Would War Room be as up in arms if Alito had declared, like Judge Ginsburg did, her unbending belief in the right of a woman to have an abortion if she so chooses?

On July 22, 1993 The New York Times ran an article entitled: "GINSBURG AFFIRMS RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO HAVE ABORTION" which began:

"Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg today offered a strong and unambiguous defense of a woman's right to abortion, saying it was based on the Constitution's explicit guarantee of equal protection as well as an unstated right of privacy."

It continued:

"Judge Ginsburg, a 60-year-old member of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is the first Supreme Court nominee to offer such an unflinching statement about the constitutional right to abortion."

And:

"she suggested that she believed that the Pennsylvania case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, had in some ways provided a stronger foundation for abortion rights than did Roe."

Is the issue really that Alito has already made up his mind about the issue -- which he surely has -- or the fact that he has made up his mind in a way that the left doesn't like?

If he had declared that a woman's right to choose was constitutionally protected, would War Room have complained that he wasn't approaching the issue with an open mind?

Combj, I got the point. The questions were rhetorical.

I was trying to point out that by pretending that the issue is whether the candidate was approaching Roe v Wade with an open mind or not, Grieve was being as disingenuous as any politician.

The issue clearly is not the degree of openness of anyone's mind, but what the nominee thinks constitution says about a woman's right to choose. So why not call a spade a spade?

People are allowed to think that the right to privacy doesn't include the right to an abortion. You can be pro-choice and be anti-Roe. You can think life begins at conception and that it is a good idea to convince a majority of your compatriots to also think so and outlaw abortion.

These are all legitimate points which could be debated fruitfully, as Cass Sunstein does very well in his

Radicals in Robes

. But rather than having an honest debate in this country, we have this fake conversation about 'open-mindedness' or whether it's wrong to have a fully formed opinion on the issue. This simply contributes to the wide-spread belief that all politicians are self-interested jerks and there is no moral difference between any of them. And that, I find destructive.

A nominee for the court should have thought of the relevant issues through thoroughly and have an opinion. The idiosyncracies of individual cases of course need to be taken on a case by case basis, but someone who is qualified for the supreme court shouldn't be a tabula rasa.

Rugby has thirty men on the field at all times and just one official. (Okay, there are also the two linesmen on the sidelines to mark the ball when it goes out of play and narc out good honest fowards guarding against the temptation of ungentlemanly play by punching cheating opponents in the head when the ref's not looking.)

Often the official is the only person of the 31 on the field who even remotely knows the rules, so when he rules, everyone just shrugs and figures he probably knows best. There's no one with whom to confer and the clock's running, so the game has to continue.

Sure, this is a case of ignorance being bliss, but it works to produce a much more enjoyable game. I think the NFL should adopt this system.

By the way, this column reminded of the great George Will pronouncement on football: "Football incorporates the two worst elements of American society: violence punctuated by committee meetings."

The Buffalo Bills inducted the "12th Man" onto the "Wall of Fame" in 1992. (Do the Chinese have the trademark on "wall?" Oh no, they don't believe in trademarks.)

From the Bills website: "For their loyalty to the team throughout the years, the fans were honored in 1992 as "The 12th Man"…the team set the NFL record for single-season home attendance (635,889) in 1991…in addition, led the NFL in attendance for six consecutive seasons (1988-93)…selection was announced by owner Ralph C. Wilson Jr. at the Welcome Home rally following Super Bowl XXVI."

Really, it's right up there on the stadium wall. Since 1992.

While I'm here, let me just say that NYU should be suing everyone. The Hall of Fame for Great Americans was the original "Hall of Fame" in this country, founded in 1900. "The Hall" (as we Violet alums like to call it) was originated by Dr. Henry Mitchell MacCracken, Chancellor of New York University from 1891 to 1910, and was designed as part of the construction of an undergraduate college of that university.

Do you think we have a case? Can we get Cooperstown to get off our coattails? Canton schmaton.

Aggies fans need to get a life.

Go Violets!