Preserve the Balance
Team Supreme Blog
Concerns About Alito
The universal praise for the nomination of Judge Alito by the far right wing groups who dragged Harriet Miers through the wringer was worrisome enough. Unfortunately, the deeper you examine Alito’s record, the more you find that may justify their glee.
For instance, in a 1985 job application at the U.S. Department of Justice, Alito indicated that he was a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). Just what concerned CAP so much? They were formed to oppose Princeton going coed. When that effort failed, their concerns expanded to new groups.
Just the year before Alito’s job application, the group complained that "[h]ere at Princeton homosexuals are on the rampage." In 1983, CAP’s publication—Prospect—noted that "[p]eople nowadays just don't seem to know their place...Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children." Alito apparently felt this was the kind of group a Justice Department lawyer could be proud to be a member of.
Every American should be concerned about Alito’s membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton and his failure to repudiate these positions.
Alito’s lengthy record of decisions paints a clear picture of a judge with an unusually narrow view of the fundamental legal principles that underlay our civil rights protections and basic liberties. For example, he was the only dissenter in a 12-1 decision that held "[o]nly in extreme circumstances is it proper to invoke substantive due process." Substantive due process is a lynchpin in civil rights claims and a critical legal concept underlying our right to privacy. The major cases expanding our rights to liberty and autonomy all build upon this line of reasoning. Few legal principles are so central and few legal scholars take the fringe view that Alito does.
For instance, in a 1985 job application at the U.S. Department of Justice, Alito indicated that he was a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). Just what concerned CAP so much? They were formed to oppose Princeton going coed. When that effort failed, their concerns expanded to new groups.
Just the year before Alito’s job application, the group complained that "[h]ere at Princeton homosexuals are on the rampage." In 1983, CAP’s publication—Prospect—noted that "[p]eople nowadays just don't seem to know their place...Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children." Alito apparently felt this was the kind of group a Justice Department lawyer could be proud to be a member of.
Every American should be concerned about Alito’s membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton and his failure to repudiate these positions.
Alito’s lengthy record of decisions paints a clear picture of a judge with an unusually narrow view of the fundamental legal principles that underlay our civil rights protections and basic liberties. For example, he was the only dissenter in a 12-1 decision that held "[o]nly in extreme circumstances is it proper to invoke substantive due process." Substantive due process is a lynchpin in civil rights claims and a critical legal concept underlying our right to privacy. The major cases expanding our rights to liberty and autonomy all build upon this line of reasoning. Few legal principles are so central and few legal scholars take the fringe view that Alito does.
Comments
.