Some information on Alito. Thus far I'm not terribly concerned, but I haven't heard enough yet. The only decision that I've heard of that might be objectional is Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. You can expect a great deal of debate about that in the coming weeks.

My thinking on this is that I agree that there are cases in which women have legitimate reasons for not wanting to notify their husbands that are not covered by the exceptions in this law. I think its a bad law and I'm not troubled that the supreme court struck it down. Even if it were well crafted, I think it puts the state's nose way too far into people's personal business. This is not my kind of law.

However, I do not think its entirely irrational on its face that a husband might have a legitimate interest in notification of his wife's pregnancy. Marriage legally requires shared responsibility. To the degree that society thinks that it ought to put the state's nose into people's business, and it certainly does, left, right and center, I don't think upholding the constitutionality of this law would be way out of line were it well crafted. Certainly, the legislature should not have passed this law. I think this would be better handled with a requirement for counselors to advise spousal notification, but this would not be the first time the government issued a requirement where it should have issued a warning. Its not unconstitutional for the government to do stupid things.

Basically, this is not the smoking gun that makes me opposed to Alito. There is no judge that has never issued a ruling I don't agree with.

I am, however, troubled that the exact same situations that caused the supreme court to call this law "repugnant" exist as well for minors, and yet the supreme court showed absolutely no concern in that context. The idea that the court could claim that constitutional rights are terribly infringed by a notification requirement on the one hand, but not be at all bothered by a consent requirement on the other is bizarly hypocritical. Minors should not be treated as property by the state. If one is unconstitutional the other obviously must be. This point, of course, has nothing to do with Alito.