A reading of the opinions of Samuel Alito reveals that he is an unexpectedly interesting judge, with a conservative record that shows a very different tone from that of Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas. He does not press ambitious claims, and each of his opinions is firmly anchored in the law. At the same time, his overall pattern of votes shows a great deal of deference to established institutions.

Unlike, say, Justice Scalia, Judge Richard Posner, and Judge Michael Luttig, Alito avoids theoretically ambitious claims. He rarely asks for large-scale reorientations of the law. His opinions are both measured and low-key. He does not insist that the Constitution must mean what it meant when it was originally ratified. If each opinion is read in isolation, the evaluation, even for those who disagree, would almost always be this: solid, more than competent, unfailingly respectful, and plausible.

There is not a lot of room under the Obama bus...but I am certain - after a life of protest for choice and knowing the commitment you feel when you really believe - that we will soon be looking up at BO's greasy axles with a lot of other people.

His statement that he does not believe that the right of privacy is contained in the Constitution or if was it would apply between a woman and her physician is troublsome. Also, he is a proponent of judicial minimalism which believe that Roe v Wade was incorrectly decided. From what I've read, they do not believe that it should be overturned outright but continually modified.

I have no great faith that Obama will appoint a justice that is fully committed to choice, rolling back "The President Is Above The Law or ruling for people over corporations

How could one be against Roberts and vote against him and then defend those who help seat Roberts? The answer is simple. Obama knew Roberts would get voted through so he was able to make a calculated and politically expedient vote of NO. And once that vote was cast for the record he showed where his heart was really at and defended those who voted YES.

Bottom line is that once again Obama let others do the heavy lifting while with his vote he stayed 'safe'. But yet in order to thank those who let him get away with that he went to their defense AGAINST the Left.

At this point I find I have to be delusional to survive this election cycle. Any carrot will do!

I also note he was a law clerk for Thurgood Marshall which isn't necessarily a predictor of anything - see Rhenquist.

Like or dislike Sunstein (I have only read one of his books) he appears to oppose Conservatives and so called originalists.

His stance on Roe appears to be misrepresented by someone here.

I am not saying that Roe v. Wade should be overruled. I don't think it should. It's been the law now for a long time. But I am saying that as a matter of pure self-interest, decisions like Roe often backfire.

So let's say the Roe v. Wade ruling was approached from a minimalist perspective, where would we be then regarding abortion rights?

The court might've gradually built up to something pretty close to Roe v. Wade without anything like the intense public backlash that Roe itself yielded. We would've eventually gotten there through the slow process of case-by-case decisions.

What bothers me more about Sunstein than his lack ability to predict behavior of conservative court picks (which the ghost of Thurmon Arnold is no doubt jeering), is any justice who is too committed to his judicial philosophy is too rigid and narrow to serve on the highest court. Felix Frankfurter comes to mind. Frankfurter I believe was one of the proponents of legal realism- or at least recognized the truth of a central tenant of legal realism, which is a judicial decision will  be influenced by the judge's background and to pretend otherwise is nonsense. Frankfurter as a justice so abhorred this that he rejected his own liberal background and became a conservative jurist, ironic for an informal advisor to FDR, who placed many of his proteges in the New Deal.

In any event, the Frankfurter example is one that I fear Sunstein could become, given his legal philosphy. From all that I have seen and read about Sunstein, his atrocious record on predicting judicial behavior of George W. Bush's nominees is not indicative of his own legal philosophy.  The Hugh Hewitt interview as presented here is noted and eyebrows are duly raised.

If Obama wants to listen, there are millions of us who have a stake in this thing, and while our views may not be grounded in legal principle, they are certainly grounded in how the law affects our lives.  We live the reality that legal theory creates, do we not?

Barack Obama is a lawyer who went to one of the best law schools in the country, where I daresay he was challenged on a regular basis to defend his views; is it unreasonable to expect that he should have some fairly solid core beliefs that survived those challenges, were molded by them and should be guiding him today?

Now, since he has become the presumptive nom, he is doing things on almost a daily basis which support those of us who opposed his nomination.

Granted, he is not McCain. That I can know for sure. But...is he a progressive? Liberal? Democrat? For a powerful executive? Deferential to the powers of the other branches? What kind of judges will he nominate to the Supreme Court? I do have questions about what he stands for and what he will do. I do not know what Obama stands for other than himself. I was about to add "and his family," then I remembered how he threw Grandma under the bus.

His recent speech saying that he will "do everything", (repeating and emphasizing the word "everything" so there was no mistake he meant anything and everything, read nuclear options) to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities is further indication his agenda is not pacifist, either, in the least.

He's selected Robert Rubin, one of the promoters of helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer under President Clinton (not his intention, but the results, meaning, he should have looked at the results of his economic policies. )Clinton and Rubin certainly didn't start it, but I felt both were in positions to do more to address the growing inequities.

Obama didn't get where he's gotten by stirring waters or championing the disenfranchised. I'm still shaking my head people voted for him without knowing anything about him.

I'm so disillussioned about our political process in this country.  With all the ways to get information, so many people seek out less and less of it.  How can any person make such an important decision as selecting the next president with out first checking into it?  I think they literally give more attention to selecting their brand and grind of coffee than choosing their president.  Very, very frightening.

Then, again, maybe they are watching Tom Brokaw interview the most powerful banker in Chicago talking about how how Obama sacrificed a good career and wealth in order to help the little people.  Did I miss something?  And, secondly, isn't this a rather bizarre, (but telling) person to be interviewing as a personal reference for Obama?  Banker Daly understands the nature of sacrifice and the plight of the underprivileged?

I appreciate that Talkleft.com is here.  I just wish more people would use the site.

Here is an article from Sunstein himself about how it works.

Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama. For more than a decade, Obama was my colleague at the University of Chicago Law School.

He is also a friend. But since his election to the Senate, he does not exactly call every day. On this occasion, he had an important topic to discuss: the controversy over President George W. Bush's warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls between Americans and suspected terrorists. I had written a short essay suggesting that the surveillance might be lawful. Before taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through. In the space of about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the President's power as commander-in-chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more.

Obama wanted to consider the best possible defense of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened carefully and offered a specific counter-argument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said that he thought the program was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time.

The Talking Dog: Let me turn briefly to your former Univ. of Chicago colleague Senator Barack Obama (and coincidentally my college classmate at Columbia)... and I understand you are informally advising Sen. Obama. You have commented that you believe he is less disposed to surround himself with his own "echo chamber" than other politicians, and is the kind of person encouraging of contrary views... how would you rate his use of the media amidst his overall campaign themes (Facebook recruiting, web fundraising, Oprah, etc.) in light of your best hopes for how a democratic discourse best operates?

Cass Sunstein: I am a big admirer of Sen. Obama, and I think his overall campaign has been excellent, in terms of democratic discourse. He's almost always generous to those who disagree with him, he's substantive, he's among the fairest candidates in the last decades, and he doesn't condescend to the electorate. Sometimes he even tells people things that they don't want to hear. I haven't followed his use of Facebook and web fundraising, but I think the founders would be impressed with his campaign.

closely associated with the anti-pornography radical feminists Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, that proposed to treat pornography as a violation of women's civil rights, and to allow women harmed by pornography to seek damages through a lawsuit in civil court. The approach was distinguished from traditional obscenity law, which attempts to suppress pornography through the use of prior restraint and criminal penalties.

The ordinances were originally written in 1983 by Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, and supported by many (but not all) of their fellow members of the feminist anti-pornography movement. Versions of the ordinance were passed in several cities in the United States during the 1980s, but were blocked by city officials and struck down by courts, who found it to violate the freedom of speech protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I had Susntein for Administrative Law and got to know him personally.  We lived in the same building while he was visiting at Columbia.  He's a great teacher, a nice guy and an ardent feminist, which partly explains his support for the Minneapolis civil rights ordinance.

Sunstein's argument for its constitutionality is based on his notion that there is a hierarchy of speech, with political speech at the top and "mere masturbatory aids" like pornography at the bottom.  Given that research shows a very weak correspondence between violent pornography and a tendency toward violence against women, Sunstein believes the social utility of pornography is outweighed by the slight increase in possible harm it might cause.  And Sunsetein believes that such a balancing test is allowed under the First Amendment.