The truth is non-partisan

Dear Editor:

Your editorial "Judge Alito's radical view" describes Samuel Alito as a "conservative" supported by a "vocal group of hard-core conservatives. " You say that he has "a radically broad view of the president's power, and a radically narrow view of Congress's power" and that he "wants to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and has a history of tilting the scales of justice against the little guy."

If these are Alito's views, these are not the views of a conservative. True conservatives are dedicated to upholding the Constitution, which supports the God-given rights of "the little guy" and a balance of power, that, if anything gives greater power to Congress than the executive.

The following paragraph doesn't describe a conservative, but rather someone who would destroy the foundations upon which our Republic was built.

"Alito would no doubt try to change the court's approach. He has supported the fringe 'unitary executive' theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution. He has also put forth the outlandish idea that if the president makes a statement when he signs a bill into law, a court interpreting the law should give his intent the same weight it gives to Congress's intent in writing and approving the law."

So, dear Editor, get your terms right. If what you say is true, this man has a liberal interpretation of the Constitution. What we need is a true conservative on the high court - one who will take us back to the original interpretations of the Constitution, found, for example, in the Federalist Papers.

I read the New York Times editorial in an online verson of the International Herald Tribune found at http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/23/opinion/edalito.php.