Gay Patriot Header Image

Log Cabin Chastises Gay Groups (on Alito)

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:01 pm - December 20, 2005.
Filed under: Gay Politics,Log Cabin Republicans

Last week I wrote that in rushing in to oppose Judge Samuel Alito, the president’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, national gay groups showed their left-wing stripes. I just learned that, for a change, Log Cabin is challenging that narrow ideological agenda. According to the Washington Blade, Log Cabin Executive Director Patrick Guerriero took issue with these groups for “seeking to impose an ideological ‘litmus test’ on Alito that they did not impose on the two Supreme Court justices nominated by President Clinton.” Kudos, Patrick.

Sounding like many Republicans and conservatives who have weighed in on the nomination, Patrick added:

Our angle on this is the rules applied for justices nominated by Republican presidents should not be any different than those nominated by Democratic presidents. . . . It’s unfair not to apply the Ginsburg-Breyer ground rules to Alito.

Exactly. Log Cabin is going to “wait until after Alito’s Senate confirmation hearing in January before it decides whether to formally take a position on the Alito nomination.”

While I’m inclined to favor Alito’s confirmation given his judicial temperament, conservative principles and solid record — as well as a respect for the privacy interests of gay and lesbian citizens going back thirty years — I acknowledge that Log Cabin’s stance (waiting for the hearings before deciding on endorsement) makes sense at this point. I’m particularly heartened that Patrick Guerriero has publicly taken issue with the national gay groups whose agenda leans increasingly to the far left.

Good job, Patrick. You got this one right.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest):



  1. Ummm…Harriet Miers? *cough* Didn’t she have a right to an up or down vote? Sure, she withdrew of her own volition, or so we’re told, but much of the GOP sure put up a fuss over her nomination…mostly because they were afraid the Democrats would approve her.

    Comment by Andy — December 20, 2005 @ 2:43 pm - December 20, 2005

  2. You said it yourself, Andy. She withdrew her nomination. No, as a matter of fact, people not up for the nomination don’t deserve a Senate vote.

    And what is wrong with President Bush saying “I made a mistake” or “I would rather nominate someone else anyway”, anyway?

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 2:56 pm - December 20, 2005

  3. Absolutely. Good job, Patrick.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2005 @ 4:01 pm - December 20, 2005

  4. Calarato, nothing wrong with Bush saying “I made a mistake” or “I would rather nominate someone else anyway.” At least that’s not the way it was spun.

    Comment by Pat — December 21, 2005 @ 8:29 am - December 21, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.