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.
A "FAIR" Judiciary? That's what we deserve.
As snow begins to blanket Washington, DC, the city feels quiet and peaceful. But make no mistake—GLBT rights advocates will be navigating a minefield Tuesday as they present their oral arguments before the Supreme Court in FAIR v. Rumsfeld. This case challenges the Solomon Amendment, which denies federal funding to any university that does not allow military recruiters on campus. Because the military’s "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy discriminates against GLBT people, allowing these recruiters to use their facilities forces schools to violate their own anti-discrimination policies.
Nobody likes "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." Turns out that most Americans don’t care whether the soldier who captures Osama Bin Laden is gay. And they really don’t want to hear that their sister has not been able to come home from Iraq because the soldier who was supposed to replace her was kicked out for being gay.
Why does the military persist in excluding gay and lesbian patriots when our military needs them most? It certainly isn’t about military readiness—our coalition allies have openly-gay soldiers.
So basically the Solomon Amendment is a big bully in the classroom, telling the other kids what to do, even if it’s wrong.
And that’s what FAIR is about—it’s about being able to say "this is wrong, and we won’t be part of it."
The Supreme Court will have the final say in this, and many other important cases. Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over this important case. And on January 9, hearings for swing-voter Sandra Day O’Connor's replacement will begin. The nominee, Judge Samuel Alito, looks like trouble. With so much at stake, it’s important to ensure that cases like FAIR get decided by fair-minded justices.
Nobody likes "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." Turns out that most Americans don’t care whether the soldier who captures Osama Bin Laden is gay. And they really don’t want to hear that their sister has not been able to come home from Iraq because the soldier who was supposed to replace her was kicked out for being gay.
Why does the military persist in excluding gay and lesbian patriots when our military needs them most? It certainly isn’t about military readiness—our coalition allies have openly-gay soldiers.
So basically the Solomon Amendment is a big bully in the classroom, telling the other kids what to do, even if it’s wrong.
And that’s what FAIR is about—it’s about being able to say "this is wrong, and we won’t be part of it."
The Supreme Court will have the final say in this, and many other important cases. Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over this important case. And on January 9, hearings for swing-voter Sandra Day O’Connor's replacement will begin. The nominee, Judge Samuel Alito, looks like trouble. With so much at stake, it’s important to ensure that cases like FAIR get decided by fair-minded justices.
.