This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 |

« Congress, Corruption, and a Solution | Main | Gulf War Syndrome 15 years later »
Last July, I wrote about replacing Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
All I know for certain is that we have spoken for years in this country about Roe v. Wade as the litmus test for the court appointments. Would this person uphold it or overturn it? But should this particular litmus test matter?
As Samuel Alito inches closer to SCOTUS (clearing the US Senate Committee on a party line vote today), I encourage pro-choice readers to read why it isn't that big of a deal.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/195
You say it isn't that big of a deal, and yet comments like this are ubiquitous on the left: "When Alito puts on his Supreme Court robe, America can say 'Arrivederci' to a woman’s right to choose."
Buffalo Beast goes so far to name Samuel Alito as the #11 most loathsome person in America in 2005. http://www.buffalobeast.com/91/50.htm
Posted by: rammage at January 25, 2006 10:20 PM
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)