Judicial Philosophy, Not College Fads, Should Be Measure of Judge Alito
The pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign sees "a hopeful sign" in a 1972 document pulled from a file at Princeton University, where Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was a 21-year-old undergraduate student at the time. A student "Conference on the Boundaries of Privacy in American Society," chaired by Alito, issued a seven-page report that included a single, four-sentence paragraph on homosexuality. It recommended "that no private sexual act between consenting adults should be forbidden," but that "[d]iscrimination against homosexuals in hiring should be forbidden."
Family Research Council certainly disagrees with these two policy prescriptions. Sodomy laws, which were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003, restricted behavior that (especially in the age of AIDS) can be deadly. This is a legitimate public purpose. And homosexual behavior is utterly unlike race or sex, the type of characteristics usually protected by anti-discrimination laws. But the key information in judging a Supreme Court nominee should be the overall judicial philosophy that he has shown--in Judge Alito's case, in his 15 years as a federal judge. In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Clarence Thomas said he would oppose sodomy laws as a legislator--but that nothing in the Constitution prevents states from enacting them. We are looking for a similar measure of judicial restraint in the record of Judge Alito.
Alito Writing Backed Privacy, Gay Rights
Vice Chairman of Voter Education