Judging a justice

Reject\nTwo things about Samuel Alito strike me as particularly suspect. The first is his apparent tendency toward racism and misogyny. Nearly everyone by now has heard of his involvement with the organization Concerned Alumni of Princeton; the values of the organization are in direct contradiction with the sentiments of the Constitution, and putting a man who espouses such beliefs in a position of so much power is dangerous. \nIdeally, Supreme Court justices are objective, but in practice, they are not. And if it's the truth, as some claim, that Alito flouted his involvement with the organization merely for political gain, then we should be dually wary. Additionally, he argued in favor of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which would have required women to notify their husbands before having an abortion. Such a law undermines many of the advancements made in the past 100 years and seeks to relegate control of a woman's body back to her husband. \nSecondly, I am concerned with his personal judgment and honesty, as he told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1990 that he would recuse himself were a conflict of interest to arise, yet failed to do so in 2002. How, then, can we trust what he tells us now?