to demonize sitting "liberal" judges who uphold and/or expand civil rights and Constituional protections, as if there is something wrong with seeing the Constitution as an aspirational document that we have yet to fully live up to in terms of true freedom, justice and liberty. 

But the convservatives are arguably just as guilty of judicial activism in their fanatic protection of corporations, their exaltation of the corporation as something enjoying rights which equal if not exceed those of actual citizens without the same liabilities, their expansion of governmental power to infringe on our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and their prosecution of a class war against the poor.

There is a doctrine in the law called Stare Decisis.  It means giving respect and deference to the legal holdings that have evolved over the past 225+ years of our national jurisprudence.  it means prior cases have precedential value and should be honored absent legislative bypass.  So here is a question for judicial nominees:  What is your understanding of and commitment to the long honored legal doctrine of Stare Decisis?

It's one thing to read the Constitution and its Amendments as granting enumerated civil liberties and rights which should never be infringed and defining precisely what that means.  It is another to re-interpret existing laws to limit and restrict the rights and liberties previously granted.  That is, in part, the nature of conservative judicial philosophy.  Turn back the clock.  Take a "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution.  It's total bullshit.

When the Constitution was written, slavery was an institution in this Country.  Morally indefensible.  Sexism was institutionalized and codified.  Morally indefensible.  Corporations evolved throughout the 1800s and wielded monopolistic power to the detriment of our citizenry, causing a wave of "trust busting" legislation and resulting in the labor and employment laws that protect workers from unfair exploitation.  Ask Alito the extent to which he believes these changes were good and whether he will expand or retract protections in these fields.

Ask Alito about the "war on drugs."  What has been the real cost in terms of dollars?  How big are the "interdiction, prosecution and incarceration" industries that have grown up around this policy since the Reagan era?  What kind of drag does that  have on our economy?  What does he see as the benefit/harm of having so many people incarcerated for what amounts to a "consensual" crime, i.e., a voluntary decision by an adult to engage in a behavior that is only unlawful because of politics?  It's alot like prohibition, isn't it?

These are just some of the areas where more meaningful criticism and questioning could be leveled at the "strict constructionist" conservative judicial philosophy that is held by most GOP judicial nominees these days.  Their commitment to these things is the litmus test by which they are judged within their own party.  All I'm saying is these things deserve more scrutiny than they get.