ideology (3 Letters)

To the Editor:
Re "Ideology Serves as a Wild Card on Court Pick" (front page, Nov. 4):
The debate over the appropriateness of ideological criteria for the Senate's vote on Supreme Court nominees should not ignore the simple fact that the nomination of justices by the White House does not ignore ideology.
If presidents nominated justices based solely on their qualifications, then senators could be expected to confirm or not based on the same criteria. But President Bush has clearly based his nomination on ideological factors as well as matters of competency.
If Mr. Bush can appeal to his base in this fashion, why can't senators do likewise in their vote to confirm or reject the nominee?
David Goldstein
Toronto, Nov. 4, 2005
• To the Editor:
By establishing an ideological litmus test, Senate Democrats are once again playing out their role as a gravedigger of democracy.
To be sure, both parties have played politics with Supreme Court nominees, but when a principled conservative is prevented from serving on the court, democracy is the loser.
Democrats will rue the day when principled liberals are similarly turned down by Republicans with their own litmus tests. Where will the future Ginsburgs, Breyers, Rehnquists and, for that matter, O'Connors come from?
David Shulman
Berkeley Heights, N.J., Nov. 4, 2005
• To the Editor:
Your Nov. 4 news article "Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings," about comments that Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. made to senators regarding his views on cases involving "church-state" issues, states, "Many liberals and religious minorities view the court's jurisprudence on separation of church and state over the last 50 years as a bedrock principle of American life."
True enough, but your article relates this issue only to the controversial questions regarding "government displays of the Ten Commandments and other public forms of religious expression" that fall under the high court's confused rulings on the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Religious minorities care just as much, if not more, about individual religious liberty under the free exercise clause that the Supreme Court, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, has eviscerated over the past 15 years.
On this front, it is most encouraging that Judge Alito's record shows support for a vigorous protection of personal religious liberty. He has upheld the rights of Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Native Americans and evangelical Christians in ways that show an appreciation for the diverse needs of adherents to diverse faiths.
Nathan J. Diament
Washington, Nov. 4, 2005
The writer is director of public policy, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations.