Alito, now a nominee to the Supreme Court, rejected such rights, writing that ''only in extreme circumstances is it proper to invoke" 14th Amendment protections.

I would love for Alito to define what extreme circumstances would be and then how that would translate into a judicially manageable standard which lower courts could follow. What are we suppposed to do- call Alito and ask him if it's time to use the 14th amendment now? Idiot.

Also, I love how he believes that original understanding of the consitution should be used in deciding consitutional rights. So in the original consitution, the framers clearly didn't believe that liberty and freedom applied to Afican-Americans. Does this mean that he thinks decisions like Loving, Brown, or hell, even the addition of the 13th and 14th amendment should never have happened? Could he be a danger to racial minorites as well as women?

Sydney,
Great comment. People like Alito, and Dumdya{the worst president in modern history} talk about strict interpretation of the constitution.
Here is a news flash! The said document was crafted by Liberals(in terms of their day} and should not be looked on as the be all in modern interpretation of issues we face today. It did not cover women, or african-americans as you have alluded to. Their asspertions covered landed gentlemen, as the fount of democracy at that age.
Democracy must be a living entity, willing to adjust to the contempory paradigms, or it becomes a joke no one should be laughing at.
We no longer live in a free society when that society demands to determine what is right, or wrong, for over 50 percent of that society in having a most intimate choice in deciding what is the proper cource for themselves.
We have to face the fact that our present government is all about themselves, and their special interest sponsors. Unless all you women who read this have a special wand to wave at the idiots in washington, your concerns will fall on deaf ears.

Oops! That read wrong. Sorry. The framers of the constitution were viewed as radicals in their time frame. The god-given right of monarchs to rule with absolute power, was the paradigm of that age.
The framers of the constitution were taking "baby" steps in the road to democracy. Their concerns were self-centered in regards to their personal concerns.
That means the constitution is a relic, not a basis for us to adhere to as the "bible" the be all for all our legislative determinations.
Our modern day government has to address the modern day issues. Issues like women have finally have a say so in their personal circumstances. STOP THE BUSS! Women have actually been acknowledged as individual human beings with the intelligence to decide for themselves what is best for them. That did not enter the equation for the framers of our constitution when they crafted it. Women were to "delicate" to enter the fray of political arenas, in their minds. Do we continue this antiquety, or do we press forward?