Law professor Jeffrey Rosen offers these thoughts regarding the confirmation of Circuit Judge Samuel Alito the the U.S. Supreme Court. He presents perhaps the most effective and articulate criticism of Judge Alito's legal judgments as a Justice Department official and his performance at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Professor Rosen, in a single op-ed, argues more forcefully and convincingly than eight Democratic senators who had three rounds in which to challenge Judge Alito.

Professor Rosen concludes:

For moderates who have been inclined to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt in the war on terrorism, the recent revelations about the scope of a clearly illegal domestic spying program represent a turning point. The administration's unabashed effort to defend its conduct with implausible legal arguments--such as the claim that Congress authorized a program that federal law obviously forbids--have exhausted any reservoir of trust among open-minded citizens. Even if Congress makes its views crystal clear, the administration has reserved the right to ignore any laws that it finds inconvenient. The only thing standing between the president and unchecked power, therefore, is the Supreme Court. That's why, for Republican as well as Democratic senators who believe judges should interpret the law, not invent it, Alito's testimony about executive power must be a cause for concern.

[HT: How Appealing]