Is Alito's Originalism Different From Bork's?

Two strong responses from my Sunday post on what I thought was the difference between the judicial philosophies of Alito and Bork .

To be far blunter than I have been so far, I said that Bork's "originalism" was based on his disdain for the Civil Rights movement, which was unforgivable and automatically disqualifying. I then said that Alito's "originalism" was based on his disdain for the New Deal, which I thought was unfortunate, but not sinful.

(Alito is not a "Scalito" -- Alito is an "Alitist")

I cross-posted to Daily Kos . Armando was kind enough to read my post, and strongly objected to it, saying (if I made it through all the pronouns properly) that (a) Alito succeeded in the Reagan Administration because Alito was exactly like Bork, and (b) that Bush would so nominate a racist to be a Justice of the SCOTUS.

Then A Red Mind In A Blue State called my analysis "intriguing, but misguided." He then made the formal State's Rights argument. Actually, he was kind enough to respond twice -- once in the comments section to my Sunday post, and once on his own site.

I responded to his States Rights argument (state's rights is for losers, etc.) in the comments to my own Sunday posting.

However, if I can get the Red Mind to agree with Armando, a Mind so Blue that there is no color in nature that matches him, then it makes me wonder ..

Could "B" be wrong?

Is Alito like Bork?

If so, why did Mrs. Alito run out of the Judiciary Hearing in tears?

If so, how can Alito possibly be qualified to be, well to be anything that is funded with taxpayer money?

Could "B" be wrong?

Maybe.

As my father always said "If you can keep your head while everyone around you is losing theirs, then maybe you don't understand the situation."

Maybe not.

As Red Mind's mother always said "If everyone is mad at me, then I must be doing something right."