More on justice and fairness

Predictably, the San Francisco Chronicle has come out against Alito for the Supreme Court. It gives away its world view in this paragraph that makes clear why no one but a liberal activist could ever pass the Chron's test:

Alito had far more explaining to do about his past, and his answers fell short of satisfying concerns about his record of advocating repeal of Roe vs. Wade, highlighting his membership in a Princeton alumni group with retrograde views of women and minorities and all too frequently siding with government and businesses against individuals seeking redress. [Emphasis mine.]

The highlighted language is fascinating, since it has nothing to do with law. It doesn't say that Alito strained the law to favor business or government, or that he went directly against the law. It's simply wrong, to the Chron, that Alito sided with the government or business, regardless of what the law says. Ultimately, therefore, as far as the Chron is concerned, American's deserve a judge, not who will follow the law, but who will make sure to push forward a nonelected agenda. Ironically, in an attempt to defuse the word "activist," the Chron makes this argument in a paragraph where they describe Alito's judicial restraint, and his effort to ensure that each branch of government has its power, and no more, as a form of activism:

They [the American people] deserved greater assurances that Alito's history as an ideologue did not presage an activist justice who would roll back the clock on rights and policies that have made this nation freer and more equitable.