I am writing in response to the “Straight From The Ass’ Mouth” piece in the November 9 issue of The Polytechnic.

Judge Alito did not advance a position that “would reduce women to male property.” He did support a position that required spousal notification of an abortion, not permission. Notification is quite different from permission. I don’t believe that exaggerated rhetoric like this serves the pro-abortion side very well.

Similarly, his “ruling” on machine gun sales is not accurately described. The author states that “He issued rulings to limit the ability of Congress to restrict the sale of machine guns to private citizens,” and proceeds to write that “Fortunately, the Supreme Court overturned all those decisions.” That is not true. He issued a dissent in the case of U.S. vs Rybar. The Supreme Court did not overturn his dissent! They upheld the majority view in that case. His opinion was supported by several circuit courts, indicating it may not be representative of the “extreme right wing.” Incidentally, it is difficult to understand that the nomination of someone who was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in 1990 to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals represents “Bush going back to the extreme right wing of his party.”

I believe the discrimination case (although the author did not cite it, I believe they are referring to Bray v. Marriott Hotels) is a similar exaggeration. He ruled in the case that the plaintiff did not have enough evidence to bring the case to trial. That kind of decision happens all the time, not just in sex or race discrimination cases. Of course, those who illegally discriminate should be prosecuted, but in court there should be evidence. Alleged victims of such discrimination should have burdens of proof similar to other plaintiffs.

Lastly, the comment “in some cases over the explicit legislation of the Congress” is difficult to understand. I would think at times the judicial branch would have to exercise such power, if the Congress is violating the Constitution.

Jim Burnes