The position papers, public statements, press releases and legal analyses critical of Alito's background, ideological bent and rulings in the past are coming out quickly.

Alliance for Justice has published a report on Alito (.pdf):

Despite President Bush’s suggestion that he values judges who are “restrained� and understand the limited role of the courts, Judge Alito has aggressively sought to curb Congress' legislative authority to tackle issues of national importance, voting to invalidate a federal prohibition on machine gun possession and part of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. For this reason, journalist and legal scholar Jeffrey Rosen, who supported the nomination of John Roberts, asserted that Judge Alito has been a “conservative activist� whose “lack of deference to Congress is unsettling.� [3] In the 1996 case upholding Congress’ authority to pass a machine gun ban, Judge Alito’s colleagues pointed out that the approach adopted by his dissent would require the elected branches of government to “play Show and Tell with the federal courts.�[4] Judge Alito’s views suggest a commitment to accelerating the arrogation of power to the Supreme Court and away from Congress that was one of the hallmarks of the Rehnquist era.[5]

[footnotes:]

3 Jeffrey Rosen, How to Judge, THE NEW REPUBLIC, Dec. 6, 2004, at 18.

4 United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273, 282 (3d Cir. 1996) cert. denied 522 U.S. 807 (1997).

5 As Jeffrey Rosen has noted, between 1995 and 2003 the Rehnquist court struck down thirty-three federal laws on constitutional grounds, doing so at a higher annual rate than any court in American history. Jeffrey Rosen, The Unregulated Offensive, THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, April 17, 2005.

The report continues....

In several divided decisions, Judge Alito has also undermined Congressional intent by voting in dissent to make it harder for plaintiffs to prove claims of race and sex discrimination. In one case, he was alone among 13 judges, voting not only to deny relief to the alleged victim but to place a new procedural hurdle in the path of others making discrimination claims. In another case, the majority asserted that that the federal law barring employment discrimination “would be eviscerated if our analysis were to halt where [Judge Alito’s dissent] suggests.� [6]

[footnote:]

6 Bray v. Marriot Hotels, 110 F.3d 986 (3d Cir. 1997).

Several pages of detailed analysis follow.

The National Women's Law Center is highly critical of Alito's nomination:

“It’s no secret that Justice O’Connor was the fifth vote in many 5-4 decisions that protected women’s fundamental rights and freedoms,� said Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women’s Law Center. “In nominating Judge Alito, President Bush has chosen someone who threatens the very existence of core legal rights that Americans, especially women, have relied on for decades.

“Instead of naming a consensus nominee, President Bush has opted to pick someone who meets the far right’s ideological litmus test,� Greenberger added.

NARAL Pro-Choice America also is strongly against Alito:

Alito took pains to distant himself from the longstanding constitutional requirement that abortion restrictions must have exceptions when a woman's health is in jeopardy. He did so when ruling on a law that effectively banned abortion as early as the 12th week of pregnancy and lacked an exception to protect women’s health. The health exception is a fundamental tenet of Roe v. Wade, and the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments about the need for the health exception this fall. Should Alito’s vote replace that of Sandra Day O’Connor, a fundamental right will likely be lost by next summer.

Alito has argued that significant restrictions on a woman's right to choose are constitutional. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Alito argued that all of the proposed law’s restrictions on a woman's right to choose – including a spousal notification provision struck down by the Third Circuit and, later, the Supreme Court – were constitutional. Alito dissented in part because he would have gone even further than the rest of the court.

Alito would uphold state laws that place significant roadblocks in the way of women seeking abortion care. Alito concurred with the majority’s opinion in Casey that concluded that “time delay, higher cost, reduced availability, and forcing the woman to receive information she has not sought,� although admittedly “potential burdens,� could not “be characterized as an undue burden.� This opinion practically ensures that he would never find any burden to be undue.

Statements against Alito are coming out so quickly, it's impossible to keep up.

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.