He has a steady judicial philosophy.

His track record shows that he weighs each case and measures it against our Constitution.

He does not seem to be an outcome-oriented judge.

And whether or not you agree with his particular brand of interpretive thought, it is predictable and legislatures can tailor legislation accordingly. Outcome-focused folks often think that appointing a judge who will vote a certain way regardless of the facts or Constitution is a panacea. But whim-based, willy-nilly jurisprudence is bad for society. Gradual evolution is the way to go, if evolution is required.

I’d rather have a competent jurist with whom I might disagree (Alito) than an incomptent cipher (Meirs).

Actually, although it is the moonbats who are currently suffering seizures, I suspect the right may be less than fully satisfied with Alito’s constitutionally-based intepretation. As a fan of stare decisis, he’s unlikely to broadly overturn precedent. In fact, the abortion case that is making the left swoon should be giving palpitations to the pro-life crowd. Given a chance to argue against the constitutional reasoning of Roe v. Wade, he seems to have accepted the idea that abortion is a right, but the government can regulate some aspects as long as it doesn’t create an undue burden.

Winston Churchill once offered a woman a million pounds to sleep with him. She accepted. He then reduced his offer to one pound. “Winston!” She cried in dismay, “What kind of woman do you think I am?” “We have already established that. Now we are dickering over price.”

Alito apparantly accepts Roe v. Wade. He was just dickering over the definition of undue burden.

For the record, in Casey, I would have ruled the same way. If a married woman is aborting her child, the husband ought to be informed. He ought not to be able to stop her, but if he wants children, he ought to be able to make the decision about whether to stay in the marriage.

I haven’t read the machine gun case, but I understand Alito was against the regulation not because of some imagined 2nd Amendment right of individuals, but bcause the government doesn’t have an enumerated power and it wasn’t a necessary and proper law in the regulation of infrastate trade.