Alito's appointment worries me because of the way his appointment fits into the larger trajectory of the right wing agenda. I don't know that he's a wingnut, but I'm satisfied from what I've read and heard that he is an ideological power conservative who follows the law when it is clear, but when there is any ambiguity or wiggle room, he leans toward the interests of state and corporate power. The primary purpose of a supreme court justice is to resolve ambiguities in the law. Is there any real doubt about which way he will lean? He could surprise us, but you don't confirm someone on the basis of his possibly doing something we don't expect of him.
The consolidation of state and corporate power is the trend in our national life that threatens us most. I don't think there's a conspiracy required to accomplish this; it's the inevitable result of powerful people building strategic alliances with one another to promote their interests. Our problem now is that there is no countervailing power to inhibit or restrain the powerful from becoming more powerful. The Abramoff comedy is just the gaudy excess of a system that is so bent toward serving the needs of the already rich and powerful that you have to wonder if there is any hope of redeeming it.
Whatever role Alito may have played in developing doctrine around the unitary executive, he's clearly inclined toward promoting a broad definition of executive powers. His inclinations are therefore precisely the kind of thing that I see as problematic in our national life. He may not himself be an "authoritarian personality", but we have good reason to believe that he's the kind of jurist who will enable the emergence of others who are.
It should be clear that whatever their rhetoric, the GOP is not being driven by "small-government," principled conservatives. Power is the only principle that motivates the people driving policy in this administration. Most everything this administration does is motivated by power considerations--increasing it and consolidating it.
As I wrote in this blog, I would have voted for Roberts' confirmation. I would have done so uneasily for many of the reasons elaborated above. But it also comes down to my thinking more highly of Roberts than I did of Rehnquist. I saw Roberts' appointment as an upgrade for that particular seat. (Time will tell--Roberts' siding with the minority dissents of Scalia and Thomas in the Oregon v. Justice Dept. case about assisted suicide is not a good sign, and was a surprise. Rehnquist would have voted with the majority. It's federal power vs. local power, and Roberts sided with the Feds. This kind of thing should be dealt with, pro or con, on the local level.)
So taken in isolation, you could make the case that Alito, like Roberts, is qualified for the court. But this court, even with the moderate S.D. O'Connor on it, is already very right leaning. Its throwing the election to Bush in 2000 is a decision I believe will be perceived by historians as grossly partisan and a gross miscarriage of justice that had (is having) disastrous consequences.
And so because Alito's confirmation will throw the court even further to the right for years to come at a precarious time in our national history, I feel no ambivalence in hoping that his nomination will be vigorously opposed by the Democrats. This is not some glowing endorsement of the Democrats and their program. I just don't want things to become more unbalanced than they are already.