Too late....

I don't know much about Alito, except that he is one of the favorites of the conservatives. Sadly, it's more the anti-Democrats than the anti-statists who love him, so I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

From Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

Whether the legislature�s approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether Section 3209 meets constitutional standards.

and (emphasis mine),

The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands� knowledge because of perceived problems�such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands� previously expressed opposition� that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion. In addition, the legislature could have reasonably concluded that Section 3209 would lead to such discussion and thereby properly further a husband�s interests in the fetus in a sufficient percentage of the affected cases to justify enactment of this measure. Although the plaintiffs and supporting amici argue that Section 3209 will do little if any good and will produce appreciable adverse effects, the Pennsylvania legislature presumably decided that the law on balance would be beneficial. We have no authority to overrule that legislative judgment even if we deem it �unwise� or worse. We should not forget that �legislatures are ultimate guardians of the liberty and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts.� �

Amen, brother! That's the stuff I want to hear; is the law constitutional or not, not do I like that law or not. While the left points out Alito was the only dissent in that case, it's worth noting that when the Supreme Court struck down the Pennsylvania law 6-3, one of the dissenters was Justice Rehnquist whom, upon his passing recently, many Democrats heaped much praise, even if they disagreed with his rulings. Rehnquist used Alito's arguments in his dissent.