Gay groups say Alito hearings confirm fears - Washington Blade: Gay and Lesbian News, Entertainment, Politics and Opinion

PLACE A CLASSIFIED AD | WHERE TO FIND THE BLADE | WASHBLADE ON MYSPACE | RSS

MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2008

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

NEWS
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

EMAIL UPDATES
New to email
updates? Then to find out more.

email address

subscribe
unsubscribe
I have read and agree to our .

ADVERTISING
•
•
•

ABOUT US
•
•
•

Washington Blade - Supreme Court nominee <strong>Samuel Alito</strong>, fresh off a week of questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee, faces a vote on his nomination on Jan. 24. After the committee vote, the nomination goes to the full Senate.
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, fresh off a week of questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee, faces a vote on his nomination on Jan. 24. After the committee vote, the nomination goes to the full Senate.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
ELIZABETH WEILL-GREENBERG

MORE INFO

MORE INFO

Log Cabin Republicans
1607 17th St., NW
Washington, DC 20009
202-347-5306
www.lcr.org

IN ALITO'S OWN WORDS

What Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito said about privacy rights:

ALITO: Senator, I do agree that the Constitution protects a right to privacy. And it protects the right to privacy in a number of ways. The Fourth Amendment certainly speaks to the right of privacy. People have a right to privacy in their homes and in their papers and in their persons. And the standard for whether something is a search is whether there’s an invasion of a right to privacy, a legitimate expectation of privacy.

There is no express reference to privacy in the Constitution. But it is protected by the Fourth Amendment and in certain circumstances by the First Amendment and in certain circumstances by the Fifth and the 14th Amendments.

What Alito said about protecting gay students from harassment:

U.S. SEN. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD: In 2001, you wrote an opinion overturning a public school district’s anti-harassment policy that protected, among other people, lesbian and gay students. You said the school policy in the case Saxe v. State College Area School District violated the First Amendment.

The case was brought by students who believed that the policy interfered with their ability to speak out against the, quote, “sinful,” unquote, nature and harmful effects of homosexuality, as compelled by their religion.

In your Senate questionnaire, you note that you won the Family Research Council Golden Gavel Award in 2001 for your decision striking down that policy. The Family Research Council is a leading conservative group that opposes gay rights.

In order for a policy protecting gay students from harassment to pass constitutional scrutiny, must it have an exception for harassment motivated by religious belief?

ALITO: Let me say what was at issue in the Saxe case, because that is the context in which I dealt with issues like this.

The Saxe case involved a very broad anti-harassment policy that had been adopted by a school district. It not only prohibited the expression of political viewpoints, but it went so far as to say that just about anything that any student would say about another student that would be offensive to that student, including comments on the way the student dressed or the things that they liked to do, would be a violation of the anti-harassment policy.

And under the First Amendment, unlike in most other areas of the law, statutes can be challenged on overbreadth grounds. And that was the ground on which the statute was struck down in the Saxe case, that it was overly broad, that it prohibited a great deal of speech that was constitutionally protected. …

What Alito said about discrimination against homosexuals in employment:

FEINGOLD: Do you believe … that Congress has the power under the Constitution to prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment?

ALITO: I can’t think of a reason why Congress would not have that power, but I would have [to] be presented with the arguments.

Printer-friendly Version

Letter to the Editor

Sound Off about this article

MORE NATIONAL

Frank in spotlight as Congress addresses Wall Street crisis
Quick-witted lawmaker plays key role during ‘extraordinary event’

Pro-gay challengers in tight races for U.S. House, Senate
FMA sponsor Musgrave trails in polls; Dole also vulnerable

McCain’s gay Q&A
‘I hope gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me

Palin criticized for calling homosexuality ‘a choice’

National news in brief
Feds streamline rules for HIV-positive visitors

NATIONAL

Gay groups say Alito hearings confirm fears
Log Cabin takes no position on nomination

ELIZABETH WEILL-GREENBERG
Friday, January 20, 2006

As a vote nears in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, most gay rights groups say the hearings only confirmed that Alito will be no friend to gay rights if he serves on the country’s highest court.

Alito’s nomination is scheduled for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Jan. 24.

The Human Rights Campaign and Lambda Legal have joined a number of other gay rights groups opposing Alito, saying his judicial record indicates he would likely rule against gay rights.

“There was nothing in the hearings that allayed the serious concerns we had,” said Michael Adams, director of education and public policy for Lambda Legal. “They confirmed our suspicions and concerns.”

Most notably, he said, was Alito’s “continued refusal to recognize Roe vs. Wade as settled law.” The Roe decision, though on abortion rights, is fundamental to upholding the right of privacy and gay rights, he said.

“We are as concerned as we were prior to the hearing.”

HRC said Alito was “the right-wing choice they had been waiting for.” Conservative groups, who pressured White House counsel Harriet Miers into withdrawing her nomination, applauded Alito.

One Family Research Council ad calls Alito “one of us.” The conservative, anti-gay group also awarded Alito its “Golden Gavel Award” in 2001.

Lara Schwartz, HRC’s chief legislative counsel, took issue with Alito’s candor during questioning from senators.

“The answers in the hearing were by and large non-answers,” Schwartz said. “Nothing happened in the hearing to refute his troubling record.”

When Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) asked Alito about the Defense of Marriage Act, Schwartz recalled, Alito answered that scholars have different opinions.

“Thank you for stating the obvious,” she said, laughing.

According to Chris Labonte, HRC’s legislative director, votes on the Alito nomination will be counted on the group’s congressional scorecard. HRC announced its opposition to both Alito and John Roberts, now chief justice, before their confirmation hearings. But the Washington-based gay rights group would not say before the Roberts vote whether supporting his nomination would count against senators.

Despite the opposition of some gay rights groups, the Log Cabin Republicans have decided not to take a position on Alito’s nomination.

“It remains unclear to us how both individuals [Roberts and Alito] will rule on matters impacting gay and lesbian Americans — a fundamental right to privacy and precedents in Lawrence,” said Patrick Guerriero, president of Log Cabin Republicans.

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled sodomy laws unconstitutional in Lawrence vs. Texas. The justices ruled 6-3 that people have a constitutional right of privacy in the area of “private sexual conduct.”

Patrick Guerriero, president of Log Cabin Republicans, says the gay political group has decided not to take a position on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

“Without that clarity, we did not feel we could make a formal endorsement,” Guerriero said. He added he was disturbed that on privacy issues he was “unsure of where [Alito] would fall.”

But other organizations were not so cautious in their assessments of Alito.

While Alito hasn’t ruled extensively on gay rights issues, he has an “extremely negative general civil rights record,” according to Elliot Mincberg, vice president and legal director for People for the American Way.

Alito’s record on privacy rights and his membership in the controversial Concerned Alumni of Princeton group are just some indicators that Alito will be disastrous, said Mincberg.

Mincberg said that all 10 Republicans on the Senate committee will likely vote for Alito. He is hopeful that the eight Democratic committee members will oppose Alito.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who is not a member of the committee, said he will vote for Alito, the Associated Press reported. However, Mincberg said, “There will likely be a good number of folks on the fence.”

“There is no question that Alito should be stopped from being on the Supreme Court by all appropriate means,” he said. “Many in the media have tried to suggest this one is all wrapped up. I think that’s wrong. 0”

	email password
	The following comments were posted by our readers and were not edited by the Washington Blade. We ask that you treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will be removed.