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.
Despite President Bushâ€™s suggestion that he values judges who are â€œrestrainedâ€? 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 â€œconservative activistâ€? whose â€œlack of deference to Congress is unsettling.â€?  In the 1996 case upholding Congressâ€™ authority to pass a machine gun ban, Judge Alitoâ€™s colleagues pointed out that the approach adopted by his dissent would require the elected branches of government to â€œplay Show and Tell with the federal courts.â€? Judge Alitoâ€™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.
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 â€œwould be eviscerated if our analysis were to halt where [Judge Alitoâ€™s dissent] suggests.â€? 
6 Bray v. Marriot Hotels, 110 F.3d 986 (3d Cir. 1997).
Several pages of detailed analysis follow.
â€œItâ€™s no secret that Justice Oâ€™Connor was the fifth vote in many 5-4 decisions that protected womenâ€™s fundamental rights and freedoms,â€? said Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President of the National Womenâ€™s Law Center. â€œIn 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.
â€œInstead of naming a consensus nominee, President Bush has opted to pick someone who meets the far rightâ€™s ideological litmus test,â€? Greenberger added.
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 womenâ€™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 Alitoâ€™s vote replace that of Sandra Day Oâ€™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 lawâ€™s restrictions on a woman's right to choose â€“ including a spousal notification provision struck down by the Third Circuit and, later, the Supreme Court â€“ 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 majorityâ€™s opinion in Casey that concluded that â€œtime delay, higher cost, reduced availability, and forcing the woman to receive information she has not sought,â€? although admittedly â€œpotential burdens,â€? could not â€œbe characterized as an undue burden.â€? 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.