Posted by Emily Kane, Senior Legislative Assistant

On Day 1 of the Alito hearings, RAC Associate Director Mark Pelavin wrote on this blog and analogized the first day to the “overture [of] a Broadway musical.” Continuing in that vein, Day 3 offered emotion akin to that found on the stage of New York City’s best theater. Again, Senators and Judge Alito pitched back and forth the hot potato that has become his self-proclaimed/self-refuted connections to the controversial Concerned Alumni of Princeton group, Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) and Sen. Specter (R-PA) exchanged heated words, and the nominee’s wife, Martha Alito, cried. Wicked watch out! There’s a new show in town…

With these flare-ups, one might nearly overlook some of the substance of today’s hearing. That, however, would be a terrible mistake. A few major (and disproportionately underreported as compared to the tears) points that came out in today’s hearings:

• Judge Alito told Sen. Brownback (R-KS) that some judges have gone too far in trying to remove religious activities from public life. Upholding his prior decisions in display cases (government entities putting out religious symbols (including a crèche) on public property) Judge Alito said, “this is constitutional; this is consistent with the establishment clause.”
  In a different case, students would be able to share their favorite story with the class as a reward for reading at a certain level. One student satisfied this requirement, and wanted to read aloud the story of Jacob and Esau to the class. The teacher in that case said the student could not use the biblical story for this purpose. The court ruled with the school district (against the plaintiff/student) and Judge Alito dissented. During the hearings today he defended his ruling saying that, “you have to treat religious speech equally with secular speech.”
• When Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) addressed the fact that Judge Alito had seldom sided with immigrants who were trying to win asylum or block deportation, Judge Alito replied that he was following Congress's clear-cut laws on immigration policy. (Some might disagree regarding the lucidity in this area of the law)
  And…..
• As the Washington Post reported, “Alito edged closer to suggesting that he might be willing to reconsider Roe if he is confirmed to the high court, refusing, under persistent questioning by Democrats, to say that he regards the 1973 decision as ‘settled law’ that ‘can't be reexamined.’ In this way, his answers departed notably from those that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. gave when asked similar questions during his confirmation hearings four months ago.”
  It is also of note that today the Republican Majority for Choice announced its opposition to Judge Alito’s nomination. (Five Republican senators sit on the group’s advisory committee)

All in all, a solid third act… We shall see what is in store for tomorrow when the curtain raises yet again. Either way, I’d save your ticket stub; you’ll want to be able to return to your seat for this one.