Supreme Court Nominee Alito Opposes Roe v. Wade--So?

It's big news. In an application to serve as an Assistant Attorney General under Ed Meese in the Reagan administration back in 1985, then-lawyer Samuel Alito wrote,

....the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion....I believe in this very strongly.

This has triggered debate as to whether this revelation could justify the "extraordinary circumstances" considered to be necessary for a Senate filibuster over his nomination to the Supreme Court.

Perhaps. But what's the point?

A majority of legal scholars already are on record as saying that in Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court found a "right to privacy" in the U.S. Constitution that isn't there. Even liberal, pro-choice legal eagles believe that the ruling should be rewritten and then given back to the U.S. Congress and the States to sort out the details.

So does this make Alito's opinion "extraordinary?" or "mainstream?"

I, for one, with little background in constitutional law, have been persuaded that Alito's view is correct. Along with the vast majority of Americans I do not believe in an unrestricted right to abortion in any form and for any reason and at any time during pregnancy.

Does this make me (and at least half of American experts on Constitutional law) ineligible to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court?

Absurd!

This is just as absurd as declaring as unqualified a nominee who has, at some point their lives, declared that Roe v. Wade is good Constitutional law!

That would not mean that I would be happy with the nomination of such a person but it would certainly mean that my opposition would need to come from some other angle...such as gross incompetence in the law!

Oh, well. I suppose that this will give the MSM something to crow about when the Christmas rush has ended and the Alito Senate Committee hearings begin in January. Yawn......