huh?

okay...so i really dont understand the assignment...but here's my crack at it.....

the writer of this article seems to be well informed and very opinionated about the government and the past of the supreme court justices. (BTW i really hope we dont have to use proper grammer and all that in these writings...cuz its easier for me to get my ideas out without having to worry about periods and commas :-)) ann althouse has a background in law and is pretty well caught up on the goings on of the bush administration. it seems that there is question if whether newly appointed justice alito is properly equipped for the job assigned to him. he is considered a conservative and that is probably a large reason, in my opinion, why he was chosen for this position. althouse seems to be trying to make the point that although there is an uprising on whether alito is right for the job among the liberals, they should think about the good of the country and to not judge someone by their past. from reading this article i am given the impression that althouse is a conservative hereself, and although this slightly clouds my judgement of her, i am still open to what she has to say. she is saying that although alito has a long track record with conservatism, there is still the chance of him voting more along the lines of liveral as well. the point here is that although someone is lumped together with a certain political party, there is always the chance that that person votes along the lines of whether he/she believes something is right or not. this is kind of like my views on voting. i believe that voting is essential to the existence of our nation. one of my biggest pet peeves are people that complain about the state of the country, yet they dont vote.

"did you vote?"
"no"
"then you have no right to complain about anything"

people like this just seem to not even want to be informed about the issues that affect them the most. voting straight conservative or liberal is also an option. yet this option is slightly frowned upon, especially by me. let's say that there are two candidates for the head position of minority affiars. the conservative candidate has a history with the KKK and it is a well known fact that he/she has had run ins with the law about discrimination. the liberal candidate is a well deserving man who has helped minorities get off the streets and back in school, etc. if one just voted straight conservative, then they would be advocating this horrible behaviour. the main point of this article is, in my opinion, that although a candidate may side mainly with onem party or the other, voters need to look at which causes that he/she supported. did this candidate support good causes or did he/she just 'run with the party?' we need more free thinkers in our government system for exactly this reason - will the right cause be supported? will we regret or rejoice in our desicion?

liberals that are strongly oppossing justice alito just because of his 'paper trail' with the conservatives need to observe his actions closer than that. they need to look at what he did as a whole, look past the party lines and see what he supported as an individual.