Hyper inked.

This newspaper of record has come out on the issue of whether Judge Alito should be confirmed by the US Senate as a Supreme Court Justice.

Surprise! They are against him. In a piece entiltled Judge Alito’s Radical Views, they attack his “radically broad view of the president’s power” as well as “a radically narrow view of Congress’s power.” Sounds like the kind of Supreme Court justice any White House incumbent would want.

The previous court — with the retiring Justice O’Connor — stood up against the presidential push to violate the principle of habeas corpus, espousing the view that suspected terrorists could be held “indefinitely and without trial.”

This executive priviledge has been named the “unitary executive” theory. Where was Judge Alito when President Nixon needed him?

The Times also thinks that the judge “would quickly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.” The new Chief Justice Roberts made that point of strongly favoring judicial precedent over the Court’s power to legislate these diffficult matters from the bench — something Alito in his uninformative testimony has failed to do.

The Times says his paper trail is filled with cases favoring those in power at the expense of the little guy — whether they be racial minorities, the aging, workers or women. Or even, incredibly, car customers who think it should be illegal to turn back car odometers, insisting “Congress did not have the power” to protect them.

In summary, the newspaper feels that senators voting for this appointment will rue the day and wish they appointed someone more like Sanda Day O’Connor, with “her cautious, centrist approach to the law.”

The administration views Alito’s confirmation as an unevitable slam dunk. Time will tell.

See another blog’s take on the Times’ piece.