Several national gay-rights organizations announced their opposition Dec. 12 to the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court.
Both pro- and anti-Alito campaigns are hitting full stride prior to Senate hearings beginning Jan. 9, according to CNN. In essence, the process involves who the judicial candidate really is.
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force ( NGLTF ) ; Human Rights Campaign ( HRC ) ; National Center for Lesbian Rights ( NCLR ) ; and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays ( PFLAG ) jointly announced their opposition to Alito's nomination. According to the coalition, equal protection for LGBT individuals would be in jeopardy if Alito is approved. Matt Foreman, NGLTF executive director stated that 'Judge Alito's appointment would spell disaster for LGBT Americans for decades to come. His judicial record fully reflects his embrace in the 1980s of the right-wing agenda and is completely antithetical to the constitutional principles and values on which our rights and equal protection guarantees rest.' HRC President Joe Solmonese echoed those sentiments, referring to the candidate's past actions. 'In striking down an anti-harassment law and arguing for a narrow interpretation of our Constitution's guarantee of liberty, Judge Alito has proven himself to be the wrong choice to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor,' he said.
Kate Kendell, executive director of the NCLR, referred to Alito's abortion record. 'With regard to procreative freedom in particular, he has worked actively to undermine Roe v. Wade and to roll back the clock on one of the most basic cornerstones of women's equality and freedom,' she declared.
In a separate statement, Lambda Legal also announced its opposition to Alito's nomination, contending that he puts his own personal slate above the Constitution's. Kevin Cathcart, the organization's executive director, said that '... [ u ] nfortunately, what our analysis reveals is that Judge Alito has a political agenda different from that required of members of the judiciary. It is based on his personal political ideology and stands apart from any principle that can reasonably be located in the Constitution. ... Put differently, his political agenda leads him to write judicial decisions to make the law conform to his politics. He then applies legal craftsmanship and precedent to justify the law he is making.'
Cathcart added that this case differs from that of now-Chief Justice John Roberts because there was not 'enough information about him'; Alito 'has an extensive track record of court decisions and other materials that lend insight to his philosophy.'