who said the following:
This Courts abortion decisions have already worked a major distortion in the Courts constitutional jurisprudence. Todays decision goes further, and makes it painfully clear that no legal rule or doctrine is safe from ad hoc nullification by this Court when an occasion for its application arises in a case involving state regulation of abortion. The permissible scope of abortion regulation is not the only constitutional issue on which this Court is divided, but – except when it comes to abortion – the Court has generally refused to let such disagreements, however longstanding or deeply felt, prevent it from evenhandedly applying uncontroversial legal doctrines to cases that come before it. That the Courts unworkable scheme for constitutionalizing the regulation of abortion has had this institutionally debilitating effect should not be surprising, however, since the Court is not suited to the expansive role it has claimed for itself in the series of cases that began with Roe v. Wade.
was it sam alito, or scalia, or clarence thomas? not so much. try this person.
more interesting reading on judge alito:
Charles Krauthammer: Judge Alito vs. Roe vs. Wade
ed whelan of NRO’s bench memos: Re: Alitos Advice on the Thornburgh Abortion Case
who says people can’t change their views on roe? not that alito will, necessarily, but here’s some evidence that it’s possible. more interesting and compelling blog posts to follow this weekend. keep reading. scroll down for more on iraq and very cute panda pics.