Tuesday, November 15, 2005

That was Then, This is Now: Alito Must Demonstrate Consistent Constitutional Stance on Civil Rights of Unborn, Says NPLAC

To: National Desk
Contact: Joe Giganti, 703-928-9695 or Joe@VeritasMediaGroup.com
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- "Judge Alito's comments in a 20-year-old job application may be a great source of encouragement, but they could easily become an even larger source of disappointment. We simply do not know, and that is why it is so important that he provide a clear picture of his judicial temperament in his upcoming confirmation hearing," stated Stephen G. Peroutka, Esq., chairman of the National Pro-Life Action Center (NPLAC) -- the uncompromising voice of pro-life America on Capitol Hill-in reference to a front page story in today's Washington Times.
The story by Bill Sammon quoted Judge Alito as saying, "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," as part of his application to become deputy assistant to then-Attorney General Edwin Meese III. The article went on to quote an anonymous Republican source who quickly pointed out that, "it proves no such thing," when asked if this was an indication that Alito would vote to overturn Roe. The same source added somewhat proudly, "In fact, if you look at some of the quotes of his former law clerks, they don't believe that he'll overturn Roe v. Wade."
"Of concern to pro-lifers is that Alito's opinions authored in his 15 years on the bench have not always appeared consistent with his previous statements," continued Peroutka, also a Maryland-based attorney. The article's unnamed source went on to state, "In none of the opinions is it evident what his political philosophy is."
"This is an unfortunate circumstance, as we should hope to have a nominee whose understanding of law would be clear before the hearings have even begun," said Peroutka.
"It absolutely essential that Judge Alito resist overtures to conceal his judicial philosophy behind the 'Ginsberg cloak of silence,' which the administration has touted as a just defense in the modern confirmation process," Peroutka said. "There is no honor in denying the personhood of the unborn, or in overlooking the clearly unconstitutional nature of the Roe and Doe decisions. This simply reinforces the misguided belief that these decisions are law, which, in fact, they are not."
"In the Miers debacle, pro-lifers and conservatives demonstrated that this was not simply a question of political ideology," observed Paul Chaim Schenck, director of NPLAC. "Pro-lifers want Supreme Court justices who not only have the academic training necessary for the job, but who have a clear and complete comprehension of an American view of law and justice. A nominee who is willing to take the seemingly mandated 'Roe oath,' whereby they testify that it is settled law, never to be overturned, is not the type of justice worthy of pro-life support."


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home