The system is broken

Alito is the wrong person for the Supreme Court - he just doesn't have the legal scruples to defend our liberty, as demonstrated by his justification of police shooting an unarmed, teenage robber. From Armando:

Alito wrote that he saw no constitutional problem with a police officer shooting and killing an unarmed teenager who was fleeing after a $10 home burglary.

"I think the shooting [in this case] can be justified as reasonable," Alito wrote in a 1984 memo to Justice Department officials. Because the officer could not know for sure why a suspect was fleeing, the courts should not set a rule forbidding the use of deadly force, he said.

"I do not think the Constitution provides an answer to the officer's dilemma," Alito advised. A year later, however, the Supreme Court used the same case to set a firm national rule against the routine use of "deadly force" against fleeing suspects who pose no danger. "It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape," wrote Justice Byron White for a 6-3 majority in Tennessee vs. Garner. "Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so."

I agree that due process is an issue here. That Alito would dare argue that an innocent person (for a suspect is by definition not yet proven guilty) may be shot without a clear, immediate safety risk is startling, and is the kind of attitude that I think should disqualify one from serving on one of our most important line of defense against executive despotism. However, we do not currently have a system of ensuring that nominees to the Supreme Court are properly vetted, as what has arisen is almost purely a political game. Advise and consent must be reworked so that dangerous candidates such as Alito appears to be may be examined, not rubber stamped.