The Alito 1985 document.

This is the 1985 application of the young Samuel
Alito that seems to have all the liberals running
around in circles with their hair on fire.

While Alito clearly demonstrates -- not ONLY in this
document but also in his judicial career -- a clear
understanding of the different roles of the three
branches of government, liberals cannot seem to
comprehend the difference between an application
for a job in a Presidential Administration and the role
at various levels of the judiciary of a judge or a
Justice.

I sense a repeat performance coming up in the
hearing room as the Roberts nomination. Which is
clearly why liberals are so worried and yanking the
choke chain on their buddies in the Senate Dem
Caucus.

The following are the entire remarks of Samuel Alito,
Jr. when he applied for the post of Deputy Assistant
Attorney General in 1985 under Attorney General
Edwin Meese:

"I am and always have been a conservative and an
adherent to the same philosophical views that I believe
are central to this Administration. It is obviously very
difficult to summarize a set of political views in a
sentence but, in capsule form, I believe very strongly
in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the
supremacy of the elected branches of government, the
need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement,
and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting
traditional values.

"In the field of law, I disagree strenuously with the
usurpation by the judiciary of decision making authority
that should be exercised by the branches of government
responsible to the electorate. The Administration has
already made major strides toward reversing this trend
through its judicial appointments, litigation, and public
debate, and it is my hope that even greater advances can
be achieved during the second term, especially with
Attorney General Meese’s leadership at the Department
of Justice.

When I first became interested in government and
politics during the 1960s, the greatest influences on my
views were the writings of William F. Buckley, Jr., the
National Review, and Barry Goldwater’s 1964 campaign.
In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional
law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren
Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal
procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment.

I discovered the writings of Alexander Bickel advocating
judicial restraint, and it was largely for this reason that
I decided to go to Yale Law School.

After graduation from law school, completion of my ROTC
military commitment, and a judicial clerkship, I joined the
U.S. Attorney’s office in New Jersey, principally because of
my strong views regarding law enforcement. Most recently,
it has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for
me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during
President Reagan’s administration and to help to advance
legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly.

I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases
in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court
that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that
the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.
As a federal employee subject to the Hatch Act for nearly a
decade, I have been unable to take a role in partisan politics.

However, I am a life-long registered Republican and have
made the sort of modest political contributions that a federal
employee can afford to Republican candidates and
conservative causes, including the National Republican
Congressional Committee, the National Conservative
Political Action Committee, Rep. Christopher Smith
(4th Dist. N.J.) , Rep. James Courter (12th Dist. N.J.),
Governor Thomas Kean of N.J., and Jeff Bell’s 1982
Senate primary campaign in N.J.

I am a member of the Federalist Society for Law and
public Policy and a regular participant at its luncheon
meetings and a member of the Concerned Alumni of
Princeton University, a conservative alumni group.

During the past year, I have submitted articles for
publication in the National Review and the American
Spectator."

No wonder the Left is fully on red alert. However, it
has been said by legal experts that Judge Sam Alito's
qualifications and experience EXCEED that of 105
out of 109 Supreme Court Justices prior to their
confirmation.

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who, as the former
counsel to the ACLU was going through her
confirmation process, and had made extremely
liberal statements, I didn't hear so much as a PEEP
about a filibuster or any attempt to destroy her
character.

But the twisting and turning of Sam Alito's judicial
opinions, and resulting smear of his reputation and
career causes one to wonder why in the world anyone
would put themselves through this?

After watching this process for many years now and
seeing more than one extraordinary candidate
smeared by the leftist slime machine, I have come to a
conclusion -- these nominees love the Constitution
more than they care about their own reputations.

They understand how much blood is in that
document and how much we owe those who have
given all to protect it.

Perhaps that is what Ralph Neas (PFAW), Nan Aron
Alliance for Justice) and others on the Left just don't
get. They are so bankrupt of ideas that they cannot
be constructive......they have to be destructive and
obstructive.

The American people have rejected their
obstruction in election after election - apparently
Harry Reid has NO recollection of how he got
his position of Minority Leader of the Senate.
Perhaps he ought to have a chat with Tom
Daschle about how that obstruction thing worked
out for him.

So Sam Alito is a conservative. So what.

CLEARLY, from his opinions as a judge he is no
judicial activist. He applies the law as he finds it, not
as he would like it to be.

Perhaps that is what frightens the Left so much
about Sam Alito. As a Supreme Court Justice (a
whole different ball game than a lower court judge)
he will apply something called the Constitution and
leave the legislating to the legislative branch. He
will not emanate in some microscopic penumbra
using some secret decoder ring from Ted Kennedy
and his leftist pals.

January's confirmation hearings for Sam Alito are,
I'm afraid, not the beginning of the problem and
they aren't the end of it either. So long as the Left
insists upon ideological litmus tests for judges
and then embarks upon a scorched earth policy
to destroy extraordinarily well-qualified nominees
who embrace the Constitution, the American people
will continue to reject their tactics at the ballot box.