01/04/2006

NPLAC: Alito Must Make Clear, Unequivocal Declaration on Unconstitutional Nature of Roe

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The National Pro-Life Action Center (NPLAC)—the uncompromising voice of pro-life America on Capitol Hill—is calling upon Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito to quell any lingering questions regarding his stance on the illegitimate nature of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions by answering NPLAC's Five Questions survey.

"We do not truly know what Judge Alito's full comprehension of constitutional law is in these matters, but I believe that everyone agrees we should," stated Stephen G. Peroutka, NPLAC chairman and a Maryland attorney. "His judicial record is inconsistent on the matter, and his handlers in the administration have only added to the confusion."

"We have to get away from this misguided belief that a nominee is prejudicial and discriminatory if they understand that Roe and Doe were poorly decided and extra-constitutional in scope," said Paul Chaim Schenck, director of NPLAC. "The late Chief Justice Rehnquist, author of one of the dissents in Roe, was an outspoken critic of these decisions, yet few would argue he was delinquent in his service as a justice or chief."

"If we are ever to return our Republic to its Constitutional foundation, we must first be willing to admit to our failures—such as the Roe and Doe decisions—and ensure that they are not perpetuated," Peroutka said. "Even prominent Democrats, such as Bob Casey Jr., seem to understand that you cannot truly end abortion without the overturning of Roe. This then begs the question, why doesn't this Administration understand this too?"

"It is our firm belief that if fully and honestly answered, these five questions will establish any nominee's qualification to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court," concluded Schenck.

The five questions are:

1. Do basic human rights come only from government or are they rooted in something that transcends government?

2. Is man's inherent human nature fixed or does raw political power determine who is and is not a member of the human family?

3. Is law merely the construct of jurists and lawmakers or is it based on first principles of morals and justice?

4. Is the proper role of the judiciary to restrain/limit itself to interpreting law or does it possess de facto legislative powers?

5. Should the judiciary share power equally with the other two branches of government (the legislative and executive) or should its powers transcend them?