Preserve the Balance
Team Supreme Blog
Questions, Yes; Answers, Not So Much
Just when it seemed like Judge Alito would slip by without being asked about GLBT issues, my home state Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) jumped into the fray.
Of course, the fact that Alito was asked the questions does not mean that he gave informative or satisfactory answers. We thought Justice John Roberts was good at dodging committee questions, but while not as smooth as Roberts, Alito was at least as good at obfuscation. I doubt anyone who examines the transcript of all three days of committee questions can find more than a handful of questions in which Alito expressed his personal or legal opinion.
Senator Feingold first asked whether Congress has the power to enact laws like the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act to protect GLBT Americans. Alito’s answer was one of the more concrete he’s given all week, although he left himself plenty of wiggle room: “I can't think of a reason why Congress would not have that power, but I would have to be presented with the arguments.”
Feingold also asked Alito about the Saxe case, in which Alito struck down a school district’s harassment policy, and for which he received the Family Research Council’s “Golden Gavel” award. Feingold stated that Family Research Council is an anti-gay group. It was refreshing to see a United States Senator call it like he sees it—there can be little doubt that FRC does not protect families, as it claims, but spreads hate toward the GLBT community.
If only Alito had been as candid. He mischaracterized the harassment policy at issue. He described it as prohibiting nearly any speech, when in fact it only addressed severe, pervasive harassment that created a hostile environment or interfered with a student’s education.
Finally, Feingold asked whether Congress could put conditions on use of federal funds that require a school district to adopt an anti-harassment policy. Alito’s answer seems to indicate it would be okay, but he was not at all definitive.
These were exactly the right questions. It’s just too bad that Alito wouldn’t provide any real answers.
Now that the questioning is over, the questions remain. Judge Alito says assess him based on his record as a judge over the last 15 years. It’s that very record that raises serious questions for GLBT Americans.
Judge Alito could have used his testimony to demonstrate that he was a fair-minded judge who understands the impact of the law on everyday Americans. He didn’t. He could have used his testimony to commit to supporting the extensive jurisprudence supporting the right to privacy. He didn’t. None of our pre-hearing doubts have been assuaged.
How disappointing. And scary.
Of course, the fact that Alito was asked the questions does not mean that he gave informative or satisfactory answers. We thought Justice John Roberts was good at dodging committee questions, but while not as smooth as Roberts, Alito was at least as good at obfuscation. I doubt anyone who examines the transcript of all three days of committee questions can find more than a handful of questions in which Alito expressed his personal or legal opinion.
Senator Feingold first asked whether Congress has the power to enact laws like the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act to protect GLBT Americans. Alito’s answer was one of the more concrete he’s given all week, although he left himself plenty of wiggle room: “I can't think of a reason why Congress would not have that power, but I would have to be presented with the arguments.”
Feingold also asked Alito about the Saxe case, in which Alito struck down a school district’s harassment policy, and for which he received the Family Research Council’s “Golden Gavel” award. Feingold stated that Family Research Council is an anti-gay group. It was refreshing to see a United States Senator call it like he sees it—there can be little doubt that FRC does not protect families, as it claims, but spreads hate toward the GLBT community.
If only Alito had been as candid. He mischaracterized the harassment policy at issue. He described it as prohibiting nearly any speech, when in fact it only addressed severe, pervasive harassment that created a hostile environment or interfered with a student’s education.
Finally, Feingold asked whether Congress could put conditions on use of federal funds that require a school district to adopt an anti-harassment policy. Alito’s answer seems to indicate it would be okay, but he was not at all definitive.
These were exactly the right questions. It’s just too bad that Alito wouldn’t provide any real answers.
Now that the questioning is over, the questions remain. Judge Alito says assess him based on his record as a judge over the last 15 years. It’s that very record that raises serious questions for GLBT Americans.
Judge Alito could have used his testimony to demonstrate that he was a fair-minded judge who understands the impact of the law on everyday Americans. He didn’t. He could have used his testimony to commit to supporting the extensive jurisprudence supporting the right to privacy. He didn’t. None of our pre-hearing doubts have been assuaged.
How disappointing. And scary.
This CAPs everything: Alito’s Amnesia about Anti-Gay Group
Some of the more fiery moments of today’s hearings surrounded Judge Alito’s membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton ("CAP"), a group that had a record of hostility to including women and minorities at Princeton, and whose magazine, the Prospect, had published extreme anti-gay statements.
Senator Kennedy called Alito out on this, making note in particular of the anti-gay statements. Here’s an example of their exchange:
KENNEDY: The June '84 edition of Prospect magazine contains a short article on AIDS. I know that we've come a long way since then in our understanding of the disease, but even for that time the insensitivity of statements in this article are breathtaking.
It announces that a team of doctors has found the AIDS virus in the rhesus monkeys was similar to the virus occurring in human beings.
KENNEDY: And the article then goes on with this terrible statement: "Now that the scientists must find humans, or rather homosexuals, to submit themselves to experimental treatment. Perhaps Princeton's Gay Alliance may want to hold an election."
You didn't read that article?
ALITO: I feel confident that I didn't, Senator, because I would not have anything to do with statements of that nature.
Why should we believe Alito’s attempt to distance himself? CAP was the subject of very public controversy through the 70s and 80s. Yet just one year after this outrageous article was written, Alito listed CAP as a conservative credential in a job application. Is it really plausible that Alito maintained a membership but didn’t read the magazine? That he knew enough about CAP to think it impressed the Reagan Administration but not enough to be aware of its anti-gay stances? That he didn’t hear of the controversies surrounding CAP, such as that now-senator Bill Frist withdrew because of its radical stances?
From the right wing’s elation over Alito, to Senator Sessions and Brownback’s statements about "redefining marriage," we’ve seen some ridiculous stuff today.
But this caps everything.
Senator Kennedy called Alito out on this, making note in particular of the anti-gay statements. Here’s an example of their exchange:
KENNEDY: The June '84 edition of Prospect magazine contains a short article on AIDS. I know that we've come a long way since then in our understanding of the disease, but even for that time the insensitivity of statements in this article are breathtaking.
It announces that a team of doctors has found the AIDS virus in the rhesus monkeys was similar to the virus occurring in human beings.
KENNEDY: And the article then goes on with this terrible statement: "Now that the scientists must find humans, or rather homosexuals, to submit themselves to experimental treatment. Perhaps Princeton's Gay Alliance may want to hold an election."
You didn't read that article?
ALITO: I feel confident that I didn't, Senator, because I would not have anything to do with statements of that nature.
Why should we believe Alito’s attempt to distance himself? CAP was the subject of very public controversy through the 70s and 80s. Yet just one year after this outrageous article was written, Alito listed CAP as a conservative credential in a job application. Is it really plausible that Alito maintained a membership but didn’t read the magazine? That he knew enough about CAP to think it impressed the Reagan Administration but not enough to be aware of its anti-gay stances? That he didn’t hear of the controversies surrounding CAP, such as that now-senator Bill Frist withdrew because of its radical stances?
From the right wing’s elation over Alito, to Senator Sessions and Brownback’s statements about "redefining marriage," we’ve seen some ridiculous stuff today.
But this caps everything.
Under The Lights
Click, click, click. The sound of reporters typing away at their laptops. That was the first thing I noticed, as I sat today in the cavernous Senate hearing room for the second day of hearings on the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court. Then came the other clicks—from the cameras of the photojournalists as Alito and the Senators took their seats.
Aside from the reporters, the cameras, and the klieg lights, observing the hearing first hand is remarkably similar to being at home or at the office. It’s a big room, with rows of tables for reporters between the audience and the dais. Alito’s balding pate is vaguely visible in the distance. The Senators are recognizable from their voices and their seating arrangement far more than actual visual recognition.
Fortunately, the television monitor is just a few feet away so the audience can see what’s going on.
In the few hours I was there this morning, there were no major revelations. For the most part, Senators did ask substantive questions, rather than pontificating. Listening carefully to Alito’s articulation of the legal principle of stare decisis (the principal that the previous decisions are to be followed by the courts) in regard to the legal precedents underlying Roe v. Wade and other privacy cases, his language is nearly identical to Justice Roberts’ in his confirmation hearings. I suppose the White House is following the principle that if it worked so well once, it will work well again.
Aside from the reporters, the cameras, and the klieg lights, observing the hearing first hand is remarkably similar to being at home or at the office. It’s a big room, with rows of tables for reporters between the audience and the dais. Alito’s balding pate is vaguely visible in the distance. The Senators are recognizable from their voices and their seating arrangement far more than actual visual recognition.
Fortunately, the television monitor is just a few feet away so the audience can see what’s going on.
In the few hours I was there this morning, there were no major revelations. For the most part, Senators did ask substantive questions, rather than pontificating. Listening carefully to Alito’s articulation of the legal principle of stare decisis (the principal that the previous decisions are to be followed by the courts) in regard to the legal precedents underlying Roe v. Wade and other privacy cases, his language is nearly identical to Justice Roberts’ in his confirmation hearings. I suppose the White House is following the principle that if it worked so well once, it will work well again.
Act One: Setting the Scene
There was not much news made in the first day of the Alito hearings. While the opening statements were not quite Kabuki theater, the Senators and Judge Alito all knew their roles and followed the script. After all, the first day of hearings is always about posturing rather than substance.
Each of the Democratic Senators raised concerns about Judge Alito’s record as a federal appeals court judge, as a government lawyer working for the Reagan Administration in the 1980s, and his publicly stated beliefs. Some questioned his views of executive power, particularly in light of the National Security Agency warrantless spying on American citizens. Some contrasted Alito’s expansive view of federal executive power with concerns about his decisions that indicate a limited view of Congressional power. The upcoming questions on this will be crucial since the power to enact employment non-discrimination legislation to protect the GLBT community is dependent on the authority of Congress.
Republicans focused on Alito’s qualifications for the job. With the many mentions of the American Bar Association’s rating, you’d think Senators forgot about the Bush Administration’s attempts to sideline the ABA.
Of course, as we moved down the Republican seniority list, social issues jumped to the top of the agenda. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) blamed “liberal interest groups” who want to “impose their liberal agenda on the American people…they want judges who will find traditional marriage limited to one man and one woman unconstitutional.”
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) focused almost exclusively on overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, arguing that the hearings were really about whether we allow abortion to be legal in the United States. He did manage to throw in a line about legal sodomy too.
Following introductory remarks from Senator Lautenberg and former Governor and EPA Administrator Whitman, which consisted of paeans to New Jersey, Judge Alito got his chance. He wants you to know that he’s a humble guy, from a humble background, from humble New Jersey. He went to Princeton and Yale Law School, but he’s not elitist.
It’s a "just-your-average-guy" kind of image he's attempting to get across, but I wonder how many times he rehearsed?
Each of the Democratic Senators raised concerns about Judge Alito’s record as a federal appeals court judge, as a government lawyer working for the Reagan Administration in the 1980s, and his publicly stated beliefs. Some questioned his views of executive power, particularly in light of the National Security Agency warrantless spying on American citizens. Some contrasted Alito’s expansive view of federal executive power with concerns about his decisions that indicate a limited view of Congressional power. The upcoming questions on this will be crucial since the power to enact employment non-discrimination legislation to protect the GLBT community is dependent on the authority of Congress.
Republicans focused on Alito’s qualifications for the job. With the many mentions of the American Bar Association’s rating, you’d think Senators forgot about the Bush Administration’s attempts to sideline the ABA.
Of course, as we moved down the Republican seniority list, social issues jumped to the top of the agenda. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) blamed “liberal interest groups” who want to “impose their liberal agenda on the American people…they want judges who will find traditional marriage limited to one man and one woman unconstitutional.”
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) focused almost exclusively on overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, arguing that the hearings were really about whether we allow abortion to be legal in the United States. He did manage to throw in a line about legal sodomy too.
Following introductory remarks from Senator Lautenberg and former Governor and EPA Administrator Whitman, which consisted of paeans to New Jersey, Judge Alito got his chance. He wants you to know that he’s a humble guy, from a humble background, from humble New Jersey. He went to Princeton and Yale Law School, but he’s not elitist.
It’s a "just-your-average-guy" kind of image he's attempting to get across, but I wonder how many times he rehearsed?
Justice Sunday Three and the Faith-Based Initiative: The Best Justice That Money Can Buy
Here we go again. The hearings on nominee Samuel Alito are set to begin on today. Last night, anti-gay and anti-choice activists gathered in Philadelphia for "Justice Sunday III: Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land." The lineup included the usual suspects—James Dobson, Tony Perkins of Focus on the Family, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and Jerry Falwell.
New additions to the evening’s programs included Philadelphia-based pastor Herb Lusk, a partisan activist whose church has received more than $1 million from the Bush Administration’s "Faith-Based Initiative." What a coincidence that he would agree to be on the program.
In fact, Reverend Lusk made no secret of the fact that his participating in Justice Sunday has nothing to do with Alito’s merit as a potential justice and a lot to do with rolling back GLBT rights, admitting to the New York Times that "I don't know enough about him to say I actually think he's the right man to do the job … I'm saying I trust a friend of mine [President Bush] who promised me that he would appoint people to the justice system that would be attentive to the needs I care about." According to the times, these needs stopping marriage equality and breaking down the wall between church and state.
Speakers at previous "Justice Sunday" events made clear that “activist judges” meant judges who rule in favor of GLBT equality. We expect this event to be no different.
By now we’re used to shameless displays of partisanship disguised as religion, and the anti-gay baggage that comes with it. Justice Sunday III takes the cake, though, because on top of all that, it entangles government favors with advocacy about our most independent branch of government.
Real justice can’t be bought. We hope that the United States Senate understands that and does its duty to disregard the anti-gay hysteria that Justice Sunday III is likely to dish out.
New additions to the evening’s programs included Philadelphia-based pastor Herb Lusk, a partisan activist whose church has received more than $1 million from the Bush Administration’s "Faith-Based Initiative." What a coincidence that he would agree to be on the program.
In fact, Reverend Lusk made no secret of the fact that his participating in Justice Sunday has nothing to do with Alito’s merit as a potential justice and a lot to do with rolling back GLBT rights, admitting to the New York Times that "I don't know enough about him to say I actually think he's the right man to do the job … I'm saying I trust a friend of mine [President Bush] who promised me that he would appoint people to the justice system that would be attentive to the needs I care about." According to the times, these needs stopping marriage equality and breaking down the wall between church and state.
Speakers at previous "Justice Sunday" events made clear that “activist judges” meant judges who rule in favor of GLBT equality. We expect this event to be no different.
By now we’re used to shameless displays of partisanship disguised as religion, and the anti-gay baggage that comes with it. Justice Sunday III takes the cake, though, because on top of all that, it entangles government favors with advocacy about our most independent branch of government.
Real justice can’t be bought. We hope that the United States Senate understands that and does its duty to disregard the anti-gay hysteria that Justice Sunday III is likely to dish out.
.