NPLAC: Alito Must Unequivocal Declaration on Unconstitutional Nature of Roe

[Maranatha]

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.


more

[TomK]

With friends like these, Alito doesn't need any enemies!

[AlanFromWichita]

I'll take a shot at their questions...

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

Both government and something that transcends, according to the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution transcends the rest of government, and the Constitution states that humans are endowed by their creator with certain basic human rights.

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

Both, again. The nature is fixed from spiritual or medical standpoints. From a legal standpoint it is, in fact, political power that determines who is and who is not a member of the human family. The law determines who is a citizen of the United States and which non-citizens will have rights. It may not do it well, but this ill-worded question does not ask that.

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

Another fool question. Both. Supposedly it is based on principles, but the law itself is a constuct of "jurists and lawmakers" and the sooner they figure that out the sooner they will stop asking stoopid questions that cannot possibly help whatever cause they have.

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

The "proper" role is to follow the Constitution, and these are simplified descriptions. Personally I believe it is the proper role of judiciary to restrain/limit itself to interpreting law. That being said, this very race is a case in point for how those interpretations are so arbitrarily loose that we equate "interpretation" with "de facto legislative powers." Get used to it or you're going to be surprised as gay marriages quickly come into vogue based on "interpretation." To a person clever with words, it can ALWAYS be a matter of interpretation and not "de facto legislative powers."

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

They cannot share power "equally," because its powers are totally different and there is no scale by which to measure one's power over another. The reason we have a government with checks and balances is to keep one from becoming completely tyrannical and yes, we have seen examples if them evidently trying.

That said, certain pro-lifers, especially in Kansas, would do their causes less damage if they did "play the game" a little better because I've been an elected pro-life conservative Republican in Kansas and I am aware that complaining about the rules of the game and holding to an impossible political position has given us Dr. George Tiller, the infamous elective late-term abortionist. Kansas is the abortion hot spot and guess what? We're a verrry red state. Here in the anti-abortion Bible Belt is where we are so blinded by anger and determination that we ruin our own causes. The same exact people are behind the creation/evolution hysteria Kansas is so infamous for.

Alan