As much as having to think about this makes my head hurt, it's important

You know the drill. In an ideal world, I would be able simply to look at someone like Judge Alito and say, "hey, fuck that guy," and be done with it.

Sadly such is not the case, and I don't really know what I can say about this that I or someone (much) more respectable hasn't already said.

Just because a man is intelligent does not make him incapable of holding stupid opinions. And let's be frank. There is a fallacy in much of todays society that all opinions are equal. It is quite simply not true. Some opinions are, as Douglas Adams would say, "A very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

It has been said that there is a set of voters who share his views and that they deserve representation. They have representation, in the House of Representatives. They do not, however, have the right to hold their views as a standard over others.

The Christian Coalition is cheering. Every sensible person should think twice when that happens.

Alito will vote in favor of Intelligent Design
He will vote to uphold bans on stem cell research
He will vote to uphold a ban on same sex marriage

He may strike down Roe v Wade.

Let me qualify my opposition there, as my pro-choice stance is not the same as others.

I believe that abortion should be a last resort. I am also flatly opposed to abortion of late-term pregnancy unless it is absolutely necessary. So far as I can see it, if we mark the end of life at the stop of the heartbeat, we ought to mark the beginning of life at the start of the heartbeat. Of course, I am hardly a doctor, and my information here is hardly comprehensive. Just my thought, though I would claim it to be supported by logic.

And there's the rub. Roe v Wade defined it as conception. It said in no uncertain terms that abortion constituted ending a life. It therefore made any limitations on the termination of actually living fetuses unsupportable.

It should be noted that overturning the decision wouldn't affect a ban on abortions, rather it would allow states to ban them. But as Alice notes, that would just be a clusterfuck. If you would challenge the morality of abortion, I completely understand that sentiment. It is my opinion that you should direct your efforts towards convincing people (in a sympathetic way; judge not lest ye be judged, bitches) not to have abortions as opposed to convincing our government to ban them.

I admit that I could be wrong, though the way I see it that's what makes my arguement stronger.