I've heard enough

Any semi-regular visitor knows I have virtually steered clear of Supreme Court nominees. John Roberts is too conservative for my taste but there was nothing there that could justify a rejection. Not so with Sam Alito.

This story clinches it. It strikes me as a stirring affirmation of Barney Frank's old line that conservatives believe life begins at conception and ends at birth. It makes a mockery of the claim that pro-life means pro-child.

The callous disregard of the psyche of the 10-year-old child by subjecting her to a strip search is shocking. Let's assume for the sake of argument the child was carrying contraband. Adding another indignity in the form of a strip search on top of that is disgraceful. Wasn't there another option?

Ten-year-olds are not hard bitten criminals. How about asking a direct question rather than engage in conduct that could be found as sexually abusive by a judge with a heart -- and a brain).

What started me leaning against was the mind-boggling discovery that he had a problem with "reapportionment." The excuse that he was raising the issue of whether each person is entitled to a vote simply in the context of a job interview is bogus.

Anyone looking to appease a hiring authority by coming down against established law (and basic justice) by spouting support for a system that helped keep Jim Crow in place and disenfranchised the poor should be rejected for bad judgment.

That is especially true for his current job application.