Alito's Moral Stance
Samuel Alito Pro-Life: Good!
Once one defends the unborn child in the womb on a moral base, how then could an ethical individual ever change to becoming a defender of slaying a womb infant?
One could only do that by betraying his conscience, turning his back on divine revelation, and succumbing to political opportunism.
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito took a very definite stand against Roe v. Wade. Therefore, that moral stance should remain intact for his lifetime if he is sincerely a moral individual. If he is opportunistic, then anything goes, as in John Kerry the waffler.
According to Donna Cassata of the AP, Alito wrote in a June 1985 memo that the famous Roe v. Wade law could "be overturned, a finding certain to enliven January's confirmation hearings."
Of course that should enliven the January hearings. But the enlivening should be short lived for Alito should be heard speaking his firm ethical position against killing womb infants. One cannot have it both ways. There is no such creature as a half-dead half-live baby. The baby is either killed in the womb or the baby is left to live in the womb.
Therefore, the January hearings will not only reveal Alito's conclusive response to questioners but it will also reveal whether or not he is a genuine person of conscience. If he is an opportunist, then he will double-speak. That will be evident as soon as he begins to provide his answers to inquirers. But if he is a sincere defender of womb babies, his ethic of years ago will be the same ethic he holds to today.
"In a recommendation to the solicitor general on filing a friend-of- court brief, Alito said that the government ‘should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled.'"
"'. . .make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade. . .'"
"'. . .that decision should be overruled.'"
Clear?
Now as to Alito holding to a pro-life position, so what? US President George W. Bush has stated to the public that he is a "pro-life President."
Bill Clinton has made it known to the public that he is for killing womb babies. Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and a host of others agree with Bill Clinton. They have not compromised their position in being for slaying the unborn children in females' bodies.
Therefore, why should not the same right be granted Alito, a defender of children in wombs? There should be no special grilling for Alito in the January hearings any more than there would be special grilling for a pro-choice individual.
If we live in a truly democratic republic, then an Alito who is defender of womb babies should have the audience right to state his convictions without faltering. There should be no ground for apology. There should be no reason for hesitancy.
But in this liberal base that has governed the judicial branch for too long, there is an outright prejudice for pro-choice and against pro-life. There has been no rationale provided as to why this bias is allowable. There has been no apology ever stated for holding to this bias. Yet it continues as if it is sacrosanct and patriotic and reasonable. Further, it is treated as if it is ethical, the morally right position to take.
When former US President Ronald Reagan interviewed Sandra Day O'Connor for her position on the Supreme Court, he did not ask one question regarding her positions. They simply spent time in chitchat. Reagan worked on assumption that she was a conservative. She proved to be the champion of feminism and pro-choice enthusiasts.
One cannot assume anything any more regarding anyone, not even Alito.
"In paperwork released earlier from Alito's time in the Justice Department's solicitor general's office, he recommended a legal strategy of dismantling abortion rights piece by piece. And as part of an application for a job as deputy assistant attorney general, Alito said the Constitution does not guarantee abortion rights.
"The latest memo is certain to stir controversy as the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings for Alito, slated to begin Jan. 9."
Copyright 2005, J. Grant Swank, Jr
Once one defends the unborn child in the womb on a moral base, how then could an ethical individual ever change to becoming a defender of slaying a womb infant?
One could only do that by betraying his conscience, turning his back on divine revelation, and succumbing to political opportunism.
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito took a very definite stand against Roe v. Wade. Therefore, that moral stance should remain intact for his lifetime if he is sincerely a moral individual. If he is opportunistic, then anything goes, as in John Kerry the waffler.
According to Donna Cassata of the AP, Alito wrote in a June 1985 memo that the famous Roe v. Wade law could "be overturned, a finding certain to enliven January's confirmation hearings."
Of course that should enliven the January hearings. But the enlivening should be short lived for Alito should be heard speaking his firm ethical position against killing womb infants. One cannot have it both ways. There is no such creature as a half-dead half-live baby. The baby is either killed in the womb or the baby is left to live in the womb.
Therefore, the January hearings will not only reveal Alito's conclusive response to questioners but it will also reveal whether or not he is a genuine person of conscience. If he is an opportunist, then he will double-speak. That will be evident as soon as he begins to provide his answers to inquirers. But if he is a sincere defender of womb babies, his ethic of years ago will be the same ethic he holds to today.
"In a recommendation to the solicitor general on filing a friend-of- court brief, Alito said that the government ‘should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled.'"
"'. . .make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade. . .'"
"'. . .that decision should be overruled.'"
Clear?
Now as to Alito holding to a pro-life position, so what? US President George W. Bush has stated to the public that he is a "pro-life President."
Bill Clinton has made it known to the public that he is for killing womb babies. Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and a host of others agree with Bill Clinton. They have not compromised their position in being for slaying the unborn children in females' bodies.
Therefore, why should not the same right be granted Alito, a defender of children in wombs? There should be no special grilling for Alito in the January hearings any more than there would be special grilling for a pro-choice individual.
If we live in a truly democratic republic, then an Alito who is defender of womb babies should have the audience right to state his convictions without faltering. There should be no ground for apology. There should be no reason for hesitancy.
But in this liberal base that has governed the judicial branch for too long, there is an outright prejudice for pro-choice and against pro-life. There has been no rationale provided as to why this bias is allowable. There has been no apology ever stated for holding to this bias. Yet it continues as if it is sacrosanct and patriotic and reasonable. Further, it is treated as if it is ethical, the morally right position to take.
When former US President Ronald Reagan interviewed Sandra Day O'Connor for her position on the Supreme Court, he did not ask one question regarding her positions. They simply spent time in chitchat. Reagan worked on assumption that she was a conservative. She proved to be the champion of feminism and pro-choice enthusiasts.
One cannot assume anything any more regarding anyone, not even Alito.
"In paperwork released earlier from Alito's time in the Justice Department's solicitor general's office, he recommended a legal strategy of dismantling abortion rights piece by piece. And as part of an application for a job as deputy assistant attorney general, Alito said the Constitution does not guarantee abortion rights.
"The latest memo is certain to stir controversy as the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings for Alito, slated to begin Jan. 9."
Copyright 2005, J. Grant Swank, Jr
posted by R7 | 1/10/2006 10:25:00 PM
|
0 comments
