'Sincerely Yours': Samuel Alito's Letter to James Dobson
 

March 9 2006
Counterbias.com
MEL SEESHOLTZ
 

This is Justice Alito’s letter to Dr. Dobson:

Dear Dr. Dobson:

 

This is just a short note to express my heartfelt thanks to you and the entire staff of Focus on the Family for your help and support during the past few challenging months.

 

I would also greatly appreciate it if you would convey my appreciation to the good people from all parts of the country who wrote to tell me that they were praying for me and for my family during this period.

 

As I said when I spoke at my formal investiture at the White House last week, the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force.

 

As long as I serve on the Supreme Court I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me.

 

I hope that we’ll have the opportunity to meet personally at some point in the future.

 

In the meantime my entire family and I hope that you and the Focus on the Family staff know how we appreciate all that you have done.

 

Sincerely yours,

Samuel Alito

Was the newest member of the Supreme Court just being polite, or was the message one of payback? Stuart Shepard, managing editor of Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink newsletter, said “our main reaction here at Focus was ‘How nice and how thoughtful of someone as busy as Samuel Alito to take a moment to write us.’”

It’s more than a bit difficult to believe that a “golly gee whiz” reaction was all that came from the highly sophisticated politicos and lobbyists at Focus, the largest “religious-right group in the United States, a multi-media empire that includes its own ‘campus’ and zip code in Colorado Springs, Colorado.”

Given Dobson’s theocratic agenda and political clout, Mr. Alito’s associations and judicial record, and the types of cases likely to come before the high court, there are good reasons more than a few expressed concerns about the letter.

Boston Globe writer Brian MacQuarrie’s October 9, 2005 article “Dobson spiritual empire wields political clout” explained why: “Following Bush's reelection, Dobson made clear that the religious right expected payback.” Moreover,

Dobson has targeted several “red-state” Democratic senators for defeat in 2006, including Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, and Bill Nelson of Florida. Dobson played a big role in the 2004 defeat of Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the former minority leader, who helped block a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as only the union of a man and a woman. …

 

Dobson fell short in his bid to topple Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican who was expected to head the Judiciary Committee and said in his victory speech that judges determined to overturn Roe v. Wade would be difficult to confirm.

 

Dobson’s fury at that statement resulted in a flood of angry telephone calls from his supporters to the Senate. Specter backed off, announced he would support the president's choices, and was elected committee chairman.

 

In these and other ways, Dobson had served notice that he would not hesitate to wield his political clout like a hammer.

 

“Do conservative Christians have less of a right to participate in the democratic process than do secularists?” Dobson asked. “I might remind my liberal critics that we enjoy a representative form of government. Each of us, even those who hold traditional values, is entitled by constitutional decree to participate in policy formation.” [italics added]

But as a member of the theocratic, ultra-conservative star-chamber called the Council for National Policy, James Dobson does more than simply participate in policy formation. He manufactures it in his own image. And if he helped put someone in power, that person better remember it, or else…

On the surface, Supreme Court justices are not subject to the same overt pressures as elected politicians. More than a few appointees have “disappointed” those who help get them their seat on the court. Sandra Day O’Connor didn’t turn out to be what Reagan and the conservative crowd had hoped. Alito is still a relative unknown, but the signs are not good:

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the note “grossly inappropriate conduct.”

 

“He kind of sounds like the winning political candidate doing a victory lap and thanking his backers,” Lynn said. “He’s not sounding like a fair and independent judge.”

 

He said the note can be interpreted as a pledge to rule as Dobson wants on key issues, such as gay marriage, abortion and church-state separation.

 

“It sounds like he’s carrying a right-wing agenda instead of being a justice for all the people,” Lynn said, noting he’s never heard of a Supreme Court justice writing such a letter.

 

Lynn, whose group opposed Alito’s nomination, called Dobson’s reading the note on air “astonishingly strange conduct” indicative of a “self-congratulatory impulse on the part of Dobson.” [italics added]

“On air.” Dobson’s multimedia empire is extensive, to say the least. According to People for the American Way, “Dr. Dobson is heard daily on more than 3,000 radio facilities in North America, in 15 languages, on approximately 6,300 facilities in 116 countries. Dobson’s estimated listening audience is over 200 million people every day, including a program translation carried on all state-owned radio stations in the Republic of China. In the United States Dobson appears on 80 television stations daily.”

Michael Crowley, senior editor at the New Republic, dubbed James Dobson “the religious right’s new kingmaker” and “America’s most influential evangelical leader, with a following reportedly greater than that of either Falwell or Robertson at [their] peak.”

Ellie Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, called Alito’s letter to Dobson “highly unusual,” akin to someone thanking his political supporters: “What’s happening is, the courts are becoming more politicized. … So much of it is about private conduct and the agenda of the right wing.”

An article about the Alito letter that appeared on 365Gay.com also raised some issues from the confirmation hearings:

[Sen.] Kennedy questioned Alito about his membership in the now defunct Concerned Alumni of Princeton, an extreme conservative group that Alito joined while a law student.

 

Kennedy read from a publication put out by the group that attacked gays, people with AIDS, women and other minorities.

 

In one selection from The Prospect, read by Kennedy into the record, the publication, noting that scientists believed they had traced the origin of AIDS to rhesus monkeys, called for more research and that it be conducted on homosexuals. It further suggested that the studies be conducted on members of Princeton’s gay alliance.

 

Kennedy then read a portion from another Prospect article attacking adoption for gays. [italics added]

Adoption by gays and lesbians has become a hotly debated issue. Some states’ laws banning “gay adoption” may end up before the Supreme Court. Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, had some insights:

While right-wing extremists may indeed be casting about for their wedge issue of the 2006 election season, it’s becoming clear that attacking the most vulnerable members of our society doesn’t play as well as it used to, even in states that often teeter between blue and red.

 

Take Florida, for example. I’ve been in the movement long enough to remember former beauty queen Anita Bryant’s homophobic crusade back in 1977 that led to the state’s all-out ban on gay and lesbian people adopting children. For almost three decades, qualified parents, many of whom have been allowed to care for children as foster parents, have been kept from providing them with a permanent home by the state. [italics added]

That last statement underscores the insanity of Florida’s current law. But the plot thickens, as the Tallahassee Democrat reported:

Rep. Bill Galvano of Bradenton, chairman of the Future of Florida’s Families Committee, said he would consider scheduling a vote on legislation that would allow gays to adopt children that they are already permitted to nurture as foster parents. Critics say the double standard is bigoted, makes it even harder to find permanent homes for the 3,500 children awaiting adoption in Florida and tears children away from the only loving parents they have ever known.

 

“There are probably some inconsistencies (in existing law) that will ultimately have to be addressed,” Galvano said. “I remain open-minded.” [italics added]

“Probably some inconsistencies”? One would have to be blind not to see the inconsistencies and glaring hypocrisy. Is Mr. Galvano being “open-minded” or, as Kevin Cathcart suggested, “casting about” for a homophobic wedge to use in this year’s elections? Mr. Galvano might also just be trying to appear fair and reasonable. As noted in the Tallahassee Democrat article,

Galvano said he shared the concerns of many of his constituents who were concerned about placing children in nontraditional homes. … Galvano warned supporters [of equality in adoption] not to get their hopes too high. He won’t consider a vote in his chamber until he sees more movement from the Senate.

 

“Forget the issue, and I don’t care whatever the bill is, nothing is going to pass unless it has a chance in the other chamber,” Galvano said. “I don’t want to risk our committee’s valuable time on legislation that has no chance of passing.”

God forbid Galvano’s committee should waste time on legislation calling for the equality for all citizens and providing permanent homes for children who currently don’t have one.

Dr. Dobson is, of course, vehemently opposed to the idea of gays and lesbians adopting children or even providing foster care. In his 2004 book Marriage Under Fire, Dobson’s fifth (out of eleven) argument against gay marriage was “Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.” The founder of Focus on the Family lamented that “foster-care parents will be required to undergo ‘sensitivity training’ to rid themselves of bias in favor of heterosexuality, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens” [italics added].

As usual, Dobson’s exaggerations were of biblical proportions. His eleventh argument in the book was that same-sex marriage would bring about the end of the world: “The culture war will be over, and the world may soon become ‘as it was in the days of Noah.’” He reiterated that theme in October 2004 when he asserted that allowing same-sex couples to wed would not only “destroy marriage. It will destroy the earth.”

As for his fear about “sensitivity training” and affirming homosexuality, it seems more a matter of acknowledging reality. A young gay person would not appropriately be placed with foster parents who believed and acted as if their ward were a “sinner” and his/her sexuality “an abomination to God.” Actually, no children should be placed in a home where they would automatically be seen as damned “sinners” and their burgeoning sexuality an evil to be denied. It would certainly not be in their best interests, psychologically or sociologically. Imagine being locked into a “home” where the “loving” parental figures said who you were an abomination and a perversion condemned by God.

Although people can change considerably in three decades, Alito’s membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton and its “Prospect” ideology do serve as benchmarks. His fundamental conservatism does not seem to have changed. In fact, it may have intensified.

The newest Supreme Court justice has “originalist” leanings. “Originalism” refers to a theory of Constitutional interpretation. Failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork authored a functional definition of “originalist” in his book The Tempting of America. Mr. Bork stated “all that counts” for a judge interpreting the Constitution “is how the words used in the Constitution would have been understood at the time” they were written and ratified more than 200 years ago.

During his confirmation hearings,

Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) questioned Alito on his 2001 vote on the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down a public school policy that prohibited offensive conduct toward individuals based on sexual orientation or other personal characteristics.

 

In the case, Alito ruled that the First Amendment only protects people against harassment regarding religious beliefs.

 

Feingold asked Alito whether he felt the First Amendment might also protect gay students against harassment. Alito said only that the policy he struck down read the amendment too broadly.

“Too broadly”? One report documented that gay and lesbian students are “In Harm’s Way” in the New York City public schools. Another study documented that “Schools Remain Unsafe For Gay Students.” A January 29, 2006 article noted “Anti-gay bullying under investigation: Harassment may have played role in South Florida school violence case.” There was this headline – “Homophobic Bullying Drives Teen To Suicide” – and this one on March 6, 2006 – “Gay Students Lobby Lawmakers For Safe Schools.”

Another report cited student comments: “We were picked on. We were called ‘queer’ and ‘faggot’ and a host of other homophobic slurs. We were also used as punching bags by our classmates, just for being different.” The same report documented that “97% of students in public high schools report regularly hearing homophobic remarks from their peers. … The typical high school student hears anti-gay slurs 25.5 times a day. … 80% of gay and lesbian youth report severe social isolation.”

Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family oppose even minimal efforts – such as Gay-Straight Alliance clubs – designed to foster tolerance and understanding so all students can learn without fear in America’s public schools. Typical of the victimizer playing victim, Dobson’s FOF transforms its attacks on GSA clubs into plaintive cries about Christians not being able to openly voice and act out their faith-based bigotry.

But Alito was “right.” The First Amendment explicitly protects people only from harassment regarding religious beliefs, not harassment based on religious beliefs and dogmatic bigotry. He was being a good “Textualist: An originalist who gives primary weight to the text and structure of the Constitution.”

Apply that same textual literalism to the closing of Alito’s letter to Dobson. There are many other, more neutral ways to close a letter. “Regards” comes to mind. Or simply “Sincerely.” Justice Alito could also have just signed the letter. Given the letter’s content and context, a textualist would have to take the closing literally: “Sincerely yours,” Dr. Dobson.

---