I saw the word "radical" several times in the article but there was nothing there to back up that label.
I did see a couple things I definately like in a Supreme nominee.
"He understands judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people."
As well as:
"Alito's 15 years on the federal court and say his record shows a commitment to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, ensuring that the separation of powers and checks and balances are respected and enforced.
They also contend that Alito has been a powerful voice for the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and the free exercise of religion."
I hardly find this to be a sign of a "radical". IMO this type of position is what the SCOTUS is supposed to be. They are a check in the checks and balances. Their main emphasis is to determine the constitutionality of what comes before the bench, based on OUR constitution not another countries, again IMO.
What I have quoted here is all based on a single article. The disenting vote in the PA. case didn't have sufficient info to determine exactly what he was dissenting about. It may have just been a specific section of the law rather than the "principal" or intent of the law. There is insufficeint info to tell in this article.
