Seems most people with any semblance of rationality are encouraging the U.S. Senate to approve of Judge Sam Alito for the Supreme Court. Nearly all the editorial staffs of the nation’s national newspapers say he’s just fine, even though they admit they don’t much like his record on abortion.
Pro-Aborts Unhinged over Alito
The Chicago Tribune says Alito sees majesty in the law, respects it and remains a dedicated student of the law to this day. They like the fact that he believes judges should rules on the law and not make law. They even seem happy that he is open to review bad decisions when better decisions are presented to the court. They refer to the American Bar Association’s approval of him on the basis of his integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.
Even some of the Democrats who are not going to vote for Alito admit that he would be a good addition to the High Court. But despite the kind words of these liberal elements, hardcore pro-aborts are going ballistic over his pending confirmation.
Vicki Saporta of the National Abortion Federation tries to convince us that abortion is firmly protected under the Constitution’s privacy rights. She doesn’t realize that that nowhere in the Constitution is there such a thing as a “right to privacy.” That so-called right has been invented by those people who want it to be there so badly that they pretend they have found it.
Saporta thinks that if Roe has survived for thirty-three years it has somehow become established law. She should take a long look at some other established laws that have been unestablished, like slavery and prohibition, to mention just two.
She has also bought the fiction that most Americans approve of Roe. But when Americans study Roe and find what it permits, more than 90 percent reject it.
Pro-abortion atheist Annie Laurie Gaylor is upset that when confirmed, Alito will make five right-wing Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court. We wish she were right. But at this reading, Anthony Kennedy is not all that right-wing, having voted to maintain Roe as the law of the land every time there’s a chance to scuttle it. And he’s not much of a Catholic in defying the moral teachings of the Catholic Church in a serious matter.
But Annie likes the whole liberal agenda: euthanasia, abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage . . . . She thinks Thomas Jefferson’s wall of separation is in great danger of tumbling down.
Thomas who? I recall that Jefferson’s separation of church and state musings exist only in a private letter to a minister who worried that the government would set up a church, not that religion would be an influence on the government. Annie can’t show us anywhere in the Constitution where religion may not have any part in influencing a government.
What Would King Be Doing Now?
As the nation celebrated Martin Luther King’s birthday Monday, op eds were wondering what King would be marching for if he were alive today. We can imagine all manner of causes dealing with segregation, Black rights in housing, jobs, education. But I seriously doubt that he would be marching for the rights of the unborn.
While he probably wouldn’t be marching with Planned Parenthood and its abortion agenda, he’d have to be pretty quiet about its programs, having written glowingly of Planned Parenthood’s population control programs back in the sixties when he received the prestigious Planned Parenthood Federation of America Margaret Sanger Award.
To his credit, Planned Parenthood’s militant abortion involvement and future plans were not generally known at that time, and in 1966 he might have thought the honor was intended to be an honest tribute to his civil rights work. But it is unlikely that he would confront them directly.
But, maybe. His niece, Dr. Alveda King, is avidly pro-life. So who really knows? In any event, for the good he did for his race we honor him.