By Steve Jalsevac
Front Royal, VA, November 4, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In the Population Research Institute’s Weekly Briefing today, Joseph A. D’Agostino says that pro-life concerns about cases in which Bush’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito did not rule in a pro-life direction rest “on a fundamental misunderstanding of judges’ proper role.”
Agostino concedes that we do not know how Alito will actually rule on Roe v Wade. However, Agostina says, the nominee “has had a strong, career-long reputation for strict interpretation of the Constitution and law, and that conservative legal experts agree that he has abided by that philosophy in his 15 years as a federal appeals court judge.” Further to that, the Weekly Briefing writer says, “Alito knows that Supreme Court justices are called upon to reverse precedents from time to time, and everything about his background and philosophy indicates that he will do so.”
The article goes on to analyze the three contentious Alito rulings that went against life and shows that the nominee was simply being consistent in applying the law as it stood rather than wrongly taking on the rule of a legislator, as many activists judges have done, and changing or creating law to suit his personal beliefs or ideology.
Had Alito taken a pro-life activist route, says Agostino, “Such action would challenge our ordered, hierarchical legal system and undermine the argument that pro-family, pro-life Americans have been making for decades: That judges should not impose their moral beliefs as the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade, but leave such decisions to the other two branches of government.”Â
Agostino concludes, “Given what we know, Alito appears a fine choice for the Supreme Court. Pro-lifers should thank President Bush for his nomination.”
See the complete Weekly Briefing article at
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/nov/051104a.html